tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-53030678780912992352023-11-16T13:22:06.834-05:00Gibson4congress2012.comIndependent candidate in Virginia's 11th Congressional DistrictMark Gibsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08106753788217974462noreply@blogger.comBlogger66125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5303067878091299235.post-15011583157504638142012-11-11T19:46:00.001-05:002012-12-10T15:31:10.334-05:00Mark: Your Best-Value Candidate<b>Gibson</b>: $4,050 raised / 3,806 votes = $1.06 per vote<br />
<br />
<b>Perkins</b>: $543,004 raised / 117,902 votes = $4.61 per vote<br />
<br />
<b>Connolly</b>: $2,236,555 raised / 202,606 votes = $11.04 per vote<br />
<br />
Sources: <a href="http://electionresults.virginia.gov/resultsCTY.aspx?type=CON&rid=3474305243922248753&osn=0&map=CTY" target="_blank">Virginia SBE</a>, <a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/races/election.php?state=VA&cycle=2012" target="_blank">OpenSecret.org</a>Mark Gibsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08106753788217974462noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5303067878091299235.post-20260889136378595302012-11-07T11:39:00.002-05:002012-11-07T13:37:19.316-05:00Post-Election Wrap Up<b>Some voter comments from Election Day</b><br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
I received so many nice notes and emails – just wanted to share a few with you.<br />
<br />
<b>Keith</b>: Congrats for coming in first among "non-traditional" candidates ... Nice showing for a first timer!<br />
<br />
<b>Thomas</b>: I voted for you as a clearheaded, intelligent independent, though you're somewhat to the right of me politically. Congrats on the third place finish. Run again. Please. You'll have my support. <br />
<br />
<b>Janet</b>: I can't thank you enough for answering my email. We stand exactly the same on this issue ... My young daughter just flew through the kitchen this morning on her way to the polls ready to vote ... she decided to vote for you as well. We must end this gridlock in Washington. Thank you for your gallant effort to make a change in our government. <br />
<br />
<b>Jeff</b>: I found your website earlier this week. I think you have many smart and sensible ideas and I voted for you today. Regardless of what happens with the election results, thanks for providing a refreshing alternative to the status quo.<br />
<br />
<b>Linda</b>: I'm proud of you for all the energy and effort you put into your campaign. [You were] willing to take on a losing fight because it's the right thing to do. You wanted to represent people, not parties. <br />
<br />
<b>Chris</b>: Even if people don't vote for you they have respect for the fact that you tried your best to improve the governing process ... Seeing your name on an official ballot [will be] an emotional experience.<br />
<br />
<b>Karen</b>: Whatever the outcome, I think it is so impressive that you ran and tried to make a difference! <br />
<br />
<b>Eddie</b>: You came up short in your bid ...but your hard work didn't go unnoticed ... Hope this election makes you stronger, and that you're back out there the next time.<br />
<br />
<b>Rebecca</b>: It was great going to vote today and [see you] on our local ballot! So great that you got out there and ran for office.<br />
<br />
Thank you all for sharing your thoughts and support – you are all very kind and generous.Mark Gibsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08106753788217974462noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5303067878091299235.post-38277279118102026192012-11-04T11:47:00.000-05:002012-11-07T11:06:54.163-05:00An Open Letter to 11th District Voters<b>First of all – thank you.</b><br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
To my family, friends, neighbors, and supporters: running for Congress was an audacious goal, you backed and encouraged me throughout the effort.<br />
<br />
To ballot petition signers: even if you don't end up voting for me, you saw that greater ballot choice is vital to a dynamic democracy.<br />
<br />
To those who may vote for me: by rejecting partisan bickering and inaction, you empower all of us to move forward together as a nation.<br />
<br />
Has this run been a little farfetched? Maybe, but it was a little farfetched when our Founding Father brought forth a new nation in the face of the tyranny. Nowadays we suffer the tyranny of the major parties that bring forth candidates with little more to offer than their continued existence and strengthening of these "recognized political parties".<br />
<br />
Has it been wasted effort? Definitely not. Civil discourse that focuses on the issues is never wasted effort. Nor is it wasted effort to get Congress moving – especially when the issues are great and resolutions within our reach.<br />
<br />
I did my best to run an open campaign that got voters "inside the ropes" of the political process. I told voters that "what you see is what you get" with me and I never deviated from that promise. I accepted donations only from individual 11th District voters, never signed any pledges, and maintained my positions even if it meant losing endorsements.<br />
<br />
As your Congressional representative, I will listen and I will lead. We may not always agree but I will do my best for our District and for the country as a whole.<br />
<br />
Let's challenge the status quo of inaction and rancor. Let's do something audacious. Let's do something great.<br />
<br />
Sincerely, MarkMark Gibsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08106753788217974462noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5303067878091299235.post-43911794685031310052012-10-28T06:00:00.000-04:002012-11-03T17:48:52.641-04:00An Open Letter to Gerry Connolly<b>Subject: Observations by an independent mind</b><br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
Dear Gerry:<br />
<br />
My goals as a candidate in this year's election in11th Congressional District are to bring issue-oriented civility to the race and get voters "inside the ropes" to see the candidate's point of view. As a first-time candidate, it's been exciting and a real eye-opener for me.<br />
<br />
I can't say that I know you any better than when I started campaigning 15 months ago, but the campaign certainly confirmed the impressions from your constituents and colleagues – some of whom knew you from your first days as Fairfax County Supervisor in 1995. Though I voted for you in 2010, I wasn't seeing enough in your professional growth to warrant sending you back for a third term. That's why I chose to run.<br />
<br />
One of my first interactions with you occurred while collecting petition signatures to get on the ballot. We shook hands at ViVa Vienna in May. Later that day your chief of staff stopped by my booth, signed my petition, and said that you'd sign as well because you supported participation in the political process; you didn't return. When we met a few weeks later at Celebrate Fairfax, I asked for your petition signature and you responded, "I don't think I can." When I reminded you that all registered voters of the 11th District were eligible to sign, you responded, "I think I already did," and walked on without breaking stride.<br />
<br />
At a summertime meeting of the Braddock District Council, you used the phrase, "In my District, where you live." Was that a slip or something more telling? Did you mean to say, "In our District that I'm honored to represent"? <br />
<br />
At a luncheon hosted by the Greater Merrifield Business Association and Falls Church Chamber of Commerce when asked about redistricting, you blamed those Republicans in Richmond – even though you benefited from the gerrymandering that made the District more Democratic.<br />
<br />
