With excruciating detail, the White House on Friday laid out exactly where it will have to cut $109 billion from federal spending in January, including $11.1 billion from Medicare and $54.7 billion from defense spending.The defense cuts include $21.5 billion from operations and maintenance for the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines and the reserves and National Guard, and nearly $1.4 billion from military aide to Afghanistan, with tens of billions coming from procurement and other Pentagon accounts.“The report leaves no question that the sequestration would be deeply destructive to national security, domestic investments, and core government functions,” the White House said in the report.Border fencing and technology would take a $33 million hit, and salaries and staffing for the U.S. Border Patrol and U.S. Customs and Immigration Enforcement would also be cut.And at a time when embassy security is under question following the recent attacks, that account would be cut by $129 million.</b.Read more: White House details 'destructive' spending cuts - Washington Times http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/sep/14/white-house-...Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter----What the heck. Demanding 50% more of 'tax the rich' by the arrogant Obama caused the budget deal to crater. Now, the country has to bear the result of the "one" being unable to compromise fairly and reach a budget accord. He couldn't accept his own non-partisan budget committee report...oh, no....had to have 'more more more' taxes on 'the rich'....Now, the security of the US is at state.Gut the CDC..who cares if we have a pandemic? GUt the border patrol ...heck, he won't send 'em back now, why bother to fake it? Just put up signs 'Obama welcomes you to the democrat part - citizenship is free with no responsibility - foodstamp line to the left'...What a disaster..can't lead...can't run the country.....and the world doesn't love a yellow striped kumbayah singing weakling in the WH...t
Mebbe rather than cutting operations & maintenance more effort should be put forth in cutting waste. Such as:http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htmurph/articles/20120904.a...It's been eleven months now since the U.S. Army cancelled its 15 year effort to develop the JTRS (Joint Tactical Radio System). This program cost over $6 billion and has been a major embarrassment for the U.S. Department of Defense. Actually, JTRS still exists, on paper, but its goal, to provide better combat radios, has been accomplished by adopting civilian radios that do what the troops needed done and calling it JTRS. In the time the army spent working on JTRS some $11 billion was spent on buying more radios using existing designs, and a lot of off-the-shelf equipment incorporating stuff JTRS was supposed to do.JTRS was yet another example of a military development project that got distracted, and bloated, trying to please everyone. There was, in a word, no focus. There's been a lot of this in the last decade. That's what killed the Comanche light attack helicopter, the Crusader self-propelled howitzer, FCS (Future Combat System), the Seawolf SSN, the DDG-1000 destroyer, B-2 bomber, F-22 fighters and several military space satellite projects. In all cases some of the technology developed was put to use in cheaper systems and sometimes a few of the cancelled systems were built (three Seawolfs, three DDG-1000s, 21 B-2s and 187 F-22s). These cancellations and cutbacks saved over half a trillion dollars. That goes a long way towards paying for projects that were not cancelled and are nearly half a trillion dollars over budget. But overall these failures were expensive and embarrassing.http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htproc/articles/20120209.as...U.S. Department of Defense officials have admitted that the daring decision to start production of the new F-35 fighter before testing was completed proved to be a failure. That's because testing revealed more design problems than anticipated. As a result, it's quite likely that very expensive modifications will be needed for F-35s that have entered service. The air force has already ordered 58 F-35s to be produced before all testing is completed and planned to produce 472 F-35s this way. The Department of Defense is more concerned about the additional costs than the air force, which just wants to get the aircraft into production as quickly as possible. The air force fears that the production orders will be cut even further if the F-35 does not enter service quickly. This haste is in part due to the aging of the F-16s the F-35 is to replace. Many of these elderly fighters will soon be too old for training or combat.To solve this problem, the air force is refurbishing several hundred of its 22 ton F-16 fighters. The F-35 began development in the 1990s and was supposed to enter service in 2011. That has since slipped to 2017, or the end of the decade, depending on who you believe. Whichever date proves accurate, the air force has a problem. The average age of existing F-16s is over 20 years, and the average aircraft has over 5,000 flight hours on it. Three years ago, the first Block 40 F-16 passed 7,000 hours. Four years ago, the first of