One of the compelling arguments for Obamacare was the need to address the
problem of pre-existing conditions. If you fall ill and lose your job, or if you wanted to
switch employers, you face the challenge of finding insurance that will cover your “pre-
exiting conditions.” There are solutions to this that would not require passing legislation
with over 2700 pages, but Congress rejected those ideas.

The problem before Congress was what to do before Obamacare was fully
implemented. Some suggested the government create “high-risk pools” that would
provide a special, subsidized insurance plan for people with pre-existing conditions.
Although the idea might have been sound in principle, it was easy to see even two years
ago that these would be shallow pools.

The pools were required to take anyone regardless of their pre-existing condition
as long as they had been uninsured for six months. Moreover, these pools were also
seriously underfunded. There were too many people in the pool and too little funding for
those people. It is not surprising that news headlines announced two weeks ago and
money was running out. New applicants have already been shut out of most of these state-
based high-risk pools, and the rest will be shut out by this weekend.

There is another reason why the plan failed. The government has consistently
been inaccurate in pricing risk. Critics doubted whether the $5 billion allocated by
Congress for the Pre-Existing Condition Insurance Plan would be enough. It wasn’t.
Insurance for the people in the plan turned out to be more costly than predicted.

Government incompetence in estimating risk isn’t the only reason for higher
costs. People who lack medical insurance are more likely to go untreated. Usually that
makes their medical condition worse. When they do get coverage and begin treatment,
the medical costs and complications are higher.

This pre-existing insurance plan is only a stopgap measure. But if you want to get
a preview of Obamacare, this is a good example of the future.

One compelling argument for additional gun control has been the claim about a
“gun show loophole.” The president, the vice president, mayors, and members of
Congress repeat the mantra that approximately 40 percent of all gun purchases are
conducted through private sales at gun shows and are not subject to a criminal
background check. One police chief raised concern by saying: “Allowing 40 percent of
those acquiring guns to bypass background check is like allowing 40 percent of airline
passengers to board a plane without going through airport security.”

If there is a loophole, I think we can all agree that we should close it. However,
John G. Malcolm at the Heritage Foundation explains that the claim of 40 percent isn’t
even close to accurate.

Let’s start with basic information. The National Instant Criminal Background
Check System requires that all federal firearms licensees conduct a background check for
all firearms transactions, even if they sell the firearm at a gun show. What about the other
private sales at gun shows?

The 40 percent figure comes from a report by the National Institute of Justice
based on a telephone survey of a small sample size of people who acquired firearms in
1993 and 1994. The first thing to mention is that the survey was taken the year before the
criminal background check system went into effect.

Of the participants, 35.7 percent said they didn’t or “probably” didn’t obtain their
gun from a licensed firearms dealer. Because the margin of error was +/- 6 percentage
points, it was rounded up to 40 percent. It could just as easily have been rounded down
below 30 percent. If you then subtract the people who said they got their gun as a gift,
inheritance, or prize, the number drops to 26.4 percent. The survey goes on to explain
that only 3.9 percent of firearms were purchased at gun shows.

We may need to close a loophole, but proponents of gun control are citing a
statistic that is more than 10 times the actual number.

Minimum wage is back in the news in large part because President Obama called
for it to be increased once again. I will get to his proposal in just a minute after a brief
discussion of the history of the minimum wage.

Economics professor Walter Williams in his book, Race and Economics, explains
that minimum wage laws were passed in the 1930s, and they had negative consequences
for black employment. Economist Milton Friedman has argued that the minimum wage
laws were actually used to prevent blacks from displacing whites in the labor force by
working for less money. He therefore regarded the minimum wage as “one of the most, if
not the most, anti-black laws on the statute books.”

Whatever the past motivation, one has to wonder how raising the minimum wage
would help those out of work. Unemployment stands at just below eight percent, but is
nearly twice as high for African-Americans. Unemployment among black teens is nearly
38 percent. A higher minimum wage might raise earnings for existing workers, but it
most certainly would reduce the job opportunities of the millions looking for work.

Let’s get back to the president’s justification for raising the minimum wage. His
argument is that a full-time worker making minimum wage still falls below the poverty
line. He implied that raising the minimum wage to $9 per hour would put that worker and
his or her family above the poverty line. The news director for one of the radio stations
that carries my radio program pulled data on poverty thresholds for families of different
sizes to demonstrate that raising the minimum wage won’t lift those families out of
poverty.

It’s a compelling justification. Raise the minimum wage so that no one who
works will be below the poverty line. Why not raise the minimum wage to $20 per hour?
Callers to my program quickly rejected that idea saying it would increase unemployment.
More companies would lay off workers. And that’s the point. When we raise the
minimum wage, some benefit. Others lose their jobs. And the unemployed have a
tougher time finding a job.

