Do You Really Think The Government Gives A Damn About You?

The United States Government couldn't care less about their constituents. Instead, the United States government is overrun by corruption, special interest, and power-mongers who use the American people to line their own pockets and further their own agendas.

The United States of America is experiencing the biggest financial crisis since the Great Depression. Citizens are losing and/or have lost their jobs at an alarming rate, and unemployment is now hanging at around 9.7%. However, anyone who knows anything about unemployment numbers knows that the 9.7% is well below real unemployment since it is calculated by tallying the number of unemployed and then dividing that number by the total workforce and multiplying that number by 100 (to get a percentage). But how are the unemployed counted?

The unemployed are counted through surveys taken by a sample of the workforce. There are many problems with this method. The unemployment number is based upon a percentage derived from answers given in these surveys. This sample survey ask specific questions of the unemployed/employed people that are referenced against a predetermined criteria which will determine which category the surveyed fall into. Based on the numbers in each category, the unemployment rate is then calculated by taking the total number of people who fell into the unemployed category and dividing that number by the total number of people in the employed category. The resulting number is then multiplied by 100 to get a percentage.

Perhaps the biggest problem with the official unemployment number is the criteria by which the surveyed workforce is categorized. The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) determines the number of workers placed into each category and the size of the workforce based upon the following criteria:

• People with jobs are employed
• People who are jobless, looking for jobs, and available for work are unemployed
• People who are neither employed nor unemployed are not in the labor force

The BLS states that "the sum of the employed and the unemployed constitutes the civilian labor force." As you can see, those who are neither employed nor unemployed are not in the labor force, and therefore are not counted as part of the workforce. This creates a problem with the official number since the criteria for determining whether one is unemployed fails to take into account those in the workforce who are discouraged workers. The BLS defines discouraged workers as "persons not currently looking for work because they believe no jobs are available for them." Therefore, the number of discouraged workers reduces the size of the workforce which consequently reduces the percentage of unemployment. Another problem with the categorization of the unemployed is the unemployment number does not reflect the number of people who are technically employed but are underemployed (i.e. not working to their potential, not receiving the amount of hours desired). People who are underemployed suffer from much of the same problems that the unemployed suffer from, such as, insufficient income to pay their debts, poverty, and lack of economic security. Another class of employed that distorts the official unemployment number is temporary workers. Temporary workers are considered, as far as the official unemployment number is concerned, employed. In the end, the official unemployment number underestimates real unemployment by failing to account for these variables. An article written by John Lott titled, "Unemployment Numbers Are a Mixed Bag," posted on Fox News' website, argues that approximately "2.3 million fewer Americans are in the labor force today as compared to a year ago" which can account for the unemployment rate remaining constant while real unemployment numbers are on the rise.

The underlying effect of unemployment, real unemployment and not the official unemployment number, is that Americans are facing severe and prolonged financial hardships. John Collins Rudolf writes in his article in the New York Times, "Pay Garnishments Rise as Debtors Fall Behind," that during "one of the worst economic downturns of modern history" there has been "an increase in the number of delinquent borrowers, and creditors are suing them by the millions." Rudolf describes an inequality in the justice system that situates debtors in a significantly disadvantaged position to defend themselves against creditors and the unfair debt collection practices they use to collect on the delinquent accounts of those facing financial hardships during these difficult financial times. To some, this may not sound like anything out of the ordinary, and to these people it may sound like justifiable actions on the part of these financial institutions who are likewise facing financial hardships. To the contrary, though, this noticeable increase in debt collections amidst such difficult financial times, while it may be the result of a causal relationship, is powerfully reflective on governmental policy.

Over the past few years, billions of dollars have been dolled out to save failing financial institutions, purportedly to stave off economic disaster, and to stimulate growth in the economy. I would laugh if it wasn't such a serious situation. While the idea is sound, the strategy of the government to achieve these goals was seriously flawed and has resulted in this increase of delinquent debtors, stale job growth, and rising unemployment. More over, the strategies of the American government, as will be discussed later, are leading the American people into economic slavery. In order to understand the failures of governmental strategies to stimulate economic growth and alleviate the financial pressures Americans are facing, one must first understand the strategy of the American government as it pertains to the American economy.

The first government bailout issued under President George W. Bush was the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP). TARP issued funds to financial institutions that were at risk of becoming insolvent as the result of bad loans or toxic assets. The threat of these financial institutions failing was that lending would have significantly been reduced or stopped since these financial institutions would have had no money to lend off of. Had these financial institutions stopped lending, the economy would have failed since businesses would not have been able to secure the loans needed to grow without cutting into their profits. A lack of growth opportunity in business would have resulted in massive cutbacks by businesses necessary to maintain profits. An inevitable result of such cutbacks would be job loss, and, consequently, a loss of consumer purchasing power leading to a further decline in growth opportunities. The domino effect of drastically decreased or halted lending would have inevitably led to the collapse of the entire economic system of the United States. Therefore, the government bought up the troubled assets of these financial institutions in an effort to stimulate lending and prevent economic collapse.

This TARP bailout was a necessary bailout insofar as it pertained to insolvent financial institutions, and ONLY insolvent financial institutions. However, instead of providing funds ONLY to these troubled financial institutions, the New York Times has reported that TARP funds have been dispersed to GMAC, homeowners, Term Asset-Backed Securities Loan Facility (TALF), small businesses, and various private-public entities. The issue with the management of TARP funds is that, while government spending during a recession is good when directed into the private sector, government spending in a recession that is focused on bigger government is contradictory to growth in business. The vast majority of TARP funds went toward bailing out Wall Street bankers and financial institutions, a government takeover of the auto industry, and government funded loan programs. This expansion of government is counterproductive to the purported desired result of the federal government.

The government is funded through taxes collected from businesses and citizens of the United States. Therefore, any increase in spending must be funded by the taxes collected from these individuals. If the amount of spending exceeds the income generated by tax revenues, then the government must either increase taxes in order to account for the difference or cut government spending in order to make up the difference. Any increase in taxes, especially during a recession, reduces the purchasing power of businesses and consumers alike since it reduces the amount of their profits or disposable income respectively by transferring purchasing power from the private sector to the government. As previously illustrated, a reduction in profits or disposable income is detrimental to the economy since it inhibits growth. As far as businesses are concerned, a decrease in profits directly impacts growth since it forces businesses to recoup these losses by reducing the cost of doing business (e.g. the size of their workforce, the amount of investment spending, etc.). Likewise, a reduction in consumers' disposable income impacts consumer spending resulting in a reduction of income for businesses. For businesses, a reduction in income is proportionate to a reduction in profits resulting in the consequences to business that were previously mentioned. By putting the power of spending in the hands of the government, the American economy falls under the control of the American government since the government then dictates how spending will occur. While TARP was necessary to maintain the lending capability of banks, likewise, government spending during a recession was necessary. However, the allocation of such spending to non-essential entities was not. Moreover, increased government spending following the TARP bailout undermined the desired result of TARP since it further increased the tax liability of the American people without addressing growth issues in business or consumer purchasing power.