At the Northern Virginia Black Chamber of Commerce, you claimed to be everywhere! NAACP meetings, Urban League meetings, etc. But to what effect? At the Korean Coalition for Political Participation candidate forum, you claimed victory over "big box" dry cleaners – to the detriment of consumers through higher prices. You can't be everything to everyone. When you carve out niches, you fail to serve the whole.<br />
<br />
And what's with the fingers? Whether making a point or blaming someone else for our problems (which you do a lot), you have those index fingers out, firing, ready to assign blame ... as long as it's not you.<br />
<br />
BTW – What have you done the last 4 years? I honestly can't say whether it's good or bad because I haven't heard from you. OK, I don't mean personally heard from you. But have voters heard from you? We're one of the most affluent regions in the nation. Where have you been? We get the freshman/sophomore Congressman thing. But as animated as you are in person, perhaps you could be a little more animated and visible on the national stage – that's the stage for a Congressman.<br />
<br />
I have a few suggestions for you: <br />
<ul>
<li><i>Show some humility</i> – In the consulting business, when the client looks good your business grows; when things go wrong, you take the blame and take one for the team. Taking credit solely for success may be a great political formula, but that mentality built the gridlock we have today. Let's figure out what's not working, worry less about scoring political points and returning for another term in office, succeed as Team America. </li>
<li><i>Stop and listen</i> – When was the last time you sat down and chatted with your constituents? Not a speech, not a fundraiser, not a "distinguished panel". You have a remarkable memory for people, names, places, and families. Slow down, stop talking, stop campaigning, listen to what we're saying.</li>
<li><i>Take a vow of propriety</i> – It's interesting to hear members of your party rail against the influence of big money in political campaigns. Yet they play the same game, and you don't seem to be an exception. Play a different game: accept contributions only from individual voters and only those voters who reside in the 11th District. It's refreshing, it's cleansing, it'll bring you closer to your constituents.</li>
</ul>
My guess is that you'll never read this letter; a staffer will probably do it for you. I hope I'm wrong. As a community, we are as diverse as any in the nation and we're among the most affluent. We have a tremendous chance to lead from the center, to break the gridlock for the benefit of all. You've been a politician for so long that perhaps you've forgotten how to be hungry and idealistic. That's a pity, because that's what we need right now.<br />
<br />
Sincerely, Mark Mark Gibsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08106753788217974462noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5303067878091299235.post-85347767153434639102012-10-26T16:43:00.000-04:002012-11-04T11:49:09.356-05:00Q&A with Patch.com<b>An interview with Mark by James Cullum of <a href="http://lorton.patch.com/" target="_blank">Lorton Patch</a></b><br />
<a href="http://lorton.patch.com/articles/not-your-everyday-q-a-with-mark-gibson#photo-11893794" target="_blank">Read the article »</a><br />
<br />
<b>10 questions from, 10 answers for 11th District voters</b><br />
<a href="http://tysonscorner.patch.com/articles/ask-the-candidate-mark-gibson" target="_blank">Read the article »</a><br />
Mark Gibsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08106753788217974462noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5303067878091299235.post-14709958264288539022012-10-03T09:53:00.001-04:002012-11-03T17:58:02.412-04:00Mark Featured in The Washington Post<b>Front-page piece by Corinne Reilly highlights area candidates</b><br />
<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dc-politics/in-congressional-races-underdogs-abound-but-why/2012/10/02/9bb2eeea-0977-11e2-afff-d6c7f20a83bf_story_2.html" target="_blank">Read the article »</a><br />
<br />
<b>"An independent candidate raps Post coverage"</b><br />
<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/an-independent-candidate-raps-post-coverage/2012/10/12/168ecd64-13b9-11e2-9a39-1f5a7f6fe945_story.html" target="_blank">Read the letter »</a>Mark Gibsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08106753788217974462noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5303067878091299235.post-39662876643186556022012-09-30T06:00:00.000-04:002012-10-14T21:01:45.170-04:00Showing "Courage"<b>Project Vote Smart distinguishes Mark from the other candidates</b><br />
<a href="http://votesmart.org/voteeasy/#/state=va&district=11" target="_blank">See the guide »</a>Mark Gibsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08106753788217974462noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5303067878091299235.post-79131215380250656512012-09-25T06:00:00.000-04:002012-10-14T21:02:10.598-04:00Mark's Going Viral!<b>Well, maybe ... maybe not.</b><br />
<a href="http://youtu.be/gndvo_krCWA" target="_blank">See the video »</a>Mark Gibsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08106753788217974462noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5303067878091299235.post-35761803839538845862012-09-13T06:00:00.001-04:002012-09-20T16:08:23.186-04:00What is (an) Entitlement?<b>Let's manage financial liabilities and long-term commitments</b><br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<a href="https://docs.google.com/open?id=0BzG5WarfFSjgWlkyUTJnc2tfNWc" target="_blank"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><b>Download or print from Google Documents</b></span></a><br />
<br />
<b>en•ti•tle•ment </b><i>noun</i> from <a href="http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/entitlement" target="_blank">Merriam-Webster.com</a><br />
<ol>
<li> a) the state or condition of being entitled b) a right to benefits </li>
<li> a government program providing benefits to members of a specified group; funds supporting or distributed by such a program</li>
<li> a belief that one is deserving of or entitled to certain privileges</li>
</ol>
Last weekend a voter said to me, "They call Medicaid an entitlement but they call tax breaks ..." She hesitated so I offered, "Incentives?" <br />
<br />
Fast forward 24 hours. Another voter asked about my proposal to eliminate the deduction for mortgage interest. I posed the question: "Let's say you and I have the same income – you rent, I have a mortgage – should I pay less tax?" He didn't respond. I answered my own question: "No, we must be taxed equally."<br />
<br />
Government programs that convey a benefit or favoritism engender a sense of entitlement. And beneficiaries don't want it to end. That's why Congress is at a standstill. Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security. Farm subsidies. Tax breaks for mortgage interest, employer provided health insurance, capital gains and dividends. Veterans programs for education, housing, and life insurance. Each program has its constituency and proponents.<br />
<br />
Most of these programs have long-term and indefinite budget consequences. Social Security eligibility is age 62. Total Social Security benefits paid aren't determined by the taxes you paid but how long you live. The government doesn't know its liability for veteran education benefits until a veteran starts going to and completes school.<br />
<br />
At some point in our nation's history, these programs didn't exist. Does that mean we roll them all back immediately? No – that would have significant consequences for people's long-term plans. So how do we transition from a system of entrenched favoritism and long-term expectations?<br />
