Is the recession over yet? – II

“What is the use of living, if it be not to strive for noble causes and to make this muddled world a better place for those who will live in it after we are gone?” — Winston Churchill

Statisticians say the recession ended mid-2009, four and a half years ago. But what do you think? Does it feel like the recession ended or does it feel like we are still in a recession? In a recent poll, 74% said we are still in a recession.

It’s no wonder most people feel that the recession never ended. Employment is miserable. GDP growth is pathetic. Median family income is down for four straight years. Almost 50 million Americans live below the federal poverty line. A record 47 million people are on food stamps. One pundit declared that “More people in the United States are poor, unemployed, underemployed, looking for work, disgusted and quit looking for work, on food stamps, and on disability than anytime in our history.”

If those words look familiar it is because I first wrote them three months ago. In that column, the focus was on the worst employment picture in more than 30 years. Three recent pieces of economic news make this a good time to look more broadly at the economy.

1) On April 22, the New York Times reported that the U.S. no longer has the highest Median Family Income in the world. Canada is now #1.
2) April 30, the headline news was that in the first quarter of 2014, the U.S. economy grew at an almost non-existent rate of 0.1%.
3) That same day other headlines stated that China would soon pass the U.S. as the world’s largest economy.

Our economy stinks and we will have more such headlines if we don’t fix it. So, how do we fix it? The first step is to replace all the politicians who don’t even realize there is a problem, who do the same wrong things year after year expecting different results.

For decades, probably for more than a century, the U.S. has had the richest middle class in the world. Not just the richest middle class, but also the richest lower class, the richest upper class, and even the richest poor people. Those in the bottom 10% were much better off than the bottom 10% in any other country.

U.S. median family income is now down for five years in a row. In Canada, median family income is up for four of the last five years. Is it pure coincidence that Canada has been governed by Conservatives in recent years, the U.S. by Progressives?

The Index of Economic Freedom is an annual scoring of some 180 nations by ten measures of economic freedom. As the Index states, “The ideals of economic freedom are strongly associated with healthier societies, cleaner environments, greater per capita wealth, human development, democracy, and poverty elimination.”

The U.S. was rated economically “free” in 2006. Since then, its freedom score has dropped 6 points, it has fallen out of the top 10 to now #12 and is ranked only “mostly free”. The U.S. has lost economic freedom for seven years in a row, particularly in the areas of property rights, and freedom from corruption.

Conversely, Canada has increased its freedom score by more than 10 points over the last 20 years. It is currently ranked #6, and is rated “free”.

Hmm, is there a pattern here? The U.S. loses economic freedom seven years in a row and median family income goes down for five years in a row. Canada increases its economic freedom and median family income goes up four of the last five years. It now has the world’s highest median family income.

GDP growth in this so-called “recovery” has been pathetic. For four years it has been around 1.5% to 2%. That is the slowest by far of all the recoveries in 65 years. The Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis has a nice interactive chart of all postwar recoveries. The current recovery amounts to merely an 11.1% increase in GDP over the almost five years since the recovery began. Many of the previous recoveries had double or almost triple that growth. This recovery is barely half the average of the ten previous recoveries.

Imagine if we had had as much as average growth in the last five years. Investor’s Business Daily estimates that we would now have $1.3 trillion higher income. That is about $10,000 higher per household. That is the cost of bad economic policies.

Apologists for the Obama “recovery” say that the recession was especially severe. Historically, the more severe the recession, the stronger the recovery. It should have been easy to produce better than average numbers. They now say that financial recessions take longer to recover. But that’s not what they said back in 2009 and into 2010. Back then they forecast a strong recovery. It was only after their economic plans failed that they started spouting the “financial recession” excuse.

The Democrat Party would be wise to heed the words of one of its Presidential candidates from some 20 years ago, the late Senator Paul Tsongas, who said, “You cannot redistribute wealth that you never created. You cannot be pro-jobs and anti-business at the same time. You cannot love employment and hate employers.”

