Liberal 2

LIBERAL 2  HEALTH CARE
Many Liberals believe in a big central government to solve all their problems by regulating and controlling things like free health care.  They support politicians like Senator Jay Rockerfeller, (D), West Virginia.  Because he, like many liberal politicians, claim they want to unselfishly help the poor live a better life.  Yet in an interview on April, 18 1994, to the West Virginia Associated News he admitted that "we are going to push through health care reform regardless of the views of the American people."
A Gallup Poll for CNN and USA Today on         reported that, "most people polled prefer access but not mandating coverage. 34% prefer a plan guaranteeing permanent coverage and 63% chose a plan offering access to affordable coverage."
Making companies pay more for employee health care is next on their agenda.  One idea was making them contribute into a government pool.  This emanates from a mentality that big business and corporate America are out to get people.  It sounds nice, but is short sighted.  It helps some now, but will encourage employers to hire more part time and temps, to skirt around these and other laws, rather than hiring full time employees as companies would have done.  The federal government does it too.  The Post Office has an "89 day special": employees are hired for 89 days, then laid off a day so they will not earn a raise and benefits that come after 90 days.  They can be rehired for another 89 days and laid off again and again.  Isn't this a double standard?  With the federal government setting this example won't private industry follow?  That is for the business that can survive. Who knows how many will be forced into bankruptcy as a result of all of the new laws and tax hikes?  Isn't it convenient that no liberals have made this criticism or the mention of the I.D. card in Clinton's plan being an internal passport with which "Big Brother" can monitor all?
Many liberals praise the Clintons for bringing the issue of health care to the fore-front.  I believe that they never expected or dreamed it would spark such controversy.  They also neglect to mention all the "Health care losers.  President Clinton is mistaken if he thinks he can turn lawmakers' dawdling on health care into an issue to help elect Democrats to Congress this fall.  
"A U.S. News and World Report poll shows that the public is increasingly opposing his health plan: Support has dropped 15 points in the past 14 months, to just 47% now, while opposition has grown by 20 points. The poll shows a six point swing to challengers if no health bill passes. But pollsters Celinda Lake and Ed Goeas say Democratic incumbents would take out their disillusionment on incumbents, non-college-educated & people from the South and Midwest. Other trends working against Democrats: Conservative Democrats and those voting occasionally for Republicans think Clinton's handling of the health care is poor.  Even among those who do not have health insurance-who would benefit most from Clinton's plan -a third oppose the plan while only a bare majority favor it. Pollster Lake says the best bet is to refer to it as a 'modified Clinton plan'." (U.S. News and World Report, Washington Whispers, edited by Charles Fenyvesi, p.24, 7/18/94)
"What's 'universal' health coverage? It means insuring all Americans, more or less.  That's about as succinct a definition as Americans have gotten of a phrase that conjures up visions of health insurance for extra-terrestrials.  Although President Clinton threatened to veto any health reform plan that lacked universal coverage, he has not adequately defined the term or fully explained why it is important.  Doing so sooner might have rallied more support for comprehensive health reform- but now the goal of truly universal coverage seems to be slipping from Clinton's grasp.
"Few countries with universal health systems manage to cover everybody, not even Clinton's.  Their bill, built upon a requirement that employers help pay for covering their workers, excluded about three to four million illegal aliens, and 800,000 convicts.  The plan would cover 98% of the population by 1998.
"In fact, there is no way to know how many would be insured under most reform plans. Many eligible for health insurance do not request it-including about 25% of those qualified for Medicaid who do not enroll in the health program for the poor. Clinton's plan probably would have eliminated most gaps through penalties on employers who did provide coverage or an individual who failed to obtain it. But almost no other plan likely to pass Congress has similar enforcement features.
"In fact, many plans getting serious consideration from Congress set their sights considerably lower, aiming to cover about 91- 95% of Americans, up 10% from now.  But some of these numbers have been pulled out of a hat- and no really knows how many more people would actually be insured.  Consider the 91% solution, a plan proposed by Tennessee Democratic Representative Jim Cooper.  The Congressional Budget Office came up with that percentage after estimating that the proposal would add 15 million mostly poor Americans to insurance roles.  Yet Congressional Budget Office also calculated that four million of the poor would forgo coverage even if the U.S. paid for it. That is a guess, based on the number of people who currently qualify for public assistance but do not participate.  
"No numbers game.  All these numbers are far less important than the real test of universal coverage: whether guaranteed sources of insurance and adequate funding exist to cover most Americans.  Many plans now in Congress spell out how various uncovered groups could get insurance, but may run drastically short on funds.  An example is a bipartisan plan backed by centrists on the Senate Finance Committee.  Devoid of any mandate that employers contribute to coverage or that individuals buy it, it aims to make insurance more affordable and accessible through various reforms and provides subsidies for the uninsured to buy coverage.  The stated goal is to cover 95% of Americans by 2002, still leaving 14 million uninsured.  Yet the evolving plan could fall tens of billions a year short.
"Why would failing to attain universal coverage matter? Clinton hasn’t explained clearly enough that something close to it is needed to banish aspects of health insurance that really plague people. Examples are 'pre-existing condition' restrictions-typical features of individual & small-business health policies-that bar coverage for pre-existing ailments. In a system where not everybody has to have coverage, these restrictions make perverse economic sense; otherwise, people would sign up for insurance when they are sick, bankrupting insurance companies. In fact, most reform plans that aim for less than universal coverage retain these restrictions in some form.But if most people were always insured, the restrictions could be dismantled.
"Health reform is a bazaar of trade offs, yet the White House has not adequately framed the choices for the public.  In a system free of pitfalls over pre-existing conditions, is it worth requiring employers to contribute to workers coverage?  Would it be worth higher taxes to fund subsidies for millions of uninsured?  We'll probably never know how the public might have answered that; since a tax -averse Congress is likely to produce a health reform plan -if- any- that will fall far short of Clinton's universal coverage goal.  The president will have no choice but to sign it if he wants a health bill- in large part because so many Americans never had a clue about what he meant."  (U.S. News & World Report, Untangling universal coverage, Susan Dentzer, p.47, 7/18/94)  
Despite considerable discussion and information available on the Clintons' Health Care Plan many special interest groups like the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force still oppose it for various reasons.  They are only willing to endorse it if certain concessions are made in the plan.  They say things such as "...we will absolutely consider endorsing the Clintons' Plan.  In particular we want to see if these two issues can be addressed, as well as some of the things we have outlined.
"And we are very, very pleased with most of the Clintons' plan.  But due to several variants we feel uncomfortable with it at this time are going to withhold endorsement until we get some response and see what we can do with it.

"1) The issue of non-discrimination: through out the plan there are various sections that address non-discrimination.  Both discrimination by providers against patients and by plans against providers by refusing them entrance.  2) Gays and bisexuals are excluded from the definition of family."  (Marj Plumb, Health Policy Director, National Gay and Lesbian Task Force)
"Yes, we've met with Mike Luck, Special Assistant to the president in the Public Liaisons office of the White House.  We presented our concerns and were told that as with the many groups approaching the White House with concern on the Clinton Health Care Act that the White House is not going to micro manage this bill and are turning these specific issues over to Congress and expecting that they'll work it out."  (David Smith, Public Information Director, National Gay and Lesbian Task Force)

Many people justifiably criticize the Clintons' plan.  Some say things like "This budget indicates that Clinton cares about research, but not prevention.  And that concerns us considerably." (David Bross, Director AIDS Action Council)
"AIDS is a big cost in health care.  Yet, nothing is mentioned specifically on reducing it's costs. Many liberals want to increase the amount we spend on it.
"Unfortunately, the fight against AIDS is not going well. Medical breakthroughs have been excruciatingly slow in coming and over a decade of suffering has left our community decimated by this plague.  For over a decade the reliance of our presidents upon selfish individualism has led us in to the wasteland of official indifference, to the suffering of many.  One stark result of that politics of contempt and neglect driven by homophobia is that millions are now affected by the AIDS epidemic which might have been contained had our officials cared."  (Barbara Striesand, Los Angeles Project Benefit, 1/27/94)
President Clintons denied that their plan denies Americans freedom of choice when saying, "If you can recognize the kinds of attacks that are aimed at managed care for what they are: a desire to obstruct and derail period and to mainstream wherever possible the status quo including undermining many of the innovations that you have tried to bring to health care market.  Then you will have a very strong voice in trying to reason effectively with the Congress and American public.
"Do you know that the t.v. ads that cost $20 millon to say we are taking away your choice? Well it is flat untrue.  We are not eliminating choice.  We are giving you more, because the choice won't be your company's.  It will be yours. The only choice we are trying to eliminate is the insurance companies who are funding that ad so they cannot disqualify you from health care or charge you more!" (Hillary Clinton)
"President Clinton projected a $56 billion deficit reduction.  But, the Office of Budget and Management said it would increase by $76 billion totaling $137 Billion.
"No doctors, pharmaceutical or insurance company are involved in the development of the plan.  560 members of Congress created it."  (Bob Rieshower, Chair, Congressional Budget Office)
"Health care must be on budget.  The premiums are tax hikes because they are government mandated and go to a government agency.
"The people need to understand that our approach to this is that whatever relates to the federal government is on budget.  Let us not make any mistake about that.  It is related to medicaid, medicare, defense, veteran's health.  Those are on budget and reflected on it.  The only items not on budget is the money people will pay to the alliances, not to the federal government.  But to the alliances who will in turn pay the insurance company."  (Leon Pinneta, Director Office of Budget and Management)
"The first three terms define the basic approaches to health care reform which are being debated by Congress.  1) CANADIAN -STYLE OR "SINGLE PAYER" PLAN: The federal government becomes the monopoly provider for health care financing.  It sets quotas on how many doctors can enter various fields of medicine, it establishes a budget for health care and allocates money to hospitals: it sets doctor's fees and is paid for from general revenue.