<ul>
<li>For Medicare and Social Security: Maintain current commitments to current beneficiaries, but begin to narrow the range of eligibility for future beneficiaries by increasing age and income requirements.</li>
<li>For veteran programs: Maintain current commitments to current beneficiaries, but immediately transition new service members to higher pay and defined-contribution programs.</li>
<li>For income security programs: Mandate work, education, or training requirements that lead to graduating from the need for income assistance.</li>
<li>For income tax breaks: Lower rates to offset the loss of credits and deductions with one notable exception for mortgage interest. In my<a href="http://gibson4congress2012.blogspot.com/p/taxes.html" target="_blank"> tax proposal</a> I suggest phasing out tax breaks for existing retirement plans and allow an annual tax deferral of $25,000 on new savings and investment; existing homeowners may apply their mortgage interest toward that deferral but new homeowners may not.</li>
<li>For programs that distort markets such as agriculture or energy subsidies: End them immediately. (The mortgage interest deduction also distorts markets, but needs special handling.)</li>
</ul>
Good businesses know their current finances and future liabilities with certainty. It's time for good government to do the same.Mark Gibsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08106753788217974462noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5303067878091299235.post-3154674256533865432012-08-30T15:26:00.001-04:002012-08-30T21:29:39.351-04:00Mark Featured in The Connection<b>"Gibson’s website has a clear, new platform ... Check him out."</b><br />
<a href="http://www.connectionnewspapers.com/news/2012/aug/08/four-running-represent-you-congress/" target="_blank">Read more »</a>Mark Gibsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08106753788217974462noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5303067878091299235.post-47855527828659045342012-08-22T06:00:00.000-04:002012-09-17T15:48:57.600-04:00Old Wisdom is the New Normal<b>Joseph was a savvy political advisor</b><br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<a href="https://docs.google.com/open?id=0BzG5WarfFSjgazhTRzl4Q1Z6ZlE" target="_blank"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><b>Download or print from Google Documents</b></span></a><br />
<br />
Known also as <a href="http://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/8236/jewish/Chapter-41.htm" target="_blank">Yosef </a>and <a href="http://quran.com/12" target="_blank">Yusuf</a>, Joseph was the 11th son of Jacob. Though sold as a slave, he eventually became Vizier and was – after Pharaoh – the most powerful man in ancient Egypt. The Book of Genesis tells how <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+41%3A35-36&version=NIV" target="_blank">Joseph interprets Pharaoh's dream</a>, recommending that Egypt set aside seven years of abundance for seven years of coming famine.<br />
<br />
Now I'm not suggesting that we're facing anything so dire as seven years of famine. But we currently have an abundance of talk and a dearth of action when it comes to the Federal budget. Our annual budget deficit is $1 trillion and Federal debt is $16 trillion. Here are some central questions and my take on each:<br />
<br />
<i><b>Why do we have an annual deficit and a growing debt?</b></i><br />
The deficit is the annual imbalance of spending over revenue and the growing debt is the result of year-after-year deficits. Sounds simple enough. But as <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/a-country-in-denial-about-its-fiscal-future/2011/12/23/gIQACLjpHP_story.html" target="_blank">Robert Samuelson of the Washington Post</a> says, "No one wants to take away; it’s more fun to give." <br />
<br />
<i><b>Do we spend too much or tax too little?</b></i><br />
Both. Let's be clear about this: it's "we the people" – not "the government" – that have incurred this debt that now stands at $16 trillion. We don't like paying taxes; never have, never will. We continually ask our elected officials for more and more, whether tax breaks or spending programs. As a result, the U.S. now has the lowest tax rates and the biggest government budget in the industrialized world. We benefit from a low rate of taxation and a high rate of government spending. But the tax code is uneven and inequitable because of its structure, application, and opacity. Only by fixing tax structure and its application and imposing transparency will we know what numeric rate provides budgetary balance over time.<br />
<br />
<i><b> Does public spending displace private investment?</b></i><br />
Spending by all levels of government is about 40 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) – that's a lot – and the deficit is approaching 8 percent of GDP this year. There may be some "crowding out" effects in investment, borrowing, and individual consumption. And there are definitely efficiencies to realize and duplication to delete. Government needs to provide effective public goods and services, offer a safety net for the less fortunate, and ensure that free markets are competitive and function. <br />
<br />
<i><b>Which political party is likely to propose a workable solution?</b></i><br />
In times of plenty as well as times of lean, one party typically spends more while the other typically taxes less. Both tactics have the effect of throwing gasoline on the budgetary fire to make the economy burn more quickly, more furiously, and less sustainably. The abundance is now a cooling heap of ash, so it's not the time to snuff any remaining embers with a firehose of austerity. Rather, now is the time to fashion a plan that pays off debt over time and readies our position to fend off any future years of lean.<br />
<br />
Economic and social philosopher Adam Smith wrote, “Never complain of that of which it is at all times in your power to rid yourself.” We have the power; it's our November ballot. Now is the time to rid ourselves of the status quo and bring old wisdom to bear. Mark Gibsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08106753788217974462noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5303067878091299235.post-87989147824116387182012-08-14T10:34:00.001-04:002012-08-14T20:51:25.987-04:00It's Time to Change the Conversation<a href="http://youtu.be/Sh4QUENt_LM" target="_blank">See the YouTube video »</a>Mark Gibsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08106753788217974462noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5303067878091299235.post-80066239849183868652012-07-25T10:36:00.001-04:002012-09-17T15:51:06.809-04:00The Full Monty<b>Consumers and producers need to bear all (costs, that is)</b><br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<a href="https://docs.google.com/open?id=0BzG5WarfFSjgU2lpQ0tlay1WNWc" target="_blank"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><b>Download or print from Google Documents</b></span></a><br />
<br />
Yesterday an old friend responded to one of my <a href="https://twitter.com/Gibson4congress" target="_blank">Twitter tweets</a> where I cited an editorial in the Washington Post. The <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ease-up-on-the-drought-drama/2012/07/24/gJQAY0hZ7W_story.html" target="_blank">Post objected to the 2012 farm bill</a> passing through Congress that renewed subsidies for farmers: "For decades, federal policy has been training farmers to depend on government ... and taxpayers have been picking up the tab." I agree: subsidies distort markets, altering what and how much consumers choose to consume as well as what and how much producers choose to produce.<br />
<br />