Following the TARP bailout, President Obama issued the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA). Under the ARRA, $787 billion was allocated by the American government to purportedly be used to stimulate economic growth in the country. Recovery.gov tracks how the economic stimulus funds are being used. Interestingly, California is the largest recipient of stimulus funds to date having received $7,601,188,739 of a total allocation of $20,355,072,321. The second largest recipient is New York having been awarded about half the amount awarded to California and having received $1,957,246,603 of the $11,548,324,549 award. Texas comes in third having received $2,745,983,634 of the $11,422,001,149 awarded. Recovery.gov clarifies that the "Recipient Reported Data section comes directly from the recipients of federal contract, grant, and loan awards (entitlements and tax benefits paid under Recovery are not included)." Out of the funds awarded to states, the vast majority of awarded funds are being used to fund government programs. This fact presents a great problem to the alleged purpose of these funds.

An entire column, on the Recovery.gov website's state-by-state breakdown of funds allocation, is dedicated to the number of jobs reported to have been created by the allocation of these awards. California reports 71,088.58 jobs have been created by stimulus funds, New York reports 42,780.94 jobs have been created, and Texas is reporting 33,541.5 new jobs as the result of these funds. That means that taxpayers will have to continue paying for 147,411.02 new jobs created by stimulus funds in the three top awarded states once the stimulus funds run out, or, 147,411.02 new government employees will find themselves out of work once the stimulus funds run out. Moreover, Recovery.gov reports a national total of 608,317 new jobs have been created by stimulus funds as the result of ARRA; all of which will be in jeopardy once stimulus funds run out.

So, what does all of this mean?

Well, the government's choice to follow up the TARP bailout, which mismanaged funds, with the ARRA caused economic matters to go from bad to worse. While the TARP bail out was necessary in order for financial institutions to remain solvent after government mandates essentially forced them into or near bankruptcy, the ARRA undercut economic growth by increasing the tax liability of American taxpayers without providing any real economic stimulus. When government programs increase in size, so does the tax liability of American taxpayers. By increasing the tax liability of Americans, the government thwarted economic growth since businesses understand that the increase in tax liability will inevitably lead to a decrease in profits as the result of the increased cost of doing business. Therefore, business have grown at a slower pace than they likely would have without the ARRA. In addition, the increase in the tax liability of the American people, the result of which has not been felt yet, will lead to an increase in taxes and therefore a decrease in disposable income. The decrease in disposable income will lead to a decrease in consumer spending, and so on and so forth.

Businesses see what is coming, and the harsh reality that the government is spending more than it can afford to spend and will therefore have to inevitably recoup those cost through higher taxes, they realize that a bleak economic future is in store for them. So, as businesses do during hard economic times, businesses are trimming the proverbial fat in order to weather the upcoming economic storm. How could that be, one might ask, with all of the money that the government is pumping into the economy? Well, that is just it. The government isn't really pumping any money into the economy. The United States government acts like a holding company in the cash flow of America. When economic times are good the government takes more money out of the cash flow in the form of higher taxes purportedly to pay for needed government programs that will increase the quality of life for Americans. Conversely, during bad economic times, it is necessary for the government to lessen restriction and/or put money into the cash flow in order to prevent a recession and therefore keep the economy moving. President Reagan believed that the best way to increase the amount of money in the cash flow during economic times, or at any time for that matter, was by giving the American people their money back by cutting back on the tax liability of the American people.

Reaganomics, as it has come to be known, follows the principal that the American people will spend their money when they have more money to spend (makes perfect sense to me) and that the increase in consumer spending will allow for economic growth (again makes perfect sense to me) which will keep the economy moving (and yet again, genius economic strategy). So why is the economy in dire straits then if it is so simple to keep the economy moving like this? Simple. The government is now being run by Democrats.

President George W. Bush spent a very large amount of money on the Iraq war following the 9-11 attacks, and large amounts of money are still being spent on the war. To put it into perspective, 1000Pennies posted a YouTube video demonstrating the difference in deficit spending (i.e. the amount of government unfunded mandates) since the beginning of the 20th century.



According to the video, President Obama and the Democratic House has increased the federal deficit spending by almost 3 times that of the George W. Bush administration which was record spending to begin with. White House correspondent Mark Knoller of CBS News writes in his article, "Bush Administration Adds $4 Trillion To National Debt," that under the George W. Bush presidency the national debt grew by $4 trillion which was "the biggest increase under any president in U.S history." In another article by Knoller, "Obama Budget Projects Never Ending Rise In National Debt," he says that under the Obama administration "federal spending and indebtedness will continue to rise as far as the eye can see." Knoller continues saying that the Obama administration is projecting that the national debt will "climb to $14-trillion" in 2010, and that by the end of 2013 it will "wind up at $17.1-trillion dollars." What this equates to is in the face of the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, the United States federal government in increasing the tax liability of the American people at an unsustainable rate adding to the current economic troubles, as well as, the economic future of America. To put it another way, America is a boat that is taking on water and the Obama administration, instead of paling water OUT of the boat, is tipping the nose of the boat into the ocean.

So, to sum it all up, the policies of the current administration are driving the American economy into the ground. They are driving the American economy into the ground by increasing the tax liability of the American people at an unprecedented rate which will result in astronomical taxes or unconscionable borrowing which the federal government will never be able to secure. If the borrowing to fund the deficit does occur, the American dollar will be worth less than the Mexican peso, and countries will stop lending to the U.S. as a result. This will leave the federal government with only one source of income, taxes. Moreover, if the American government becomes so indebted to other countries as a result of borrowing, then the American government will be susceptible to take over by these governments if, after calling the U.S. on their debts, the government is unable to pay these debts since the federal government will be financially unable to mount a defense against an invading army. By increasing the tax liability without putting forth any real policy which will result in new jobs in the private sector, businesses see only increasing costs of doing business and the quickly depreciating value of the dollar in their economic future. Such a bleak economic outlook dictates that business brace for the economic impact by cutting cost by eliminating jobs, reducing spending, and increasing the price of goods and services in order to offset these losses and maintain profit levels. The result will be, higher unemployment rates, less pay for more responsibility, hyper-inflation, and eventually the collapse of small business coupled by the rise of monopolistic marketplace and a new oligarchy.

