by Mark Silva
President Barack Obama, touting health-care reforms which he maintains will make it easier and more affordable for small businesses to provide health care for employees, pitches it as part of an overall admninistrative strategy plan to spur small business.
Republican critics say his plans will choke small businesses with taxes.
"This country was built by dreamers,'' Obama says in his weekly radio and Internet address today. "They're the workers who took a chance on their desire to be their own boss.
"The part-time inventors who became the fulltime entrepreneurs. The men and women who have helped build the American middle class, keeping alive that most American of ideals - that all things are possible for all people, and we're limited only by the size of our dreams and our willingness to work for them,'' the president says. "We need to do everything we can to ensure that they can keep taking those risks, acting on those dreams, and building the enterprises that fuel our economy and make us who we are.
Sen. Mike Johanns of Nebraska delivers the Republican response today, with a warning that Americans will face higher taxes with a plan being negotiated behind closed doors..
"True health-care reform should reduce what you're paying and make it easier'' to obtain care, Johanns says. "That should be a no-brainer.''
Instead, he says, "your premiums will go up... You'll be forced to buy health insurance the government mandates. And if you refuse, you'll be hit with a fee.''
At a time of near-10 percent unemployment, he says, "many families are working hard to put food on the tables.... '' Yet a costly bill is being negotiiated "behind closed doors'' that will drive costs up for everyone. "It is shameful,'' he says, with "a select few'' negotiating a bill that wlll drive costs higher. "Hundreds of pages filled with backroom deals.... are not the answer.''
See the president's address above, the senator's response below, and the text of both addresses below the fold, here in the Swamp:
THIS IS THE TEXT OF THE PRESIDENT'S ADDRESS:
All across America, even today, on a Saturday, millions of Americans are hard at work. They're running the mom and pop stores and neighborhood restaurants we know and love. They're building tiny startups with big ideas that could revolutionize an industry, maybe even transform our economy. They are the more than half of all Americans who work at a small business, or own a small business. And they embody the spirit of possibility, the relentless work ethic, and the hope for something better that is at the heart of the American Dream.
They also represent a segment of our economy that has been hard hit by this recession. Over the past couple of years, small businesses have lost hundreds of thousands of jobs. Many have struggled to get the loans they need to finance their inventories and make payroll. Many entrepreneurs can't get financing to start a small business in the first place. And many more are discouraged from even trying because of the crushing costs of health care - costs that have forced too many small businesses to cut benefits, shed jobs, or shut their doors for good.
Small businesses have always been the engine of our economy - creating 65 percent of all new jobs over the past decade and a half - and they must be at the forefront of our recovery. That's why the Recovery Act was designed to help small businesses expand and create jobs. It's provided $5 billion worth of tax relief, as well as temporarily reducing or eliminating fees on SBA loans and guaranteeing some of these loans up to 90 percent, which has supported nearly $13 billion in new lending to more than 33,000 businesses.
In addition, our health reform plan will allow small businesses to buy insurance for their employees through an insurance exchange, which may offer better coverage at lower costs - and we'll provide tax credits for those that choose to do so.
And this past week, I called on Congress to increase the maximum size of various SBA loans, so that more small business owners can set up shop and grow their operations. I also announced that we'll be taking additional steps through our Financial Stability plan to make more credit available to the small local and community banks that so many small businesses depend on - the banks who know their borrowers, who gave them their first loan and watched them grow.
The goal here is to get credit where it's needed most - to businesses that support families, sustain communities, and create the jobs that power our economy. That's why we enacted the Financial Stability Plan in the first place, back when many of our largest banks were on the verge of collapse; our credit markets were frozen; and it was nearly impossible for ordinary people to get loans to buy a car or home or pay for college. The idea was to jumpstart lending and keep our economy from spiraling into a depression. Fortunately, it worked. Thanks to the American taxpayers, we've now achieved the stability we need to get our economy moving forward again.