the earliest models (a Block 25) F-16 passed 7,000 hours.http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/04/26/the_jet_tha...This month, we learned that the Pentagon has increased the price tag for the F-35 by another $289 million -- just the latest in a long string of cost increases -- and that the program is expected to account for a whopping 38 percent of Pentagon procurement for defense programs, assuming its cost will grow no more.How bad is it? A review of the F-35's cost, schedule, and performance -- three essential measures of any Pentagon program -- shows the problems are fundamental and still growing.First, with regard to cost -- a particularly important factor in what politicians keep saying is an austere defense budget environment -- the F-35 is simply unaffordable. Although the plane was originally billed as a low-cost solutionHundreds of F-35s will be built before 2019, when initial testing is complete. The additional cost to engineer modifications to fix the inevitable deficiencies that will be uncovered is unknown, but it is sure to exceed the $534 million already known from tests so far. The total program unit cost for each individual F-35, now at $161 million, is only a temporary plateau.f the F-35's performance were spectacular, it might be worth the cost and wait. But it is not. A virtual flying piano, the F-35 lacks the F-16's agility in the air-to-air mode and the F-15E's range and payload in the bombing mode, and it can't even begin to compare to the A-10 at low-altitude close air support for troops engaged in combat. Worse yet, it won't be able to get into the air as often to perform any mission -- or just as importantly, to train pilots -- because its complexity prolongs maintenance and limits availability.Defense contractors a long-standing track record of over-promising and under-delivering defense products. But they are smart with campaign contributions & having plants spread throughout the US providing jobs. The about story reminds me of the DIVAD. 4 40mm guns mounted on a tracked vehicle to provide air defense. It never worked. It took a decade to kill the program.Sure Medicare is the larger problem in the future of the US economic future. But there there is a alot of waste in our national security industry also.
Let the cuts go forward, then a new Congress and hopefully a new President can decide which programs will survive and at what level of funding. In the meantime, the laid off government workers can find out how the other half has been living for the past few years.
I want us to cut defense. Bring the troops home, let Europe defend itself. The middle east? Let them fix their own problems. We have plenty of oil, gas and coal to sustain us for centuries. We don't need them.We'd save trillions over a decade.Use any excuse whatsoever to stop foreign aid to a country and pull our embassy personel out. I'd start with Egypt, like yesterday, given their cowardly President's refusal to protect our embassy.Unleash Israel. 1/2 of the radical Muslim puke countries would be gone in a decade. Good riddence. You won't be missed.Put a large chunk of our defense $ at work researching high tech defense solutions of the Western Hemispere ONLY.Eliminate all Muslim, communist and terrorist threats in our hemisphere and be bloody brutal about it everytime they sabre rattle.That would fix our foreign entanglement issues in a hurry and go along way towards fixing our economic issues considering the huge amount of money we spend on defense.decath
Canada is baulking at the estimated 20-year cost on the Lockheed-Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighter to the point of suggesting the purchase not be completed and be replaced with a 53 year old design of the Avro C-105 discontinued by government fiat all those years ago. http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/09/09/avro-arrow-redesign-...Here’s the data on the C-105 http://www.globalaircraft.org/planes/cf-105_avro_arrow.plAnd here’s the data on the F-35.http://www.aerodesign.ufsc.br/ipa/03_design/aeronaves/JSF%20...The chances of building the Arrow are slim to non since the government of the day when ceasing the Arrow destroyed all plans, jigs, and all remaining test aircraft were chopped up and sold as scrap. The reason the Arrow bit the dust? The government decided the cost per copy was unaffordable.MichaelR
decath:"We have plenty of oil, gas and coal to sustain us for centuries. We don't need them."No, we don't. We import 2/3rds of our oil, and have no hope of producing as much as we need.If the Middle EAst oil is lost, you can count on $300 or more per barrel of oil.....and likely worse wars as China, India and everyone else fights over the remaining oil. OF course, at $300/bbl, the US descends into a depression that would make 1920s seem like a picnic in the park, with 50% unemployment and a federal government bankrupt in six months. Russia, with its vast oil reserves....would wind up a winner after it, too, goes through starving half it's population...the same might likely be the case here. Just how much food do you think you could afford if prices went up by five or ten times at the food store, and gas was $32/gal? Go watch Part II of Ayn RAnd's Atlas Shrugged to get an idea...t.t.