One might ask, how did we get here? The answer would be that the American people have been conditioned to believe that overextending their budgets through the use of credit, when not absolutely necessary, is an American way of life. This same mode of thinking is mirrored by the American government, and is the mode of thinking that has led to skyrocketing deficit spending. The United States government and the American people have essentially being living on borrowed time as a result of this thinking, and now the chickens have come home to roost. The transition to a mainly credit driven economy occurred somewhere between the late 1920s and the early 1960s, and has since become the driving force behind the American economy. After all, it was the potential collapse of lending or extending credit to businesses and consumers that threatened to destroy the entire American economy resulting in the legislation of TARP.

The American economy overinflated its worth by relying on the psuedo economic viability of credit. In reality, both the American government and the American people, by relying on this perceived value of American assets, based American worth upon the false security of credit. Those who are lucky and remain fortunate enough to afford the debt taken under credit agreements do not feel the sting of these debts once they came due. However, others who are not so lucky end up bankrupt and/or financially buried beneath the burden of overwhelming debt that strangles their quality of life. So, after having prolonged the inevitable, those who eventually default on their debts suffer greater consequence as the result of these debts since, once they fall victim of this default, they become the equivalent of a financial slave to their creditor. John Collins Rudolf illustrates this consequence perfectly in his article in the New York Times, "Pay Garnishments Rise as Debtors Fall Behind," illuminating the consequences debtors face when they fall victim to creditor chickens coming home to roost. Rudolf points out that debtors face the unscrupulous debt collection practices of creditors for which bankruptcy offers some relief bu comes a seemingly insurmountable cost saying, "many low-income debtors must save for months before they can afford to go broke." Rudolf goes on to say how post-judgment debtors can end up paying several times the amount of the original debt as the result of fees, attorney's cost, interest, etc.. These awards lead to an exponentially more difficult financial situation for debtors, by severely reducing their income and, consequently, further reducing their ability to pay the debt. In the event that debtors are still unable to pay a post-judgment debt, then a debtor's wages can be garnished, their property seized, and funds in a debtors bank account can be confiscated to pay off the debt. This type of situation can serve as a financial death sentence to a debtor that finds themselves underwater, and the alternative, bankruptcy, is no picnic either.

So, as the United States suffers through the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, American citizens who have fallen victim to this financial crisis are being enslaved by the financial institutions that their tax payer dollars paid in order to bail out. Essentially, the American government paid a ransom, in the form of TARP, to the financial institutions in order to keep themselves in business while the American people were then sold into slavery by the current administration. If the financial institutions were simply bailed out with TARP, then the increased tax liability would have been minimal or null and void since the money is and continues to be repaid. Instead, the government piled more and more debt at unprecedented levels onto the American people. The combination of such is crippling to the American economy, and will inevitably lead to the financial enslavement of the American people. Had the current administration taken the ARRA funds and used them to stimulate the economy in the form of tax cuts or consumer grants of some kind, then the economy would have seen actual growth. The BLS advocates consumer spending as a job-growth engine saying that consumer spending accounts for "60 percent of total employment." So, if consumer spending is such a great way to stimulate growth, then why would the current administration implement policies that achieve the exact opposite of consumer spending by taking money out of the consumers hands and putting it into the hands of the government? Simple. The government, under the current administration, wants U.S. citizens to become their slaves, and they are using the financial apparatus as the means of achieving it. All it took to enslave the American people was to condition them to overextend themselves by causing them to turn to the credit savior in times of economic hardship or moments of vainglorious consumption in order to allow the financial industry to swoop down and collect the exposed victims of an engineered economic collapse. Following such an event, it was relatively easy for a power hungry government bent on enslaving its citizens in order to subject them to the will of an overarching government to compound their financial hardships by removing their ability to defend themselves against the onslaught.

Now, as the American people cry out against their cannibalistic government, the only question that remains is, who runs this country? The American people? Or the American government? The irony here is that the same device that was used to enslave the American people, has also been used to enslave the American government.

You Can't Please Everyone

Will They Ever Learn?

A day after the health care bill passed the house and was sent to the senate for final approval people on both sides of the aisle are up in arms over the legislation. One thing seems to be constant though, and that is that people do not want this health care reform bill, at least not in its current form.

President Obama secured the final votes necessary when he duped Rep. Bart Stupak (D - Mich.) into believing that an executive order would protect against federally funded abortions. Rep. Stupak defended his vote swap Monday after the vote on Fox News saying, "executive order has the full force of law." Rep. Stupak went on to acknowledge that President Obama could at any time repeal the executive order and that lawsuits in the future could uphold the executive order if such a thing were to happen. In the end, Rep. Stupak said, "I did it because I stood for the principle to protect the sanctity of life." As contradictory as Stupak's statements are to the reality of the situation, Stupak's actions brought to the forefront the flaw in the liberal Left's ideology, and that is that you simply can't please everyone.



Liberals brought forth health care reform under the guise that it would offer affordable health care to everyone in the nation. To understand just how naive the premise of such an endeavor is, one need only look at the backlash that has occurred following the health care vote on Sunday and Rep. Bart Stupak's relation to that backlash.

National Organization for Women (NOW) President Terry O'Neill expressed disappointment over the passage of the health care bill in a statement posted on the NOW website.

• I truly wish that the National Organization for Women could join in celebrating the historic passage of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. It pains me to have to stand against what many see as a major achievement. But feminist, progressive principles are in direct conflict with many of the compromises built into and tacked onto this legislation.

Oneill went on to state that the pro-life restrictions in the bill directly conflict with the goals and aims of the NOW organization saying, "[w]e call upon President Obama and elected officials in both houses to commit to a process of steady improvement of our health care system that will result in true reform with universal coverage, realistically affordable rates and no discrimination."

So, Rep. Stupak's deal with President Obama which led to an executive order that purportedly barres federal funds from being used for abortions conflicts with the wants and needs of Terry Oneill and the NOW organization. Well, NOW was not the only organization that was upset with the bill's handling of federally funded abortions.

According to journalist William McGurn in his article "Pro-life Democrats, R.I.P." for the Wall Street Journal, Bart Stupak's vote on Sunday has drawn strong criticism from the National Right to Life, the Catholic bishops and the Susan B. Anthony List. McGurn explains the triviality of the executive order and points out how both Pro-Life and Pro-Choice groups are citing its ineffectiveness to ban the use of federal funds for abortions.