But while credit may be more available for large businesses, too many small business owners are still struggling to get the credit they need. These are the very taxpayers who stood by America's banks in a crisis - and now it's time for our banks to stand by creditworthy small businesses, and make the loans they need to open their doors, grow their operations, and create new jobs. It's time for those banks to fulfill their responsibility to help ensure a wider recovery, a more secure system, and more broadly shared prosperity. And we're going to take every appropriate step to encourage them to meet those responsibilities. Because if it's one thing we've learned, it's that here in America, we rise and fall together. Our economy as a whole can't move ahead if small businesses and the middle class continue to fall behind.
This country was built by dreamers. They're the workers who took a chance on their desire to be their own boss. The part-time inventors who became the fulltime entrepreneurs. The men and women who have helped build the American middle class, keeping alive that most American of ideals - that all things are possible for all people, and we're limited only by the size of our dreams and our willingness to work for them. We need to do everything we can to ensure that they can keep taking those risks, acting on those dreams, and building the enterprises that fuel our economy and make us who we are.
Thanks.
THIS IS THE TEXT OF THE REPUBLICAN RESPONSE:
Hi, I'm Senator Mike Johanns of Nebraska.
"My Republican colleagues and I have a simple test for reforming health care: Will this legislation improve your life?
"Here's what I mean: Americans face rising health care costs, and it's increasingly difficult to get access to health care. True health care reform should decrease what you're paying, and make it easier for you to receive care. That should be a no-brainer.
"Yet current proposals in Congress don't accomplish this goal, and could even have the opposite effect, negatively impacting each and every one of us.
"To the working mother with a disabled child who uses a Flexible Spending Account and those pre-tax dollars for treatment, medicine, and therapy for your child: this plan will end these accounts as we know them today, and result in increased out of pocket costs.
"To the factory worker, who has forgone pay raises for the promise of better insurance benefits for you and your family: your health insurance will be taxed and your premiums will go up.
"To the recent college graduate burdened with student loans: you'll be forced to buy health insurance the government mandates, and if you refuse, you'll be hit with a penalty.
"To our seniors, who wish to receive care in the comfort of their homes: funding for hospice care and home health care services would be cut.
"My state, Nebraska, stands to lose $126 million for home health services, and many of the 38 Nebraska hospices would be in danger of literally shutting their doors. Nearly $500 billion will be cut from Medicare nationwide.
"The bottom line is this: we're nearing 10 percent unemployment. We have a record budget deficit, and many families are working hard just to put food on the table and to pay the bills. Yet, there's no doubt about it: these proposals will negatively impact pocketbooks and paychecks across America.
"President Obama has promised open deliberations in front of C-SPAN cameras for all Americans to learn how reform will impact them. However, a 1,500 page bill, full of carve-outs and backroom deals, is currently being brokered behind closed doors.
"We're about to significantly alter one-sixth of our economy--now is not the time to shut Americans out.
"Reports of this deal-making are shameful. Why do Michigan, Rhode Island, Oregon and Nevada get special deals on Medicaid costs? Why do New Yorkers with Cadillac plans get a pass on paying the tax? It is shameful.
"So now, as a select few deliberate over legislation that will mean higher premiums across the board; higher taxes for hard-working families; and cuts to Medicare for senior citizens; I ask: will this improve your life?
"Republicans are in favor of lowering costs, reforming insurance so Americans can get care when they need it, and providing assistance for those who can't afford insurance.
"See, we stand ready with ideas to tackle those challenges. But hundreds of pages filled with backroom deals, higher insurance premiums, higher taxes, and cuts to Medicare are not the answer.
"I am Senator Mike Johanns of Nebraska. Thank you for your time."
Comments
As we all know, Obama's so-called "stimulus" has WORSENED the economy, and cost jobs. Just like so many of us predicted.
And now he's promising more of the same.
Posted by: This message NOT approved by the White House | October 24, 2009 10:34 AM
Here's more news for the White-House-approved press to hide:
Obama's own administration states that Health care costs will RISE under the House version of ObamaCare:
"Richard Foster, Chief Actuary for the Department of Health and Human Services’ Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, released this week to several Congressional offices a financial analysis of HR 3200, the House version of ObamaCare. He reached some inconvenient conclusions for President Obama and Congressional Leadership:
-“Total national health expenditures under this bill would increase by an estimated 2.7 percent in 2019…”
-“The additional demand for health services could be difficult to meet initially with existing health provider resources and could lead to price increases, cost-shifting, and/or changes in providers’ willingness to treat patients with low-reimbursement health coverage.”