Advertisements

Oh, the Shame!

“This country has gotten where it is in spite of politics, not by the aid of it. That we have carried as much political bunk as we have and still survived shows we are a super nation.” — Will Rogers

According to a recent report, “Taxachusetts” now has a lower business tax burden than NH. For decades, we have ridiculed Massachusetts for its high taxes. Now it seems that our business tax rates are even higher than theirs. Among the six New England states, NH is outranked by both Connecticut and Massachusetts for low business taxes.

Did you know that the share of state taxes paid by businesses is almost 60%? In Massachusetts, businesses pay about 35% of the state’s taxes. NH businesses pay the fourth highest percentage of state taxes in the entire country.

With businesses paying so much of our taxes and employing most of our people, shouldn’t we want more businesses, hiring more employees, paying more taxes? Sadly, Governor Hassan and House Democrats have done nothing to encourage businesses to move to or expand in NH. Of the 180 Democrat bills passed by the House, not a single one makes NH more attractive for business.

Some 20 years ago a Democratic Presidential candidate remarked that “You cannot be pro-jobs and anti-business at the same time. You cannot love employment and hate employers.” Today’s Democratic politicians often seem to be anti-business and to hate employers.

NH House Democrats this year have passed some 30 bills that make life a little more difficult, a little more expensive for businesses. None of those bills alone will kill a business, but together they will make some businesses decide, “It’s just not worth it. Too much hassle, too much risk.” Collectively, they create a “Closed for Business” sign around NH.

There were some bills that were ever so slightly pro-business. Democrats sponsored some; Republicans sponsored many more. But all of those pro-business bills were killed. 

Did you know that a convenience store that sells beer and wine is mandated to keep $3,000 of groceries in stock? A bipartisan proposal would have removed the mandate and let stores stock what their customers wanted rather than what politicians wanted. That bill was killed. A few days later a seacoast paper reported that a gas station was fined $250 for not having the requisite amount of groceries on hand.

I can’t help wondering how many inspectors we taxpayers are funding to travel around from store to store counting how much groceries each has in stock. Is that really a good use of taxpayers’ dollars? How about letting the business owner stock what he thinks his customers want? If he thinks they want to buy hamburgers and hot dogs along with beer, then let him stock those items. If he thinks his customers want nothing more than wine and cigars, then so be it. Let the customer be king, not the politicians.

In a recent poll, 74% said we are still in a recession. It’s no wonder: Employment is miserable. GDP growth is pathetic. Median family income is down for four straight years. If you are like most people, you think our representatives should be working to help the economy grow and create more jobs. The Democrats down in Concord have not been doing that, nor have they made any effort to fix the problems with ObamaCare such as people losing their hospitals, their doctors, their plans, and seeing 35% increases in their premiums and deductibles.

So just how have the Do-nothing Democrats been spending their time? You might say they have been rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. They have no concept of the big problems ordinary people are facing, so they have made piddling little changes to our laws. They have passed bills to establish thirteen new committees, to add members to some advisory councils, and even to support voting rights in Washington, DC.

The Democratic House passed a bill to tax paint $0.75 per gallon. They tried to ban children under 18 from using tanning facilities even with permission of their parents. That bill seemed headed for passage until members realized the absurdity that young girls would be able to get an abortion without parental consent but would not be able to get a tan even with parental consent.

What else have the Democrats spent time on? Two social issues come to mind. They tried twice to restrict the rights of law-abiding gun owners, while doing nothing about criminals. The first bill took more than an hour of debate but in the end was decisively killed by more than 2:1. The second bill also took more than an hour of debate. The vote was closer but the measure was again defeated.

Another hot button for Democrats is voter identification. They offered four separate bills that would make it easier for out-of-state persons to vote fraudulently in NH. They like to claim that there is no voter fraud but how can you find fraud if you don’t look for it? Last year, North Carolina strengthened its voter ID laws; this year they are investigating some 800 cases of apparent fraud, and another 35,000 cases of possible fraud. 