>> decath:"We have plenty of oil, gas and coal to sustain us for centuries. We don't need them." No, we don't. We import 2/3rds of our oil, and have no hope of producing as much as we need. <<Except that he said oil, gas and coal -- not just oil alone. If the political will were there to produce them and update our energy infrastructure, we do have enough of these *combined* -- even more so if you included Canadian reserves (with the assumption that importing from Canada is far preferable to importing from nations who hate us and sponsor terrorism).#29
No, we don't. We import 2/3rds of our oil, and have no hope of producing as much as we need.If the Middle EAst oil is lost, you can count on $300 or more per barrel of oil.....and likely worse wars as China, India and everyone else fights over the remaining oil.It's a global oil market. Someone will sell oil to us. It's not like the Middle East is going to stop selling oil to *everyone*, so the oil will still be part of the global market.
>> decath:"We have plenty of oil, gas and coal to sustain us for centuries. We don't need them."No, we don't. We import 2/3rds of our oil, and have no hope of producing as much as we need. <<Except that he said oil, gas and coal -- not just oil alone. If the political will were there to produce them and update our energy infrastructure, we do have enough of these *combined* -- even more so if you included Canadian reserves (with the assumption that importing from Canada is far preferable to importing from nations who hate us and sponsor terrorism).#29Do you ever get the feeling that tele has seen the movie The Road Warrior about a million times? :-)
#29"Except that he said oil, gas and coal -- not just oil alone. If the political will were there to produce them and update our energy infrastructure, we do have enough of these *combined* -- even more so if you included Canadian reserves (with the assumption that importing from Canada is far preferable to importing from nations who hate us and sponsor terrorism)"---Heck, Canada is years behind on its oil sands, has spend over 100 billion, and it costs tens of billions per 1m/day capacity increment. aint going to happen in less than 20 years if ever...since you would need to go to 10 times the existing size....and you'd deplete the oil sands in 20 years anyway at that rate. ----- YOu do you the 50 trillion it would take to build all the coal to oil/gas plants that would be required? And the time? likely take most of the industrial output of the USA for five years to do that....at the expense of everything else.Well, at least GM would sell a lot of Volts quickly.....And no...we are talking transportation fuels....You'd have instant rationing.....us retired folks might get 2 gallons a week to get to the grocery store ...and to the doc or dentist....It would be mandatory carpooling....probably 9pm curfew....Half of current businesses would simply vanish....recreational travel would cease.....every tourist industry would be toast. The gov't would take over airlines, but most service would cease. Most restaurants would close. Who is going to drive to dinner at $32/gal gasoline? ANd what wait staff can afford to get to work at those prices? One nuke on Ras Tanura loading facility in Saudi - and you are there.....A super tanker sunk in the Straits of Hormuz and you are there....t.
MadCap:"It's a global oil market. Someone will sell oil to us. It's not like the Middle East is going to stop selling oil to *everyone*, so the oil will still be part of the global market. "You don't get it.If the islamo nutcases decide to shut down oil production to destroy the west...they will. They'll destroy their own countries at the same time, but heck, they don't seem to mind that. It's the long term they worry about. THey've been fighting for 1500 years...and living on peanuts.....The islamo nutcases in Iran could care less about the $40,000 a year in freebies for the Saudi folks.....they'd love to see most of them riding camels again since they are the 'wrong branch' of islam for the most part.YOu lose the middle east production (to everyone) and you can kiss western civilization goodbye. It's that simple..t
"Do you ever get the feeling that tele has seen the movie The Road Warrior about a million times? :-) "I've never seen it.....t.
tjscott0 wrote: Mebbe rather than cutting operations & maintenance more effort should be put forth in cutting waste.The Dems just don't care about waste. It's staggering.Entitlement Banditshttp://www.nationalreview.com/articles/271006/entitlement-ba...