"2) CLINTON PLAN OR 'MANAGED COMPETITION': Employers, through a federal mandate, must provide their employees with a government approved health care policy and pay for 80% of it; they buy coverage through a regional alliance (or corporate alliances for companies with over 5000 employees) that seek the best rates. Unemployed persons receive equal coverage through a regional alliance.  The plan also seeks to set "quotas" on how many doctors enter various fields of medicine; and set doctor, procedure and prescription fees.
"3) MARKET -ORIENTATED OR CONSUMER BASED PLAN: Citizens are allowed to chose the health care plan they want.  Families would receive the same amount of government help in the form of tax-credits wherever they obtain the coverage.  More tax relief would be given to the sick and low- paid, while less would be given to the more healthy and high-paid.  No national budget would be set by the government, and cost control would be determined by consumer choice and competition among providers."  (p.1, Anatomy of the Clinton Health Plan, Family Research Council, 700 13th st., N.W., Suite 500, Washington, D.C. 20005, Gary L. Bauer, President, Information compiled by Joan Prince, Government Relations Dept.)
"EMPLOYER MANDATE: A law that forces every employer to pay a specified portion of the health care premium of its employees which, depending on the size of the company, could be as much as 7.9% of payroll" (Health Security Act, p.1052).  "EFFECT: Many small businesses will be unable to bear the payroll tax and will be forced to either reduce payrolls or close. Others may find it cheaper to hire single people, discriminating against people with families" (p.2).
"COMPREHENSIVE BENEFIT PACKAGES: The Clintons' plan mandated services for all Americans (whether they need them or not) include: hospice care, home health care, prescriptions, doctor and ambulance fees, and e.r. services.  The plan also covers certain generally considered beyond the realm of historical medical necessity like family planning services (including abortion -on-demand for a $10 co-payment); alcohol and drug rehabilitation.; stress management and sex education" (H.S.A., pp. 32-64).
"EFFECT: This mandated 'one size fits all' package precludes people from choosing which health services they deem important to them or their families.  While persons must pay for abortion services and drug rehabilitation, they will have reduced coverage for dental, optical and preventive services." (H.S.A., p. 68-9) "For example, no routine mammography screening (not even a baseline mammogram) is provided for women under 50." (p.2)
"REGIONAL ALLIANCE: Established in each state, these mandatory, government -run entities would organize and oversee the purchasing of insurance for the people in the particular area.  They would collect all 'premiums,' and negotiate with insurance providers.  It would be illegal to buy, sell or provide health care unless approved by a regional alliance." (p.4)

"EFFECT: Because everyone (except those who work for a company with 5000 or more employees) must enroll, choice and flexibility by the consumer will be eliminated." (p.4)
"FEE- FOR- SERVICE: A policy allowing patients to chose the health care plan and doctors they want.  Patients either pay the full bill or split it with their insurer.  The more coverage and options they desire, the more they pay.  HMO: Health Maintenance Organizations are networks of doctors and hospitals providing comprehensive health care services, combined with payment for care, to individuals and families for a pre -paid premium.  Roughly 25% of Americans (who are non- Medicare recipients) are currently enrolled in an H.M.O." (p.4)

"DEFINITIONS-COMMUNITY RATINGS: The Clinton plan proposes setting insurance premiums based on average health care costs in a region.  All in that region pays the same amount regardless of age, gender, or health status." (H.S.A., p.95)
"EFFECT: Many American's will pay more.  On 10/28/93 Donna Shalala, Secretary of Health of and Human Services testified before Congress that under the Clintons' plan, 40% of insured Americans will pay more for health care (other Administration officials have since retracted her statement, claiming a lower %).  Young, healthy people living in areas with rates of drug abuse, and crime will be forced to subsidize those who do not work, and/or those who pursue unhealthy lifestyles." (p.6)
"PRICE CEILING/CAPS OR CONTROLS: The Federal government will set the prices that it deems 'fair' for medical procedures and for the cost of prescriptions.  Price caps will set below true market value in order to ensure the 'cost control' that permits the Clintons' plan to make the claim that taxes, to finance universal coverage, 'will hardly rise at all' (except on employers).  Tight spending controls will be enforced by the government" (p.6).

"MEDICAL RATIONING: To comply with government -set prices and keep health care expenses down, the government will provide strong incentives for providers to restrict access to certain medical procedures.  More expensive procedures --sometimes necessary to save lives --will be strongly discouraged for patients of a certain age, handicapping- condition, or doubtful prognosis.  A prime U.S. example of medical rationing is in Oregon where the Clinton Administration approved a plan to limit services for Medicaid recipients.  As a result, certain vital procedures have been rationed.  Rationing is a likely result of global budgeting which is the main cost control mechanism in the Clinton plan." (p.8).

"REAL- LIFE EXAMPLE: In Canada, two- year-old Joel Bondy needed cardiac surgery in 1/90.  But the operation was repeatedly postponed due to higher priority cases.  Concerned about Joel's deteriorating condition, his parents arranged for surgery in Detroit.  Ontario officials, embarrassed by press coverage of Joel's situation, told the Bondys that Joel could have the needed surgery in Toronto immediately.  Joel endured the four -hour ambulance ride to Toronto, but there was no hospital bed available when he arrived.  He died in a hotel room four hours before the scheduled surgery." (Canadians Cross the Border to Save Their Lives," Wall St. Journal, 12/12/90, p.  , by         )    
"GLOBAL BUDGETING: The determination by government on how much will be spent either on total health care costs in the nation, and/or for specific types of services such as heart transplants, CT- scans and other procedures."  (p.8)

"Under the Clintons' plan, the regional alliance to which a person is assigned will buy health care for all in the area, finding the cheapest plans.  These plans will probably be in the form of a government approved HMO."  (p.5)
"In an attempt to save money, the government will set fees for medical procedures, expenditure limits on insurance options, and will indirectly regulate the price of prescriptions (like rent control). Since Fee- for-service type for services type policies are usually more money than other policies, government will not offer this form of insurance as we know it.  It may go by the same name, but beware! It will not be the same service, even if a person is willing to pay more." (p.5)

On September 27, 1993, the president said, "If we do not provide for substance abuse treatment and mental health we are not dealing with health care problems.  And in the comprehensive plan we have submitted we are for the first time ever provided guaranteed coverage for this."
"Q and A: What is the Clintons' health care plan?" (p.3)  "It mandates that all employers must provide a government- approved health insurance policy in the form of a 'comprehensive benefit package' and pay 80% of their employees' premiums." (H.S.A., p.298)  "Employees must buy this coverage through a government agency called 'a regional alliance.'  These regional alliances are similar to a government 'middle man' established according to regions, like election districts.

"What is the Health Security Card?" (p.3) "It is a government issued I.D. that identifies the health plan and medical records of the family or person enrolled. Also, it could access a national electronic data network which could hold any relevant patient information." (H.S.A., pp.6, 14, 145-7, 845-58). "Despite the plan's 'safety guards' on privacy, the card creates ample opportunity for government tracing and the invasion of privacy. If enacted, who is subject to this health plan?" (p.3) "Anyone who does not receive health care through Medicare, the Military, Indian or Veteran benefits, or is not employed by a large company, is required by law to buy health insurance from those plans offered by your government sponsored regional alliance." (H.S.A., pp.15 & 16)
"It is illegal for any insurance provider to operate outside the regulatory system.  Many fee-for-service plans will be unable to afford the new regulations and are forced to join an alliance.  However, Federal employees are included but not required by law to buy this form of health insurance until 1998, after all other Americans have been incorporated into the system." (pp.3 and 5)
"EFFECT: Quality of care will decrease.  The way a producer responds to a price fixed below the true value of the product is to reduce the quality or volume of that product or service, correspondingly, until it equals the new lower price."  (p.6)
"What we've found in other nations when the lid had gone on there were longer waiting lists, deterioration of facilities and a marked slowdown in the adaption of new [medical] technologies.  It is an economic model that does not deal with the real world of the doctor -patient relationship."  (Newsweek, 10/4/93)

"If I live a fairly healthy lifestyle will my premiums be lower?"  (p.7)  "No.  Another rule, 'community rating,' mandates that insurers offer the same comprehensive benefit package to all in the region for the same price." (H.S.A., p.95)  "Smokers and non-smokers, drug users and non-users, HIV-infected and non-infected, all pay the same price.  While this rule is aimed at ensuring that all have coverage, it also forces those who live healthy life styles to subsidize those who engage in high-risk behavior, while reducing disincentives for self-destructive behavior."  (p. 7)
"The Clintons' plan covers services for pregnant women." (H.S.A., p.60)  "This means mandated coverage for abortion services effectively forcing all employers, insurance companies and ultimately, all taxpayers to subsidize abortion on demand for all nine months." (p.7)
"Can I buy extra insurance?  It can be costly or unavailable, depending on which regional alliance you are assigned." (p.7)

"If I want to see a specialist, can I?  Consulting a specialist may be difficult, and will become more so.  Under the Clintons' plan, the primary doctor is the 'gatekeeper' for referral to specialized care, she must approve specialist referrals.  If your 'gatekeeper' does not feel your condition warrants special care, then you may not be able to see one legally." (p.7)