Come November could we please elect representatives (and a Governor) who will work on the economy and jobs?

Guilty until proven innocent

“It is better 100 guilty persons should escape than that one innocent person should suffer.” — Benjamin Franklin

You and your spouse are eating breakfast in your home of nearly fifty years. Several vans pull up, armed police stream out and tell you that you have 10 minutes to grab your things and leave. Permanently. They are seizing your property. No notice, no warning, no court hearing, no due process of any kind. You might believe that could happen in a dictatorship, but can you believe that it happened in Philadelphia?

A police officer stopped a car and falsely stated that a taillight was out. The officer then claimed that the driver “looked like a drug dealer” and had him searched by a drug dog. The officers asked him if he was carrying drugs, guns, or money. He replied that he had $3,500 in cash. The officer seized the money, claiming that it must be proceeds of drug dealing. The man was never charged with a crime.

Terry Dehko and his daughter Sandy run a small grocery store. In January, 2013, the federal government seized all the money from the store bank account on the theory that his cash deposits might have been a cover for illegal money-laundering. No evidence, no due process. The Dehkos had done absolutely nothing wrong, but the government took their money. A year later, he is still trying to get his money back.

Welcome to the world of civil asset forfeiture, where people are guilty until proven innocent. If police have the slightest suspicion that property, including cars, cash, or even homes, was connected to a crime, then they can take the property, and dare the owner to try to get it back.

The theory behind civil forfeiture was to take the ill-gotten gains of major crime figures even if those criminals could not be caught and brought to trial. But now almost all the seizures involve minor criminals and all too often people who have committed no crime at all.

In most cases, the police act as judge, jury, and executioner. They seize money on the excuse that they think it was going to be used to buy drugs, they don’t charge the “suspect” with even a violation, they just send him on his way. There is no due process, no court hearing, the victim is given no information about how to get his money back.

There might not be even the slightest evidence of any crime but the victim has to sue the state, then prove his innocence to get his property returned. The cost of hiring an attorney is usually more than the amount of money seized so most people give up.

The police, and sometimes the DA, keep the money as their own, and spend it however they see fit, with no oversight in the executive branch or by the legislature. A district attorney in Texas spent forfeiture money on an office Margarita machine. Police in a small Florida town spent $23,704 on trips with first-class flights and luxury car rentals. The Milwaukee County Sheriff’s office used civil forfeiture funds to buy nine flat-screen TVs for $8,200, and two Segways for $14,500.

The late Congressman Henry Hyde exclaimed, “Civil asset forfeiture has allowed police to view all of America as some giant national K-Mart, where prices are not just lower, but non-existent — a sort of law enforcement ‘pick-and-don’t-pay.'”

The abuse of power, absence of due process, and harm to innocent people has created opposition across the political spectrum, from the ACLU on the left to the Heritage Foundation on the right. The non-partisan Institute for Justice has fought many forfeiture cases (all pro-bono) in the courts.

A former Justice Department forfeiture official became so dismayed by the injustice of the forfeiture system that he switched from prosecution to defense. David Smith explained, “We are paying assistant U.S. attorneys to carry out the theft of property from often the most defenseless citizens,” given that people sometimes have limited resources to fight a seizure after their assets are taken.

We do not know whether New Hampshire has experienced some of these abuses – the record keeping requirements are so lax that we cannot know. We do know that our laws are so weak as to allow these same kinds of problems to occur here. Many of us think we should reform the statutes to prevent future problems.

A bill, HB 1609, has been offered with bi-partisan support to reform our forfeiture laws.

The bill requires that a person must have his day in court. He must first be convicted of a crime in criminal court before his property can be forfeited. No one will lose his property on the mere suspicion of a police officer.