• Planned Parenthood calls it a "symbolic gesture," and says "it is critically important to note that it does not include the Stupak abortion ban." Rep. DeGette, who screamed so loudly when the Stupak amendment passed, said she had no problem with the executive order because "it doesn't change anything."

Rightfully so, McGurn shows that both sides of the abortion argument are pointing to the ineffectiveness of the executive order as the cause of, on the one hand, disappointment with Stupak's reliance on it, and, on the other hand, pleasure in Stupak's ignorance for relying on it. Moreover, what the two sides are beginning to show is the fatal flaw in the liberal Left's thinking.

One would think that common sense would dictate that no endeavor can please everyone but that doesn't seem to be the case with liberals. Instead, liberals set out to bring about policy that they think will do just that. Pretty arrogant, right? Or, simply ignorant? Both. For an "intellectual elite" it seems that such a simple concept would be easily understood but it's not. Moreover, doesn't the idea of making everyone the same go against the liberal Left's principals (i.e. Darwinism, diversity, evolution, etc.)?

If everyone is given everything and everyone is satisfied with what they have, then how does one progress? They won't be able to progress because they will have nothing to strive for. In the absence of progression, in either direction, evolution can not occur - health care in America has evolved but liberals do not like the way that it has. If every one is forced to get insurance that the government decides it should cover, then where is the diversity? Where is the driving force behind Darwinism; superiority? When there is no superiority how does one improve? If there is no contrast between bad and good, right and wrong, and have and have-not, then how does one even recognize their own mediocrity or value? It would seem that the underlying principal here is not a humanitarian one as the Left would have you believe but that it is one of taking from everyone that which they need in order to succeed.

Stupak Sales Out!!!

Stupak Sales Out!!!

Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) sales out big time! Following the successful vote in the House or Representatives today, House Republicans raised a motion to recommit. In their motion the Republicans moved to have a vote on the inclusion of an amendment to the Senate Health Care Bill that would include language like that of the Stupak Amendment which would protect against federally funded abortions.

During rebuttal, Democrats then ushered Rep. Stupak to the pulpit where he proceeded to tell the Republican party that the amendment that they were proposing did not seek to protect against federally funded abortions even though the Republican Amendment was referred to by the Republicans as the Stupak amendment. So, Stupak is saying that his own amendment is not anti-federally funded abortions and that the unenforceable executive order offered up by President Obama was? WOW! What does that say about Rep. Stupak, besides that he has no idea how the law works - which is scary in and of itself since he is a lawmaker?

It is clear that Rep. Stupak sold out to President Obama following a closed door meeting with him where the president promised, and we all know how Obama keeps promises, that he would sign an executive order which would protect against federally funded abortions. Well, that's nice Mr. President, however an executive order is not law and does not supersede law or trump law in any way. Therefore, no court in land will even consider any executive order issued by the president when deciding a case to cover abortions using federal funds since the Senate Health Care Bill that just passed allows for a mere accounting trick that would essentially allow for them.

Rep. Stupak held out until the day of the vote before he changed his vote and before he committed the mother of all flip-flops essentially calling his amendment a joke. But Rep. Stupak is no different than other Democrats in the House. Speaker Nancy Pelosi or President Obama pressured all of the swing votes that Democrats needed in order to pass this bill. Most of them held out until each of them, in turn, got a personal visit from either Speaker Nancy Pelosi or President Obama, and after their visit they miraculously changed their votes. Hmmm, now isn't that strange? Well, it gets even stranger when Rep. Bart Stupak stands up following the vote and denounces his own amendment. What does that tell you? It tells me that something was said in that meeting that persuaded Rep. Stupak to sale out his political career because now nobody will believe a word this guy says again.

Rep. Stupak ran on a pro-life platform but when challenged to stand up for his ideals Stupak decided to sale them out for his political party. Americans will see this sale out exactly for what it is, and that is that Stupak probably cut some deal like the rest of the Democrat vote changers after they met with Nancy Pelosi and President Obama. Moreover, Americans will see that Obama's approach to politics is not one of "change" and that it is more of an augmentation of the corrupt politics that Americans want nothing more to do with.

Congress if you don't agree with me and what I am saying about the sentiment of the American people, then just go look at your approval ratings. Upwards of 70% disapproval ratings is not a good thing.

Overcrowded Pool - 30 Million Uninsured?

What do Americans know about the purported 30 million uninsured that Obamacare is supposed to be helping?

Nothing. There are no statistics as to the demographics of these uninsured, and the fact that these statistics are absent should be a source of concern to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the American people, and the lawmakers set to vote on the issue this Sunday.

Why are these statistics important?

The demographics of the uninsured are extremely important when calculating the cost and/or savings of the health care bill and the impact that the health care bill will have on the economy. The reason that they are so important is that the demographics of the insurance company's members pool will change as the result of new legislation in the bill.

The Demographics of the Uninsured

Without statistics as to the makeup of the uninsured it is necessary to speculate as to what the demographic makeup of the uninsured are. Common sense tells us that there will be a percentage of the uninsured that are uninsured because of the fact that they had preexisting conditions which barred them from getting insurance previously. Common sense also tells us that there will be a percentage of the uninsured because they were poor for quite some time, and that they likely will have a great deal of health issues which they will want to address once they are given insurance. Another percentage of the uninsured will be young people who are simply too poor to get insurance or are working at a job that does not offer insurance. Likewise, a percentage, perhaps smaller, of older people working in positions where they were not offered insurance will now receive insurance that was previously unavailable to them.

If we simply take these assumptions to be the demographics of the uninsured, then the health care reform bill looks to be a loser for the insurance industry and the American economy.

Changing the Member Pool's Demographics

Since the health care reform bill will require insurance companies to insure those with preexisting conditions the insurance companies will no longer be able to minimize the risk in their member pools. Higher risk in the member pools can be devastating to an insurance company's profits since the profits that an insurance company makes are derived from premiums that are paid to the insurance company that go unclaimed by members in the pool. For example, if 10 people are in a member pool and each of them pay $500 a month in insurance premiums, then the insurance company has a pot of $5,000 from which claims can be paid off of to the members in the member pool. Therefore, if 1 claim is raised by 1 member for that month at a cost of $2,500, then the insurance company pays that claim and either reinvest the remaining $2,500 into the pot to cover future claims, or, the insurance company takes $2,500 in gross profits.