"The Clintons' plan also proposes to create 'quotas' for the number of specialists allowed to practice in each region.  And because of the price ceilings, a specialist won't be able to charge what a particular procedure will actually cost to perform.  In turn, there will be little incentive for doctors to go into or remain in a field if they cannot be fairly compensated.  Medical rationing of both specialists and special procedures (as is the case in Canada) are very likely to result." (p.9)
"Canadians often endure long and sometimes dangerous waiting periods to see a specialist and/or undergo medical procedures that are readily available in America.  According to the Washington, D.C.-based Blackwell Corp., the average waiting for Canadians to see an internist is 6.4 weeks, Neurosurgery -9 weeks, Urology-10.7 weeks, Gynecology -13.7 weeks, Orthopedics -20.9 weeks." (p.9)

"In August, 1990, Quebec Primer Tobert Bourassa charted a plane at his own expense and flew to Washington, D.C. for consultation at the National Cancer Institute in Bethesda, Maryland after learning that he had melanoma, a potentially fatal form of skin cancer. The following November, he returned to the United States for surgery." (Heritage Foundation Backrounder #883, Ed Haislmaier)
"On the whole will the quality of health care decline?  Under the plan, pressure on primary care doctors serving as 'gatekeepers' to curb access to specialists will increase in order to meet federal spending limits, thereby limiting a person's access to needed medical procedures."  (p.9)
"Canada 1990: 15 patients on a waiting list for cardiac surgery died before they undergo surgery.  That waiting list is typically 7- 800 patients long.  For elective procedures, like hip replacement, the waiting list can reach 1300."  ("Health Assurance," In Health, January - Febuary, 1991)
"According to a 5/90 report by Canada's Fraser Institute, a patient in British Columbia waits 23.7 weeks for coronary bypass, 16.3 weeks for a hysterectomy, 21.4 weeks for open heart surgery, and 30.9 weeks for a proctectomy."  (p.10)

"Would it be legal for people to buy medical care outside the system the system?  Yes.  A parent concerned about a child's illness and whether the gatekeeper will okay a specialist might consider going outside the system.  The Clintons' plan anticipates the problem of 'payment of bribes or gratitudes to influence the delivery of services' (H.S.A., p.995) by imposing criminal penalties. Presently, medical bribes are unheard of in this economy.  This provision makes it obvious that the inevitable rationing of health care will create a 'black market,' punishable by law."  (p.10)

"Can a doctor charge a patient what a procedure actually costs me to perform?  No.  This plan will be have the probable effect of driving doctors out of private practice by empowering health alliances (the government) to set doctor fees on a fee-for-service basis." (p.10)
"The plan states that 'A provider may not change or collect from a patient in excess of the fee schedule adopted by the alliance.' (H.S.A., p.232)  That would be illegal or considered black market for a doctor to change fair market value." (p.11)

"Dr. David Himmelstein, a leading proponent of the Canadian-style system, projects that the Clintons' plan will obliterate private practice."  ("Health Plan's Devilish Details," by        , p. Wall St. Journal, September 30, 1993)
"How much will this program cost?" (p.6)  "The Clinton's plan has been conservatively estimated to cost $700 billion over the next five years-- larger than the entire 1981 federal budget.  It adds 50,000 government workers to the bureaucracy and creates at least 60 new bureaucracies and programs."  ("Boarding Pass: Special Health Care Edition," House Republican Conference, Legislative Digest, p.1)
"Will this affect jobs, perhaps my spouse's or mine?  It may. This plan levies up to a 7.9% payroll tax on business, requiring employers to, pay 80% of their employee's health care premiums.  If small businesses (75 or less employees) cannot afford to pay the tax, they may be forced to limit other benefits, or eliminate jobs." (p.11)
"Part- time employees who seek to supplement family income are especially at risk of losing their job.  The Clintons' plan requires that the employer pay part of the part time employee's salary for health care coverage." (p.11)
"Congressman Dan Rostenkowski (Democrat-Illinois), Chair of the House of Ways and Means Committee with jurisdiction over the tax aspects of the bill, told the Chicago Sun Times 'Clintons' proposal will adversely affect the small businessman." (p.11)
He was Clintons' main supporter on the health care plan.  On May 30, 1994 he was indicted on 17 various felonies and has turned down a plea bargain offer which included his resignation as Chair of The House of Representatives Ways and Means Committee.  His lawyer publicly admitted that they are seeking a plea bargain.  His impending resignation is a major blow to Clinton and quite possibly the passage of his health care plan too.  The president has already met with the Republican leader and House Minority Leader, Newt Gingrich, (R) Georgia.  And (D) leader in an attempt to strike a deal that will pass his plan.

Many Republicans feel that "this budget plan by contrast will by 1997 cut $140 Millon in that year, alone from the deficit.  A real spending cut, a real revenue increase using the independent numbers of the Congressional Budget Office.
Well, you can laugh my fellow Republicans, but I will point out that the Congressional Budget Office has been more conservative and closer to right than previous presidents.
The Congressional Budget Office said, "The Clintons' plan is a big government, big bureaucracy, big tax plan that will to a bigger deficit and I think it indicates why those of us in the house who oppose it want to pass a practical bill should work together to create a by -partisan bill.  But we should recognize that we should recognize that the Clintons' bill is D.O.A. and we must work together to create a by- partisan bill."  (Representative Newt Gingrich, (R), Georgia)

"Even the Clintons' Administration's own economic advisors concede there may be substantial job loss.  Council of Economics Advisers Chair, Laura Tyson, said that 'the job loss from an employer mandate would be about 600,000 jobs.  But she considers this impact to be 'very small.'"  ("Jobs Impact of Clinton Reform Plan Expected to Be Small, Officials Say," Daily Labor Report, Bureau of National Affairs, October 2, 1993)

"The NFIB (National Federation of Independent Businesses) estimates that 900,000 jobs would be lost as a result of the Clintons' mandate." (p.12)  "Time Magazine recently reported the loss of a million jobs." (Prognosis: Fewer Jobs, September 6, 1993, p.32)  "The Washington, D.C. -based Employment Policy Institute estimates the loss of three million jobs." (Impact of Health Insurance Mandate on Labor Costs and Employment, September, 1993)
"Are there other legislative proposals besides the Clintons' Plan? Yes, several.  Senator Wellstone is promoting a Canadian-style system of socialized medicine; Senator Chaffe and Representative Cooper have both submitted managed competition proposals; the House GOP is offering an incremental approach to reform; and the Nickels/Stearns and Gram proposals include a system of tax credits and Medical Savings Accounts to promote consumer responsibility, insurance portability, and choice." (p.12)
"How does the Clintons' plan compare to the average American's?" (p.5)   "As many as 77% of Americans- are- enrolled- in- a- 'fee-for-service' plan." (Health Plan's Devilish Details, Wall St. Journal, September 30, 1993, p. )  "This type of policy allows people to pick a doctor and consult a specialist when they feel they need one, get a second opinion if they have doubts, and select a hospital they desire."  (p.5)
Clinton said, "The amount of Americans who cannot afford health insurance rose from $35 to $37 millon this year."  The Cato Institute in Washington, D.C. said, "The number is only six million."  The presidents are working on a plan that they say will be paid for by raising the cigarette tax $1 per pack.  Conveniently no one ever mentioned that would increase "Black Market" sales tremendously, or some people will quit.  Either one of these would cause ramifications like massive layoffs by the tobacco industries which are already diversifying into various industries, like R.J. Renyolds recently purchase of Miller Beer and Kraft foods.  It is vague on many specifics, especially in the way of cost, except for a medical advisory board.  Although it does state that "A provider may not charge or collect money in excess of that which is adopted in the schedule by an alliance.  A plan and its participants are not legally responsible for any amount in excess of the allowable charge." (P.68)  This is intended to eliminate private practice.  I resent and fear the government telling me how much money I can make.  Since we are still a democracy, the mentality of "Big Brother" watching bring us a step closer to George Orwell's 1984.
In a speech on September 22, 1993, President Clinton discussed the concept of a national health care plan that would use identification cards.  He said, "This card will give comprehensive coverage.  It will cover people for doctor visits, lab tests, hospital care, emergency rooms, diagnostics like pap smears, mammogram, substance abuse and mental health care."  
The plan outlines the creation of a regulatory board to govern the system.  It would be composed of seven people named by Clinton and confirmed by the Senate.  Under it depending on how you count would be a system of dozens of officers.  It would have unprecedented powers in the health care system.

