Double Down

There is theory in blackjack, that most beginning players have considered employing. It's called chasing your losers. The theory is that if you double your bet every time you lose, when you finally win a hand, you get all your money back It works great... in theory. The theory, however, has one fatal flaw. When you run out of money, or hit the table limit, which can happen quickly, you lose... BIG. If you start out with a $10 bet, it take a mere in a row to be down $2,550. Two more, and you are down $10,230.

There is a school of thought that says that we need to continue to spend, invest, stimulate the economy. Whether it is Nobel winning economist Paul Krugman, or President Obama, they are saying that we need to continue our current spending levels, and that the worst thing that we could possibly do is to reduce spending. The problem, though, is that even governments can run out of money. It has happened recently in Greece and Ireland. It has the potential of happening soon in Spain, Portugal and Italy. In theory, it is possible to spend your way out of a recession, but just like chasing losers in blackjack, there is always the possibility that you can hit a losing streak, and when you lose, you lose big.

The Health Care Bill - the Law that Keeps on Being Written

On November 22, 2010, and we once again find out what happens when we can't know what is in a bill until we pass a bill. This is the date that the Obama Administration announced that it knows better than an entire industry, and placed a requirement on health insurance companies that they spend 80-85% of health insurance premiums on medical related expenses. While this is not technically a limit on profits, it is at least a close cousin.

It sounds good, doesn't it? Even though most of us are insulated from the full price of our health insurance premiums, because they are paid by our employers, we all know that they are expensive - too expensive, even. So the idea that 80% of our premiums going toward medical expenses sounds like we are going to end up getting more bang for our buck. On the face of it, it appears that, if a health insurer is spending more than 20% on costs/profits, that they will have to reduce them in order to comply with the law. Although this not necessarily the case, let us, for the sake of argument, assume that insurers will comply with the law by reducing their non-medical expenses.

Off the top of my head, non-medical expenses include, but are not limited to, administrative costs (people's salaries), infrastructure (computers, office equipment, offices, etc.), fraud investigations, and profits (can't forget those). So, which of these are going to get cut? Profits are the easy answer, but profits for health insurance companies are currently around 3.5%. There isn't much more to cut, there. So, what else is going to get cut? People's salaries? Or should we just reduce the number of people employed in the insurance industry? Maybe we don't need those new-fangled computers (even though they probably make the industry much more cost efficient). Fraud investigations? That wouldn't cause incidents of fraud to rise, would it? When you look at the actual places that cuts would be made, it becomes evident that there might not be all that much fat to cut.

The other way that companies could come into compliance... the easy way for them to comply with this new rule, is to increase the other side of the equation - the amount spend on medical expenses. Rising medical expenses would result in rising premiums, and if the non-medical expenses remained constant, they would become a smaller percentage of premiums. This is certainly not the intent of the new regulation, but it is a likely result of it.

I don't normally make predictions, but if and when this latter scenario plays out, the next move will not be the repeal of this rule, it will be the adoption of even more regulations. If medical expenses increase as a result of an increase in the cost of specific tests and procedures, price controls will be instituted to prohibit their inflation. If insurers start authorizing additional tests in order to cause their medical expenses to rise, regulations will be instituted to limit what tests can be administered for what conditions.

But here is the real travesty. No one voted on this regulation. Not one Congressman. Not one Senator. Every single person that voted for the health care bill in March can honestly say that this is not what they voted for. But they did vote for it. They voted for it because they voted for a bill that said things like "The Secretary shall make such rules..." over and over throughout the legislation. Our legislature, once again, has abrogated their responsibility of creating the law, and handed it over to the executive branch. This is why Nancy Pelosi was correct when she said that we couldn't know what is in the law until they passed the law - because the law wasn't written, even then. In my last post, one of my suggestions to the new Republican majority was to take back the power that they have given over to the executive branch. The more I think about it, the more important I think this is. Congress should pass a law requiring that all executive-enacted regulation must be ratified by the Congress, either within a certain period of time, or, better yet, before it goes into effect. On November 22, 2010, we learned of another piece of the health care bill. It won't be the last, because, eight months after the bill was passed and signed into law, the health care bill continues to be written.

