Mediaboss Marketing

The GOP is back at it. Their DOA replacement for the Affordable Care Act is being spiffed up with even more egregious attacks on low-income and chronically ill Americans. But there is hope from one of their own: Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky.

Sen. Paul would disagree, but he has become the loudest and most credible voice endorsing universal health care albeit under a different name. On his website and in multiple interviews, Sen. Paul advocates the establishment of nontraditional groups called Independent Health Pools (IHPs) in order to allow individuals to pool together for the purposes of purchasing insurance These can include entities formed strictly for establishing an IHP. In essence, Sen. Paul believes any American who wants to buy group medical insurance should be able to do so.

If enacted, IHPs could eliminate the most absurd peculiarity of the American healthcare system: employer-supplied medical insurance. Employer involvement with healthcare began during World War II as a way for corporations to skirt federal wage controls. Health insurance was a valuable perk that attracted job candidates while allowing employers to comply with the letter of the law. Plus, because companies could deduct the cost of the benefit as a business expense, the bottom line effect was negligible.

Employer-provided medical insurance is still widely popular. It covers the large-majority of non-elderly middle- and upper-class Americans and is rarely criticized from either side of the aisle. Thats the good news. The bad news is employer involvement with medical insurance represents ground zero in the battle to fix our dysfunctional American healthcare system. Its the primary reason displaced workers cant afford private insurance and why individuals with pre-existing conditions cant find insurance companies willing to offer coverage.

My personal experience provides a textbook example. I left the corporate world in 2007 to start a business. I was covered under COBRA for about a year after leaving my former company. During that time I was billed for the same amount the company paid when I was an employee: about $17,000 per year for our family of four. When COBRA ended, we had to buy private insurance with an annual premium of $25,000 for less coverage, higher co-pays, and astronomical deductibles. We were the exact same family of four, but our out-of-pocket expenses more than doubled because I was no longer a member of a group and no longer qualified for group insurance rates.

Group medical insurance is a highly competitive business. Industry giants like Aetna, Cigna, and Humana bid aggressively for corporate accounts. The larger the company, the more competitive the bidding and the lower the premium. The IBMs and Walmarts of the world pay lower premiums for better coverage than their smaller competitors or mom-and-pop suppliers. Thats fine for big-company employees until they leave for a start-up or niche company. Assuming the new employer contributes the same amount as the former (typically 72% of the total premium) the employee will likely see an increase in paycheck deductions and a reduction in coverage benefits. Thats insane by any definition of the word.

Thats why I love Sen. Pauls IHP proposal. If fully implemented, every American would come together in a true melting pot of quality healthcare services and delivery. Every working American covered by an employer-sponsored plan would receive a pay raise equal in value to their firms contribution towards medical insurance. The company would still be able to deduct the extra wages so thered be no effect on corporate profits, and the employee would have the means to pay the premium negotiated by his IHP.

The more cynical observer might point out that this approach does not address the cost of health insurance which remains beyond the means of minimum-wage workers, the unemployed, and the disabled. As a nation of historically compassionate leaders, the federal government could increase the withholding tax for Medicare by a percentage or two in order to help provide or subsidize coverage for the less fortunate.

The key thing to remember is that this proposed system is nothing like the socialist abomination known as single-payer or universal health care. The Independent Health Pools epitomize the individualistic character of our nation. For the sake of efficiency, Id personally recommend combining all the IHPs into a single entity. We could call this IHP The United Citizens of America. Membership would be automatic for every U.S. citizen, begin at birth, and end at death. Its an idea whose time has come, and Im sure Sen. Paul would agree.

Go here to read the rest:
Rand Paul Is Right: Replace Obamacare With Group Insurance For All - Huffington Post

Joshua Lott / Stringer / Getty

By Sen. Rand Paul

Real men (as well as pull-no-punches women) cut taxes. The lesser mortals that tend to inhabit Washington wring their hands and get all weak in the knees when it comes to cutting taxes. Rumors are President Trump will propose a real tax cut. I certainly hope so.

Once upon a time, most Republicans believed in tax cuts. Somewhere along the way, inside the beltway especially, Republicans forgot about the benefits of cutting taxes. Republicans became more concerned with government keeping its revenue than letting the people keep their money.

Too many Republican have become timid about tax cuts, often spouting the milquetoast line of revenue neutral tax cuts.

Let me translate that little bit of Washington-speak for you. Revenue neutral tax cuts arent really tax cuts. Its more like tax shifting. Some will pay more. Some will pay less. And the net effect will be that government will collect the same amount of taxes.

If revenue neutral tax shifting is what Republicans stand for, maybe its time we re-evaluated what we really stand for.

What will revenue neutral tax cut mean to your business? Well, that may depend on how expensive your lobbyist is. Which side of the revenue-neutral ledger you wind up on may depend on how well the skids are greased, hardly, a pleasant scenario to anticipate.

