Mountain Views News          Saturday, July 14, 2012

16

LEFT TURN/RIGHT TURN

 Mountain Views News Saturday July 14, 2012 

HOWARD Hays As I See It

LIBERAL OUTRAGE NEEDED:

Put Up Or ........

 
“ . . . it’s totally unsuitable to be saddled by this unconstitutional takings of 
American liberty.”

- Rep. Steve King (R-IA)

 

 The Affordable Care Act is “a violation of our constitutional liberties.”

- Rep. Bill Flores (R-TX)

 I’m glued to the newswires awaiting announcement of the momentous 
decision to be handed down from our nation’s capital this afternoon – as 
the U.S. House of Representatives votes on whether to repeal the Affordable 
Care Act. Can’t wait to learn how that’s going to come out. Legislation on jobs programs 
and economic recovery can wait.

 The above two quotes are from the floor debate. Okay, we know the conservative-dominated 
U.S. Supreme Court ruled the Act to be constitutional just a week ago, but perhaps those 
lines the congressmen used were authored before then – and were just too good not to be 
used again. And, as I quoted Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) last week, “Just because a couple people 
on the Supreme Court declare something to be ‘constitutional’ does not make it so.”

 In Texas, Gov. Rick Perry (R) took the bold stand of refusing federal aid under the ACA to 
expand his state’s Medicaid program. That was pretty gutsy, considering the Gallup poll last 
March showing his state topping the list of percentages of uninsured residents, with 27.6% 
of Texans lacking coverage – four points ahead of second-place Mississippi, which came in 
at 23.5%. At the other end of the spectrum, Massachusetts did best at 4.9% uninsured – 
enjoying the benefits of the plan upon which the ACA was based, enacted under Gov. Mitt 
Romney.

 Just last week, the Houston Chronicle reported that “Texas ranked dead last in the federal 
government’s latest report card on the delivery of health services, falling short in areas 
ranging from acute hospital care to home treatment of the chronically ill.” When questioned 
about the report on Fox News, Gov. Perry responded, “The real issue here is about freedom.”

 A report by the Kaiser Commission prepared after the ACA’s passage indicates that Gov. 
Perry’s bold stroke for freedom means 1.8 million Texans will go without coverage they 
otherwise would have had under the Medicaid expansion.

 Gov. Perry isn’t alone. The Kaiser report shows that 9.2 million Americans nation-wide 
will go without coverage because their Republican governors, who tend to lead those states 
showing the largest percentages of uninsured, will turn down federal funds under the ACA 
in the name of “freedom”.

 Republicans speak of “repeal and replace”, but haven’t explained what the “replace” would 
look like. For clues, we can look to Florida, whose governor, Rick Scott (R), made his fortune 
as head of a hospital chain socked with the biggest fine for Medicare fraud in the nation’s 
history. Here’s where they protect the “freedom” to treat healthcare solely as a means of 
extracting profit.

 Early in his administration, Gov. Scott cut $562 million from health services mainly 
benefiting children, the disabled and the elderly. This wasn’t to close any deficit, but to cover 
the cost of corporate tax cuts. (When Gov. Scott argued it was for job creation, Democratic 
legislators pointed out that despite similar cuts under previous Republican governors, 
Florida still had one of the highest unemployment rates in the nation.)

 The Florida Independent last year reported $55.6 million cut from the state’s Department of 
Health and the loss of 229 full-time positions, with 172 cut from county health departments 
focusing on programs such as children’s health, breast and cervical cancer screenings, HIV/
AIDS prevention, etc.

 Also among the cuts was $4 million from the state’s infectious disease control program, 
and the closure of AG Holley State Hospital, the one hospital dedicated to the treatment of 
tuberculosis, a disease where the lungs disintegrate as the patient slowly dies.

 According to the Palm Beach Post, while this was going on, alarms were raised by the 
Atlanta-based Center for Disease Control. A report had been prepared last April on what 
was described as the country’s worst outbreak of tuberculosis in twenty years “in terms of 
its size and rapid growth.” It started among the homeless population in Jacksonville, but, as 
facilities closed down amid budget cuts to local programs, it has since spread to the general 
population with evidence of infection now found in Miami.

 There have been specific links to 13 deaths and 99 illnesses, including six children. 3,000 
people were estimated to have come in contact with infected individuals at Jacksonville 
homeless shelters, but so far only 253 have been tracked down and evaluated.

 Meanwhile, Gov. Rick Scott’s health department was pushing for the closure of AG Holley 
six months ahead of schedule. The problem was, as Florida’s legislature was slashing public 
health programs, nobody had seen the CDC’s report – including the Republican leaders who 
led the charge for closing the hospital. Even now, three months after the report’s release, the 
Post says it’s still being kept under wraps.

 “It is outrageous that they would hide that information or not give that information to us 
before we voted”, says state Rep. Mark Bernard (D). State Sen. Maria Sachs (D) expressed 
her concern over patients released upon closure of the hospital; “It’s scary. All they have to 
do is go on a city bus and you’re impacting the citizens of Duval County. Or they get on a 
train. Or they eat at a restaurant. These people need help.”