-More than half of the expansion in coverage (18 million out of 34 million) would be from increased Medicaid coverage.
-12 million people would lose employer-sponsored coverage.
-The productivity adjustments to Medicare are “unrealistic” and providers “might end their participation” because the cuts would make serving Medicare beneficiaries unprofitable.
-Medicare Advantage enrollment would decrease by 64 percent (from a projected level of 13.2 million to 4.7 million under the proposal)."
from Capitol Confidential
Posted by: This message NOT approved by the White House | October 24, 2009 10:58 AM
Chairman Mao Obama just doesn't get it! The ObamaCare health requirements will place such an enormous additional burden on small business employers that from a lenders perspective, will push them into a high risk lending category -- much like the high-risk mortgage industry. Small business, presently employing the vast majority of Americans, will be forced to reduce their workforce (million more unemployed) with some of them disappearing altogether. Bankers won't be suckered in to this kind of financial suicide to be sure!!!
Posted by: Shamus | October 24, 2009 11:06 AM
It looks like obama's pledge to have an open administration was one big fat lie.
1,500 page bills dumped on congress at 3am with only 6 hours to read before a vote.
Open deliberations infront of C-SPAN....Lie!
Lie after lie after lie, but the American people are waking up to his scam and it's showing in the polls with the community organizer-in-chief falling into the 40% approval rating.
obama has sunk faster in the polls than any other elected president with a majority of the vote and that's his only accomplishment after 10 months dithering in office.
Paulo
Posted by: Paulo | October 24, 2009 11:06 AM
Posted by: This message NOT approved by the White House | October 24, 2009 10:34 AM
You need to turn off Rush and Beck!! The economy is gaining thanks to the stimulus. Housing starts are up. Other leading indicators, including the Dow and NASDAQ have been making gains, credit is beginning to flow again. As for unemployment, that is the last thing to come back. Look at history.
The recession of the late 70's? Unemployment continued to rise for the first 2 1/2 years of Reagan's administration. Topping out at just over 10%, like this current one most likely will. Bet you wouldn't dare blame him for that. The recession of the late 80's? Unemloyment rose for most of Clinton's first year.
I know republicans can't stand facts, but geeez...
One thing the country needs during a recession is PATIENCE. But with our internet, twitter, blogging (I have to have it NOW) attitudes, that particular "virtue" is a thing of the past.
You republicans know you're quaking in your boots, so you need the scare tactics and do everything you can to undermine the success of the current adminstration. Did you know Clinton's approval rating dropped all the way to 37% in June of his first year? Largely because of the unemployment numbers. Conservative critics were writing him off as a one-termer who was too young and inexperienced. Sound familiar? I can't wait for history to repeat itself, as the economy grows, and Obama's re-elction landslide in 2012.
Posted by: Davey S | October 24, 2009 3:12 PM
Posted by: Davey S | October 24, 2009 3:12 PM
Yo Davey S. You didn't address a single point in your reply. Read message's post and try again . . .
Posted by: Bobbie Mobbie | October 24, 2009 5:16 PM
I'm sorry.
What is the definition of "small business"?
Posted by: ornery | October 24, 2009 6:24 PM
Yes I did. I was responding to the first post. That the economy has WORSENED. Which is completely incorrect. Is anything I said about historical data regarding unemployment as a lagging indicator not true? I defy you to prove it otherwise.
As for his second post. Check this from the website of US Health and Human Services.
"U.S. health care spending growth decelerated in 2007, increasing 6.1 percent compared to 6.7 percent in 2006. Total health expenditures reached $2.2 trillion, which translates to $7,421 per person or 16.2 percent of the nation's Gross Domestic Product. The health spending share of GDP reached 16.2 percent, up from 16.0 percent in 2006."
Hmm...decelerated to 6.1%, while income only grew at about 2 - 3 %.
