Edit Note:  Dr. Coburn’s op-ed in this week’s edition of the Christian Science Monitor outlines choices to address the current Federal debt and deficit crisis. The bad news is that Washington has hard choices to make now to avert disaster. The good news is that some members of Congress are showing real political courage.
________________________________________

American leaders on the left and right are increasingly acknowledging that unless we take dramatic steps to reduce our deficits and debt, we may face not just another economic crisis but the end of American prosperity and leadership as we know it.

No one knows precisely when we will reach this economic tipping point, but I would argue we have no more than five years to put ourselves on a sustainable course. Change on this scale does not happen overnight. The time to start making hard choices is now.

The urgency of this threat has been explained well by two leading economists, Kenneth Rogoff, former chief economist at the International Monetary Fund, and Carmen Reinhart, of the University of Maryland. They argue that when the ratio of debt to gross domestic product (GDP) reaches 90 percent in an advanced economy like ours, economic growth slows considerably – at least 1 percent annually – while interest rates and inflation rise.

Under President Obama’s own budget, we will reach this tipping point in 2020 according to the Congressional Budget Office. However, if you reject Washington’s Enron-style accounting and include the money we steal from the Medicare and Social Security trust funds, our total "gross debt" will reach 91 percent of GDP this year.

The only way to avoid this crisis is to cut spending, raise taxes, or reform entitlements.

Unfortunately, history shows that the preferred choice of Congress is to raise taxes and avoid the hard work of prioritizing spending and reforming entitlement programs.

Option No. 1: Raise taxes
Congress has raised the payroll tax that funds Social Security 20 times, while the tax that helps fund the hospital insurance portion of Medicare has been raised eight times. Unless the American people demand that Congress take a different approach, we will once again see politicians propose new taxes, such as a value-added tax (VAT), to avoid a catastrophe.

In spite of Congress’s tendency to raise taxes and put off reform for another day, I’m optimistic that the scope of our long-term debt problem will lead to true spending restraint and reform.

First, we’ve run out of taxpayers. There simply are not enough workers per retiree to fund the status quo. Taxes would have to be raised to wildly unrealistic levels – rates would have to double – to keep these programs afloat.

Second, the American people will not tolerate tax increases while Congress squanders at least $350 billion every year in wasteful, duplicative, and inefficient spending.

Option No. 2: Cut spending
It’s true that cutting spending alone won’t solve all of our problems but it is the place we must start. The American people will never trust Congress, an institution with an approval rating of 20 percent, to reform entitlement programs when we spend billions on failing programs and earmarks that benefit no one other than a member of Congress and a campaign contributor.

Those who claim it is too hard to cut domestic spending are misreading the electorate and misrepresenting history.

Over the past decade, federal spending has doubled. Yet few Americans would say we’re better off.

If politicians in Washington had the will, the American people would back an effort that deemed much of the past growth in government as gratuitous, unnecessary, and reversible. In fact, 53 percent of the likely voters in a January Rasmussen poll said cutting spending would help the economy.

Third, politicians in Washington are already moving in this direction. New members such as Republican Sen. Scott Brown are being elected in "big government" strongholds like Massachusetts, and incumbents are warming to the idea of spending restraint.

For instance, the Senate recently came within two votes of paying for an extension of unemployment benefits with reductions in spending instead of borrowing more money from future generations.

Also, the number of members of Congress seeking earmarks – the gateway drug to spending addiction in Washington – is declining.

Option No. 3: Reform entitlement programs
Finally, members of Congress are increasingly willing to touch "third rail" issues such as Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, which are driving our unsustainable deficits.

Last year, I introduced a comprehensive health-care reform bill, the Patients’ Choice Act, with Sen. Richard Burr (R) of North Carolina, and Reps. Paul Ryan (R) of Wisconsin and Devin Nunes (R) of California.  It is the antithesis of ObamaCare. Instead of building on a broken system, it would renovate a broken system and put the individual, not the government, in charge of his or her own health care.

Representative Ryan also has a more comprehensive plan called "A Roadmap for America’s Future," which is a serious, specific proposal to put our major entitlement programs on a sustainable path.

Sen. Jim DeMint (R) of South Carolina has an innovative plan to save Social Security. Sens. Judd Gregg (R) of New Hampshire and Ron Wyden (D) of Washington have a bold plan to simplify our tax codes and lower tax rates.

I’m also drafting a plan that will lay out 12 specific steps to break Congress’s addiction to spending. What is lacking in Washington is not solutions, but the courage and political will to enact real change.

Over the next two election cycles, the American people have an opportunity to mount a historic and heroic rescue of the American experiment. This is not a Republican or Democratic challenge. It is an American challenge. None of these challenges are insurmountable, but the time for action is now.

 

---

About the author:
Tom Coburn, a physician and Republican senator from Oklahoma, is a member of the president’s debt commission. To read the article in the original posting, click here.  

Op-Ed:  “We have to pass the health care bill, so you can find out what’s in it,” said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.
 