Little discussed, less understood it would be given unprecedented powers to regulate the health care system -set up with structure; make rules for doctors, hospitals, medical schools, insurers; decide how much could be spent; and say which ailments and treatments are covered beyond the basic package, down to how often a mammogram would be paid for.
The board is mentioned is mentioned 122 x in Clintons' bill." (Proposal adds layer of 'new bureaucracy', USA Today, Jodi Hanson and Jody Keen, p.   , 12/16/93)  Mrs. Clinton defended her plan in a press conference, on November 1, 1993, by attacking the health care industry in an attempt to discredit it by saying, "The Health Insurance Association is spending millions of dollars on essentially what is a score campaign."  
In an article on November 17, 1993, in the Washington Post, on p.  , entitled White House Reduces Drug Abuse Coverage In Health Care Plan, by Michael            .  It was reported that, "The White House this cut back coverage for alcohol and drug abuse and the mentally ill in order to keep costs down."
"Private and nonprofit voluntary hospitals, which comprise the vast majority of hospitals in New York, actually showed a small collective surplus of $47 million."  (Dr. Mark Chassin, New York State Health Commissioner, Gannett News Service, 9/19/93)
"Meanwhile government run hospitals lost $188 million last year, $3.5 million more than in 1991.  Hospitals run by New York City accounted for $167 million of the loss."  (Kyle Huges, Garnet News Service, 9/19/93)  
There are a few facts that are unknown about Clintons' health plan like the fact that malpractice suits are illegal and "There is a national limit upon health care."  (p.102, Health Care Reform Act)  "We will only be able to choose from one of the government programs." (p.62)  On p.6 President Clintons tries to scare people by saying, "You're just a paycheck away from being wiped out by sickness."  "By that same argument aren't we also a paycheck away from starvation and homelesness!"  (Rush Limbaugh)  We do not know how we are going to pay for it.  The president says he will raise the cigarette tax.  Won't that encourage people to quit and bootleg?  What will the creation of a new agency cost taxpayers?
"In just six weeks five details changed: 1) estimated federal savings drops from $91 to $60 billion, 2) date of universal coverage delayed a year to 1/98, 3) estimate of annual inflation raised from 2.7% to 3.5.  4) increased allowance for "unexpected subsidy" $30 to 45 billion.  5) plan now defined as a "Capped Entitlement", meaning congress has to vote on what to do if costs exceed estimates.  
At a town meeting in Sacramento, California, in October, 1993 a woman named Shelley Chase asked President Clinton, "Could people chose to undergo an experimental procedure if that is the only choice available?"  He responded, "In most cases the answer would be yes...  The insurer will not take that option away."  The benefit package does not cover services that are medically necessary or appropriate (including investigational treatments, except as described below);  An approved research trial...  As defined by the Department of Health and Human Services.
In 1965, the government projected a cost of $6.5 billion to taxpayers, in 1992 it cost 132.  President Clinton said, "I'm willing to compromise on my plan in order to ensure security to all."  No one mentions that the plan will probably destroy Medicare, Medicaid and the private industry.  Or the fact that the "500 member committee" took no notes of meetings and have little or no records documenting how they created a 1500 p. proposal, plus 150 p. supplement.
Despite the presidents concern over health care, Dan Monyhan, a prominent member of his own party, said "I do not mean to suggest that what President Clinton said is a crisis is not one or a priority.  But health care is not a crisis.  Welfare is and need to reform it."  

Among the many, many drawbacks to problem with free health care is that many people will run to the doctor for every little sniffle, ache and pain because it is free, or included in their plan. Conservatives are often accused by many liberals of not caring about people and in essence being Social Darwinists.  Yet, the Clintons' health care plan's main way of saving money is the rationing of health care.  How can we dare put a monetary value upon human life? Competition has been proven time & again to be the main way of getting the best quality for the lowest price & is the foundation of capitalism. If competition were unimportant we would not compete in the Olympics, which has been a part of many societies since the Greco- Roman Empire.
Another negative side effect to Clintons' plan is the discouragement of progress because the government sets price control on prescriptions.  That discourages people from becoming venture capitalists and developing things like new orphan drugs, genetic research and technological breakthroughs.
"Perks and pork: Despite a public air of confidence, the White House privately realizes that President Clinton's Health Care Plan is in deep trouble on Capitol Hill.  In the House, a key Democratic leader is about 25 votes short of passing a measure satisfactory to the White House.  But since no Republicans are likely to support any measure that resembles the Clintons' plan, the leadership is bargaining with wavering Democrats who might back Clinton's plan in exchange for personal perks and pork barrel projects. In the Senate, where a moderate coalition of Republicans and Democrats hold the balance of power, the focus is on substantive compromises.  Democrats have given up hope for implementation of universal coverage, and Senator Tom Aschle of South Dakota- a top candidate for majority leader-says that negotiators are seeking a new mechanism that would allow Clinton to say that universal coverage would be guaranteed.  But moderates in both parties still oppose any guarantee forcing to pay for health coverage-even in ten years."  (U.S. & World Report, 7/11/94, Washington Whispers, edited by Charles Fenyvesi, p.18)
"...Bob Dole delivered a televised address on health care to National Governors' Association last week.  'He's flat' President Clinton declared happily while working on his own speech to be delivered to them that day.  Dole had a better day.  By the time Clinton left, his idea that universal coverage might really mean 95% ignited a firestorm in Washington.  The remarks seemed contradictory to his long standing promise that he would veto any bill that did not include universal coverage for 'all Americans.'
"Liberals were outraged; moderates were thrilled. ...Clinton's remarks had a catalytic effect: they jumped -started already nervous Democrats into searching for a new deal, leading to speculation -vociferously denied by the White House- that Clinton's off-the-cuff remarks were premeditated.  After a meeting with the Clinton's and V.P. Gore on Thursday, top White House aides and Democratic Congressional leaders announced that they would write another plan to kill Clinton's.  Details are sketchy, but two points are clear: 1) Democrats distanced from the bureaucracy of Clinton's plan.  2) They reaffirmed universal coverage, but agreed to achieve it slower than President Clinton wanted.
"This put the 1,300 page Clinton plan in a deeper grave.  Democrats were finally finished with mandatory alliances the giant purchasing cooperatives that the Clintons hoped would increase consumer buying power.  Congressional leaders seemed willing to phase in a requirement that employers pay for workers health care.  Yet, Democratic leaders and the White House struggled to overcome the obvious problems of employer mandates: The White House insists upon them, the Senate lacks the votes to approve them.
"In the House, leaders began writing a plan that would phase in the controversial mandate requirement. But, in the Senate, Majority Leader George Mitchell was shopping for a proposal to keep even his anti-mandate conservatives on the board. The idea: pass a measure without mandates. If that did not produce near-universal coverage within a set period of time, then mandates would take effect automatically-unless Congress instructed otherwise. The plan provides political cover, giving moderates a chance to say the bill has no mandates and the liberals a chance to claim that it does.  Yet White House officials knew that it might not even get them the moderate Republican votes. They were clearly preparing for a 51 -vote strategy in the Senate-reminiscent of the 1993 Budget vote. If they had any hope that Republicans would ignite public ire with a filibuster, it was fading. Senate Minority Leader Bob Dole told U.S. News that while Republicans may not like the Mitchell compromise, which could be debated in the Senate next week, 'It doesn't mean we will filibuster.'
"There are other problems in the Senate. By one leadership count, there are 14 Democrats opposing, including David Boren of Oklahoma and Richard Shelby of Alabama. The group includes votes that the president needs, like Senator Bob Kerrey, Nebraska, who says he told Mitchell privately, 'If somebody introduces something to strike mandates, I will vote for it.' How many would buy into Mitchell's compromise is anyone's guess. Meantime, assorted other groups are searching for a middle ground.

"The White House hoped that Mitchell's middle ground would get them a conservative Democrat like John Breaux, of Louisiana, who might then bring along others.  Clinton met with Breaux last week to pave the way. But some, like Kerrey, who is no fan of the White House or its health plan, intend to hold Clinton to his statement in Boston that universal coverage may mean covering 95% of the population.  'He can say whatever he wants now,' Kerrey says.  'They can fill the air with spin control.  But the words are out there- and we have banked them.'  And the president is facing problems caused by liberals who insist that any health plan include abortion coverage.  House leaders met last week to work out a compromise so the controversial issue does no have to go to a vote on the floor.  One solution that congressional leaders are considering is to allow people to opt for plans with or without abortion coverage.

"Even within the Clintons' administration, though, there are gripes about where the administration is going. When Paul Begela, a White House political consultant, unveiled the Democrat's newest ads on health care before a cabinet meeting earlier this month, they were met with jeers. Health and Human Services Secretary Donna Shalala complained that the commercials didn't prominently feature women. And one ad now airing that touts Hawaii's employer-mandated health system got thumbs down from the senior advisers, who felt that Hawaii seemed too much like paradise and too distant from the typical American's experience.  Whether it is before the governors or in his own cabinet room, President Clinton's words and ideas and have yet to sound thee right note."  (U.S. News & World Report, 8/1/94, Stumbling into a deal, Matt Cooper and Steve Roberts, p.21)

"Many different health plans are being promoted by Democrats and Republicans.  Democrats like Richard Gephart's goal is to replace the poorly approved Clinton plan.  Many other Democrats will support the Clinton plan, or a similar plan without Clinton's name on it in hopes that they can help insure Clinton's re-election.  One plan even outlined a health care melting pot to provide coverage for part time, unemployed, and temps.

"Mrs. Clinton unsuccessfully toured the country in 'The Health Care Express': a bus decorated with campaign material promoting their health care plan and seeking support for it from Americans.

"Many liberals say that Health Maintenance Organizations are the future of health care.  They say this will eliminate their freedom of choice in choosing doctors.  What they do not say is that many doctors are cheating the government and carriers by performing unnecessary tests.  Some doctors will buy an expensive piece of equipment like an MRI and prescribe it to as many patients as possible to get recoup their money.  They bill insurance companies.  The government pays all Medicare bills without question causing taxes to rise.  Many carriers and employers must join an HMO to cut costs."

Fortunately, for them many European Nations they have Socialized- health care.  Unfortunately, we have a much bigger population than them. And- an- abundant- supply- of legal and illegal immigrants.  We just cannot afford that.  Although the idea of a-for profit H.M.O. is taking advantage of Democracy.  We should not be denied basic health care for lack of money.  If we strive for it we can attain some kind of affordable health care without creating a governmental bureaucracy to do it.

I cannot help but feel that if the Clinton plan or a version of it passes it is the "beginning-of-the-end" for many things: I greatly fear the government arbitrarily deciding that doctors make too much money.  If it passes what will be next on the "hit parade?"  What will we do if one day the government will decide that lawyers or accountants earn too much money?  