My old friend made a separate point: "I really don't think the public is ready to spend what it really costs to eat. I am not agreeing with the bill. Just saying that this article is not the whole truth." I certainly agree that no editorial bares all and consumers are sometimes shocked when prices spike. (<a href="http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/1638939/Riots-as-Indonesia-restricts-cut-to-fuel-subsidy" target="_blank">Recent riots in Indonesia</a> were a reaction to cutting fuel subsidies.)<br />
<br />
But that's my point: government subsidies and programs that try to affect producers result in government expenditures, distorted markets, distorted expectations, and opaque consumer prices. I think it's imperative that transparency rules all government actions; <a href="http://gibson4congress2012.blogspot.com/p/taxes.html" target="_blank">my tax proposals</a> emphasize transparency.<br />
<br />
Agricultural subsidies <i>can </i>lower the cost of farming. For example, the U.S. Government subsidizes crop insurance and acts to stabilize crop prices. The cost? $21 billion annually. And the cost to consumers if crop prices were to spike 50 percent? Less than 1 percent, according to <a href="http://www.ers.usda.gov/newsroom/us-drought-2012-farm-and-food-impacts.aspx" target="_blank">U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)</a>.<br />
<br />
At the same time, farm programs can increase the retail price of food. Corn prices rose worldwide when U.S. Government-sponsored production of ethanol diverted corn from food products. (By the way, cane-based ethanol can be imported from Brazil for a third of the price of corn-based ethanol.) Sugar prices in the United States are artificially high because USDA dictates total sugar production (OPEC style) and allots a greater portion of the quota to beet sugar (more costly to produce) than cane sugar (less costly to produce). <a href="http://www.economist.com/node/21534837" target="_blank">In Japan, rice prices</a> are nine times the cost of rice shipped from the United States because Japan limits imports to protect small traditional farms.<br />
<br />
Look – I'm not picking on farmers; they just happen to be the subject of the Post's editorial. But it's a blatant example of the costs of market distortion for consumers and taxpayers. All producers of goods and services look to gain economic and competitive advantage by lowering their input costs, selling more, or having fewer competitors. That doesn't mean, however, that Congress should enable and support those goals with production quotas and our tax dollars.Mark Gibsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08106753788217974462noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5303067878091299235.post-82240523929164158832012-07-18T15:57:00.000-04:002012-07-25T09:14:04.729-04:00Free Enterprise Mustn't be Free<b>Knowledge and hard work are rewarded, not subsidized</b><br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<a href="https://docs.google.com/open?id=0BzG5WarfFSjgN2VWTnZZQ3V0d00" target="_blank"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><b>Download or print from Google Documents</b></span></a><br />
<br />
Every Sunday I look forward to reading the "<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/2010/07/06/ABCCtvO_linkset.html" target="_blank">Five Myths</a>" column in the Washington Post. Some are provocative and some are yawners, but this week's entry makes me want to blog. In "<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/five-myths-about-free-enterprise/2012/07/13/gJQAYMwGiW_story.html" target="_blank">Five Myths about Free Enterprise</a>", Arthur Brooks – president of the American Enterprise Institute – is sometimes overwrought and over the top. But a few points from Mr. Brooks really hit home.<br />
<br />
<b>"Find me an opportunistic politician chumming the waters with tax loopholes, and I’ll show you a corporate shark."</b> Ever wonder why the tax code is so convoluted and biased? Because Congress knuckles under to companies and individuals with influence looking for a competitive and economic edge. Instead Congress must turn a deaf ear to those pleas, serving the broader interests of consumers and the free market by eschewing favoritism and showing some backbone.<br />
<br />
<b>"We need more free enterprise, not less — free enterprise where
entrepreneurs put their money on the line and earn a profit or suffer a
loss."</b> It is not government's place to promote a specific type of business or industry. Similarly, it's not government role to guarantee a profit on any endeavor.<br />
<br />
<b>"For a majority of Americans, fairness means not redistribution, but rewarding merit — and that is what free enterprise does."</b> At the same time, it's not the government's place to deter or restrain free enterprises that some politicians may deem unworthy or frivolous. Government must ensure that the marketplace is competitive and that competitors <a href="http://gibson4congress2012.blogspot.com/2011/11/regulations-kill-jobs.html" target="_blank">bear the full cost of their economic activities</a>.<br />
<br />
Here are my suggestions for maintaining a strong and fair business environment:<br />
<ul>
<li>Free companies from government subsidy or hindrance. The World Bank ranks U.S. #4 in ease of doing business but <a href="http://www.doingbusiness.org/rankings/" target="_blank">#72 in ease of paying taxes</a>. My <a href="http://gibson4congress2012.blogspot.com/p/taxes-starting-fresh.html" target="_blank">income tax proposal</a> removes the burden of tax from companies and places it where it belongs: fully on the shoulders of owners and shareholders.</li>
<li>Get government out
of running and influencing companies – whether at the national, state, or local level. Virginia ABC, Sallie Mae, Freddie Mac, and Fannie
Mae all subject taxpayers to the risks of free enterprise while barring the private sector from participating. The same goes for government charters and noncompetitive agreements: just stop it.</li>
<li>Refocus government on provision of public services that may not have an immediate profit or return on investment. These public goods make us all more prosperous by encouraging interstate and international commerce.</li>
<li>Stop subsidizing or hindering individual pursuits and purchases. Housing – for example – is subsidized through the mortgage interest deduction and other preferences, distorting consumer choice between owning and renting, increasing the cost of housing, and increasing the possibility of a bursting asset bubble.</li>
</ul>
Risk isn't free: sometimes you gain by taking a chance, sometimes you don't. Taking a chance in business may yield a profit or a loss. Those that merit success – through knowledge, hard work, and perhaps luck – will profit. Those that don't, lose. But it's not the government's place to subsidize a profit or cushion the blow of a loss. That is the essence of a democratic economy.Mark Gibsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08106753788217974462noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5303067878091299235.post-37577181342847311352012-07-11T06:00:00.000-04:002012-07-19T20:03:37.434-04:00PPACA Version 2.0<b>Common sense and innovation are missing from Version 1.0</b><br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<a href="https://docs.google.com/open?id=0BzG5WarfFSjgX2VadW5LOHp0aWc" target="_blank"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><b>Download or print from Google Documents</b></span></a><br />
<br />
The Supreme Court's ruling on the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) on June 28 gave us the constitutional boundaries of mandated health care and a baseline for moving forward. Now comes the hard part. One political party will scream "Repeal!" while the other digs in its heels. Instead, what