I believe as John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan did, that the best way to stimulate our economy, promote job growth, and give our ailing middle class a raise is to cut taxes for all.

I know Donald Trump believes this too, because he said so often during the campaign, and as a job creator himself, he knows that lower taxes and less regulation are the keys to more jobs.

This week, we are expected to hear the beginnings of the Trump Tax Reform plan. I, for one, urge the President to stick to his guns and not to preemptively surrender to the establishment in Congress and to offer real, meaningful cuts to individuals and businesses, across all income levels.

It is likely the single most important thing he will do in his first year in office to determine our economic growth over the next several years. Our economy has grown at an anemic two percent average over the last 15 years. Historically, it has been nearly double that. We have lost more than three TRILLION dollars in GDP to this anemic growth, according to economist Stephen Moore.

We cannot allow this to continue, so I urge the President to go big and bold.

But also to go simple.

As he has likely already seen, people often try to make things to complicated or clever up here in Congress. Obamacare repeal is a great example. So, learning from that lesson, lets make this simple.

We dont need hundreds of special interests grabbing for goodies. We wont need 2,000-page bills.

We need a big, bold tax cut. My suggestions from among the ideas that I have championed and Donald Trump ran on are simple. First, cut the corporate tax rate. Ours is now the highest in the world at 35 percent. We should immediately cut it to 15 percent or less, putting us in line with other countries. Money and business go where theyre welcome, and right now, thats not the United States. We can change that, and do it easily, while creating millions of new jobs. At that low rate, we can also eliminate deductions and loopholes, and make the tax simple and fair.

American regulatory and tax treatment of business has in recent years led to major corporations moving overseas or leaving their overseas profits offshore. Currently, they are double taxed, with a 35 percent penalty for bringing this money home. I authored a bipartisan bill last year to allow repatriation of that capital at 6.5 percent, bringing home as much as 2 trillion in capital for job growth, and increased revenue. (My bill would direct that revenue into an infrastructure fund).

Finally, we must make sure every income level receives a cut, and that small businesses organized under various parts of the tax code get the benefit of the corporate tax cut.

Im hoping the President has learned three things from his Obamacare repeal experience. First, work with the true fiscal conservatives in Congress to come up with a great tax plan. Second, keep it simple, and make sure everyone in America will both know and see the benefits. Finally, remember who elected you, and heed this advice no one ever knocked doors or made phone calls for revenue neutral tax reform. If you want to drain the swamp, you have to take away money from Washington, and send it back to the people.

I stand ready to cut taxes for every American and get our economy moving again.

Donald TrumpJohn F. KennedyMenObamacarerand paulRepublicansRonald ReagantaxesTrump Tax Reform

Continued here:
Rand Paul: Real Men Cut Taxes - The Libertarian Republic

It seems that every dictator and every atrocity in that region is met with a call for action without a thought to consequences. Those who wish to send our soldiers to "take care" of every atrocity in the world might want to take a glance at Maplecroft's Human Rights Risk Atlas, which currently lists 35 countries as extreme risks for committing atrocities. Are we prepared to send our military to right the wrongs of all 35 countries?

Of course, Americans were horrified by the use of chemical weapons in Syria on innocent people. But there are horrors all around the world, and surely the suggestion is not that we battle them all.

United States military action is not to be taken lightly. It should be thoughtful, measured, constitutional -- and decisive for a victory. For over two decades, we have acted as a traffic cop in the Middle East -- sanctions, bombings, no-fly zones, invasions, occupations, policing, nation-building.

American foreign policy now requires a dramatic shift. It must be governed by the question: What are our vital national security interests in the region?

For years, I have argued against intervention in the Syrian civil war, and I have done so under both Democrat and Republican presidents.

It isn't that there aren't atrocities. There are -- and on both sides of the war. But sometimes discerning the good guys from the bad is not possible. Sometimes, there is no good side in war.

Assad, like so many strong hands in the Middle East, is an autocrat and likely much worse. But some of the armies that fight him and seek his ouster are radical Islamic rebels allied with the worst elements on Earth -- al Nusra, al Qaeda and, yes, ISIS.

It is true that the fight against ISIS and the civil war in Syria are connected, but not in the way neocons infer. Overthrowing Assad may actually lead to an Islamist regime that finds common ground with ISIS, not America.

The neocons' worldview is warped and nave. Neocons see military action as the first option, and they never look back to view the mayhem that follows.

In short, they either ignore or do not understand the unintended consequences of our military involvement in the Middle East.

Not only did neocons fail to anticipate that the Iraq War would embolden Iran, but they predicted the opposite -- that a yearning for democracy would transform the Middle East into a replica of the West.