The demographics of the the member pool is crucial in the sustainability of an insurance company. The member pool MUST consist of less bad bets than good bets and the premiums paid into the pool must be greater than awards paid out in claims from the pool. If the member pool does not meet these standards of makeup then the member pool will not be sustainable since it will likely incur more liabilities than revenues taken in. For example, in the same 10 member pool with the same premium payments if an additional member, or a combination of members, submits a claim(s) equal to or greater than $2,500 the insurance company will either make no profit or lose capital as a result of the member pool.

By changing the demographics of the insurance company's member pool and therefore increasing the risk of insolvency within these member pools, insurance company's will have a difficult time staying in business. The reason that insurance company's will have a difficult time staying in business is either they will be unable to make money or they will go bankrupt.

Though some might say that the added uninsured into the pool will balance out the risk for the insurance companies, this can not be said with any level of certainty. For this reason, the CBO projections must be taken to be what they are, political numbers that are simply projections based in theory and not in fact; unless, they have the demographics of the uninsured which I have not yet seen.

Taking the assumptions to the demographic makeup pf the uninsured which were outlined previously, 3 out of 4 new uninsured members introduced to the member pools will have immediate and, likely, costly health care needs that will drain the members pool of capital. Moreover, the younger uninsured, though they are less likely to have critical diseases which will require extended stays in the hospital, are not completely devoid of their own respective risk even though they are a safer bet that insurance companies would likely have taken absent of any health care reform.

What Are Insurance Company's To Do Following Passage of Health Care Reform?

So, with an influx of higher risk individuals and greater risk of increased claims brought by previously uninsured individuals in member pools, insurance company's will either have to offset the cost of these new risks by increasing premiums or risk failure at every turn. The former would be the logical choice, however legislation aims to hamper insurance company's ability to do so, at least that is how I read the numbers coming out of the CBO and the claims coming out of the legislator's offices. Therefore, insurance company's will have to make the difficult choice of whether or not the risk is worth the reward. If it turns out that the insurance company's do not find that the risk is worth the reward, then insurance company's will abandon the health insurance market leaving either only an elite few insurance companies that will control the market and severely limit the public's choice of health insurance company's (like cable providers), or, insurance company's will abandon the health insurance market altogether and the government will become the only option available to the public. Both scenarios are detrimental to the public good, and not only from a health insurance standpoint.

1/6th of the American Economy

One-sixth of the American economy is attributable to health care goods and services. If the government imposes power over this portion of the economy, then the American economy will be in dire straits. The government is, or at least it is supposed to be, a non-profit organization. The only source of revenue for the government comes in the form of taxes. If the government takes control of one-sixth of the American economy, then the U.S. government will have liabilities equal to the cost of operating one-sixth of the economy since the government will have to pay for all of the health insurance cost of some, and most for the remainder. Furthermore, the U.S. government will automatically take in less revenue than is required since the government will be mandated to insure, at the government's expense, individuals who are unable to pay for their own health insurance. This scenario is not sustainable for the American government. If a government takeover of health care did occur, then the government would inevitably have to cut spending and reduce funding for the uninsured (ration care or abandon the purported purpose of the bill), or, raise taxes (unfunded tax liabilities once again placed on the backs of the American people/dual taxation) in order to make up the difference - most likely it would be a combination of the two. However, other options do exist 1) the government abandons its mandates 2) the government charges higher premiums than the private sector would have under similar conditions since it has higher overhead than the insurance companies would have.

What it all boils down to is, the government will likely run insurance companies out of the industry and then the American people will be in a worse position than they were in before the government stepped in. No surprise, right? Well, unfortunately it will be worse than anything Americans will be able to fix. A blow to one-sixth of the economy would be devastating to the country, and a ripple effect would spread throughout other parts of the economy as well - simply check any major stock market on Friday and you will see what the markets did in anticipation of the passage of this bill. The effects of crippling one-sixth of the economy would certainly have a similar or greater impact on Americans than the recent housing market crash. At the very least, it would send the American economy into a recession equal to that of recent years, and the prospect of such an event is terrifying to say the least; especially if it begins immediately after the bill is passed.

If the passage of the bill causes there to be a double dip in the stock market sending the American economy further into recession, then don't expect people to wait for November to throw the House, Senate, and the President out of office. No political leader will be safe if such an event occurs, and early indications are that the passage of health care reform will do just that, or, at the very least, stave off recovery. The arrogance and ignorance of the Democratic leadership and the Obama administration seem either blind to the will of the American people and the impending backlash that will occur, or, it is just like they are saying, that they will pass it because they think it is the right thing to do and fuck every one else. Me, I'm stuck for a particular analogy that would adequately convey my feelings but I feel like a guy in the crowd who is yelling "NO!" along with the rest of the HUGE crowd as some moron goes to push the nuke button, in slow motion, just to see what it does.

I Can't Take It Anymore!!!!

I just can't take it anymore. I think I have been transported into an episode of the Twilight Zone!!!

This week there have been developments with the Health Care Reform bill that have raised resentment toward politicians, Congress, and the Obama presidency to new highs following the announced parliamentary tactics that Democrats would employ in order to pass the Health Care Reform Bill. When combined with the arrogance and abhorrence of the Democrats in power and their willful disregard of the will of the American people, the sleazy tactics have many Americans calling for the heads of Democrat leaders regardless of their positions.

What has me most befuddled, however, is that there are still some people out there who are defending these liberal jokers. Now, I realize that the jokers that elected Obama as president, and elected other Democrat leaders, at least the far-left Democrats who are pushing the President's agenda, would stand by their decisions because they simply don't know any better - trust me in this situation it is better for them to feign ignorance rather than to try and defend their position because that will simply make them look stupid. But, after scanning a great deal of comments attached to the news articles that have been coming out of the past few weeks, I realize that there are a great deal of uneducated Americans.

It seems to be the consensus on the left that the Health Care Reform Bill will insure over 30 million uninsured Americans, decrease the national deficit, cut the cost of insurance premiums, and allow private insurance companies to remain in business. I look at these statements and I think, "wow, politicians are really telling me this? The statements alone show that they are either naive, lying, or, they simply do not understand simple economics."

So, like every other news reporter, blogger, and generally anyone with a venue and an opinion on the matter, I will now offer up my own analysis of the bill.