Any forfeiture proceeds go to the state’s general fund, not to a police department’s slush fund. This is the same as fines for other crimes – they go to the state, where legislators during the budget process decide how to appropriate them. Police departments and prosecutors cannot divvy up the funds for their own benefit.

If property such as a car or house is connected to a crime, but the owner(s) were neither involved nor had any knowledge of the crime, those innocent owners cannot have their property forfeited.

Down in Concord

“Politicians are interested in people. Not that this is always a virtue. Fleas are interested in dogs.” — P.J. O’Rourke

Every so often someone writes yet another column asking “Why can’t Republicans and Democrats get along? Can’t they talk to each other, work together, find a compromise?” The short answer is “We do, most of the time.” A second answer is “There are times when we should not.”

The simple truth is that NH legislators do work together, are very civil to each other (with rare, though well publicized, exceptions), and often become life-long friends. Anyone who says otherwise either has not observed first hand how the legislature works or is trying to make a political point. All too often, it is a mixture of both. Someone starts a narrative about the mean old nasty so and so party, repeats it over and over again, then people with no first hand knowledge come to believe it. (After all, politicians never lie.)

Let’s start with some anecdotal evidence, then some numbers. Earlier this year I went down to Concord to testify against a bill. It happened that one of my former colleagues, a very left Democrat, also testified against that same bill and he happened to go first. Later, when I testified, I remarked that this was the first time in two years that he and I had agreed on a bill. Later, we met out in the hall and laughed together. We encouraged each other to convince other members of our two parties. (The bill was eventually defeated with a bipartisan vote.)

Last session, a hard left Democrat and a hard right Republican worked closely together on a particular bill. Coincidentally, the two were geographically on the far left and far right sides of the state. They both worked very hard to pass their bill; they managed one of the rare instances of overturning a committee recommendation on the House floor. I was happy to work with both of them on that bill. Later the two of them worked together on another bill.

Now let’s look at some numbers. This year the House and Senate passed 281 bills. A full 188 of those bills, were passed by the House on the Consent Calendar. For those who may not have read my previous columns, suffice it to say that bills on Consent have all but unanimous support. Two-thirds of all the bills that were passed, were unanimous. (And of the bills that were killed, many, perhaps most, were also unanimous.)

So any time you hear complaints about legislators being mean and nasty to each other, not working together, please realize that it is almost always someone trying to stir up trouble for partisan advantage. The truth is that they DO work together, usually in a collegial, respectful atmosphere.

But there are times when they should not compromise. Suppose a Democrat and a Republican decide to drive down to New York City. For those who are geographically impaired, NYC is mostly South and a little West of us. Now let’s suppose that the two politicians approach an intersection. The Democrat wants to turn left and head North; the Republican wants to turn right and head South. Should they compromise and head East?

On some issues the division is just as stark as the choice between driving North or South – it makes no sense to compromise on East.

Republicans, generally speaking, want to cut taxes; Democrats want to increase taxes. This year Democrats pushed hard for an increase in the gas tax of 15 cents. They later offered a compromise of 12 cents. Why should Republicans compromise on any increase at all, when what we really want is to reduce taxes?

Democrats for the most part want bigger, more powerful government. Republicans want smaller, limited government. How can the two sides compromise when they are such opposites? (Historically, Republicans have compromised on a little bigger here, a little bigger there – which is one reason many people think there is little difference between the two parties.)

Affordable health care is a nice goal. The two parties have opposite solutions. Democrats thought the solution was to write a 2,000+ page bill, write tens of thousands of pages of regulations, hire 10,000 IRS agents. Now even many of the original supporters realize that Obamacare is a train wreck in progress.

Republicans know that the solution to more affordable, higher quality health care is a free market, with many providers competing to find the best solution at the best price. This approach has proven to work and is working today in those places where government regulations allow it.

Some Democrats call for compromise on so-called “gun safety.” What they fail to understand is that the criminals don’t obey the existing 10,000 laws and won’t obey one additional gun law. Republicans understand that the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. Republicans believe that self-defense is a fundamental right, that a woman has the right to choose whether to carry a handgun to protect herself against a rapist. Would Democrats compromise and allow any woman for her safety and the safety of her children to carry a concealed weapon without a permit?