An Open Letter to John Boehner

Dear Mr. Boehner,

First of all, congratulations on your historic victory in the just concluded midterm election. I remember 1994, staying up to watch the election returns come in as seat after seat fell to Republicans, and they were able to take control of the House for the first time in 40 years. This was the first election since then that has had me so enthused, and I look forward to your inauguration as the new Speaker of the House. As hard as it is to imagine, the election is the easy part. Governing is the hard part. You've won. Now what? You seem to have made a good start, you struck the right tone in your speech on election night. You seem to realize that this was not a victory for Republicans as much as it was a defeat of Democrats. But now it is time to move forward, and with that in mind, I would like to offer you a little advice.

1. Keep things simple. Write legislation that is easy to understand. Whenever possible, have each piece of legislation should serve a single purpose. A bill should have a preamble, telling what it is supposed to do in plain, clear language. It should then have bullet points to explain how it is going to do that. Only then should the legal-eze appear, and even then, if it starts to near 100 pages, red flags should go up that this is getting much too complicated.

This is much of the problem with grandiose legislative initiatives like the Health Care Bill. By the time it was written, it was over 2,000 pages of legal mumbo jumbo that no one could understand. Republicans have their own ideas for health care reform. Instead of rolling these up into one big health care bill, have a series of bills created. For example: Republicans would like to allow people to buy health insurance form any company, regardless of the state that the policy is underwritten in. Great. Write it up. How long would it take to write a bill that just did that? A second Health Care reform Republicans have proposed is that people should be able to buy their own health insurance policy, and get the same tax breaks that corporations get. There is a second bill, write it up, vote on it, send it on to the Senate. Make the Senate and the President go on the record on these "common sense" reforms, that have been written in such a way that the American people understand precisely what it is that is being voted on.

2. Pass a new rule that, in every two-year session of Congress, every member of Congress has the opportunity to bring one piece of legislation to the floor for a vote. It is my belief that this would go a long way to show that Republicans are interested in working with Democrats. Nancy Pelosi came off as authoritative. Democrats, with their large majorities, were unwilling to even listen to Republican ideas, let alone allow them to be voted on. Show that you are a bigger person, and that the Republicans are the party of grown-ups. Every member can bring one piece of legislation out of committee, without committee approval. It will receive an up or down vote, and the American people will know where both sides stand. Of course, all legislation must pass whatever test is placed it by the first suggestion.

3. Target the deficit. Come up with a number that you want to reduce the deficit by, and try to meet it. Better yet, give a number to the President and let him know that any budget that he proposes that exceeds that number will be considered dead on arrival. This would tell the American people that you are serious about tackling the debt.

4. Quit giving away your authority by creating agencies that have the power to write regulations with the force of law. It is your job to make law. Do it. This was another problem with the Health Care Bill. The legislation didn't create rules as much as it created agencies that had the power to write them. And while you are at it, take back some of the authority that you have given to agencies such as the EPA. How about this. Any new regulation put in place by the EPA is only valid for 60 days, unless both houses of Congress vote on the regulation, and the President signs it into law - just like any other law. This needs to be implemented soon, or the EPA may end up instituting cap and trade without anyone every casting a vote on it.

5. For every new law, and new regulation, that you pass, you will repeal one. Better yet, be bold, and go for a two-fer. Repeal 2 laws for every new one that you pass. Most Americans have come to realize that there are too many regulations placed on them. The problem is, every time a new bill is signed into law, the burden becomes heavier. Laws don't often go away, just like spending programs don't. Make an effort to reduce this burden on the American people.

6. Find a way to show Americans that you are just as opposed to Big Business as you are Big Government. Power corrupts, and absolute power... Well, we all know that. The bigger anything is, the more corrupt it becomes, and this is true just as much for Big Business as it is for Big Government. It is a common misconception to think that Big Business is opposed to the regulatory burden placed on it by Big Government. The fact of the matter is, in many instances , they welcome it, because they can afford to accommodate the regulations, passing the costs on to consumers. Where they benefit is from the reduction of competition from small business. The Americans with Disabilities Act is a good piece of legislation, however, you can't argue that it is much easier for McDonald's to be able to comply with its requirements than it is for Ma's Diner.

It has been said, be careful of what you wish for, you just might get it. Well, Mr. Boehner, you have long wished to be Speaker of the House... to have at least one hand on the reigns of government. You have it now, but only with power that has been loaned to you from the American people. Use it wisely, or you may find that this blessing can quickly turn into a curse. I wish you luck, you may need it.