These are the Health Care claims taken directly from the White House website :

"The Administration believes that comprehensive health reform should:

• Reduce long-term growth of health care costs for businesses and government
• Protect families from bankruptcy or debt because of health care costs
• Guarantee choice of doctors and health plans
• Invest in prevention and wellness
• Improve patient safety and quality of care
• Assure affordable, quality health coverage for all Americans
• Maintain coverage when you change or lose your job
• End barriers to coverage for people with pre-existing medical conditions"

To understand the folly in some of these statements we must first take a look at fundamental principals of how supply and demand economics work.

A Brief Overview of Supply and Demand Economics

Cost's increase as suppliers try to increase their profits - that is how capitalism works. Prices go up as supply drops and vice-versa. Therefore, companies which control the supply also control the price. Competitors increase the supply and decrease the price when they enter the market and compete for market share by offering a lower price for comparable services. The cost of doing business in a market controls the number of suppliers in a market since the market can only bear those who are able to profit off of the demand in a market. So, demand determines the number of suppliers, suppliers determine the prices, and consumers determine which supplier to buy from. Moreover, since a market will only allow for a certain number of suppliers to be profitable and the market share is finite, then those suppliers within a market must find ways to grow profits - because that is why they are in business and they must grow profits in order to remain competitive. One way of growing profits is to cut cost. However cutting costs can only go so far and those costs are controlled by other markets. So, the way that most business' increase their profits is to cut cost as much as they can and still remain competitive while increasing prices by controlling the supply of products by introducing newer more improved products and services to the market therefore transforming market dynamics. Price increases are determined by the relationship between supply and demand (i.e. the goods/services that are in highest demand and are of short supply are priced higher while other goods/services are eliminated, trimmed down, and/or produced more cheaply - are of lower quality).

The bottom line is that a business will charge as much as they possibly can while giving up as little as they can get away with so that they can maximize their profits because that is how capitalism works. Supply and demand economics keep a business in check by allowing customers the freedom to choose between competitors in order to get the best deal, and therefore play a part in the price of these goods and services.

Supply and Demand Economics and Health Care Reform

Now, to see the folly in the Health Care Reform Bill that the Obama administration is trying so desperately to pass one need only apply the simple rules of supply and demand economics to the claims being made by the presidency.

"Reduce long-term growth of health care costs for businesses and government"
If the President intends to limit in any way the growth of a company, then the President intends to put a company out of business. Lack of growth in a company is exactly why companies fail. A company must continuously grow in order to remain competitive. Growth allows companies to diversify and increase their products and services in order to keep up with market fluctuations and changes in the market. In the insurance industry, companies grow by making more safe bets than bad bets or claims paid out. Insurance companies create member pools where customers pay into a pot that they use in order to pay against claims. Essentially, the insurance company bets against the fact the cost of any claims within a pool will outpace the revenue brought in by the members of the pool. For this reason, insurance companies hedge their bets by insuring those who are least likely to get sick or injured and draw out of the pool allowing the insurance company to stockpile money to cover claims since claims are not taken out by those who continuously pay into the pool. At the end of the year the good bets are counted against the bad bets, so to speak, and the remainder is the companies profits. Profits equal growth. Growth allows an insurance company to cover more patients since greater profits means an increased chance of reinvestment which therefore allows for higher risk members into the member pool. More revenue into the pool means less of a disaster when claims are raised by members of that pool so long as the amount of the claims are less than the revenue generated by the members in a pool. The claim that the federal government will reduce health care cost to businesses and government implies a limiting of an insurance companies ability to grow and therefore make profits, or, that there will be an increase in the number of suppliers in the health care industry. In fact, the policies within the bill aim to do just that. Both possibilities will be devastating to the insurance industry and to people's health care insurance. By limiting the profits of a company the government limits a companies ability to do business. Moreover, by limiting a companies ability to do business the government will eliminate insurance companies who are in business in the insurance market since risk will outweigh the rewards.

"End barriers to coverage for people with pre-existing medical conditions"
President Obama and Democrat supporters intend to eliminate that which insurance companies rely on in order to make a profit, the safe bets! The president intends to force insurance companies to cover more bad bets than they already do while simultaneously removing their ability to increase the cost of coverage. The president believes that the influx of members to the pool will increase the demand which will drive the supply up and therefore decrease the price. What the president doesn't seem to understand is how insurance companies work. By increasing the number of bad bets in a member pool the insurance company could potentially incur more claims than revenue in a pool. Furthermore, by increasing the supply of insurance companies member pools will decrease in size as more insurance companies acquire more and more of the market share. The result of this transition will be, at least, two-fold. First, insurance companies will have to increase premiums in order to offset the increased risk in their member pools or face possible bankruptcy. Bankruptcy will lead to claims going unpaid and the insured being denied benefits as a result. Since companies will be denied the ability to increase premiums, as the claim suggests, insurance companies will likely face bankruptcy on a month-to-month basis. Second, an increase in the number of suppliers in the health insurance market resulting in smaller member pools will lead to increased failure of insurance companies since start-up insurance companies could potentially loose all capital with one bad member pool. Again, members will lose benefits as the result of the bankruptcies that will be filed after these insurance companies fail. Moreover, the increased start-up costs that will result from the increased risk of failure will price start-ups out of the game leading to a government mandated monopoly either by private insurance companies capable of weathering bouts of bad claims, or, by a government run insurance plan. A government run insurance plan or a monopoly on private insurance will lead to an increase in the cost of insurance and the government's financial responsibility. A government run insurance plan will increase cost simply because of the governments inability to operate efficiently in any endeavor it carries out due to the bureaucracy involved. A monopolized private insurance, which is what some argue is in place today, will allow insurance companies to charge whatever price they want therefore increasing the cost of insurance for businesses and the government.

"Protect families from bankruptcy or debt because of health care costs"
This statement is purely wishful thinking or an all out lie. Regardless, the statement does not hold true if insurance companies do not honor claims brought forth by their members as the result of bankruptcy. In order for this statement to be true the government must take into account the contingency for reimbursing hospitals, doctors, etc. for services rendered to recipients of unpaid claims, otherwise these families will suffer the full brunt of the cost of any procedures or services they receive rather than the reduced cost that they would have enjoyed under their insurance plan.

"Guarantee choice of doctors and health plans"
I'm not even sure what this statement means but I think it means that you will be able to choose any doctor you want under any health plan that you want. This could only be true if the government controls health insurance. To guarantee anything means that you have the control to ensure that it will happen. Therefore, in order to guarantee which doctor someone chooses the government must control both the doctors and the insurance companies. This creates an even higher risk to insurance companies since insurance companies will be required to follow the standards imposed on doctors that are set forth by the federal government. Given the inefficiency of the federal government, the responsibility of keeping doctors current will be a responsibility that the government will be unable to satisfy, especially without incurring higher cost than the private sector. In addition, insurance companies will then be stripped of their ability to choose doctors that operate in their best interest (i.e. provide only necessary care and procedures) potentially leading to an increase in claims. Any increase in claims will lead to a loss in profits which would be normalized by an increase in premiums but since an increase in premiums will be forbidden it will lead to an increase in insurer bankruptcies or loss of profits.