Democrats and Republicans do compromise on a large majority of bills, but on some issues they cannot and should not compromise.

Down in Concord

There are two kinds of people, those who do the work and those who take the credit. — Indira Gandhi

Just like high school or college kids making up for lost time, the House leaders (Democrats) finished the budget process with a late, late, late night session. After wasting most of Friday, Monday, and Tuesday, the budget conferees met Wednesday at 9 am and did not finish until Thursday in the wee hours of the morning, 3:42 am to be precise.

The short story is that the House is to be congratulated for persuading the Senate to agree to all of the Senate’s demands. That’s right, the final budget is pretty much the Senate (Republican-led), not the House (Democrat-led), budget.

Observers tell me that the Democrats opposed this budget up until the very end when they caved. Senior leaders, including representatives of the governor, were holed up behind locked doors for hours apparently searching for a way out. There was even talk that they would reject the budget and go for a Continuing Resolution (CR) while they tried to negotiate a better budget. In the end, “the House acceded to the Senate” on almost every issue.

House Democrats are trying to put the best spin on it. The Democrat chairman of the House Finance Committee wrote that they “… produced a balanced and fiscally responsible budget investing in the priorities of the people of New Hampshire without increasing taxes or fees. … there is a great deal for us to be proud of in this budget.” But the fact is that the budget is almost entirely what was passed by Senate Republicans, which every single Senate Democrat voted against.

The Governor “applauded the bipartisan budget agreement” even though it is virtually identical to the Senate Finance Committee budget, which three weeks ago she slammed for (so-called) “deep cuts”, “nothing short of devastating”, and a “fiscally irresponsible approach”. Now she labels that same budget as “fiscally responsible” (which it is) and praises the restored funding (added by Senate Republicans).

Why do so many politicians not tell the truth? Either they lied weeks ago when they decried the Senate budget as terrible, or they are lying now when they say it is great. Perhaps both. (How do you tell when a politician is lying? His lips are moving.)

I would have more respect for them if they admitted, “We don’t like this budget. We wanted to spend much more money; we wanted to eliminate some programs and create other programs. We agreed to the Senate plan because we didn’t have a good alternative. Our only fallback was a Continuing Resolution, which would have given us even less money to spend.”

But politicians like to take credit for everything – even if they had nothing to do with them. If they told the truth now and admitted they don’t like the budget they couldn’t take credit for it.

Democrats cannot be happy about this budget. Total spending is $400 million less than the Governor requested, $300 million under what the House Democrats approved.

This budget has zero tax or fee increases. Democrats had proposed numerous new taxes or fees. They voted overwhelmingly (155-35) for a beer tax; they didn’t get it. They really, really wanted a massive increase in the gas tax; they didn’t get it. Ditto an increase in cigarette taxes. They proposed to delay scheduled business tax decreases; the Senate nixed that idea. Democrats passed increases in the Salt Water Fishing license fee and the Marriage License fee; Senate Republicans removed them.

Democrats included a provision letting the Governor raid 400 dedicated funds to spend the money elsewhere. Senate Republicans said no.

Senate Republicans added funds for LCHIP (the Land Conservation and Heritage Improvement Program) and for the UNIQUE scholarship program. The Senate increased State Aid Grants for water treatment projects. Democrats now try to take credit for these increases.

Democrats reduced funding for Charter Schools and put in a moratorium. Senate Republicans fully funded them and removed the moratorium. House Democrats repealed the school choice scholarship program passed last year. Senate Republicans killed that bill and removed a parallel provision from the budget.