telegraph wrote: You lose the middle east production (to everyone) and you can kiss western civilization goodbye. It's that simple.I find this hard to believe. If western civilization lost Middle East oil production suddenly, there would be chaos, that's for sure, but if the U.S. Government can build an atomic bomb in less than two years (Manhattan Project), they can just as swiftly (relatively to the size of the project) get us on the road to energy independence.Why aren't we well on the road to energy independence?Inertia.It's going to take something like what's going on in the Middle East right now to convince Americans that we can't go on this way.We know the history. According to Wiki: Although various forms of internal combustion engines were developed before the 19th century, their use was hindered until the commercial drilling and production of petroleum began in the mid-1850s. By the late 19th century, engineering advances led to their widespread adoption in a variety of applications.We put our t!t in the wringer in the Middle East when oil was discovered in Bahrain in 1932. We need to get it out.
CCinOC:"I find this hard to believe. If western civilization lost Middle East oil production suddenly, there would be chaos, that's for sure, but if the U.S. Government can build an atomic bomb in less than two years (Manhattan Project), they can just as swiftly (relatively to the size of the project) get us on the road to energy independence.Why aren't we well on the road to energy independence?" -Let's see. THe Manhattan project consumed 1/3rd of all electricity in the USA while it was running. WOuld you be willing to give up 1/3rd of your electricity, and more importantly, 1/3rd of everything else? no a/c at work. Half the lights turned off. NO street lights. TV off at 9pm to conserve power and hopefully everyone goes to bed (without a/c). Curfew at 9pm. Every night. No new cars. All steel production diverted.....we'd have to build one heck of a lot of infrastructure, railroads to haul the coal, engines, cars for the trains, tear down entire parts of towns for the new rail lines. Over rule all states on drilling. Drill everywhere including OFF the coast of California immediately. Use whatever gas/oil we have to do it, so you get 2 gal a week rationing. Nothing new made of steel. No new electronics as they consume electricity. Consumer goods would disappear from stores. OK>.you ready to sign on? The Manhattan project took one heck of a lot of resources to make happen. Diverted millions of pounds of steel. Took 1/3rd of all electricity made in the ENTIRE COUNTRY to run it. t.
CC I did acknowledge that medicare was the larger problem. But nthere is much waste in defense budget too."Sure Medicare is the larger problem in the future of the US economic future. But there there is a alot of waste in our national security industry also."
True 'nuff, tjscott, and I think Romney's the man to take a comprehensive overview of all government spending with the goal of finding ways to staunch the bleeding. It's just his nature.From "Romney Revealed" CNN transcript.http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1209/09/se.01.htmlBORGER: As the Romneys were struggling to get Ann's MS under control, they were about to face a challenge of an entirely different sort. UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: Could the scandal over Salt Lake's Olympic bid shatter on the city's quest to host the winter games? BORGER: The 2002 Winter Olympics were in trouble. Salt Lake City was embroiled in a bribery scandal that threatened to bring down the games. So the search was on for someone to repair the damage. HELMAN: The list of people who could have come in and saved the 2002 Olympics began and ended with Mitt Romney. BORGER: Romney knew finance, politics and was a Mormon. And that made him the top choice. A. ROMNEY: They called me instead of Mitt because they knew that Mitt would turn them down flat. M. ROMNEY: She called me at work said, you know, I want you to -- don't say no, Mitt. I think you ought to go run the Olympics. I said don't be ridiculous. That's absolutely crazy. I'd never do that. But over time, she convinced me.BORGER: So despite Ann's health issues, the Romneys left Bain and moved to Utah in 1999. But when Romney really left Bain capital is now controversial. On paper, he remained chief executive officer, raising the question of his responsibility for companies that laid off workers when he was in Utah. He says that he was gone from the company completely, that the Olympics were all consuming. T. ROMNEY: When he got there, it was a disaster. And -- he was panicked. He really seriously considered saying, you know, we -- it's not going to work here, there's just too many problems. BORGER: Romney needed help, so he rallied an old friend from Bain Capital, Fraser Bullock, to be the Games' chief operating officer. FRASER BULLOCK, former COO, SALT LAKE CITY OLYMPICS: Mitt did describe it as stepping into an empty elevator shaft because you're not sure -- you're falling and you're not sure when you're going to hit ground. BORGER: Bullet joined the team that tried to do damage control. They created an operating plan, tried to convince sponsors to stay on board, and took a critical look at the nearly $400 million budget deficit staring them in the face. And even got rid of the usual catering at Olympic board meetings. F. BULLOCK: We had Domino's Pizza. And it was a dollar a slice. Because he knew he could buy a pizza for five bucks, cut it into eight slices, sell them for a dollar a slice, get $8 of revenue for every pizza at a cost of $5. He turned the lunches from a cost center into a profit center.