 A second Palm Beach County elementary school is being investigated for signs of TB 
infection – of a particularly worrisome drug-resistant strain. Infection with such a strain 
can require $250,000 of treatment over two years. 

 In the meantime, 138 hospital workers from AG Holley are getting their layoff notices. 
And Governor Rick Scott is boldly rejecting federal aid to expand his state’s Medicaid 
program – in the name of “freedom”.

 Liberals constantly claim that they are the party of civil rights, that 
they are the protectors of the little guy, but in California, which is 
overwhelmingly controlled politically by Liberals, we’re not hearing 
a peep from them against the most recent usurpation of individual 
rights. Maybe I’ve just had a bad day, but I think it’s time for them 
to either put-up or shut-up.

 Angry words, perhaps, yet justified by the recent proposal out of 
the Sacramento fever swamp. Phil Angelides, a blue-blood’s blue-
blood Liberal, headed up an organization named the Mortgage Resolution Partnership 
(MRP) which has teamed up with several local governments to propose using eminent 
domain to seize mortgages from private investors. It’s important to recognize that MRP 
is a private venture capital firm that wants to use the government’s power to seize these 
mortgages, repackage them and sell them at a profit to “better-suited” owners than the 
current owners. Whatever the excuse, the use of government power by one private party 
to seize another private party’s property or assets should be met with howls of outrage by 
those who profess to stand for the rule of law and the rights of the little guy.

 Here’s the deal. MRP has convinced the County of San Bernardino to identify specific 
mortgages on specific properties which they believe should be reduced in order to 
encourage the property owner to improve the property – presumably by painting, planting 
nicer shrubs, or what have you. Supposedly, if property owners had lower mortgages 
they would take better care of their properties and thus would contribute more to the 
community. Unfortunately, that means the mortgage owner (the lender) has to be forced 
to take a haircut on the amount owed to him. In the process of trying to make communities 
prettier, MRP would take down some nice fees and reward its shareholders with outsized 
profits. Which political party is it again that believes in crony capitalism?

 Most lenders wouldn’t go for this deal, so the only way to make it work is to use 
the concept of “eminent domain” to take the mortgage away from the lender, refinance 
the mortgage with some government loan guarantees thrown in, and then resell this new 
smaller mortgage –presumably a safer mortgage because of the government guarantees – 
to a new group of borrowers. MRP, which would do the packaging of these deals would 
make a small fortune on the transactions. In soliciting investors for this new venture 
capital project, MRP’s literature and website made reference to its connections in California 
politics. Without the aid of government, this private venture wouldn’t be worth the paper 
on which the proposal was written.

 Now in fairness, the government does have a recognized right to take private property 
under the Fifth Amendment so long as it fits a public purpose and it fairly compensates 
the owner of the property. MRP and its Liberal allies in Sacramento and San Bernardino 
want to take private property for the benefit of another private party (one well connected 
politically) and to pay less than fair market values for the property. The “property” in 
question is the mortgage.

 This may seem a little complicated, but bear with me a moment. When you loan money 
to someone, you become the owner of a note. You are due money contractually at a stated 
interest rate. This note is your property, just as much as a piece of real estate or savings 
account is your property. You own it; you’ve paid a certain price to obtain it; and you’re 
counting on earning an appropriate return on your investment or you wouldn’t have made 
the loan in the first place. The loan you own would have a value, just like a piece of real 
estate would have a value. Under normal interpretations of the law, if the government 
wants to buy the loan you own, it needs to make an offer which motivates you to sell it. No 
problem with that.

 To make this new fangled community revitalization program work, however, the 
government has to find some way to buy this mortgage note from you at less than fair 
value. That’s the only way to create enough “savings” which can be passed along to the 
home owner as an encouragement to invest more in the home. Let’s say you own a house 
and owe $100,000 on your mortgage. You’re tapped and can’t afford to paint or plant more 
grass. MRP proposes that the government come along, take the mortgage from the lender, 
reduce your loan by $20,000 and then hope that you will feel freer to spend more money 
on the house. 

 This sounds great if you’re the owner of the house; you get a $20,000 reduction in 
your mortgage. But it’s a lousy idea for the owner of the mortgage. He just lost $20,000. 
Forgetting the immorality of this for a moment, it amazes me that Liberals believe giving 
$20,000 to person (A) will stimulate spending, but the taking of $20,000 from person (B) 
won’t decrease spending. The truth is there’s no way this will benefit the economy. One 
person’s gain is offset by another person’s loss. More significantly, this would send a strong 
message to all lenders that they have to increase their rates for new mortgages in order to 
compensate for the increased risk that they might lose money on their new loans at the 
hands of the government.

 The point of this article, however, is not the economics of this cockeyed plan. Liberals 
rarely get the economics right. The point of the article is to shame those who believe in 
civil rights and fair play into standing up against this arbitrary act of government tyranny. 
It is time for Liberals to put-up or shut-up on the issue of individual rights.

About the author: Gregory J. Welborn is a freelance writer and has spoken to several 
civic and religious organizations on cultural and moral issues. He lives in the Los Angeles 
area with his wife and 3 children and is active in the community. He can be reached at 
gregwelborn@earthlink.net.