"Improve patient safety and quality of care"
The first part of this claim makes no sense to me. Were patients in some kind of peril previously? Isn't that a contradiction of terms; health care and patient peril? Anyway, I think that they are trying to say that there will be more safety in one's insurance claims being paid but as we have already seen this will not be the case, at least not with the other provisions within the bill. The second part of the claim is just a joke and, again, as has already been pointed out the inefficiency of the government will inevitably lead to lower quality health care.

"Assure affordable, quality health coverage for all Americans"
This claim, yet again, is a contradiction of terms. Once the government takes over the insurance companies health care coverage quality will drop because the government won't be able to pay the amount necessary or provide the growth and development necessary to remain competitive with the private sector. The private sector will likely drop out of the market, at least until the government steps out, resulting in an inefficient government run health care system. If the government believes that the private sector will remain in the health insurance industry following passage of this bill, then the claim is outright false since the private sector will inevitably increase the price of premiums in order to offset the cost of increased claims and to protect against higher risks therefore making private health insurance less affordable leaving only the lower quality government run health option to remain. The government run option may be more affordable to the individual but certainly it will not be of higher quality than private insurance and it will certainly be more costly to the government and the American people by extension.

"Maintain coverage when you change or lose your job"
In the crazy world that the president and other liberal Democrats live in this might sound like a good idea. However, businesses will certainly not enjoy this since they will have to pay health care cost for non-contributing employees unless employees are required to continue to pay for their health insurance plan. Now, this already happens with C.O.B.R.A. but ex-employees are usually required to pay an increased premium once they have lost their job and coverage options only last for a limited time following their termination of employment with the company. I'm not sure why they are required to pay an increased premium except for maybe it is due to the fact that the discount is considered a benefit of employment through a deal insurance companies struck with employers in turn for their business and the benefit of their employees to the insurance companies members pool. So, if that is the case, then a few things happen when the government requires insurance companies to keep ex-employees on insurance plans that result from these employment deals. One thing that happens is employers no longer get these deals, or the deals are modified, since insurance companies will lose profits as a result of lost revenue that could have been gained through private individual insurance plans. Insurance companies lose these profits since they will not be able to renegotiate the deal which the ex-employee may have accepted, especially if the ex-employee was unable to find a better provider under their new employer, or, unable to find a new provider at all. Again, cutting into the profits of the insurance companies results in increased premiums, and limits on the price of premiums either increases bankruptcies or increases the number of insurance companies that abandon the market.

"Invest in prevention and wellness"
This claim leads me to the age old adage that one can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink. Like any investment there is always the potential for negative returns. What this means in the grand scheme of things is that the government can invest tons of money into prevention and wellness but it could all just be a waste of money. Sure it could work but the benefits could be negligible if there are any benefits at all. This fact is perfectly illustrated by legislation that is currently being considered by the New York assembly.

Democrat Felix Ortiz, I really didn't have to put democrat before the name since only a Democrat would be stupid enough to come up with such a boneheaded idea as this, has introduced a bill which would ban salt as an additive to meals prepared in New York restaurants. Yeah, I know. Everybody thinks it is a joke but it's not. Apparently, the New York assembly is actually considering voting on the bill, however after all of the bad press that has come as a result of its unveiling and the public condemnation and ridicule of the bills author(s) will likely result in this bill quickly being forgotten. But, it just goes to show why people are upset with the direction being taken by the liberal left. Invest in prevention and wellness means, to the liberal left, legislating the governments control over what you can and can't eat, what you must and must not do as far as exercise is concerned, and things of this nature. That is why the ideology behind the liberal left movement has produced ridiculous freedom stripping legislation of the past and attempts at new freedom stripping legislation (e.g. smoking bans, obesity claims, etc.) is causing such an uproar amongst freedom loving Americans.

The claims made by the liberal left regarding the health care reform legislation are no more ridiculous than the banning of salt in New York restaurants, and they are exactly why the nation is so polarized surrounding the debate of this issue - health care reform, not a salt ban; I think the entire nation, except for a few crazies on the left, are laughing at the hole salt ban incident. The assault on American freedom and the seeming support of liberal Americans is what has me saying that I a feel as though I am in the Twilight Zone. Things like the government taking control over the health insurance industry, banks, and auto industries, and things like Democrats trying to ban things like salt and tobacco while supporting the legalization of illegal drugs and having a president who smokes publicly have got me thinking that someone or something has stolen the brains of the "biggest political party in America." I feel as though I have somehow been sucked into an episode of the Twilight Zone where I am surrounded by mindless hypocritical zombies that are trying to control my day to day life. What's worse is that liberal or leftist Democrats seemingly take offense to being called socialist but how could they be called anything different when every move they make serves to strip Americans of their free will and their fundamental freedoms? It's crazy. I can't understand what it is that goes through their brains other than this is what they set out to do, destroy the country so that China and their allies can overrun it and turn it into the socialist country that they have always wanted - face it, if America is weakened enough China is the only country in any position to take the United States over. That notion is even crazier to me. Just thinking that someone would want to take the greatest free country on earth and turn it into the most oppressive country in the world is unfathomable to me. In fact, it is worse than any episode of the Twilight Zone. It is more like watching "Triumph of the Will."

America - Do You See It YET???

Health Care Reform - Using A Move Like The Vote Of No Confidence In 'Star Wars'?

If you saw "Star Wars: The Phantom Menace", then you are probably familiar with the "Vote Of No Confidence" that removed the Chancellor from his seat in the Senate. This parliamentary move freed up the seat for Senator Palpatine who would later become the Emporer of the Empire that would spread evil and destruction all across the galaxy. Sound familiar?

Nancy Pelosi and her cronies are now considering a parliamentary move much like that of the Vote of No Confidence in Star Wars which will clear the way for the House to pass the hugely unpopular Senate Health Care Reform bill without even having to vote on it in Congress. According to Lori Montgomery and Paul Kane of the Washington Post, the House Democratic leader says that she likes the move "because people don't have to vote on the Senate bill." Furthermore, in their article, "House may try to pass Senate health-care bill without voting on it," Montgomery and Kane state that Pelosi favors the parliamentary move known as the "deem and pass" maneuver since "it would politically protect lawmakers who are reluctant to publicly support the measure."

So, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and the Democratic party, knowing full well that neither their own political party or the American people want this Health Care Reform bill to pass, are seriously contemplating using what boils down to a procedural loophole - just like the Vote of No Confidence - in order to pass their agenda into law. Doesn't this sound familiar to all you Star Wars fans?

Nobody wants the government to control their lives like the Obama/Pelosi health care bill is attempting to do. The lawmakers who are charged with handling such things don't even want to do it and are only considering doing it in such a way that they would be, seemingly, absolved of accountability. Shirking accountability? That's par for the course with the Democratic party. Just look at the Pro-Abortion platform they run on. But how long will the politicians in power be able to get away with spitting in the face of Americans and spitting on the Constitution and the ideals that America was founded on before the American people stand up and do something about it?

Can you see it YET America?? I understand the people that voted Obama into power, at least those who voted him in for his ideals and not for other possibly more shallow reasons, can't see their mistake because they don't think that it is a mistake but for the rest of us Americans who are not so blind and can see beyond our own delusions, when will we finally say enough is enough and get the job done right by throwing these jokers out on their ass?

Americans are currently unemployed at an alarming rate, and yet the people in Washington D.C. who have never had a real job a day in their lives, are taking advantage of this dire situation by feeding off the fact that Americans have more pressing needs to worry about than fighting the corrupt politicians in Washington. Without strong opposition, the leaders in Washington ram their socialist agenda down the throat of the American people and the American people won't or can't do a damn thing about it because instead they are fighting for their lives. Do the politicians care? Of course not! This is exactly how they wanted it. That way they could push their agenda, as they are now, and the American people would have to just shut up and take it up the ass. Now, you might say, "their are checks-and-balances in place to protect us from that." Yes, there are, or at least there should be but the parliamentary move that the House is currently considering using will side-step all of the checks-and-balances in place to protect us by using a procedural loophole that doesn't require the majority vote in the House as is required. Now, it does require a majority vote on the procedural move, which the Democrats would have to win, but the House would not be voting on the bill itself. Instead, the House would be voting on the procedural move and would essentially be considering the Senate bill that previously passed to be considered passed by Congress which they would "later fix." That idea in and of itself is so laughable that I am almost crying as I write this.

When has anyone known Congress to "fix" anything? Moreover, when has anyone known Congress to do ANYTHING in a timely manner? NEVER!!!

The system is broken and all you saps who bought up President Obama's lies during his campaign should now be realizing that you got duped. There was no change that came out this administration. It has been business as usual since Obama took office, and then some!!! Actually, I stand corrected. There was change after Obama took office. There was a change for the worse.

Now, following the change that Obama promised us all America get to look forward to:

• No accountability on the part of big business since they will be allowed to do whatever they want, and, when they get in trouble, they will be deemed "too big to fail" and the government will take them over and American taxpayers will foot the bill
• No accountability by the leaders in Congress, the leaders in the Senate, or the leaders in the White House because those who hope to be elected will simply buy the White House and run it into the ground by side-stepping and re-writing the Constitution to fit their every whim using parliamentary moves leaving American taxpayers to foot the bill
• No sustainability since the nation will be in such a state of disarray and financial ruin, having to try and clean up the messes and overspending of their predecessors, that the U.S. government will be running to stand still while the American taxpayers foot the bill. ****NOTE: Democrats argue that George W. Bush spent us into the hole that America is now in, and Republicans and others might agree with that but how does that mean that the new President, President Barack Obama, must then double, triple, or even quadruple the spending of George W. Bush when he takes term in order to fix it? That doesn't make any sense. If anything, Obama should have cut spending to offset the spending of the previous President. Was George W. Bush's spending a preemptive strike?
  

Now, on the cusp of this momentous ass-fucking of the American people, and on the eve of the most despicable and blatant disregard of the will of the people - why would Democrats have to fear reprisals from their constituents if their constituents wanted the bill to be passed? - the Democrats say "fuck it all, let's do what we want and fuck everyone else" and prepare to pass the Health Care Reform bill using a sleazy, backroom, Chicago style politics, bullshit, un-American, grease ball tactic that will enslave the American people and run this good country into the ground. Oh, but that's just par for the course with Democrats.

Cop or Criminal?

Most people are well aware that cops act just like criminals only they are not held accountable. Scary thought isn't it?

A well known doctrine known as "sovereign immunity" absolves government entities from "lawsuits or other legal actions except when it consents to them" ("Sovereign Immunity." Cornell University Law School. http://topics.law.cornell.edu/wex/sovereign_immunity). In fact, a government must expressly waive their immunity in order for that government to be held accountable in pretty much all cases. One might think that the government, those who are in place to protect us from harm and oversee our general well being, would hold themselves accountable for their actions when harm was brought to someone as a result of their actions, but they don't. Instead they usually use their immunity to place themselves above the law.

Case in point, here are some of the waivers that one will find in the Utah Code regarding just such immunities; beware they are pretty alarming.

(5) Immunity from suit of each governmental entity is not waived under Subsections (3) and (4) if the injury arises out of, in connection with, or results from:

• (a) the exercise or performance, or the failure to exercise or perform, a discretionary function, whether or not the discretion is abused;
  

• (b) assault, battery, false imprisonment, false arrest, malicious prosecution, intentional trespass, abuse of process, libel, slander, deceit, interference with contract rights, infliction of mental anguish, or violation of civil rights;
  

• (c) the issuance, denial, suspension, or revocation of, or by the failure or refusal to issue, deny, suspend, or revoke, any permit, license, certificate, approval, order, or similar authorization;
  

• (d) a failure to make an inspection or by making an inadequate or negligent inspection;

• (e) the institution or prosecution of any judicial or administrative proceeding, even if malicious or without probable cause;
  

• (f) a misrepresentation by an employee whether or not it is negligent or intentional;

• (g) riots, unlawful assemblies, public demonstrations, mob violence, and civil disturbances;
  

The list goes on and on. One of my favorites though, not to overshadow the horror of the prior provisions though, is:

• (o) research or implementation of cloud management or seeding for the clearing of fog;
  

To see more atrocities simply visit Utah Code 63G-7-301. Waivers of immunity -- Exceptions.

Now, after seeing what your government can do to you without any kind of accountability except for maybe the perpetrator will get fired, I ask you, what divides the criminals from the government? Easy. The government doesn't have to worry about getting caught because nothing can happen to the government anyway!