Why do you guys just throw out statistics without analyzing them. Prices of things go up. That just happens to be true. But under Obama's plan, income would actually outpace the inflation of health care. It has been the fact that insurance has outpcaed income nearly 4 to 1 over the last 20 + years that has caused the problem.
Think about it!! If health coverage only increased at 2-3% right along with income, there wouldn't be such a crisis now.
Posted by: Davey S | October 24, 2009 6:37 PM
OK, GOZ(ombie)P, Cons in general and Sen. Johanns;
I admit health care premiums for small businesses are going up an average of 15% next year, twice the rate as last year.
You got us.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/25/business/smallbusiness/25health.html?hp
Ooooops!! That's under the current system, fools!
Now whose plan is bad for small business??
Posted by: C.Morris | October 24, 2009 8:21 PM
"dithering in office."
Paulo
Gee, Paulo learned a new word! I wonder from whom?
Posted by: C.Morris | October 24, 2009 9:24 PM
Medicare | Medicare Chief Actuary Foster Says He Informed White House Officials in June That Medicare Legislation Would Cost More Than Lawmakers Expected
[Mar 25, 2004]
During House Ways and Means Committee hearing Wednesday, CMS chief actuary Richard Foster said that as early as June, he shared with Doug Badger, President Bush's health policy adviser, and James Capretta, associate director of the Office of Management and Budget, his analysis that the Medicare legislation would exceed its target spending goal, the New York Times reports. According to the New York Times, Foster's analysis showed that the legislation "would cost 25% to 50% more than the Bush administration's public estimates" (Pear, New York Times, 3/25). According to OMB estimates released after Congress passed the legislation, the Medicare law will cost $534 billion over the next 10 years, $134 billion more than estimated by the Congressional Budget Office. Foster has said that the higher cost projection was known before the final House and Senate votes on the legislation in November but that former CMS Administrator Tom Scully told him, "We can't let that get out" (Kaiser Daily Health Policy Report, 3/23). He said that his office's official estimate for the enacted legislation was not complete until Dec. 23, but that "top administration officials had known for several months of his higher cost estimates," the Los Angeles Times reports (Kemper, Los Angeles Times, 3/25). Foster said, "The range of our estimates was $500 billion to $600 billion all the way through the process" (New York Times, 3/25). In an e-mail to colleagues at CMS, Foster indicated he believed he might lose his job if he revealed his cost estimates for the Medicare legislation. Scully has said that he did not threaten to fire Foster if the higher estimates were released. Scully also said that he "curbed Foster on only one specific request" made by Democrats at the time of the first House vote on the Medicare bill. Scully said, "[Democrats] were trying to be politically cute" and get Foster to give an estimate on the bill "and put something out publicly so they [could] walk out on the House floor and cause a political crisis, which is bogus." Last week, HHS Secretary Tommy Thompson and 18 Senate Democrats requested that the department's Office of Inspector General and the General Accounting Office look into the issue (Kaiser Daily Health Policy Report, 3/23).
Posted by: bill r. | October 24, 2009 9:32 PM
The economy is gaining thanks to the stimulus. Housing starts are up.
Posted by: Davey S | October 24, 2009 3:12 PM
Housing starts are up because the WH is handing check for 8K. Where is it all coming from? And once the checks stop do you really think they will keep selling.
Other leading indicators, including the Dow and NASDAQ have been making gains
Posted by: Davey S
And the dollar is in free fall plus oil is on its way back up. How long before this start to bring down the Dow and NASDAQ?
It would seem you're getting the numbers from MSNBC between 5pm and 9. Go and read the real money news. The U.S. can not keep up this level of spending and think we are not going to pay big time.
As far as unemployment the way the WH is going we will soon have the levels they have now in the EU. And in the EU 10% is the nor, do you really want that?
Posted by: Crooks_In_DC | October 25, 2009 1:15 AM
Davey,
If it has been any program that has brought economic growth (I should say less economic decline), it has been TARP, not the spendulus. TARP has loosened the credit markets, not the spendulus bill. As for the stock markets - that was an over-reaction that dropped the market under 7000 in the first place. Also, it has been financial stocks that have led the recovery.