we need now is revision and compromise to fashion PPACA Version 2.0 with a keener focus on cost reduction.<br />
<br />
In delivering the opinion of the Court, Chief Justice Roberts noted, "Congress already possesses expansive power to regulate what people do ... The Framers [of the U.S. Constitution] knew the difference between doing something and doing nothing. They gave Congress the power to regulate commerce, not to
compel it." And this is where Congress fell short in its first attempt to cover the uninsured. The first "A" in PPACA stands for "Affordable". According to the Supreme Court, the current legislation and individual mandate attempt to do this by imposing a "tax" on the voluntarily uninsured and by establishing government-run state insurance exchanges.<br />
<br />
I don't see the individual mandate – by itself – helping to lower the cost of insurance by enough to entice the uninsured to buy. The <a href="http://www.urban.org/publications/412533.html" target="_blank">Urban Institute</a> estimated in March 2012 that under the mandate about 18 million Americans or 6 percent of the total population will be required to purchase coverage
or face a penalty. And according to a <a href="http://www.cnbc.com/id/48008882" target="_blank">recent report by CNBC</a>, "Currently about one-fourth of the care provided by hospitals is never
paid for, either because debts can't be collected or the patient is
uninsured." Increasing insurance participation by 6 percent is not much of a boon to affordability. Reducing hospital costs will take some time to be reflected in reduced hospital prices and, ultimately, lower insurance prices. Without further resolve to inject competition in health care provision, prices will continue to be "sticky downward".<br />
<br />
A part of Congress's regulatory authority as granted by the Constitution can be seen as ensuring that nationwide markets
are free and functioning. Congress did not do that with PPACA Version
1.0. Instead Congress chose to implement government-run statewide insurance
markets via "<a href="http://cciio.cms.gov/programs/exchanges/index.html" target="_blank">Affordable Insurance Exchanges</a>". Statewide markets already exist. As the manager of a small business in Virginia, I'm limited to the purchase of employee insurance plans offered within Virginia; I can't go shopping across all plans offered across the nation. Limited markets drive up prices. PPACA acts to institutionalize these limited, inefficient markets and handcuff competition's invisible hand in lowering prices. <br />
<br />
PPACA Version 2.0 must do three things:<br />
<ol>
<li>Prohibit government reimbursement to health care providers on a fee-for-service basis and move to integrated care where patient outcome is the focus for all programs that reimburse private providers including Medicare and Medicaid. (Currently the
federal government pays for 50% of all health care when including military health care.)</li>
<li>Open up and secure nationwide insurance markets for individuals and businesses to encourage competition that lowers prices, scraping government-run state insurance exchanges that only institutionalize inefficient and incomplete markets. Such action is in line with the Constitution's Commerce Clause and Congress's authority to regulate interstate commerce.</li>
<li>Remove the tax-favored status of employer-provided health insurance, effectively removing a subsidy that drives up prices. Aside from its price effect the tax break is the <a href="http://www.economist.com/node/21553473" target="_blank">single largest tax expenditure</a>, costing the U.S. Treasury $171 billion in tax revenue in 2012.</li>
</ol>
Further, as a matter of overall policy, the federal government must stop pushing mandates to states and individuals for implementation. If Congress wants a program – regardless of size or intended effect – it must find the fiscal means to pay for and administer that program at the federal level.<br />
<br />
In choosing to pursue the individual mandate before making its own health care programs lean and getting free markets working, Congress did us all a disservice: it failed to find commonsense and innovative ways that encourage competition in health care provision and insurance; it failed to move away from continual overpayment via fee-for-service; and it failed to remove preferences and subsidies that increase prices.<br />
<br />
But mostly – in a rush to secure a partisan victory – it failed to negotiate and compromise. That trait, above all, is the hallmark of the 111th and 112th Congress and that is how, in the end, the future of health care provision in the United States was determined by one jurist and one word.Mark Gibsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08106753788217974462noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5303067878091299235.post-76955697675759933882012-07-04T22:21:00.000-04:002012-08-26T09:55:32.891-04:00Awesome Day at the Fairfax Parade<a name='more'></a>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg0qX3uDNhxfrC5TFr20c5HAExiuA5E_rqJ-FsDvXkjXsHj29F8m5OHCc2Yz76jA1k90rfr7d4FbFpA3ypNvkHNIKCnMULaFrGVSTMJ5tjBzVPD7r-RRizL7iSXLRRUYehrACUP5K19BCU/s1600/Picture1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="265" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg0qX3uDNhxfrC5TFr20c5HAExiuA5E_rqJ-FsDvXkjXsHj29F8m5OHCc2Yz76jA1k90rfr7d4FbFpA3ypNvkHNIKCnMULaFrGVSTMJ5tjBzVPD7r-RRizL7iSXLRRUYehrACUP5K19BCU/s400/Picture1.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
It was great seeing everyone along the Independence Day parade route
as well as catching up with friends and neighbors. Thanks to all the
kids that rode along and to their parents who helped keep them safe
and hydrated. And all those snazzy bikes earned us an Honorable Mention from the City and Independence Day Celebration Committee!<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjhglwQnpKFzBBMi9z3l7JX6qc5Sxi5f4Tunzj_spR2dmzuFuHBdBCIKhqQ9ru9zP06bl-MAx49RH4LrDjPOAdaFHQsG0oyrJIsQChhlQz7eLHi22Keo69GthvXNi5B3CPnljOkDw8m95w/s1600/Fairfax+Parade+Ribbon.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjhglwQnpKFzBBMi9z3l7JX6qc5Sxi5f4Tunzj_spR2dmzuFuHBdBCIKhqQ9ru9zP06bl-MAx49RH4LrDjPOAdaFHQsG0oyrJIsQChhlQz7eLHi22Keo69GthvXNi5B3CPnljOkDw8m95w/s320/Fairfax+Parade+Ribbon.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
Thanks also to the City of Fairfax Parks and Recreation
staff and the Independence Day Celebration Committee for hosting a terrific event and allowing me to to introduce
myself to so many people. We first appear in the <b><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PO2dipxzAng&feature=plcp" target="_blank">City's YouTube video</a></b> around the 1:44 mark.<br />
<br />
It was a <u>hot</u> one but lots of fun. <i> Mark</i>Mark Gibsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08106753788217974462noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5303067878091299235.post-52185908189285472392012-06-27T06:00:00.000-04:002012-08-26T09:58:07.118-04:00Democracy and the Two Major Parties<b>As the parties stifle competition, some voters limit themselves</b><br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<a href="https://docs.google.com/open?id=0BzG5WarfFSjgQWJkTEd2am0wTTA" target="_blank"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><b>Download or print from Google Documents </b></span></a><br />
<br />
During the signature collection phase of a successful attempt to get on the ballot for Congress as an independent,a voter declined to sign my petition because, "You're either a Democrat or a Republican – there's nothing else." As she walked off, it made me sad to think that this voter limits herself to only two choices. Perhaps others do, too.<br />
<br />