telegraph wrote: OK, you ready to sign on? As I said, I find your description of the road to energy independence hard to believe, even moreso your characterization of the Manhattan Project--operated as it was under a blanket of tight security--as consuming 1/3 of all electricity made in the entire country. I think the American people would have noticed that their electricity usage was cut by a third.Be that as it may, yes, I'd be willing to give up quite a lot (I could use the exercise) if it meant that we could shut the door on the Middle East and let them live their collective life the crazy way they want to live it. They are at choice, and we should honor that choice with all its consequences both positive and negative.Americans last experienced serious austerity in World War II. Goods of all kinds were rationed. Want to go for a drive in the country? Too bad — gas was rationed. Meat every day? Forget it. Butter, sugar coffee: rationed, rationed, rationed. Want to buy a new car? They didn’t even make new cars.So be it. Energy independence is vitally important to every citizen of the United States, so whatever must be done to usher it in, I'm all in, too.
If the Middle EAst oil is lost, you can count on $300 or more per barrel of oil.....and likely worse wars as China, India and everyone else fights over the remaining oil. Depends on what you mean by "lost".If you merely mean "the US stops buying it" then there is very little impact. We don't import that much oil from the Middle East in the first place, and if we don't buy it they have to sell it to someone else - and we can buy oil from whomever that "someone else" is currently buying from.If you mean "the region falls into general warfare and its oil production essentially stops"... well that's quite a bit different.
>> decath:"We have plenty of oil, gas and coal to sustain us for centuries. We don't need them."teleNo, we don't. We import 2/3rds of our oil, and have no hope of producing as much as we need. <<ziggyExcept that he said oil, gas and coal -- not just oil alone. If the political will were there to produce them and update our energy infrastructure, we do have enough of these *combined* -- even more so if you included Canadian reserves (with the assumption that importing from Canada is far preferable to importing from nations who hate us and sponsor terrorism).#29 In addition, a nuclear energy program on a similiar scale the French have implemented. I think we could be independent. If not, we have Canada, Central and South America to buy from. My earlier post sounded simplistic. I did not want to write a book. But I don't see any end to the nonsense in the middle east until radical Islam is gone. Could that ever happen? Perhaps. But it would take centuries.We are feeding them by buying their oil. Someday, they will deploy a nuke on American soil. It's only a matter of time. Then we will retaliate and nuke a Muslim holy site or country. It won't be pretty.decath
You'd have instant rationing.....us retired folks might get 2 gallons a week to get to the grocery store ...and to the doc or dentist....Tele, you can have my 2 gallons right now. <grin>-andrew, who hasn't bought gasoline since 2003
decath: We have plenty of oil, gas and coal to sustain us for centuries. We don't need them.tele: No, we don't. We import 2/3rds...[etc.]T. Boone Pickens, who was interviewed by guest host Tony Robbins on Piers Morgan's show on CNN, vehemently disagrees with you, telegraph.The interview has not yet posted on CNN's site, but here's Pickens' plan to create energy independence in--if I heard him correctly on CNN tonight--two years.http://www.pickensplan.com/didyouknow/
decath wrote: I want us to cut defense. Bring the troops home, let Europe defend itself. The middle east? Let them fix their own problems. Tonight on CNN, guest host Tony Robbins interviewed Mark Cuban, Steve Wynn and T. Boone Pickens. I think it was Pickens who said (essentially), "We should leave the Middle East alone. They have a culture that has served them for thousands of years. It's their culture, whatever we may think about it. How would we like it if they came over here and tried to impose their culture on us? Well, we wouldn't like it, so it's the height of hubris to go around the world trying to impose democracy on others." (This is what Ron Paul said, too.)All three interviews were good, in my opinion, except Mark Cuban is an Obama supporter.