As BO's economic advisor Christina Romer said thios past week "the government's economic stimulus spending has already had its biggest impact, and will likely be contributing little to further growth by the middle of next year."
I hoiped you like the results of the $800 billion spendulus bill.
Posted by: Terry | October 25, 2009 8:21 AM
Typical Republican-Libertarian nonsense, scare the voters !! Can't they just come forward with their real plans for healthcare reform, instead of peddling more distortions, more misinformation, more smoke-and-mirrors. On top of that, their new found religion, concerning transparency and fiscal reponsibility is laughable, if not downright hypocritical. Where was their concerns during the Bush&Cheney run up to Bush's Blunder in Baghdad. They were like the lemmings, they continue to be, in lock-step with their draft-dodging leaders, Bush&Cheney. They were throwing money around like drunken Wall Streeters !!
Quit all the bushing, get behind President Obama's plan to repair our dysfunctional healthcare system. Either the Republican-Libertarions are the problem or the solution and so far, they have proved themselves to be the latter. Come on, boys and girls, we are all Americans, so let us support our President, in his efforts to make America, a little fairer, a little more compassionate !! It's either that or get out the life boats, Good Ship America is going down !!
SUPPORT OUR TROOPS, BRING THEM HOME, ALIVE AND WHOLE. NOW.
Posted by: Don Fitzgerald, IL | October 25, 2009 8:53 AM
Why doesn't the President just ask the US Chamber of Commerce? Oh, he did? They say it will hurt business? You mean to say businesses are saying that this will hurt business? Well that's no good, we just need to keep asking people until we find someone that will agree with the President.
Posted by: Greg | October 25, 2009 9:44 AM
Dear Swamp: Please hide this latest poll from Rasmussen:
"For the first time in recent years, voters trust Republicans more than Democrats on all 10 key electoral issues regularly tracked by Rasmussen Reports. The GOP holds double-digit advantages on five of them.
Republicans have nearly doubled their lead over Democrats on economic issues to 49% to 35%, after leading by eight points in September.
The GOP also holds a 54% to 31% advantage on national security issues and a 50% to 31% lead on the handling of the war in Iraq."
Thanks, David Axelrod
Posted by: This message NOT approved by the White House | October 25, 2009 12:13 PM
Greg,
'Business' always says everything is bad for 'business'. Clean air, economical cars, healthcare for more people, National Parks (until they are there), clean water, protecting forests, managing the public lands. Everything is bad for business, until it gets done.
Crooks;
The $ is not in free fall anymore. And a lower $ is good for exports and US jobs, and the economy went into recovery in the 3rd quarter.
Jobless? Yes, so far, like every recession since the Reagan Admin.
It's going to take a while to fix the GWB legacy.
Posted by: C.Morris | October 25, 2009 2:17 PM
CM,
Name the law or regulation of GWB that put the economy into a recession
Posted by: Terry | October 25, 2009 7:30 PM
T,
It wasn't a particular law. It was denial that there was a problem. Both GWB and McCain thought the 'fundamentals were sound' just before the bus hit the canyon floor. Remember the meltdown of the financial markets last fall?
BTW, Marketwatch has called the recession over in the third quarter.
Posted by: C.Morris | October 25, 2009 9:16 PM
CM,
If Marketwatch is right, glad the recession is over.
Denial of a problem? This recession was caused by the housing crisis. Preseident Bush was trying to increase the regulation on Fannie and Freddie as far back as 2003.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/11/business/new-agency-proposed-to-oversee-freddie-mac-and-fannie-mae.html
The root cause of thsi problem may have been solved years before it struck, but one political party wanted to roll the dice on Fannie and Freddie.
I do remember the meltdown last. It has been the funding of TARP (not that I was in favor of it) that has pulled the economy back up.
Posted by: Terry | October 26, 2009 8:12 AM
Crooks;
The $ is not in free fall anymore. And a lower $ is good for exports and US jobs, and the economy went into recovery in the 3rd quarter.