Part of the two-party mindset comes from the parties themselves as they try to limit competition and avoid waging campaigns against multiple opponents. That effort reveals itself in three areas: gerrymandering, ballot restrictions, and legislative caucuses.<br />
<br />
The gerrymandering that arose from the 2010 Census gave the major political parties in Virginia the freedom to trade voting precincts like Halloween candy, each claiming the precincts that they could win with little disruption to the status quo. As a result, here in the <a href="http://www.vpap.org/elections/district/43" target="_blank">11th Congressional District</a> there are areas where the district is one precinct wide and where neighbors in Centreville, Fairfax, Falls Church, Herndon Lorton, Oakton, or Springfield have different Congressmen. One extreme district – Virginia's 5th – stretches more than 200 miles from Danville on the North Carolina border to Marshall, just west of Centreville.<br />
<br />
Ballot restrictions are a legislative play to bolster the strength of parties and incumbents. In order to get on the ballot, I was required to collect 1,000 signatures from qualified voters within the district. Difficult yet achievable. But once on the ballot, the parties play their games. In Virginia, a "<a href="http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+24.2-613" target="_blank">recognized political party</a>" must have a "state central committee composed of registered voters residing in each congressional district" and must have "<a href="http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+24.2-101" target="_blank">received at least 10 percent of the total vote cast</a>" in the two preceding elections. Why is this important? Because only candidates from these parties get listed at the top of the ballot, drawing voter attention and relegating other candidates to the second division. Instead of placing candidates alphabetically or randomizing ballot placement, the recognized political parties have legislated themselves as top dogs.<br />
<br />
A <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_caucus" target="_blank">Congressional caucus</a> is a group of Representatives that meets to advance common political causes; not surprisingly, the largest caucuses are those of the two major parties. Caucuses further dilute the power of voters by bringing together like-minded, monotone legislators to advance their narrow agenda and stifle the progress of competing agendas. Someone once asked me – if elected – which caucus I would join. My standard response remains, "Whichever party is in the majority because it is the duty of independents to moderate the excesses of the majority."<br />
<br />
Trust me – I'm not bellyaching about this election or my situation as a first-time or independent candidate; I knew the game before I started. Rather, I'm concerned that the electorate has withdrawn to a two-tone or even monochromatic way of thinking about politics, policies, and government services. It's a chicken-and-egg situation: did we as voters want to limit our choices and solutions or were we dealt this construct where two parties control the political discourse?<br />
<br />
I'm not trying to convince you to vote for me because I'm the alternative to a two-party electoral system propagated and codified by the parties themselves. I just want you to weigh <i>all </i>candidates and <i>all </i>issues on their relative merits to make your own decision. That is the essence of democracy: all voters with one vote each, making a personal decision on our future.Mark Gibsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08106753788217974462noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5303067878091299235.post-17935604896459858462012-06-22T14:43:00.000-04:002012-06-27T08:35:12.631-04:00Thank You for Helping Democracy Grow !<b>An independent choice for voters on November 6.</b><br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
With your support, I was able to collect 1,412 ballot petition signatures in my attempt to get on the November 6 ballot for the U.S. House of Representatives as a true independent – a candidate without the backing of any party, organization, or special interest. Those signatures were submitted to the <a href="http://www.sbe.virginia.gov/cms/Index.html" target="_blank">Virginia State Board of Elections</a> (SBE) on June 12.<br />
<br />
Today we got confirmation from SBE that they had validated more than the 1,000 signatures required to put me on <a href="https://www.voterinfo.sbe.virginia.gov/PublicSite/Public/FT2/PublicElectionDetails.aspx?Ret=1" target="_blank">the ballot</a>. Thanks to all who signed, to all that helped and encouraged, and to all that believe in progress over party.<br />
<br />
Throughout this effort, my focus has been on issues and in offering voters a distinct, independent choice for Congress. That focus doesn't – and won't – change.Mark Gibsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08106753788217974462noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5303067878091299235.post-50931077922702731822012-06-01T15:59:00.002-04:002012-06-06T16:01:40.517-04:00The Farmer-Congressman<b>A plea for legislative action ... and restraint.</b><br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<a href="https://docs.google.com/open?id=0BzG5WarfFSjgYTNzVnZ4cWY1ZDg" target="_blank"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><b>Download or print from Google Documents</b></span></a><br />
<br />
I consider myself an 80 percenter: if I find a solution that solves 80 percent of the problem, I get on with it to see what happens. There's an old expression in management: "Don't let the pursuit of perfection get in the way of good enough." As for the other 20 percent? I learn from what didn't work as planned, ask for a do-over, and fix it. <br />
<br />
Does this mindset fit all situations? No – you wouldn't launch a satellite with only 80 percent chance of reaching orbit or build a weapon that fires only 80 percent of the time. But it is a reasonable approach to other government programs such as healthcare and financial regulation that act on human endeavors, endeavors that are continually changing due to a shifting population and dynamic economy.<br />
<br />
Good legislation – while not perfect – is concise, finite, and agile. By contrast, legislation that is convoluted, voluminous, and lumbering is doomed to fail by its own weight. Worse yet, the bad parts and unintended consequences need to be undone; fixing the complex becomes more difficult than doing the simple right the first time. The Constitution is over 200 years old with few substantive changes. Why? Because it is a simple, elegant document that is broad enough to cover most of the courses of human events.<br />
<br />
A voter I met this Spring expressed his longing for the days of the farmer-legislator: git 'er done and git home to take care of chores. Today's Members of Congress seem to want a legislative career, making a name for themselves and limiting ballot-box competition to ensure their own future. Is this an argument for term limits? No. I think voters need as many choices as possible. They should then go to the polls and – if necessary – throw the bums out. <br />
<br />
So don't merely demand action from your Member of Congress. Instead, demand that they find the 80 percent solution, leave it alone to see what happens, and get home in time for supper.Mark Gibsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08106753788217974462noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5303067878091299235.post-9952600799560462052012-05-24T10:30:00.002-04:002012-05-25T09:20:35.984-04:00Mark Appears on "Reston Impact"<b>An interview by John Lovaas from Reston Community Television, RCTV28.</b><br />