Democrats had been emphatic about expanding Medicaid as part of Obamacare. The Speaker of the House, Terie Norelli, had declared that without Medicaid expansion, “I do not know if I could get the votes in the House to support the budget.” As late as Wednesday afternoon, conference Chairwoman Wallner said there would not be a budget agreement unless the Senate budged. The Senate replied that this issue was too important to rush into without a thorough study, they called her bluff and the Democrats folded.

In addition to the budget bills, there were 22 other bills reported back by conference committees. The changes appear to be slight and the bills seem uninteresting. There were eight bills where House and Senate conferees could not reach agreement. These bill also seem uninteresting; few will mourn their loss.

On Wednesday, July 26, the House and Senate will each meet to vote on conference reports. It is very likely that all will be passed and go to the governor for signing.

Down in Concord

Survival in politics requires denying mistakes and sticking with the policies you advocated, while blaming others for the bad results. — Thomas Sowell

Suppose that you have a term paper due June 20. You have known for months that it will be due that afternoon. Would you begin your research on June 17 and start writing it on June 18? Would any of us wait until the last minute to start work on the paper?

Well, that is what House Democrats are doing with the state budget. They have known to a certainty that the Senate would amend their budget. They have known officially since June 6, that the Senate did in fact amend the budget. They have known for literally years that a Committee of Conference is how the legislature resolves differences between the House version and the Senate version of a bill. Last Wednesday, June 12, the Senate formally agreed to a conference.

House leaders, knowing that there are major differences to resolve, could have scheduled an all day conference last Friday, the 14th. They could have met through the weekend. Instead, they have scheduled an informational meeting for Monday, June 17, and the first work session for June 18. The conferees will have two and a half days to reach an agreement on 800 pages of budget bills, and then a few hours to write their report.

The House leadership and the Governor know that the current state budget ends June 30. Without legislative action the state government will have no authority to spend a dime after June 30. In theory, the state government will shut down July 1 unless the House and Senate agree on a budget.

One wonders if the Democrat leaders of the House are deliberately trying to create a budget crisis. They had the option to schedule twice as much time for conference meetings. (The House controls scheduling of House bills, including the budget bills; the Senate controls scheduling of Senate bills.) Are they scheduling so little time because they plan simply to accede to the Senate’s recommendations? Somehow I doubt it. Do they expect the Senate to quickly give in? Bad idea.

If the House Democrats are not playing a game of chicken, knowing that a deadline is approaching and hoping that the Senate will blink first, then what are they doing?

Perhaps they are planning a government shutdown and they will blame it on Senate Republicans. But why would they think that would work? When two sides cannot agree, which side is at fault? The Senate is proposing a 7% increase in spending. That is hardly a cut. They offer a larger amount than the House proposed for HHS spending. Why would anyone think that the shutdown would be the fault of the Senate more than of the House?

There are only two ways to avoid a government shutdown July 1. The usual is to pass a budget and for the governor to sign it (or at least not veto it). The second is to pass what is called a Continuing Resolution (CR). In essence that is a short-term extension of the current budget. Spending would continue at the current rate for about a month. That gives the two sides time to negotiate a full two-year budget.

The current rate of spending is roughly 10% less than the House and the Governor have proposed. So one would think they would prefer the Senate budget, which would allow about 7% higher spending.

Perhaps the Governor plans to call a Special Session to pass a new budget. A CR would allow the government to operate until a new budget is passed. But why would the the Governor and House expect the Senate to pass a budget significantly higher than what they just passed?

To this short-term budget watcher and to other long-term watchers, the current budget process doesn’t make much sense on the House side. Given the June 20 deadline for the budget conference to file a report, we will know the budget plans in a few days.

*****

In the meantime, the House and Senate are in Conference on 40 bills other than the two budget bills. Some conferences started last week on June 10 and 11 and seven have already reached agreement. Others won’t start until this coming Monday, Tuesday, and even Wednesday. Since all reports are due by Thursday, I expect that the committees not meeting until Wednesday will deal with very small differences that can be resolved quickly.

By Thursday afternoon, we should know the story for all bills. Next Wednesday, June 26, the House will meet to vote on all conference committee reports.