… that we have plenty of Natural gas to do this?Natural gas is our country’s second largest energy resource and a vital component of our energy supply. More than 98% of the natural gas used in the United States is from North America. A recent study released by the American Clean Skies Foundation indicates that we have enough natural gas to last more than 100 years.I am not tele, but I think he'd argue that the natural gas supply figures that are often published are based on current consumption rates and would be drastically reduced if we started powering more of our vehicles from natural gas.Let's wait and see how these shale gas plays work out. I've heard that shale gas wells tend to produce a lot gas initially, but unlike conventional gas wells the shale gas well production drops off rapidly.I believe in exploiting the shale gas that we have, but we should be realistic when estimating the supply of natural gas that can be expected.Mike
Here's an excerpt of Tony Robbins' interview of Steve Wynn, who was an Obama supporter in 2008.http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1209/16/pmt.01.htmlROBBINS: I know you disagree with a lot of things [billionaire] Mark [Cuban] said about how things being better off now than four years ago. WYNN: I do. ROBBINS: So we come back, I want to have you share what you think is different and I want you to share your solutions for things like healthcare. And I want to hear why you went from voting for President Obama before to now voting for Mitt Romney, or at least supporting Mitt Romney. So that's what we'll do when we come back. Thanks for being on. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) WYNN: I think the future of Las Vegas depends on the kind of political leadership that we get in our state and our -- and our country. After all, Las Vegas is a great national crossroads, a great international crossroads. To the extent that America is healthy and well led, then Las Vegas will be a great reflection of that prosperity. (END VIDEO CLIP)ROBBINS: So I know you feel very differently about our economy. Tell me, are we better off than four years ago? And if you obviously feel differently, why and what do we need to do to move America forward to start growing again? WYNN: Well, it was fun to meet Mark Cuban and to be here with him. And that was the first time -- I was listening very carefully when you were talking to him. And, unfortunately, I disagree with him rather starkly. Four years ago, Mark mentioned that we were in a -- the throes of an earthquake. ROBBINS: Economically. WYNN: And everything was shaking. ROBBINS: Yes. WYNN: Because there was a fault beneath us. The fault had to do with home lending, irresponsible home lending and a bunch of other reasons that we've discussed and don't need to repeat at this moment. Today, the shaking stopped, but the fault is orders of magnitude bigger. There is -- There's no metric, no measurement of the health of the American economy that isn't worse today than it was before. And anybody with any fundamental understanding of what our lives and our -- living standard has been pinned upon will recognize that we are in much worse shape, at $16 trillion in debt and climbing. You know, right now, the government is borrowing, as everybody knows, 40 cents on every dollar. ROBBINS: Yes. WYNN: But they're paying no interest for it. We're artificially repressing the cost of interest and keeping it at $400 billion a year. Let's remember, the government takes in $2.4 trillion a year. Four hundred billion of it or so is going to interest. When we're paying no interest, if we stop artificially keeping interest rates down or -- ROBBINS: Investors say, I want a better return, you're not -- WYNN: Well, they -- they have said want return. ROBBINS: Yes. Yes. WYNN: Which is why the Fed steps in. It creates money and pretends that it's outside money borrowing the Treasury money, which it's not. They -- they've got a fancy name for it called quantitative easing. ROBBINS: Right. WYNN: Bernie Madoff went to jail for that. You can't borrow money -- ROBBINS: It's true. WYNN: And so we are -- the results of all this is that the dollar is plummeting. My employees -- let's get to what matters to me. ROBBINS: Yes. WYNN: My employees are being paid in 80 and 75 cent dollars and it's going south. Even if I bring money from Macau [location of another of Wynn's casinos] and give raises and stuff like that, I can't keep up with the destruction of the living standard of the working people in my world. ROBBINS: So tell me, what do we do? You were a big supporter of President Obama. You voted for him. You gave money to the Democrats. WYNN: Yes. ROBBINS: You've switched. Do you believe that Mitt