<a href="http://vimeo.com/42212057" target="_blank">See the video »</a>Mark Gibsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08106753788217974462noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5303067878091299235.post-45364614557000811912012-05-21T09:43:00.000-04:002012-06-06T14:05:54.931-04:00DMIGS Gone Wild !<b>Here's an abject lesson for Congress, government managers, and voters.</b><br />
<a name='more'></a><a href="https://docs.google.com/open?id=0BzG5WarfFSjgaEFqQ0JDc0xFV0E" target="_blank"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><br /><b>Download or print from Google Documents</b></span></a><br />
<br />
After Hurricane Katrina in 2005, the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA) was approached by U.S. Government civilian agencies to help coordinate land mapping and space imagery in times of national disasters and major events such as the Olympics. As a Department of Defense agency whose responsibilities lay outside the boundaries of the country, NGA had no domestic capabilities to assist.<br />
<br />
To meet the need, NGA staff envisioned a solution based on an existing U.S. Army platform: a Humvee loaded with computer gear, map printers, and cooling equipment (to keep the computers cool and efficient) with an attached tent for personnel to do their work. NGA reached out to its private-sector contractors and suggested an arrangement where equipment could be placed in travel cases and loaded onto a commercial flight – all based out of a standard large sports-utility vehicle to keep a lower profile in the affected area.<br />
<br />
What they got was a firetruck and an ambulance.<br />
<br />
The <a href="http://www.epcupdates.org/2012/03/dmigs-mamma-mia-thats-spicy-geooo-rig.html" target="_blank">Domestic Mobile Integrated Geospatial-Intelligence System (DMIGS)</a> was to be based in the Washington DC area and driven or flown via military aircraft to the site needing assistance. The firetruck carried all the equipment with expandable sides that made room for the personnel inside; the ambulance was a chase vehicle that carried additional fuel for the generators that provided power for the computer and cooling equipment.<br />
<br />
NGA staff responsible for providing disaster assistance realized the folly in all this, but the agency paid for it anyway. The contractor had completely blown the scope of the project, adding requirements and lots of cost. So did they get it right?<br />
<br />
Nope. The first iteration of the two-vehicle DMIGS set-up had no latch points for securing the vehicles within the military aircraft transporting the vehicles. So they built two more vehicles. The second iteration built latch points into the bottom part of the chassis. Unfortunately no one had talked to the U.S. Air Force loadmaster responsible for safely transporting DMIGS: the latch points needed to be on top of the vehicles.<br />
<br />
Is this an example of contractors looking for the big sale and overselling the need? Sure. But it's also a case of the government buying flash over function and being unable to say, "No." The same is true for Congress as it demonstrates its inability to trim the fat from the Defense budget. As voters we're guilty too, asking our elected officials, "What's in it for me?" instead of, "What do we need to do?"<br />
<br />
To end these wasteful outcomes, government employees and contractors need to get out of the "more is more" mindset and move to "meet the requirement for less". Competition, transparency, and capable managers can make it happen; voters must demand it.Mark Gibsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08106753788217974462noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5303067878091299235.post-22270766100133846882012-05-16T16:27:00.000-04:002012-05-16T16:31:00.406-04:00Market Economy, Manageable Government<span style="font-size: x-small;"><b><span style="font-size: small;">An empowering government ensures free markets.</span></b></span><br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<a href="https://docs.google.com/open?id=0BzG5WarfFSjgbldIQkw0SFFhNFE" target="_blank"><b><span style="font-size: x-small;">Download or print from Google Documents</span></b></a><br />
<br />
As a true independent, I’m not associated with any political party or movement. <br />
<br />
I believe that democracy is good – it really is – and that free markets embody a democratic economy. By contrast, subsidies and tax deductions distort markets causing bias and favoritism. Free markets don't fail; they are distorted by anti-competitive behavior and policies that stifle competition and free entry into markets. Buyers and sellers need concise, timely information to make good decisions and markets need antitrust enforcement. <br />
<br />
I believe that government and businesses are not “them” – they're “us” and we need both to work for us to succeed. Governments at all levels need to get out of owning or chartering enterprises. Our telecommunications is the least competitive and least innovative in the world because of local, state, and Federal meddling and self-interest. <br />
<br />
I know that <a href="http://gibson4congress2012.blogspot.com/p/structure-for-smaller-federal.html" target="_blank">smaller government</a> isn’t better government if it’s poorly managed. We need to reestablish government’s role to provide effective and efficient public services and goods – not simply making "<a href="http://gibson4congress2012.blogspot.com/2012/01/nothing-more-than-middleman.html" target="_blank">payments to individuals</a>". Government shouldn’t pick economic winners and losers, but it can invest in basic research that is distributed freely so industry can develop and innovate. <br />
<br />
We need to invest in people and infrastructure to facilitate commerce and boost productivity. We need to remove all constraints to labor mobility by ending homeownership support, promoting nationwide health insurance markets, focusing on education and retraining, and encouraging unions to diversify its members’ skills. <br />
<br />
The United States has top-notch workers and a hunger to produce and win; it's time to focus on what we do best and stop look over our shoulder. Let's innovate and compete, investing in people and infrastructure that empowers everyone.Mark Gibsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08106753788217974462noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5303067878091299235.post-23854325591830789162012-05-10T10:15:00.001-04:002012-05-10T10:15:39.449-04:00Partisan Bickering<b><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gpZj_9Up8ec" target="_blank">See the video</a> on Mark's YouTube channel.</b>Mark Gibsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08106753788217974462noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5303067878091299235.post-8992133312215089952012-05-03T10:55:00.000-04:002012-05-10T10:12:26.026-04:00Healthcare: The Doctor and the Bodyshop<b>"Sickcare" and the drive to wellness.</b><br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<b><a href="https://docs.google.com/open?id=0BzG5WarfFSjgSWxRRzVMUjY0MnM" target="_blank"><span style="font-size: x-small;">Download or print from Google Documents</span></a></b><br />
<br />
What do a physician and an autobody shop have in common? They're both in the business of fixing damage, not preventing damage. This analogy doesn't come from me, but a physician – Dr. Bill Hazel, who is also Virginia's Secretary of Health and Human Resources. Dr. Hazel used the term "sickcare" for the current state of health affairs: a system where, like the bodyshop, physicians have neither the incentive nor the training to advance wellness.<br />
<br />