Sincerely,

Brent W. Tuominen

Sola, sola, sola, sola, sola

Today is Reformation Sunday. The day that we remember Martin Luther nailing his 95 thesis to the door of the church at Wittenburg. One of the things that came out of the reformation is concept of the "five solas", sola scriptura (scripture alone), sola fide (faith alone), sola gratia (grace alone), sola christo (Christ alone) and sola gloria dei (to the glory of God alone). Five things that stand alone assure us of salvation. But at what point do five things standing alone become five things standing together? Perhaps the answer is that they do not ever stand together because they are all one and the same thing. Scripture alone is faith alone. Faith alone is grace alone. Grace alone is Christ alone. Christ alone is God's glory alone. These five things, which stand alone, stand alone because they are all different descriptions of the same thing.

A Scout is... Trustworthy

"A scout is trustworthy. A scout tells the truth. He is honest, and he keeps his promises. People can depend on him." This is taken directly from the Boy Scout Handbook. I actually like the original version, from Robert Baden-Powell better. "A scout's honour is to be trusted. If a scout says 'On my honour it is so,' that means it is so, just as if he had taken a most solemn oath. Similarly, if a scout officer says to a scout, 'I trust you on your honor to do this,' the scout is bound to carry out the order to the very best of his ability, and to let nothing interfere with his doing so. If a scout were to break his honour by telling a lie, or by not carrying out an order exactly when trusted to do so, he would cease to be a scout, and must hand over his scout badge and never be allowed to wear it again."

What I really like about that original version is the way that it links trustworthiness with honor. Honor is a concept that we really don't think about anymore, but that doesn't make it any less important. As I see it, your honor is tied up with who you are. You could look at it as the image that you portray to the world, but I like to think of it as your image in the eyes of God. Another way of looking at it is the way people feel about you in a pinch, and this is where we get back to the concept of trustworthiness. In order for people to be able to count on you in a pinch, they have to be able to trust you. Ultimately, that comes down to your character.

Young people today seem awfully concerned about being "disrespected." The problem with this is that they think that respect is one of their inalienable rights. But that is not the case. Respect is the result of honor. Honor comes from trustworthiness. Trustworthiness is earned. This is a key component of scouting, and it starts from an early age. The Cub Scout motto, "Do your best," is chock full of trustworthiness. In order to be trustworthy, people need to know that they can count on you to give it your all at all times. Do you best - no one can ever expect any more than that. Scouts are taught, from an early age, that if they focus on being trustworthy and doing their absolute best at all times, they will, ultimately, earn respect.

I want to briefly go back to the religious element of trustworthiness and honor. In the conclusion of the Declaration of Independence, the signatories pledge to each other their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor. These guys really got the concept of honor. Their lives and their fortunes were pretty important, but the only thing that they considered to be sacred was their honor. Your trustworthiness, your honor, your character is what defines you. There are few institutions left in this country that teaches young men the concept of honor as being a compact between you and everyone in society (not just your teammates) and between you and God.

BSA 100

This past weekend, we spent the weekend camping with 5000+ of our closest friends, in celebration of the 100th anniversary of the founding of the Boy Scouts of America. The Boy Scouts is one of our country's great institutions, and its 100th birthday is a big deal. In the coming weeks, I plan to blog on the importance of the Boy Scouts' core values, but, for today, I thought that I would give my general impression of the Boy Scouts, and why all for of my children (yes, the girls, too) are part of the BSA.

The Boy Scouts do a remarkable job of taking boys and turning them into men; and when I say men, I mean young men that mothers would be proud of - young men that you would be proud to have date, or even marry your daughters. I remember, years ago, attending a dinner where young men from our area who had achieved the rank of Eagle Scout in the past year were being honored. As each of them were coming forward to receive their award, I noticed that these were not your average 16, 17 and 18 year old boys. I didn't know the young men, but just by three way they carried themselves - their posture, their air of confidence -you can tell that they were a cut above the typical teenage boy. My girls are in high school now, and I can attest to the fact that those young Eagle Scouts were much closer to the type of boy I would like my girls to bring home with them than 90% of the boys I see going into their high school.