Romney can really create 12 million jobs? How do -- WYNN: Mitt Romney doesn't create 12 million jobs. ROBBINS: Yes. WYNN: We know from the study of history that the only thing that creates a better life is the demand for labor. It is created in the private sector. If the government is going to hire everybody, it's called communism. ROBBINS: Right. WYNN: I mean we put everybody in the army, put everybody in the postal department, put everybody in the agriculture department. It's preposterous and ridiculous. And on top of it, the government makes a lousy deal on labor contracts. ROBBINS: But why -- as you've told me privately all the time, there's all this money sitting on the side, guys like you that on the side -- WYNN: Two or three trillion. ROBBINS: Two or three trillion. Why is it on the side? What's going to get them back in the game? WYNN: What President Romney can do, we've got -- what we've got in the White House today is a first-rate campaigner and a great speechmaker. And he is charming. ROBBINS: Ouch. WYNN: And he's a nice man. He's a nice man. But in this world, it's what you do, not what you say. We've become so fascinated with style and glitz, sometimes -- and it's a hell of a thing coming from a guy like me, but I've got to say, it's what you do, not what you say. ROBBINS: True. WYNN: We've got a guy running for office, Mitt Romney, who is not as good a campaigner as the president, but would be a first rate president. The president is a first rate campaigner and a third rate president. ROBBINS: Tell me -- WYNN: Because -- ROBBINS: Tell me something, because we've got two minutes, I'm going to -- I want people to hear, do you have real specific solutions around health care? I know you're worried about your employees. Why do you think the health care program is so poor? What's missing from it? What would you change? WYNN: Any bill that's 2700 pages, when you -- if you're a citizen and you're looking at this television program, I'm going to make an intemperate statement. If a piece of legislation is 2700 pages, the public is getting screwed. Nothing that's 2700 pages -- ROBBINS: That no one -- there's no [way] one could read it. WYNN: Nobody has read it. ROBBINS: Yes. WYNN: It's an outrageous example of bad government. ROBBINS: But it's really missing competition. Is that your concern? Right now under the Obama the prices are increasing for your employees, is that right? WYNN: Tony, Tony, when they take a break at CNN, most likely, you're going to see an argument between Progressive, All State and Geico on how -- on how to get cheaper auto insurance. ROBBINS: Yes. WYNN: Or you'll see an argument between Vonage, AT&T and Verizon on cheaper cell phone service. ROBBINS: Yes. WYNN: You'll never see an ad for how to get cheaper health care insurance because that's locked into little monopolies state by state. One of the things we've got to do is get health care -- the borders taken away so we can have ads on television for private insurance. That will cause the price to go down, just like it does with auto insurance, just like it does for your cell phone. ROBBINS: You did this with your own company, did you not? WYNN: Absolutely. ROBBINS: Did you -- tell me -- tell me some examples. You cut, what, a $1,000 fee from an MRI down to what?WYNN: I got -- I got with my union, the Culinary Union. ROBBINS: Yes. Yes. WYNN: With Missy, the wife of the head of the Culinary Union. ROBBINS: Yes. WYNN: And Missy and my guys went and then take -- and took the cost of MRIs and CAT scans from $1,500 down to $300 and $250. ROBBINS: Wow. WYNN: Stuff like that. By ganging up and using market forces. ROBBINS: Yes. WYNN: Now, Ryan's idea was that anybody less than 55 would have it -- 55 and over, you get Medicare as it is. If you're -- if you're other than that, if you're younger than 55, you can have Medicare just the way it is, but you also have a choice. You have a choice of private insurance that's advertised nationally. And depending on your income, if you make less than $250,000 -- you see, the president likes to think everybody making $250,000 or more is a billionaire or a millionaire, I'll say one thing. As a person that makes more than $250,000, I'd be very happy not to have the government support my health care. I can afford my own insurance and so can everybody else that makes a lot of money. Health care for people who have no money is Medicaid. We've always had it. ROBBINS: Right. WYNN: For people who make more than nothing but less than enough to buy their insurance competitively, they ought to keep Medicare just the way it is. And I think that's exactly what the Republicans are -- are suggesting.
Best Of |
Favorites & Replies |
Start a New Board |
My Fool |