They also insisted that the US, along with Qatar and Saudi Arabia, arm the Islamic rebels in Syria. While the arms were not decisive, they were just enough to keep the civil war alive -- just enough to push Assad back and create the vacuum in which ISIS grew and thrived.

The neocons were wrong about the war in Libya. They were wrong about the war in Iraq. And they are wrong about getting us further mired in the civil war in Syria. They've been wrong about every major intervention of the past two decades in the Middle East. Maybe it is time to quit listening to them.

McCain and Graham still argue we must depose Assad because Iran is on his side. Well, ISIS is on the other side. Which is worse? I don't know for sure, but I know neither are our friends, and neither should be treated as such.

McCain and Graham also argue that we must fight in Yemen because Iran supports the Houthi rebels. Yet one major group also fighting the Houthis is al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. Is it possible that our involvement in Yemen could also lead to such chaos that al Qaeda picks up the pieces and exploits the vacuum much as ISIS did in Syria?

Any military action against Syria or Yemen must come with the consent of Congress. There are two reasons for this. The first and most obvious is that it is what our Constitution says, and we should follow it. But the second is because we need thoughtful debate. We need to examine consequences. We need to look at enemies and allies, actions and reactions.

Is military action in our vital interest? What goal do we have? Can it be achieved? What are the costs and consequences?

President Trump ran on an America First platform, advocating for less intervention in global affairs, and I support him on that. I hope he keeps to it, and I urge my colleagues in Congress to do their job and hold him to it.

Link:
Rand Paul: McCain and Graham are blind to the risks in Syria - CNN

By Ron Paul, Rand Paul

As presidents and Congresses come and go, the addiction to busting the budget remains; its voraciousness fueled by the same enabler, the Federal Reserve.

While it took our nation more than 225 years to accumulate nearly $20 trillion in debt (and much, much more if you factor in unfunded liabilities), our central bank can put Americans on the hook for trillions without blinking by simply creating whatever funds it needs out of thin air. Its status as the lender of last resort signs a blank check for politicians to spend to their hearts content without worrying about the immediate consequences.

When pressed to at least provide some measure of substantive transparency for its actions, the Fed tells the American people its none of their business.

We disagree.

Time and again, we have been asked to justify our desire to Audit the Fed. Time and again, we answer, how can we afford not to?

Though one of the Feds mandates is to keep prices stable, a trip to the grocery store is enough to prove its failure. The Minneapolis Federal Reserve Banks own website hosts a calculator that reveals that what would have cost you $1 in 1913 would now require $24.

RELATED:Rand Paul and Thomas Massie introduce Audit the Fed, and what Donald Trump thinks about it is encouraging

We may chuckle when parents and grandparents tell children about the good ol days of lower prices, but the massive decline in the dollars value is no laughing matter for seniors whose supposed safety nests dont stretch as far as they used to, or for frugal consumers who are punished for saving for rainy days. Politicians pile debt onto future generations backs, and the Federal Reserve makes sure they cant ever hope to pay for it.

Meanwhile, Americans struggling to cover basic costs watch as favored parties receive bailout after bailout from friends in high places. If you care about income inequality, then you must start fostering change by holding the Fed accountable.

The big-spending status quo is powerfully entrenched, but a growing political coalition, driven by overwhelming support from the American people, is fighting to assert Congresss right to know the facts about how the Fed is using its tremendous power.

Audit the Fed, which has now passed the U.S. House of Representatives multiple times and received majority support in the Senate, removes the shackles on how the nonpartisan, independent Government Accountability Office (GAO) can examine the Fed.

The bill would authorize the first-ever thorough audit of the entire Federal Reserve System in its 104-year history, including its agreements with foreign governments and central banks, discount window and open market operations, member bank reserves, and Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) directives. Congress would require the GAO to conduct this audit within one year of the bills passage and to report back within 90 days of its completion.

The biggest opponent to auditing the Fed is, unsurprisingly, the Fed.

The Fed harnesses its moneymaking machine in an all-out lobbying effort against transparency on its activities. The conflict of interest, with the Fed lobbying against its own audit, should make us question whether such lobbying should be forbidden by law.

The Fed argues that: 1.) It is already audited enough; and 2.) Any further interference would threaten its independence and represent a takeover of monetary policy by Congress, with disastrous results.

While it is true that an outside auditor examines the Feds financial statements, and that an inspector general also keeps an eye on its activities, Paul-Martin Foss, President and Executive Director of the Carl Menger Center for the Study of Money and Banking, reminds us that both are appointed by and answer to either the Federal Reserve Board or the Fed Chair directly. This amounts to, as he states, the Fed saying, [W]e can audit ourselves if we want to, so just trust us that weve investigated ourselves and found ourselves fully trustworthy.

