As American businesses are finding out, life under a Democrat-controlled Congress and presidency consists of a never-ending struggle for your economic survival.
Today's case in point: Caterpillar says the health care bill Congress is attemting to ram throughwould increase the company's health-care costs by more than $100 million in the first year alone.
In a letter Thursday to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and House Republican Leader John Boehner of Ohio, Caterpillar urged lawmakers to vote against the plan "because of the substantial cost burdens it would place on our shareholders, employees and retirees."
Caterpillar, the world's largest construction machinery manufacturer by sales, said it's particularly opposed to provisions in the bill that would expand Medicare taxes and mandate insurance coverage. The legislation would require nearly all companies to provide health insurance for their employees or face large fines.
The Peoria-based company said these provisions would increase its insurance costs by at least 20 percent, or more than $100 million, just in the first year of the health-care overhaul program.
"We can ill-afford cost increases that place us at a disadvantage versus our global competitors, said the letter signed by Gregory Folley, vice president and chief human resources officer of Caterpillar.
Also:
A letter Thursday to President Barack Obama and members of Congress signed by more than 130 economists predicted the legislation would discourage companies from hiring more workers and would cause reduced hours and wages for those already employed.
The struggle to survive under Democrat-controlled goverments is inherent in their political philosophy, which involves taking from some to redistribute to others. That means that any business that begins to succeed becomes a target and a new "source" of funds to redistribute or new programs to impose for purposes of social engineering. This, in turn, places a new drag on the business and undermines its profitability, or kills it altogether.
Of course, states will suffer too under Obamacare, as Tennessee's governor makes clear in a plea that will fall on deaf ears in Washington:
[T]he problem we are facing is simple: by 2013,we expect to have returned to our 2008 levels of revenue and will have already cut our programs dramatically – over a billion dollars. At that point, we have to start digging out — we will have not given raises to state employees or teachers for five years, our pension fund will need shoring up, our cash reserves (“rainy day fund”) will have been considerably depleted and in need of restoration, and we will have not made any substantial new investments for years. There will have been major cuts to areas such as Childrens Services that we really need to restore. On top of these, there are all the usual obligations to be met — Medicaid, for example, will continue to grow in excess of the economy and our tax revenues. It’s going to take at least a full decade to dig our way out and back to where we were prior to this recession.
In this environment, for Congress to also send along a mandatory bill for three-quarters of a billion dollars for the health reform they’ve designed is very difficult. These are hard dollars – we can’t borrow them – and make the management of our finances post-recession even more daunting than it already is. …
Ed Morrissey writes:
The problem is simple from the perspective of Washington and the Democrats, too. They need to pass health-care reform but make it look like it saves money. The only way to do that is to force states into expanding Medicaid in order to absorb more of the uninsured. The nifty part for Democrats in Washington is that Medicaid costs are mainly borne by the states.
. . . .
Does this actually save us money? Of course not. It’s a shell game. Our state taxes will have to increase while Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama blather on about cost “savings” in ObamaCare. Meanwhile, states already running in the red will find themselves desperate for cash infusions, just as Bredesen describes. Where will that come? Given its track record on Porkulus, Obama will almost certainly push for more “stimulus” block grants for states in order to cover those shortfalls caused by the new federal mandates, which means the federal government will pay for this in most cases, probably for the next several years. It just won’t get included in the accounting for ObamaCare . . .
Well, in a way I hope this really does hurt caterpillar. Remember what cheerleaders they were for the stimulus and how they had the big pep rally at their plant. Serves both management and the unionized workers right. If they end up going bankrupt because of this at least we can look at them and say, "See, we told you, you dumb@sses. Now suffer."
Posted by: RickS | March 20, 2010 at 01:31 PM
--> Healthcare Costs x 40%
Mike: I have a $4 coupon here for a hamburger.
Server: (loudly to kitchen) Burger, well done, no salt, no cheese, no fries, half a bun. (to Mike) We'll have it for you in an hour.
Mike: Wait, I don't want it like that!
Server: It's free. Stop complaining.
Mike: (looks at next table) Their meals look good.
Server: Politicians and union guys. Where do you work?
Mike: Acme Manufacturing, why?
Server: We'll bill them for the other $6. Hah, they'll be happy.
Mike: Say, what sort of restaurant is this?
Server: Obama's Health Restaurant.
- -
The Congressional Budget Office released another estimate for ObamaCare. It still omits the cost of new private-sector mandates, nine months after the first version was released. President Obama has implicitly acknowledged this omission. The mandates will likely cost 1.5 times the amounts spent directly by government.
Posted by: Andrew_M_Garland | March 20, 2010 at 07:17 PM
During Ronald Reagan's presidency, I lived in and around Washington, DC. I wasn't fond of President Reagan, probably because I read the Washington Post. I carped about everything he did or didn’t do. Besides, Ronald Reagan wasn't from my generation. He was an actor who lived on a ranch in California. He had a horse, and a hat. Then I forgot all about politics. Polyester clothing disappeared. The "wall" came down. It was safe to dress again. The respite from politics was a mixed blessing however, because when politics did reemerge, I didn't recognize the players. With age comes an appreciation for the human condition. Today, I believe Mr. Reagan was a very wise man. I understand what he meant by the importance of limited government. I further believe that if Mr. Reagan were here today, he’d admonish us to pick ourselves up, dust ourselves off and climb back in the saddle. I don’t know about you, but I could use one of that man’s pep talks: http://theseedsof9-11.com
Posted by: Peggy McGilligan | March 24, 2010 at 10:36 PM
Very well said, Peggy. I think I could use one of his pep talks, too.
Posted by: Gina Cobb | March 25, 2010 at 11:44 AM