It’s a good thing doctors don’t practice medicine that way. Imagine sending patients to major surgery and then checking to find out what is in their medical record!

Those intent on a government takeover of medicine missed one item
that is found in the bill.  

Tucked in there, around page 327, is the provision that exempts members of the health care sharing ministries in existence before the year 2000 from the mandate to buy the federally qualified health insurance.  About 100,000 people are currently enrolled in such plans, one of which helps members pay $40 million in bills per year.  They are Christian Care Medi-Share, Samaritan Ministries and Christian Healthcare Ministries.
 
The Eck family has enjoyed membership in such an organization since May 1997.  Back then our story made the front page of our local paper, complete with photo of my husband John, our five children, and me, with the headline “NJ Family Abandons Private Insurance for Aid of Christian Health Plan.”  Two physicians completely abandoning health insurance was news. At that time, we went from paying $585 to $75 per month to secure very reliable help should we have a catastrophic health care event.  Today, instead of $3,200 or so per month for health insurance here in NJ, our family share comes to $350.
 
The qualifications for membership are strict.  Enrollees have to agree to avoid tobacco, illegal drugs, and excess alcohol use. They have to keep their body weight at an acceptable level and cannot expect to have help with any pre-existing conditions. Members must agree to live a Biblical lifestyle (no sex outside of marriage) and must attend church regularly. These rules actually eliminate 70% of disease and members are “equally yoked” with others who choose to follow a healthy lifestyle.
 
We are free to access whatever medical care we choose, and the members vote on what expenses they will share, up to $5 million for a family over their lifetimes. Members are responsible for their own wellness and routine care, such as checkups, immunizations, and screenings.
 
Since we joined, our savings have amounted to well over $100,000.
 
The mandate we follow lies in the Biblical passage of Galatians 6:2- “Bear ye one another’s burdens and thus fulfill the law of Christ.” Yet the ensuing verse 5 tells us to “carry our own loads”—to accept personal responsibility.
 
In 1998 my husband and I were called before our state Department of Banking and Insurance to defend our promotion of this faith-based program. We were accused of “selling insurance without a license,” even though we received no commission. The outcome: the faith sharing group was not considered “insurance” and was thus exempt from government oversight. In 2004, I testified before the Joint Economic Committee of the U.S. Congress, explaining the reasons why insurance was so expensive in New Jersey, and telling of the success of the health-sharing ministry.
     
Our church does care about those with pre-existing conditions, or those who have succumbed to activities that contribute to their illnesses. We have set up the Acts 4 Project to help such people share bills and giving others with generous hearts the opportunity to donate. In addition, the Zarephath Health Center is a local clinic that helps the poor and uninsured get free medical care. Utilizing all volunteer physicians, nurses, and support staff, this clinic cheerfully provides care at one-tenth the cost of the federally qualified clinic in the next town.
 
The government cannot provide care; it can only mandate, restrict, coerce, punish, and control–causing insurance companies to raise rates and lower payments to physicians and hospitals.  As the new rules drive insurance companies out of business, and government programs such as Medicare and Medicaid head for bankruptcy, sharing ministries will offer a beacon of hope– a literal escape route.
 
We hold out a glimmer of hope that Congress will tear down the wall that prevents other innovations from bringing affordable, freely chosen care to all Americans.

 

---

About the author: 

Dr. Alieta Eck, MD graduated from the Rutgers College of Pharmacy in NJ and the St. Louis School of Medicine in St. Louis, MO. She studied Internal Medicine at Robert Wood Johnson University Hospital in New Brunswick, NJ and has been in private practice with her husband, Dr. John Eck, MD in Piscataway, NJ since 1988. She has been involved in health care reform since residency and is convinced that the government is a poor provider of medical care. She testified before the Joint Economic Committee of the US Congress in 2004 about better ways to deliver health care in the United States. In 2003, she and her husband founded the Zarephath Health Center, a free clinic for the poor and uninsured that currently cares for 300-400 patients per month utilizing the donated services of volunteer physicians and nurses.  Dr. Eck is a long time member of the Christian Medical Dental Association and in 2009 joined the board of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons. In addition, she serves on the advisory board of Christian Care Medi-Share, a faith based medical cost sharing Ministry. She is a member of Zarephath Christian Church and she and her husband have five children, one in medical school in NJ.

 

An engineering study for the Choctaw and Chickasaw tribes concluded early in this decade found that Oklahoma’s water supply was sufficient to engage proposed water transfer contracts, including inter-state water sales, which were then under discussion.

The “review of issues and assumptions” was the result of a contract the two tribes, based in Southeast Oklahoma, made with an independent firm to study “water management issues raised by the [2001] compact with the State of Oklahoma and the proposed water transfer contract with the North Texas Water Alliance (NTWA).”

Analysis was predicated on “full protection of future Oklahoma water resources,” the consultants for the Choctaws and Chickasaws said. According to the document, “The primary focus of this independent review is to assure the full protection of Oklahoma water resources, including water supply, in-stream flow needs for fish and aquatic life (e.g. mussels), as well as dependable high reservoir levels for fish spawning, waterfowl habitat, fishing, hunting and other recreational uses.” 