Liberal 1

08/28/96 Liberalism: A Modern Tragedy By M. Asinoff
Liberalism and Conservatism are fundamentally opposing ideologies on both domestic and foreign affairs. The terms are very ambiguous and subjective. The meanings vary greatly depending upon who, what and where you are. Most people on both sides are reasonable and willing to compromise for a middle-ground where everyone can live. Unfortunately, some people on both sides are very unwielding and "when someone is dogmatic they are closed-minded." (Eileen Tenenbaum)
Conservatism proposes/ follows the Jeffersonian mentality upon which our fore-fathers envisioned and established Democracy: a very small central government to regulate and serve certain basic needs: international and interstate commerce, producing and regulating a national currency that is accepted as a means of exchange nationally and internationally, a national military to protect us and our interests from foreign enemies. The balance of power has been a seesaw ever since the Constitution was written. It was the reason the Bill of Rights was created.
In fact, it was one of the major causes of the Civil War. The South resented the Federal Government dictating laws on slavery. It will probably always be a tug of war. It has worked well up until the Great Depression when F.D.R. changed that. He borrowed from Communism to save Capitalism by creating many government programs such as Social Security. Pure Capitalism does not work because it does care about people. And pure Socialism does not work because it stifles competition. You need to blend them in order achieve balance.
Liberalism's premise, however is quite opposite from conservatism. It promotes a big central gov’t. to micromanage people's many needs & desires. They oppose the Republican Congress issuing block grants to the states so they can manage it as they see fit. I say let the states run things & "100 flowers grow." (Mao Sedung)
Some people say witty things such as, "I don't know if Liberalism is modern, but it's certainly a tragedy." (Bing Inocensio) Many questions come to mind, such as is Liberalism a failure in the U.S.? If so why? Many Conservatives feel liberalism is a disease that will ruin the nation. Some say it often condones a lifestyle that includes seeking immediate gratification. If asked to specify they might say by condoning sexual promiscuity and divorce. People should pursue long term resolutions such as commitment and wait for marriage. It opposes proven things such as traditional Judeo-Christian family values, fidelity and spirituality. These values are the bedrock of our society and the fabric from which our forefathers created this great nation.
What is Liberalism? A popular joke about the difference between Liberals and Conservatives is that a Liberal is a Conservative who is unemployed and a Conservative is a Liberal who has been mugged. Liberalism has become primarily a selfish, dysfunctional philosophy. It often promotes multi-culturalism: a premise with a very noble intent: help create peace and harmony among various cultures in the U.S. by appreciating people's differences, variety is the spice of life. Sometimes, tragically, troubles- arise when it backfires because demagogues like Al Sharpton manipulate and exploit them to feed the fires of racism.  This creates tremendous tensions, disharmony and cultural suicide.
LIBERALISM: YESTERDAY and TODAY
The U.S. founding fathers were liberals in their era.  So were the Yankees in the Civil War.  In post Communism Russia, Democracy and Capitalism are liberal ideas.  So are the Nicaraguan rebels fighting for Democracy. A general definition of liberal today in the U.S. has changed in the past generation to become more radical than ever before.
"Liberalism started out as an over-reaction to the 1950's." (Bill Alframedes) But it helped achieve some very worthwhile goals such as affordable education for the poor, improving the quality of life for many working poor families and civil rights for minorities in the 1960's. One cannot help but wonder just how hard life would be if not for all the good things it did to improve the quality of life in America. Back then Hubert Humphrey ran for president and talked about traditional family values.  It's biggest problem now is that it got away from these goals becoming a monster like the one it set out to defeat with the liberal media helping demagogues like Reverends Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton take the helm and steer it straight down hill at light speed.
In an article by Bob Herbert people were asked to define a Liberal. They said, "Being a Liberal meant you cared about people being fed, clothed, housed & able to make a decent living. He noted contempt for unions & anti-poverty programs were ridiculed, even though they both helped millions of Americans for decades. The number of poor children in the U.S. rose 37% in the past 20 years, while in the 1960's it was cut by 50%."(N.Y. Times, 7/4/93, E-11) President Johnson saw Liberalism as a way of waging war on poverty and creating a world "...where no child goes unfed or unschooled, every teacher is good, gets good money and classrooms, everyone has dignity, every worker has a job, ed. is color blind, employment is unaware of race, decency appeals and courage abounds."
People like hippies and ideas like the peace movement, free love and "flower power" started out protesting the Vietnam War. However well meaning they were, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. That's cliché, but true. They combined with wide spread experimentation with hallucinogenic drugs like L.S.D. and Heroin causing the senseless death of many teens in the 1960's, in addition to feeding an anti-establishment/American mentality. Reagan helped revitalize the nation by renewing our sense of patriotism in the 80's. But Liberalism's opposition to the status quo has become more like that of labor unions and big business than the noble cause it started out as. "It has become a step shy of anarchy." (Frank Dering) Liberals like Ed Koch, say, "I'm a Liberal with sanity." But do not know that it is an oxymoron and a paradox. Some liberals joke, "Military intelligence is also a oxymoron and a paradox too." (D. Axelrod)
Sadly, in 1992, Bill Clinton was elected president with a million votes less than Michael Dukakis lost with in 1988.  Why?  Because Americans decided that character does not matter!  Some even feel that "the Liberal party was wandering in the desert, waiting for their Joshua to take them home to the promised- land.  Clinton is their Joshua and 1993 was their year." (Tom Karfunkel)
Al Roberts put all in "The Psalms Of N.Y.: Mario Cuomo is my shepherd, I shall not want. He leadeth me beside still factories, and restoreth my doubt in N.Y. politics. He guideth me to the path of unemployment, and annointeth my wage with freeze, so my expense runneth over my income. Surely, poverty and hard living shall follow his administration and I shall live in a rented house forever.
"5000 years ago, Moses said 'Pack your camel, pick up your shovel, mount your ass, and I'll lead you to the promised- land.' 5000 years later F.D.R. said 'Lay down your shovel, sit on your ass and light up a camel.  This is the promised land.'  Today Mario Cuomo will tax your shovel, sell your camel, kick you in the ass, and say the promised land is in Japan."  (New York Post, Rey Kerrison's column, October 7, 1991, p.6)
Liberalism today has become totally opposite from its original premise of "that government is best, which governs least."  (Tom Jefferson)  It seeks a huge central government although "the accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive and judiciary, in the same hands whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny."  (James Madison, Federalist Papers # 49)  It now has a socialist mentality and believes a big government is Santa Claus, or dad to resolve all the problems we face from cradle to grave and womb to tomb.
"Government should see that the economics game is played vigorously and according to the rules. But the referee can't also play, for who'll referee him." (Jim Ramsey, Economic Forecasting, Models or Markets, 1977) *Like it, or not, "government is the great fiction, through which everyone endeavors to live at the expense of everyone else." (Fred Bostait, Essays on Political Economy, 1872)
One of the foolish things a large government does it pays farmers not to grow food.  It's gotten to the point that "consumer prices held far below cost have led to callosal waste: it often pays farmers to sell their grain to the state, and then buy back the subsidized bread made from the grain, to use as animal feed." (Peter Passel, Where Consumer Economics fell Short, NY Times, December 17, 1989, E-3)  