The GAOs opinion is that, while the Fed is subject to limited audits, no complete audit is done. The GAO went on to say, We do not see how we can satisfactorily audit the Federal Reserve System without authority to examine the largest single category of financial transactions and assets that it has.

As Foss further observes, The full audit called for by Audit the Fed would necessarily include not just a financial audit (if that were determined to be necessary), but performance and operational audits as GAO is accustomed to carrying out.

Perhaps the Feds real fear is the American people finding out the extent to which the Emperor is parading around without his clothes.

If the Fed examiners were set upon the Feds own documentsunlabeled documentsto pass judgment on the Feds capacity to survive the difficulties it faces in credit, it would shut this institution down, Grants Interest Rate Observer founder and editor Jim Grant said on CNBC in 2009 when the Fed held half the assets it does now.

In December, Alex J. Pollock, former CEO and president of the Federal Home Loan Bank of Chicago, estimated the Fed would fail if subjected to a simple and standard interest rate stress test, with it being highly likely the Fed would be hugely insolvent on a mark-to-market basis.

What about the Feds second argument? Would increased scrutiny threaten its independence or create a global economic catastrophe?

When Congress required the Fed to reveal the details of more than 21,000 transactions it made during the 2008 financial crisis that involved trillions of dollars, the sun still rose and Fed officials went about their jobs without a congressman sitting in each of their offices.

Do you remember the chaos that erupted after Bloomberg won its lawsuit to force the Fed to disclose even more details about the specific recipients of its emergency lending?

Neither do we, despite the Fed promising doom.

Though the Fed will claim that further soliciting the GAOs opinions on its policies and procedures would cause irreparable harm, recent history proves otherwise.

After Congress expanded the GAOs authority to allow for a one-time audit of the Feds emergency activities between Dec. 1, 2007, and July 21, 2010, the GAO made seven recommendations to improve the Feds operations, noting, The Federal Reserve Board agreed that GAOs recommendations would benefit its response to future crises and agreed to strongly consider how best to respond to them.

In a letter also included in the GAOs report, Fed General Counsel Scott Alvarez wrote, We appreciate the GAOs substantial efforts to review these complex programs and the understanding of these programs that your report demonstrates.

There is no reason not to keep expecting such professionalism and expertise from the GAO.

RELATED:Thomas Massie has introduced a bill to audit the Fed, and it has a real chance of passing

Throughout its existence, the Feds manipulation of interest rates and expansion of the money supply have led to malinvestment and helped generate a devastating boom-and-bust cycle that routinely levels our economy as the market corrects course.

We hear no shortage of tales about how the Fed rescued the nation during the financial crisis, but this is the equivalent of someone pushing you into an icy lake and expecting you to thank them for saving your life after they pull you out.

Time is of the essence. The Federal Reserve cannot be allowed to continue denying full accountability to the hundreds of millions of people whose financial futures hinge on its actions.

We cannot wait until we find ourselves slipping underwaterto ask the tough questions about what keeps putting us there.

With President Trump indicating his support for Audit the Fed, the window of opportunity has never been more open.

If we hope to ever rein in spending, change a failed status quo and avoid paralyzing downturns, we must not let it slip away.

Ron Paul is a former U.S. congressman from Texas. Rand Paul is the junior U.S. senator from Kentucky.

Continue reading here:
Ron and Rand Paul: Now is the time to pass Audit the Fed - Rare.us

LISTEN TO TLRS LATEST PODCAST:

By: Elias Atienza

Libertarian-leaning Republican Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) says that he agrees with President Donald Trumps decision to include China on the current tension going on with North Korea.

Theyre a socialist economy. They dont produce enough food to feed themselves, sort of an inhospitable place, its cold and somewhat barren. I think that most of their food coming in from China, China could have some on their behavior, Paul said at a medal ceremony in honor of late World War II veteran Otto Grosnik.

Paul also said that open dialogue is important and he believes the world can help reign in Kim Jong Un from making rash decisions.

This comes as Trumps national security adviser said that there was an international consensus on North Koreas provocation.

There has been recent criticism within China itself over Beijings North Korea policy. Shen Zihua, considered Chinas best-known historian on the Korean War, recently criticized North Korea in a speech that has not been censored by the Chinese government.

Judging by the current situation, North Korea is Chinas latent enemy and South Korea could be Chinas friend, Shen said, according to the New York Times.We must see clearly that China and North Korea are no longer brothers in arms, and in the short term theres no possibility of an improvement in Chinese-North Korean relations.

This also comes as the United States is preparing to test their ability to shoot down missiles and have scheduled two tests in May according to CNN.

chinaDonald Trumpforeign policyNorth KoreaPentagonrand paulshooting down missilesUS

Link:
Rand Paul Agrees With Trump's Inclusion of China on North Korea - The Libertarian Republic