The analysis further assumed the following: “A future diversion from the Kiamichi River to Oklahoma City will have priority over any future Texas water supply diversions from Below Hugo.
 
Neither water supply diversion will be allowed to draw-down Sardis or Hugo Reservoirs below levels that fully protect recreation uses. Lake level management plans developed and recommended by the Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation (ODWC) will be implemented for both Sardis and Hugo Reservoirs.”
 
Methodical study of the report with its charts detailing runoff, lake elevations, in-stream flow and other issues from as long ago as 1925 to as recently as 2000 indicated sufficient water supply for projected potential use of the water. 

In sum, the engineering report provides in six pages of analysis and a dozen charts evidence that retained or in-stream water in Oklahoma is sufficient, or can be managed, to meet the needs of the state, including Oklahoma City, and still allow long-term water sales to Texas.
 
On Tuesday (April 20), state Sen. Jim Wilson of Tahlequah led a group of southeast Oklahoma senators expressing opposition to any potential water sale to Oklahoma City from Sardis Lake. Wilson said he believed the “Choctaws have our best interest at heart.”
 
The report was prepared by the firm of Jones & Stokes, independent consultants based in Sacramento, California. The firm is now known as ICF International (formerly ICF Jones & Stokes). Although the Choctaw-Chickasaw report is not available online, information about the firm that conducted the study is available at www.icfi.com.

 

---

About the author:

Our man in Oklahoma City, Pat McGuigan is editor of CapitolBeatOK, and Tulsa Today’s capital editor.
 

KPHO TV in Phoenix is reporting the Arizona House on Monday voted for a provision that would require President Barack Obama to show his birth certificate if he hopes to be on the state’s ballot when he runs for reelection.

The House voted 31-22 to add the provision to a separate bill. The measure still faces a formal vote.

It would require U.S. presidential candidates who want to appear on the ballot in Arizona to submit documents proving they meet the constitutional requirements to be president.

Phoenix Democratic Rep. Kyrsten Sinema said the bill is one of several measures that are making Arizona "the laughing stock of the nation."

Mesa Republican Rep. Cecil Ash said he has no reason to doubt Obama’s citizenship but supports the measure because it could help end doubt.

It may also answer the question of why anyone would ever spend upwards of $2 million to prevent the release of a $25 document required for many public purposes.

The Oklahoma Legislature Monday passed a resolution honoring the memory or Rebecca Anderson, the rescuer nurse injured while assisting at the site of the A.P. Murrah Building bombing on April 19, 1995. Passage of the resolution coincides with both the anniversary of the bombing and observance of National Organ Donation Month.

The resolution moved forward “in remembrance of the courageous acts of Rebecca Anderson after the bombing of the A.P. Murrah Federal Building” and named Anderson “Nurse of the Day” in perpetuity on April 19 every year to come.
 
In an interview with this writer, Eileen Grubbs and Ronda Kelley, nurses of the day at the Capitol, said they appreciated the honor extended to Anderson.
 
Grubbs encountered Anderson briefly after the nurse had responded at the bombing site 15 years ago. “She had no visible wounds and came to the emergency room” at the OU Medical Center, where Grubbs then worked.
 
Anderson, while responding to those injured, was struck by falling debris. At the hospital, Anderson woke up once briefly after her arrival, before dying.  Grubbs, now working at another local hospital, noted that Anderson’s donated organs helped save lives.  Her heart went to Billy Wilcoxson, a military veteran from Duncan, while her kidneys went to recipients in Arizona and New Mexico.  Grubbs is a fourth generation nurse, following in the steps of her great-grandmother, grandmother and mother.
 
Kelley, who works at the OU Medical Center, did not know Anderson but admires her example.  She said serving as nurse of the day at the capitol, an uncompensated position, allows her to “give back to the community.”  Kelley is one of eight nurses in her family.

Lead sponsor of the resolution was state Rep. Scott Martin of Norman.  Every member of the House joined as a co-sponsor.  The measure passed in the state House early in the day Monday, April 19.  The resolution than passed the state Senate the same afternoon, with Sen. Jonathan Nickols of Norman as the sponsor.  John Sparks, a Democrat from Norman, was also a leading advocate for the resolution.

Anderson’s story was detailed by People Magazine, click here to read the archive.

The resolution praised Anderson’s “sacrifice and her gift of life to others.”  The idea to honor her originated with Eileen Grubbs.  She raised it with Vicki Rankin, a lobbyist who works with the Oklahoma Nurses Association. Rankin then sought legislative support, leading to Monday’s vote in the two chambers of the Legislature. 

Anderson, her love of life, her sacrifice, and her family that miss her everyday will remain in our thoughts and prayers.

 

 

---

About the author:

Pat McGuigan is capitol editor for Tulsa Today.  This is another in his continuing series of reports from his office at CapitolBeatOK in the state capitol building.