Many Liberals want big gov’t. to regulate prices because "if all prices rose equally, no harm would be done to anyone. But it is not. Many lose & some gain." (Irving Fisher, 1920) Because "one-man's wage rise is another's price hike." (Sir Harold Wilson, 1970) "Some people say prosperity is when the prices of things you sell rise & inflation is when the cost of the things you buy rise." (Steven Slavin, Intro to Economics, 9:157)
 DAVID DINKINS
He was elected despite not filing income tax for four years. Yet, he sang the old liberal song we must raise taxes to balance the budget.  We never heard why N.Y.C. Off Track Betting was the only bookie losing money since Hazel Duke was made commissioner.  Nor did we hear why she spent $20,000 in city to redo her bathroom. Or, that she cost NYC thousands in damages to settle discrimination cases with all the white people she fired to replace with blacks.  Why didn't he fire her and the city housing commissioner who spent $4,000 on a couch for her office?
When Dinkins took office in N.Y.C., in January, 1990 he said, "I'll be a healing mayor." During his reign a Korean Supermarket was unjustly boycotted by militant black demagogues led by Reverend Al Sharpton. Dinkins failed to have the police enforce a restraining order keeping the protestors back 50 feet.
In Crown Heights, his policy was containment, & letting mobs rampage. He said, "Let the mobs vent their anger." They rioted because a Hasidic Jewish man lost control of his car and accidentally ran over two small black children killing Gavin Kato: a seven-year-old boy. Some blacks believed that despite his being a devoutly religious man of God, he did this intentionally. What kind of a monster would willfully murder a total stranger: a child in cold blood, in public? Not to mention the fact that his religion preaches that life is sacred.
Some blacks formed lynch mobs and killed two men, an American man who one who appeared Jewish and Yankel Rosenbauman, an Australian Jew. A mob attacked, beat and stabbed him repeatedly. What ever happened to innocent, until proven guilty? Dinkins is both politically and morally guilty of omission to this crime because of his inaction. Lymrick Nelson was arrested and released due to a technicality.  Then Dinkins slapped not just every Jew, but every decent law-abiding citizen in the face: he offered a reward for information leading to the arrest and conviction of the perpetrators of this heinous crime a year later! The DA cleared the driver of any wrong doing 22 months later. He was being sued personally for his actions.
Lymrick Nelson was acquitted of criminal charges. But convicted of civil charges. The driver was brought up on charges of vehicular homicide, but was acquitted when a D.A. investigation showed mechanical failure caused the accident. The driver then fled home to Israel for safety, only to have Rev. Al Sharpton seeking him in hopes of serving him with a subpena requiring his return to the U.S. This was demagoguery, done with the prior knowledge that the man had a lawyer in N.Y.C. that could be served on behalf of his client.    
In Washington Heights, he did very little to control mobs after a cop shot a suspect in self-defense. To add insult to injury he paid for the "victim" to be shipped back to S. America, even though he was an illegal alien and drug dealer. While mobs looted and burned LA, in May 1992, Mayor Dinkins thanked people for not rioting. How effective can a mayor be when he thanks criminals for that?  
Yet 95% of blacks and many Jews voted to reelect him, because "Guliani is a fascist and yes, Dinkins made mistakes. But anyone can and he deserves a second chance." (Regina Lebowitz) Dinkins lost by about 2%, with Staten Is. giving Guliani a very slim victory. Unfortunately, many Jews are too liberal for their own good. They end up willing victims and their own worst enemy!
Due to ineptness R. Limbaugh calls him "General Dinkins" and did a parody of the theme song from the 1950's television show "Car 54, Where Are You?" "Oh, there's a hold up in the Bronx. Brooklyn's broken in fights. There's a traffic jam in Harlem that's backed up to Jackson Heights. There's a scout troop short a child and Krushev is due at Idle Wile. General David Dinkins where are you?"    
THE 1980's, GOVERNMENT, THE DEFICIT and TAXES
Many Liberals often criticize Reagan /Bush Sr.for under-funding AIDS research. But rarely acknowledge the fact that is a primarily a behavioral controlled disease!  They sometimes compare alcohol and drug abuse to *AIDS because they are also primarily behavioral controlled diseases.  Yet few mention that AIDS is a political issue, and rarely is government criticized for under-funding alcohol and drug abuse. They attack former V.P. Quayle, saying things like not everyone has a family like him, but are speechless if they do and are reminded of it. Besides what’s wrong with having a family like Dan Quayle? Traditional families like that helped make the U.S. the greatest super power in the world today.
Another fairy tale told to Americans is "this Congress produced a budget that reduced the deficit by $1/2 Trillion, cut spending and raised taxes on the wealthiest Americans.
"Last year we began to put our house in order by tackling the budget deficit that was driving us toward bankruptcy.  We cut $255 Billion in spending, including entitlement and over 340 separate budget items.  We froze domestic spending and used honest budget numbers." (President Clinton, January 25, 1994)
Democrats are known for taxing/spending. They don’t realize, "the power to tax is the power to destroy!" (Chief Justice J. Marshall) Yet, many Americans voted for Clinton in 1992. Many believed him when he said, "I'll cut taxes on the middle class." He's now raising taxes as a magic answer to all our ailments, as Democrats have usually done to no avail. Even he said, "To continue using a formula that does not work and expect a new outcome is insane." Yet, he & many others still try to convince us that raising taxes is the answer to our problems, despite it deepening the recession. Few believed & some criticized President Bush & V.P. Quayle in 1992 during the presidential debates when they said, "Clinton's economic plan will raise taxes on families earning $36,000 a year!" At a press conference a man asked Clinton a good question: "Can you name one nation that taxed itself into prosperity, just one?" After hesitating a moment he said, "No, but that's not what my plan is."
Now that we chose liberal co-presidents as our leaders, their fiscal policy should be simple: "the budget should be balanced, the treasuries…refilled and the public debt…reduced. The arrogance of officialdom…tempered and controlled. And assistance to foreign lands…curtailed, less we become bankrupt." (Cicero, 63 B.C)
Some Liberals are radicals like the Communists in 1917.  They want to see Democracy fall and Socialism rise. They employ revisionist history in many ways: changing the 1980's by making unfounded accusations such as Reagan increased the deficit, lumping him and Bush together and blaming everything on them.
Many Liberals and the media conveniently omit many facts: congress was Democratically controlled from 1984-1992. "Reagan doubled the treasury holdings from $244 to over $500 billion during his administration." (I.R.S.) He lowered tax rates in 1982 in exchange for eliminating deductions such as interest on credit cards and auto loans. He also enacted the Tax Equity Fiscal Reform Act in 1985: the largest tax hike in history at the time. And "Reagan cut the deficit from 25.7% and 208 in 1983, to 14.6% and 155 in 1988. Bush almost doubled it in two years from 152 in 1989, to 271 in 1991. Clinton projected a rise to 296 in 1994, 302 in 1995, 301 in 1996, 327 in 1997 and 361 in 1998." (Congressional Budget Office, in Billions and total spending)

Many Liberals say Reagan and Bush only care for the rich and are apathetic about poverty in the U.S. They don't say "nearly 40% of 'poor' people own homes, averaging $46,600 each. More than 70,000 the homes are worth over $300,000, and ten times that number of 'poor' own homes worth over $100,000. Over 60% of 'poor' households own cars; even more have air conditioners and microwaves, 5% of 'poor' households own two or more cars. 'Poor' Americans live in larger homes or apartments, eat more meat, and are more likely to own cars and dishwashers than the general population of W. Europe." (Bob Rector, Heritage Foundation)
Black Expo U.S.A. said the 1980's really were successful for blacks.  "Black families with annual incomes of $50,000 + rose over 50% during the 1980's, growing from 762,000 to 1,162,000 families. The amount of blacks in managerial and professional specialty jobs grew from 1.3 to nearly two million in 1991, a 50% gain in eight years. Black consumer households spend over $300 billion annually." (1992 Consumer Expenditure Survey, Bureau of Labor Statistics)
And "focusing on two overwhelming black census tracts in Laurelton, N.Y., population 4000, Dr. Beveridge found that between 1980 and 1990, the amount of adults in the work force rose 2/3- 3/4. The amount of college graduates 25 plus, rose from 30 to 52%, the percent of people below the poverty line plunged from 13% to 3% and the average family income more than doubled." (N.Y. Times, Black Households Median Income Leads Whites In Queens, Sam Roberts, A1, June 6, 1994)
Before a Senate Budget Hearing Representative Barbara Boxer, (D) California, said, "I think we have three options: A) Continuing on the path of the 80's: budget negotiations in Senate with a raging deficit, lower standards of living, tax giveaways to the richest. My God! Their incomes rose 150% in the last decade! B) Or, we can go with the new Republican idea of a permanent recession, 200,000 jobs lost and $1 billion reduction in the Gross Domestic Production..."