A self-described right-wing conservative, Dr. Hazel gave several examples at a recent gathering – the most poignant of which was about his mother who experienced 6 weeks' worth of pain and endless referrals to fix the cause of the first day's diagnosis: a bad gall bladder. (It reminded me partly of a friend who needed a cortisone shot for his ankle, only to be told to make another appointment and come back later for the procedure.)<br />
<br />
In the United States we have effort-based healthcare: consumers of healthcare – individuals, employers, insurers – are charged based on the cost of the service, not the value of the service. The result is revenue maximization for the industry as a whole with ever increasing prices. There is no incentive for innovation, no incentive for cost savings.<br />
<br />
Instead, we get price fixing by the federal government – a healthcare consumer that accounts for 50 percent of insured individuals through Medicare, Medicaid, and federal employees (including the military). Physicians accepting Medicare patients are reimbursed using a price setting scheme known as <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resource-Based_Relative_Value_Scale" target="_blank">RBRVS</a> or "resource-based relative value scale" that pays out based on effort, rather than outcome. (This approach is akin to "cost-plus" contracting which the government rarely uses today.)<br />
<br />
Are doctors greedy? No – they're just hard-working, revenue maximizing Americans. As Dr. Hazel put it: "We've always done it this way."<br />
<br />
The effects of "sickcare" are broad. High healthcare costs affect our international competitiveness. According to Dr. Hazel, the average insurance cost per person in Canada is $6,000 a year; in the United States, it's $8,000 a year. Expensive healthcare also affects access to care for low-income individuals and families. Sick kids are less receptive to learning, more likely to remain poor, and result in a workforce that is ill-prepared to compete with the best and brightest. <br />
<br />
My frustration with the current debate is that there is insufficient focus on these effects – cost to consumers, cost to employers, and the impact on international competitiveness. Without this focus, there was a rush to create a new structure without fixing the current structure. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) – known widely as "Obamacare" even though the legislation was not authored by the President – does little to affect the cost of healthcare and is cited by the <a href="http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/120xx/doc12069/hr2.pdf" target="_blank">Congressional Budget Office</a> as increasing the overall cost of healthcare to the nation.<br />
<br />
So what's the fix for reducing healthcare costs? Dr. Hazel suggested that tort reform, information exchange, universal coverage, and risk pooling (or benefits exchanges) are all good innovations. But none pack the punch on rising healthcare costs as moving away from fee-for-service. In my position page "<a href="http://gibson4congress2012.blogspot.com/p/healthcare-not-there-yet.html" target="_blank">Healthcare: We're Not There Yet</a>", I recommend repealing PPACA solely because it does so little to reduce cost.<br />
<br />
The federal government needs to suspend paying for any care that's provided on a fee-for-service basis and drive toward integrated, managed care that pays for positive patient outcomes. As the biggest consumer of healthcare services, government needs to wield its buying power for the benefit of all consumers.Mark Gibsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08106753788217974462noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5303067878091299235.post-40186213249878517662012-04-24T15:10:00.000-04:002012-05-03T10:56:30.963-04:00With Favoritism and Special Treatment for All<b>Small business needs equal access – not special treatment.</b><br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<b><a href="https://docs.google.com/open?id=0BzG5WarfFSjgbDdqV0tkeW5kbVk" target="_blank"><span style="font-size: x-small;">Download or print from Google Documents </span></a></b><br />
<br />
I run a small business and look for every advantage to bring in new work. Last week I was at a breakfast meeting that included a presentation by the Army's Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization. The presenter talked about all the different types of contracting set asides, that is, government opportunities that are only open to businesses that fit a particular category including:<br />
<ul>
<li>Small Business </li>
<li>Small Disadvantaged Business</li>
<li>Women-Owned Small Business </li>
<li>Economically Disadvantaged Women-Owned Small Business </li>
<li> HUBZone Small Business </li>
<li>Veteran-Owned Small Business </li>
<li>Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business </li>
<li>Alaska Native Corporation or Indian Tribe</li>
<li>Historically Black College or University </li>
<li>Ability One (employees significant disabilities)</li>
</ul>
An attendee at my table mentioned a pilot program to set aside more contracts for "mid-tier" firms that have grown too large to be considered "small". Really?<br />
<br />
As I said, I look for every advantage to grow our business and I'd be a fool not to take advantage of any special set-aside opportunities available to my firm. But I'm a little offended that the government thinks small businesses need continuous and never-ending coddling.<br />
<br />
Small business needs equal access – not special treatment. I am proud that our business is nimble and can make quick decisions to satisfy a client's need. I'm also proud that we're very lean and keep our overhead costs low so that we offer great value. But I get steamed when the government sets the rules and costs for participation so high that small businesses can't qualify or afford to compete against big businesses. I ask for equal footing and standing – nothing more.<br />
<br />
In <i><a href="http://www.george-orwell.org/Animal_Farm/9.html" target="_blank">Animal Farm</a></i>, George Orwell wrote: "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others." Columnist <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/a-country-in-denial-about-its-fiscal-future/2011/12/23/gIQACLjpHP_story.html" target="_blank">Robert Samuelson</a> quipped: "No one wants to take away; it’s more fun to give." But the more we give and the more special treatment we mete out, the more special interests become entrenched and the less equal it is for everyone. As markets become more fragmented, they become less competitive and the cost of government goes up – giving taxpayers less and less for their tax dollars.<br />
So let's <a href="http://gibson4congress2012.blogspot.com/p/structure-for-smaller-federal.html" target="_blank">reorganize government</a> to make it lean and more compact, reducing overhead costs and making it less receptive to uncompetitive contracting. Let's ensure fair and equal footing for government contractors, eliminating barriers that protect <a href="http://www.economist.com/node/18678963" target="_blank">inequitable preferences</a>. Let's restrain our elected officials from <a href="http://gibson4congress2012.blogspot.com/2011/09/setting-free-american-dream.html" target="_blank">picking economic winners and losers</a>, allowing consumers to choose the products and services that best suit their needs and wants.<br />
<br />
Yes, everyone is special. <a href="http://gibson4congress2012.blogspot.com/2011/11/drive-right-pass-left-use-signals.html" target="_blank">We all have talents</a> to contribute to the growth of our economy. But no one deserves special treatment. Fair and equal treatment for all is a pillar of democracy. Let's knock down barriers, not erect new ones.Mark Gibsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08106753788217974462noreply@blogger.com