 

Down in Concord

“The government solution to a problem is usually as bad as the problem and very often makes the problem worse.” — Milton Friedman

The House is not in session this week or next. Many members will be busy in Committees of Conference trying to resolve differences between House and Senate versions of bills. Each conference committee crafts a compromise on one bill, then submits the compromise bill with explanation to both the House and the Senate by June 20. This year there are 26 bills headed to conference. The biggest and most important bills are, of course, the budget bills.  On June 26, the House will vote on conference committee reports, and that should be their last session of the year.

Most of the bills other than the budget bills will be of little interest to most people. (Does a bill “consolidating the property appraisal division and the municipal services division of the department of revenue administration” interest anyone?) Most people probably aren’t particularly interested even in the budget bills – for the simple reason that most people have little interest in anything to do with politics.

There is one bill that might interest quite a few people. And that is the Medical Marijuana bill, HB 573. The House approved it by an overwhelming bipartisan majority, but the governor said she had problems with parts of the bill, so the Senate amended it, and then passed it by a 3-1 bipartisan majority. Advocates of medical marijuana no doubt will be contacting their representatives trying to influence the conference committee.

Down in Concord, the most difficult, time-consuming, and important conference will be on the budget. The numbers aren’t all that different – the Senate increases spending by 7%, the House increases by 10%. The Senate spends $23 million more than the House on the Department of Health and Human Services. Governor Hassan labels that increase a “devastating cut”.

In the State House there is an Office of Legislative Budget Assistant (LBA), staffed with professional number crunchers. One of the many documents they produce is a line by line – 1611 pages worth – comparison of the House and Senate budgets. One column shows the dollar difference between the two versions. On page after page after page the difference is zero. I managed to get through about 800 pages before I ran out of energy. It is fair to say that over 90%, perhaps closer to 99% of the spending proposals are identical.

The numbers aren’t the problem. The contentious debate won’t be about a million here, a million there. The debate will be about expanding Medicaid to cover not just the poor but people with incomes up to 138% of the federal poverty level. Proponents say that it will help thousands of poor people, that it will cost us nothing because the federal government will pay 100% of the cost for three years.

Opponents reply that “If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is.” There are always unintended consequences from any program, especially from a federal government program. Let’s look at the long-term effect of this program.

People often complain that politicians rarely plan beyond the next election. Well, the New Hampshire Senate is now saying let’s look beyond the two years of this budget to study whether this program will be good for the long term.

Politicians all too often judge a program by its intentions, not by its results. They feel good for how much money they spend, rather than how many people are actually better off. They create some new program, congratulate themselves for how well it will work, but only rarely measure the results of the last program they created.

Supporters of expanding Medicaid live in a fantasy world where every program works as intended. Let’s look at the real world.

A study of 13,000 Oregonians conducted by Harvard and MIT economists and recently published in the New England Journal of Medicine concluded that “Medicaid coverage generated no significant improvements in measured physical health outcomes in the first two years.”

A University of Virginia study of 1 million surgeries showed Medicaid patients were twice as likely to die as those with private insurance. The same study showed that compared to NO insurance, Medicaid patients were 13% more likely to die.

A Journal of Cancer article showed that Medicaid cancer patients are two to three times more likely to die than other patients.

Our neighboring state of Maine 11 years ago decided to expand its Medicaid coverage. Supporters thought it would reduce the number of uninsured, thus reducing the costs of uncompensated care. A decade later, the number of uninsured was unchanged at 12 percent. Medicaid participation grew 7 percent but private health insurance dropped by 7 percent. The main effect of expanding Medicaid is shifting people from private insurance to government insurance and sticking taxpayers with the bill.

Medicaid is a program of low quality and high cost – not just in dollars but also to the well-being of the recipients of poor care. If we truly care about people who need help – not just feeling good about throwing money at a problem – we should try to find a replacement, not expand Medicaid.