History will say Bush and Clinton, not the usual liberal Reagan and Bush rhetoric.  The proof is in things such as the increasing gap between the rich and poor.  That is something many liberals like to blame on the 1980's, Reagan and Bush.  President  Clinton said, "The goal of this administration must be to help get Americans better jobs..." (Robert Reisch, Labor Secretary) They might be surprised to learn that "the gap between the rich and the poor continues to grow. From 1989-middle 1993, earnings fell for most Americans, it was greatest for those at the low end of the scale.  New surveys show that the average corporate CEO earns 149 times the pay of the average factory worker, while nearly 18% of full time workers do not make enough to keep a family of four out of poverty..." (U.S. News and World Report, N.Y., May 30, 1994, Bridging the bitter income divide, Susan Dentzer, p.53)  
For centuries people have paid taxes and "it is generally allowed by all, that men should contribute to the public charge according to the shared interest they have in the public peace; that is, according to their estates, or riches." (Sir William Petty, A treaty of Taxes and Contributions, 1662)* That is nice, but in reality many non users are unfairly forced to subsidize things like the N.Y.C. Transit Authority through sur taxes on phone bills, tolls on Port Authority bridges, tunnels, etc. Why should commuters be forced to help pay for mass transit if they do not use it? Why should rich parents who send their kid to private school be forced to help finance public education? Whether, or not she can afford it, is irrelevant.  No one should be penalized for being rich. It is not a crime, or sin, despite what many Liberals say!
On Sept. 30, 1990, Bush raised taxes & said, "The by-partisan leaders & I have reached an agreement on the federal budget. Over five years it will reduce the deficit by $500 billion, that's a $1/2 Trillion!" On that day Senator Jim Sasser, (D) Tennessee said, "At the risk of sounding immodest I helped create this bill. We are on the verge of passing the largest deficit reduction act in the history of this Republic and putting it into law." But it didn’t! "If it didn't work why is the deficit being blamed on the 12 years & why should we live through it again?" (Rush Limbaugh)
Representative Gerry Studs, (D) Massachusetts, said that the reason the deficit is so large despite the by-partisan attempt to reduce it through a tax hike in 1990 was because "it was done with smoke and mirrors and the usual kind of pretend thing. That's why I think that it is not just rhetorical to say that Clinton's plan is the first genuine, straight forward attempt at deficit reduction in at least twelve years."
"In 1990 taxes were raised only on those earning over $200,000. Beer doubled from $9-18 per barrel. Table wine rose 629% from 17 cents to $1.07 a gallon. Gas rose five cents a gallon, again. Cigarettes rose four cents a pack in 1991 and 1993" (1990 Budget Reduction Act). Many peope do not realize that "the art of taxation is plucking the Goose to get the most feathers with the least hissing." (Jean Colbert)
But we must accept that along with new leaders and budgets inflation will rise and fall largely due to current events. This is a much a part of reality as "inflation being like sin: every government denounces it and every government practices it." (Sir Fred Ross, June, 1957)  
The president pleased many supporters when the Family Leave Act was passed. It allows people six weeks of unpaid leave from work for a family emergency.
Yet, when asked the difference between the 1990 and 1993 budget Senator Patrick Leahy, (D) Vermont, said, "This is a far more honest one.  We finally have a president who admits there's a deficit.  The last two did not because they created it."  Senator George Mitchell, (D) Maine, responded, "It's a different time, circumstances, provisions in the bill, tax and spending cuts in the bill."  Senator Don Reggie, (D) Michigan, answered, "There's also some growth initiative and more tax fairness."  When asked why the 1990 budget deal failed he said, "I don't think it was really aimed to do that, or to get the job done."
Liberalism promotes "political correctness" of *higher taxation upon "rich" people for so many things that we're now at the point where, "...if you breathe, I'll tax the air. If you walk, I'll tax the street. If you're cold, I'll tax the heat, cause I'm the tax man..." (The Beatles, Tax Man). "That which angers men most is to be taxed above their neighbors (Sir William Petty, A Treaty of Taxes and Contributions, 1662). *Now that America is "being held hostage by liberal co-presidents" the "government's view of the economy can be summed up in a few short phrases: is if it moves tax it, if it keeps moving regulate it, if it stops moving subsidize it." (R. Reagan) The main problem the presidents face is that "they have the usual social disease: they are running out of other people's money." (Margret Thatcher) Many liberals do not want that a boom economy and bear stock market in the late 1990's can be traced back to the early 1980's. Or that Regan's ten cent gas tax for roads and bridges was diverted to deficit reduction.
Some liberals say this is a terrible country, but "conveniently" do not say that people literally died coming here for centuries. The amount of illegal aliens is growing rapidly.  Despite this being such a terrible place, a few hundred Chinese immigrants died pursuing "The American Dream" when their boat grounded ashore in Far Rockaway, N.Y., in 1993.  Illegal immigration is getting so bad that the president is hiring border guards to reduce illegal immigration.  Russian comic Yakof Smirnoff said, "America, what a country!"  How bad can it be if people are litterally dying to come here?
Many liberals, such as Senator Ted Kennedy, (D) Massachusetts, want the minimum wage to rise from the current $4.25 an hour and a cost of living allowance attached to it. They do not mention things such as how few people it affects. Or that many small businesses will have to pass it along to consumers by raising prices. While others will have to fire an employee to pay for it. None of them suggests lowering taxes to give people more take home money and greater disposable income. Even National Labor Secretary R. Reisch said, "...the potential effects of a minimum wage increase on employment should be weighed, particularly in combination with the effects of the health reform proposal."
 ECONOMICS
It is a major part of government and therefore politics today.  The president delivers an annual state of the union address to the nation in which the primary topic of discussion is economics.  He reports the major details on the Gross Domestic Production, deficit, national debt, rate of inflation, trade deficit, foreign exchange rate, value of the dollar in world markets, etc.
Economics has become so intertwined in both Liberal and Conservative ideologies that it can make or break a president as it did Reagan in 1984: he asked the nation, "Are you better off today than you were four years ago?"  Their response: he was re-elected in a landslide.  It has broken presidents such like Bush. He'll go down in history for his now infamous, 1988 campaign promise: "Read my lips, no new taxes!" His unprecedented victory of the Gulf War almost pails by comparison. As previously illustrated, "both foreign and domestic affairs and policies affect the economy. If he is lucky and we are prosperous the president gets the credit. If we are in a recession he gets the blame whether he deserves it or not. It goes with the job. As to just how much the numerous variables affect the economy is impossible to determine as we cannot 'unscramble the eggs.'" (Evelyn Lerner) As most Liberals and Conservatives often disagree, economists are no different either. Many Liberals believe in a Socialistic government, while most Conservatives believe in Capitalism.
Few people know “the entrepreneur indeed, neither intends to promote the public interest, nor knows how much he’s promoting it. By preferring the support of domestic to that of foreign industry, he intends only his own gain, & he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention... By perusing his own interest he frequently promotes that of society more effectually than when he really intends to..." (Adam Smith, Wealth Of Nations, Book 4, ch. 2, pp.477-8, London: Methuen, 1950).   Some Capitalists might say that "our free enterprise system has been compared to a gigantic computing machine capable of solving its own problems automatically. But anyone who has some experience with large computers knows that even they break down and cannot operate unattended."  (Wassily Leontief, 3/2/71)
Believe it or not "the rich are not the exotic back stabbers and dabblers in high finance depicted on TV.  The average person with a net worth of $100,000, or more is usually a businessman who lived all his adult life in the same town.  He owns a small factory, a chain of stores, or service - company.  He is married and lives in a middle class neighborhood next to people with a fraction of his wealth.  He is a compulsive saver, and investor. 80% of U.S. millionaires are first generation rich." (Tom J. Stanley).
H. Huges took a small company he inherited from his father at age 20 and built a billion dollar empire. Perot was a poor boy in Arkansas and had the vision to be a billionaire/presidential candidate. They represent the American Dream of entrepanuership, they all rose from humble backgrounds to greatness.
*"It's agreed that the edge of gov’t. is the good & ease of the people, in a secure enjoyment of their rights, without oppression. But it must be remembered that the rich are people as well as the poor. They have rights as well as others. They have as clear & as sacred a right to their property, as others have to theirs which is smaller; that oppression to, is as possible & as wicked as to others."(J. Adams, first v.p./2nd president)
Not many liberals would admit it, but Capitalism is not evil!  Even China's Communist Government realizes this and is taking steps toward it.  They realize that they must "...break away from egalitarianism, so as to implement the principle of more money for more work and rationally widen the income gap.  The rich should be encouraged to lean forward and support those lagging behind.

Those who have become rich should lean forward and help out those less fortunate. In a far reaching statement of economic principles the Chinese Communist Party has for the first time endorsed the development of a wealthy class as a necessary consequence of accelerated economic growth in this country. Every one around the world is recognizing this and we're moving backwards. Equality in Socialism does not work." (Chinese Begrudgingly Endorse the Rich, by   , L.A. Times, November 17, 1993, p.  )
Certain Liberals have a class envy mentality. They believe that raising taxes and taking from the rich and giving to the poor is the answer to all. When asked where is the money going? How many rich are there? What's rich? Or how many poor are there? They rarely have answers and spout rhetoric like parrots. Many want to play Robin Hood and are mad Kevin Costner did. They do not want to be poor, nor do they believe that "God must love the poor-he made so many of them." (Lincoln)
Many Liberals say that Reagan was bad because he lowered taxes on the rich during the 1980's. Many Americans are unaware that President Kennedy also believed in trickle down economics & said so in this speech.
"This administration is determined to step up our economic growth. Our true choice is not tax reduction on the one hand, or deficit reduction on the other.

"...an economy hampered by restrictive tax rates will never produce enough reserves to balance our budget, just as it will never produce enough jobs, or profits.  Surely the lesson of the past decade is that the budget deficits are not caused by wild-eyed spenders, but by slow economic growth & periodic recessions, and any new recession would cause new deficit records.  In short it is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today, and revenues are too low, and the soundest way to raise revenues in the long run is to cut taxes now.
"The final and best means of strengthening demand among consumers is to reduce the burden upon private income, and the deterrent to private initiatives which are imposed by our private system. This administration pledged itself last summer to an across the board, top to bottom tax cut in personal and corporate taxes to be enacted, and become cut effective in 1963. I'm not suggesting a 'quickie', or temporary tax cut, which would be more appropriate if a recession were eminent. Nor am I talking about giving the economy a mere shot in the arm to ease some temporary complaints. I'm talking about the accumulated evidence of the last five years that our present tax system developed in good part in W.W. 2 to restrain growth exerts too heavy a drag upon growth during peace time. It siphons out too large a share of personal and business purchasing power and reduces the financial incentives to investment and risk taking.
"In short, to increase demand and lift the economy the federal government's most useful role is not to rush into a program of excessive increases in public expenditures and opportunities for private expenditures. For all these reasons, next year's tax bill should reduce personal as well as corporate income taxes, for those in the lower brackets who are certain to spend their additional take home pay and for those in the middle and upper income brackets who can thereby be encouraged to undertake additional efforts to invest more capitol. I'm introducing to congress a bill lowering the top marginal tax rate from 91% to 70% and the bottom from 20 to 14%." (J.F.K., 12/14/62, N.Y. Economic Club)
The Federal Reserve controls how much money is issued so it can help stabilize the economy partly because "the issuers may have, and in the case of government paper, always have a direct interest in lowering the value of the currency, because it is the medium by which their own debts are computed." (John Mill)  They'd feel different if they were creditors instead of debtors because "creditors have better memories than debtors."  (Jim Howell, 1659)

Fortunately for Liberals, "the attractiveness of financing by debt issue to the elected politicians is obvious.  Borrowing allows spending that will gain immediate political payoffs without incurring any political costs." (James Buchanan, the Deficit and American Democracy)
Many Liberal economists blame Reagan and Bush for all our economic troubles. But will not agree that "an economist is someone who cannot see something working in practice without asking if it works in theory." (Unknown) Or, that, economics is a very subjective science whose data is affected by many variables that affect the economy in both clear and unclear ways forming a compound that cannot be separated. And that "if you took all the economists in the country and laid them end to end, they'd never reach a conclusion." (George Bernard Shaw) The importance of economics to politics has grown tremendously in this century.  In a 1932 campaign speech in Brooklyn, President Roosevelt castigated President Hoover for not balancing his budget.  If they could see that the deficit is now measured in Trillions they'd spin in their graves.
"Many representatives in the current House leadership, including Chairman Rodenkousky {(D), Georgia}, have said for years that we must raise taxes to lower the deficit.  Many of them have poor spending records, and always seek to raise taxes to support higher spending and more and more government regulations.  We've only to look back to 1990 when a tax hike not only did not reduce the deficit, but nearly doubled it from $152 Billion in 1989, to 270 in 1991.  The revenue estimates were low and the economy floundered.  With respect to the stock market and the economy and future prosperity Clinton's tax plan must be defeated.  Senator Bob Dole {(R), Kansas}, Ross Perot and Jack Kemp must combine efforts to get it scrapped and come up with a new one that encourages investment and capitol formation and then the stock market can perform beautifully over the long haul.  Clinton's tax bill must be defeated.  I have never seen a time in history when higher taxes across the board and regulations did any good for jobs or the stock market." (Lawrence Kudlow, Chief Economist, Bear Sterns and Company)