I am often asked why it is that I insist that my children are involved in scouting. There are many, many, reasons.there is the fact that the values of the Boy Scouts largely coincide with my own, and are values I want to instill in my children. There is the fact that my children, as is the case with many children in this generation, don't spend nearly enough time outdoors. The number one reason, however, is this: The older our children get, the less influence we, as parents, have on them, and the more influence their friends have. Having my children involved in scouts allows me to help them pick their friends.

A lot has been made, in the last decade or so, of things that the Boy Scouts don't believe - associations that they choose not to make. In fact, it is my belief that far too much has been made of this. If the Boy Scouts were producing young men who were biased on the basis of condition, color or creed, it would be fair to criticize then for the associations that they choose not to make. The fact of the matter is that they do not. Although tolerance is not mentioned in the scout oath, law, motto, slogan or code, it must be being taught somewhere, because scouts, as a rule, are a tolerant bunch. That being the case, would be better served by focusing on the values that the scouts do teach, rather than emphasizing things that they do not.

I'm Taking My Ball...

What ever happened to being a good loser? Time after time in this election cycle, instead of losing graciously, giving a concession speech, and supporting the victor, the losing candidate has acted like a jilted lover that says, "If I can't have them, no one can."

First there was Charlie Crist. As far as Crist was concerned, the Florida Senate seat was already his. There may not have been a Kennedy seat in Massachusetts, but there was certainly a Crist seat in Florida. As is often the case in life, though, things didn't go according to plan. Along came young, handsome, charismatic, Marco Rubio, who defeated Crist handily in the Republican primary. A real man, at this point, would have shaken hands and wished his opponent luck in the general election. Not Charlie Crist, though. He went home and started doing math. Would it be possible, he wondered, to run as an Independent and pull enough votes to still win? In the end, he decided that he could, and, regardless of the fact that he had been a life-long Republican, what he really was for was himself, and he launched a campaign as an Independent.

Then there it the unusual case of Tom Tancredo. The former congressman from Colorado had not even run for Governor. He just decided that the two top Republican candidates for the post just weren't up to his standards. So, what does Tancredo do? Why the noble thing, of course. He threatened them. If the winner of the Republican primary didn't immediately withdraw from the race, leaving the door open for another, more suitable, Tancredo approved candidate to run, he would run against them as the candidate of the Constitution party. Well, true to his word, when the victor in the Republican primary didn't withdraw, Tancredo announced his candidacy, and with that, the life-long Republican nearly assured that a Democrat would reside in Colorado's governor's mansion for the next for years.

In the first few days after her loss in the Republican primary, it appeared that Lisa Murkowski was going to do the right thing, and concede gracefully. To her credit, she did at least concede, instead of demanding recount after recount, or worse, bringing the election to the courts and challenging the validity of votes. But instead of throwing heer support behind Joe Miller,she has kept her options open, and is considering mounting a write-in campaign. This is REALLY a case of thinking that a Senate seat has a family moniker attached to it. This seat was once held by Murkowski's father. She first obtained it, or should I say inherited it, when her father was elected governor, and appointed her to fill out the remainder of his term. She haas since been reelected, but I guess this just shows how difficult it is to give up one's inheritance.

I suppose, however, that I am being at least somewhat hypocritical, though, because this phenomenon is not restricted to Republicans. In 2006, primary voters, angered at his strong support of the Iraq war, defeated Joseph Lieberman in the Democratic primary. Lieberman proceeded to mount a successful campaign as an Independent in the general election. I, at the time, was thrilled by this. Maybe it is because I have always liked Lieberman, maybe it was because he was sticking it to the extreme elements of his party. Whatever the reason, or rationalization, I myself have not been completely consistent on this issue, and honesty requires that this be noted.

Deem and Redeem

When the health care bill was finally passed, it was done using a technique called deem and pass. This is because, with the election of Scott Brown, Harry Reid lost his filibuster proof majority in the Senate. The House could not amend the bill, or it would be filibustered by the Senate. The only way to get the bill to President Obama's desk was to pass the Senate version of the bill, which the House was loathe to do. To avoid an embarrassing vote, the House decided to"deem" that the Senate bill had passed, rather than actually passing it.

This has caused me to wonder: If the Republicans do win control of the House in November, would it be possible for them to nullify this vote by "deeming" that the Senate bill had NOT passed. This probably won't happen, not is it likely to be tried, but it would seem to a layman such as me that something that has merely been deemed to have passed should not have the same force of law as it would if an actual vote had taken place.