Jobless? Yes, so far, like every recession since the Reagan Admin.
It's going to take a while to fix the GWB legacy.
Posted by: C.Morris | October 25, 2009 2:17 PM
WOW REALLY is that why the dollar fell to a new low on Oct 23th.
And on the jobless bit. I fear we will become like the EU, were unemployment in the low teens is the nor. And team Obama with its cap and trade, Obamacare, and stealth taxes, I fear will start us down that road.
Posted by: Crooks_In_DC | October 26, 2009 10:31 AM
Why do REPUBLICANS criticize Obama for being unqualified to be President because he's never sold a hot dog from a hot dog stand? It's quite apparent that Republicans themselves, have never run a business or are repeating lies so their ignorant base can repeat them. You are an IDIOT if you think companies decide one day they are going to cut jobs and then the next day those positions are going to be eliminated.
The FACTS are that companies put their heads together on the best way to be profitable. They come up w/ plans and decide on the best strategy. They decide which departments to cut and which can survive while at the same time allowing the company to continue to run efficiently and bring in revenue to satisfy hungry investors. The layoffs that have occurred were discussed and talked about long before President Obama took the oath. It's too bad there are so many IGNORANT and STUPID rubes who think companies are cutting jobs because of who took the oat on January 20th.
Posted by: common cents | October 26, 2009 12:28 PM
If it has been any program that has brought economic growth (I should say less economic decline), it has been TARP, not the spendulus. .
Posted by: Terry | October 25, 2009 8:21 AM
;
So you don't think families who lost their jobs were helped by the Democratic provision in the "spendulus" bill that offered a 65% subsidy for COBRA premiums. I'd say getting a discount of 65% on healthcare premiums freed up spending money that would not have been there had the Republicans had their way.
PS The Republicans had the House, the Senate and the White House and they couldn't get government control of, wait is that an approved talking point, I thought you clowns were anti-Government meddling in the markets, Fanny and Freddy?
Posted by: sensible | October 26, 2009 12:53 PM
One part of the proposed health care program is not getting much attention. During the Clinton attempt at government health care, the CBO released a document stating that a "mandate" was most likely unconstitutional. So, for the sake of argument, what happens if the mandate fails the constitutional test? Assume the provision the health care insurers cannot discriminate based on pre existing condition remains. Then, we should all drop our health insurance and only contract for it while we are sick.
Rick
Posted by: Rick Caird | October 26, 2009 1:07 PM
Sensible,
Never said that families weren't helped by these programs. I am saying the gov't program that has helped with economic growth is TARP and not the Spendulus bill.
As far as Fannie and Freddie - they shouldn't exists. But if there is an organization that needs more regulation, it is one that is gov't run or psuedo-gov't run.
Posted by: Terry | October 26, 2009 1:31 PM
See what Terry is claiming?
TARP = Bush socialism
Stimulus = BHO socialism
But, Paulson's terrible decision to let Leahman Bros. die is what froze up the credit market. It's still haunting us.
Posted by: C.Morris | October 26, 2009 9:20 PM
I agree with Terry's point of view. What these all bills for actually? i mean when they don't get the constitutional mandate. We should in this case leave all our health insurance policies. And go for the contracts. What else!
Posted by: Insurance Reviews | October 27, 2009 7:42 AM
CM,
As I have stated before, I was not a fan of TARP, not because I didn't think it would work, but the message it sends - that if you are deemed too important to the US economy, the gov't will prop you up. Therefore, if you know there is no downside, you will continue to take higher risks than you should. You are correct, this was Bush socilaism.
Posted by: Terry | October 27, 2009 10:36 PM
Health insurers are in the business of collecting premiums not paying claims.
Posted by: Sticker Printing | December 3, 2009 2:02 PM
In my point of view for a big and good business is not need to money.Its need to a good idea.i really like your topic.Thanks for sharing this.Keep it up.
Posted by: Friendship poems | May 21, 2010 2:32 AM
yeah you said right here. we need strong planning and strong ideas for good business. but i think that we also need money for business to invest in..
Posted by: 70-528 | June 2, 2010 5:25 AM