To defend his budget President Clinton said, "Let's not lose sight of what's been done. This program cut spending, raised revenues, invests in jobs, and cuts the deficit. And has already by its advocacy in passing contributed to bringing interest rates to their lowest rates in 20 years, a seven year high in home buying. For the first time in 18 months unemployment is under 7%, and 755,000 jobs in four months. I think that's something to be proud of. I don't understand why people aren't glad that those consequences are flowing from these efforts."
"First of all, the plan is not in effect yet.  Secondly, new home sales were up 21.5% in 4/93, but are now down 21% in 5/93.  The leading economic indicators were up .2% in 4/93 and are now down .3% in 5/93. Consumer confidence is down 3%, from 61.9 in 4/93, to 58.9 in 5/93."  (Rush Limbaugh)      

Many liberal politicians lie when saying things such as it is only temporary.  We had better remember that "nothing is as permanent as a temporary government program." (Milton Freidman, Economist and Nobel Prize Winner)  Or "you spend a billion dollars here or there and sooner or later it adds up to real money." (former Illinois Senator, Ed Berkson)
Some Liberals are so locked into a Socialist way of thinking that they believe things like a college education are a God given right. In Spring, 1991 CUNY students seized several campuses for two weeks to protest tuition hikes.  A student called the Barry Gray Radio Show and said, "I'm an Accounting major and I figured out that if corporate taxes are raised for every company making over one billion dollars we'd be ahead of the game even if 25% of them left New York!"
This is a clear example of just how many liberals think. There is no thought about how many thousands of jobs would be lost short & long term. They don’t "see the tree through the forest."

*Many liberals feel that a gas tax would solve all our money troubles.  They believed Perot when he said, "An extra ten cent a year gas tax for five years will eliminate the deficit."  That is a very shortsighted view of things.  No one mentioned that many things would be affected indirectly. Many necessities such as food are driven to warehouses and then to stores.  Higher fuel costs would be passed directly on to the consumer in higher prices.  President Clinton tries to justify and minimize it by breaking it down to pennies at the pump.  But he does not mention that he signed a Medicare bill authorizing $1.3 billion in additional spending for 1993 alone.  
In fact, *at a 1992 presidential debate a man told Clinton "We're your kids." And asked him, "What will you do to provide for us if you're elected?"  While alms for the poor is admirable "the offer of alms increases the supply of beggars." (Simon Newcomb) Government should encourage people to be independent, self-sufficient adults, rather than constantly seeking handouts! Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day; teach him to fish, and you feed him for life. "That which governs least, governs best." (T. Jefferson, 1801, first Inaugural Address). "That government is best which governs not at all." (Henry Thoreau)
Few people know that before Mayor Guliani was elected "in the last 20 years, N.Y.C. payrolls increased 40%, while the population decreased by 20%" (David Osborne)  Sadly, this mismanagement exists at every government level requiring higher taxes to pay for it.  We already pay federal, state and city income, sur, sales, tolls, sin, property, corporate, capitol, estate, luxury, federal excise, social security, one time, minimum, alternative and a proposed value added tax on manufactured goods.  Only fools would suggest a that for an ailing economy in a recession.
Unfortunately, many liberals believe and "... accept the idea that American democracy is a failed governmental system and therefore the world can only be saved by the establishment of a one world government."  (Jerry Farwell)

People such as George Meany do not think much of economists.  He said, "Despite the fact that Labor Secretary John Dunlop is an economist, basically I have great confidence in him." On the same subject Tom Caryle said, "It's easy to train economists.  Just teach a parrot to say supply and demand."  Some think that "an economist is an expert who will know tomorrow why the things he predicted yesterday did not come true today." (Lawrence J. Peter, Peter's Quotations)  If you think about it economists are blessed because "to err is human; to get paid for it is divine." (William Fruend, Economic Consultant)  Others jokingly say that an economist is some one good with numbers who did not have the personality to be an accountant.
We must take a good look in the mirror and at our life style before a finger of blame at the government. "As U.S. citizens, we're consuming more than we are producing, borrowing more than we're saving and spending more than we earn.  We're rapidly approaching the time to pay the Pied Piper." (Murray Weidenbaum, Rendezvous with Reality, N.Y: Basic Books, 1988, P.4)


The North American Free Trade Agreement  
Many liberals opposed NAFTA because they feel it will hurt America by allowing companies to move to Mexico to save labor costs.  Some make good points such as "just because something is good for business does not necessarily mean it is good for people." (David Axelrod)

Where would the US auto industry be today without Japanese competition? Raising tariffs to stifle competition helped the big three American auto makers get away with building inferior cars like the 1972, Ford Pinto: it exploded if rear ended because they did not want to spend $24 per car for shields. Or, that Toyota offered four- cylinder, 16 valve engines in 1987, while Ford has not yet offered it in 1995. Why? They have a 24 valve, six cylinder engines, although, it was unavailable with an automatic transmission, for the first few years. This causes many consumers feel that "I can walk over to Toyota and get more bang for my buck." (Harvey Braverman) Why should US consumers have to settle for inferior work/ craftsmanship simply because our companies are unable or unwilling to keep up with technology and produce superior -merchandise. It is a dog-eat-dog- world where only the fittest survive. Protectionism is not a solution to competition. We once the leading industrial power in the world and can be again. It is up to US businesses to become more competitive by establishing long term goals and making employees a working partner in industry.
In the 1970's, General Motors built the Chevy Chevette with an aluminum block engine that would overheat often and cause major damage. And Chrysler borrowed money from the federal government to avert bankruptcy in 1979.

Japan beat us at our own game: constant improvement. An American businessman, the late Ed Demmings went there in the 1970's when U.S companies would not listen to him. All they saw was money. Stockholders always want higher quarterly returns v. Japan, who sees the next quarter century. They were so grateful they created a very prestigious award in his honor.  If not for Japanese competition Americans would be forced to drive inferior cars.  We cannot live in a vacuum and be isolationists in this fast paced, ever paced high tech world.  Japan is already beating us in an economic and industrial war. If we are not a major trading partner in international markets we will wake up one day to find ourselves a third world nation unable to compete with European and Asian alliances.  That day may come sooner than we think!

Progress cannot be halted for anyone or thing! In the long run NAFTA will help us in many ways.  It will reduce the number of illegal aliens. And the burden they place upon the economy by decreasing the need for border guards and patrols, reduced welfare rolls, emergency rooms costs for the illegal aliens who cannot afford health care and the jobs they work off the books and do not pay income taxes.

Unfortunately, "imports from Mexico grew much more rapidly than U.S. exports, cutting the American trade surplus with Mexico for the first quarter by 50%.  The numbers are the first to measure the impact of NAFTA since it implication on January 1, 1994.
"The trade imbalance between the two countries has sharpened antagonism between organized labor, which opposed NAFTA for fear of losing U.S. jobs, and leaders in business and government, who claimed NAFTA would make Mexico a huge market for U.S. goods.

*"U.S. exports to Mexico rose 15.7%, to a record $11.85 billion in the first quarter compared with a comparable quarter last year.  Mexican imports rose 22.5%, to a record $11.29 billion.  That narrowed U.S. quarter trade surplus with Mexico by 45.1%, to $560 millon.
"Both sides agree that a quarter is not enough time to determine a long-term trend and that it is difficult to distinguish the effects of the trade pact from other courses of steadily increasing commerce between the two nations. Indeed, many shipments in the first quarter reflected plans made before it was approved in November.
"Many economists expected greater exports to Mexico due to a strong Peso which makes U.S. goods more affordable and rapidly falling trade barriers." (N.Y. Times, U.S. - Mexico Trade Advances Sharply, Under New Accord, by Al Myerson, p.1)

Perot & United We Stand sought a formal investigation into the billions spent passing it. Many Liberal Democrats say they oppose it because it’s bad for the US. Yet, forgot that from 1983-93 they received contributions from Labor Political Action Committees. In the greatest amount of donations they are Representatives David Boniar, (D) Missouri, $867,323. He said, "All the 'fat cats' who put this deal through in Mexico, Canada & the U.S. are going to be richer & safe. It’s the workers in all three countries who are going to suffer." Bob Torricelli, (D) New Jersey, $508,345. "It’s for all these reasons, which by now should be abundantly clear that I am voting no on NAFTA." Sander Levin, (D) MI, $412,340. "This bitter battle over NAFTA is not one that had to be & that is the tragedy of this. The best answer is to renegotiate & do it right." Dick Gephart, (D) Missouri, $755,109. ...a Republican President reached what I think is a Republican treaty & he foisted it off on a Democratic administration. He didn’t know whether or not it was coming. The truth is he shouldn’t have reached the agreement." Tom Manton, (D) NY, $598,927. ...Mr. Speaker, we need a trade agreement that promotes job security & growth in the US. NAFTA’s not it & I urge its defeat." Marcy Kaputur, (D) Ohio, $620,074. "What's going on here is wrong! I urge the president to win it on merits, not pork! Rosa DeLauro, (D) Connecticut, $418,875. "It’s hard to imagine that the best we can do & the best NAFTA we can negotiate is going to cost U.S. jobs & help Japan's auto industry. I urge my colleagues to weigh their decision carefully & vote no!"

The explosion of the internet and web undeniably prove that we live in an ever shrinking world.  I doubt it, but maybe if they foresaw this
they would have not resisted it so much.