There is a disconnect between Congress and the public. That has been a topic of a
number of my previous commentaries, and is more evident than ever given the latest
surveys by Scott Rasmussen and his company.

Let’s start with the overall opinion Americans have of the current Congress. The
latest Rasmussen Reports national survey found that just 11 percent of adults believe
Congress is a good reflection of the views of the American people. Nearly three fourths
(74%) say Congress is not a good reflection of those views.

Our republic is based upon the assumption that the representatives in Washington
would reflect the views of the people. Members of the House of Representatives stand for
election every two years. Members of the Senate run for election every six years. But the
direct election of our representatives has not produced a group who reflect the views and
wishes of the American people.

One way to see this more clearly is to look at spending. The political class seems
unwilling (or perhaps unable) to cut federal spending. The president and many in
Congress even defend increased spending and balk at even small cuts in the federal
budget. These recent surveys show that it is not what many Americans think about
federal spending.

A Rasmussen poll of voters found that a majority (55%) thinks spending cuts
would help the economy more than additional federal spending on infrastructure, clean
energy, and education. An even larger percentage (61%) believes cutting the federal
budget deficit would do more to help the economy than increased government spending.

Voters are a bit divided on one issue. More want just spending cuts (46%) than
those who want both spending cuts and tax hikes (41%). But it is clear even from these
numbers that all of them want some form of spending cuts.

Voters must wonder what part of the phrase “spending cuts” their elected officials
don’t understand. It’s just one more example of the disconnect between Washington and
the American public.

The National Religious Broadcasters have been monitoring censorship on the new
media platforms through their John Milton Project for Religious Free Speech. Their
conclusion is ominous. The report says: “The free speech liberty of citizens who use the
Internet is nearing a crisis point.” Various new media companies like Apple with its
iTunes app store, Google, YouTube, and Facebook have been censoring Christian
content.

Craig Parshall is Vice President and General Counsel for National Religious
Broadcasters and also Director of the John Milton Project. He was on my radio program
recently to talk about the threat of censorship from the new media.

There are lots of examples. Apple pulled an iPhone app created for the Manhattan
Declaration. The declaration, which was the work of Chuck Colson and others, is an
ecumenical document that upholds the biblical perspective on life and marriage. It was
pulled because of pressure from homosexual groups. Apple also pulled another app
created by Exodus International also because of pressure.

A pastor’s support of traditional marriage and opposition to same-sex marriage
was stripped from YouTube. The same thing happened to Lila Rose after she posted her
investigative reports on Planned Parenthood.

Last year, Facebook pulled a page by former Governor Mike Huckabee that
called for “Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day.” The page was taken down for about 12 hours
before appearing again. A Facebook representative reportedly said the company deleted
the page because the “content violated our policies not because of public sentiment.”

The National Religious Broadcasters published free speech guidelines for Internet
technology companies. It calls on new media companies to “permit all manner of content,
information, and opinions on their web-based platforms, regardless of the viewpoint
expressed, unless that content, information or opinion fits squarely within one of the
traditional, well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech.”

I encourage you to express your concern to the new media companies about what
they are doing to censor Christian speech.

A few months ago, I did a commentary on the fact the modern nations are facing
a “demographic winter.” That is a colorful way of saying that the falling birth rates in
many countries will devastate their policies and economies. When fertility rates drop, the
population age profile inverts: there are more old people than young people.

Japan is a good example. Eric Metaxas in a recent commentary explains that
nearly a quarter of Japan’s population is over sixty-five. By the mid point in this century,
the percentage will rise to nearly 40 percent. In order to reverse this, Japan would have to
either have more kids or admit more immigrants. Japanese women are having few
children, and Japan values homogeneity and will not open their borders to any significant
extent. Japan is only one example. Nineteen countries have lower fertility rates than
Japan.

Jonathan Last explains what is ahead in his book, What to Expect When No One’s
Expecting. He explains that population inversion isn’t the only problem. Slow economic
growth follows low population growth. He reminds us that Japan has had essentially zero
economic growth in the last two decades.

Immigration is the only thing keeping America from careening off the
demographic cliff, like Asia and Europe. The latest figures from the Census Bureau
report that the U.S. birth rate is the lowest it has ever recorded. Policy makers should pay
attention. Michael Barone points out that when Medicare was established in 1965 and
when Social Security was vastly expanded in 1972, America was accustomed to the high
birth rates of the baby boom.

The birth rate fell. “Social Security had to be tweaked in 1983 when it became
clear there weren’t enough working age people to fund benefits promised to the elderly.”
The latest Census Bureau report shows why politicians need to tweak the system once
again. We are producing fewer babies and fewer dollars.

Should the United States continue to send fighter jets and tanks to Egypt? Many
members of Congress think that is a bad idea given the changing circumstances in that
country. Others believe we should maintain relations by sending arms because of the
strategic location of Egypt. It controls the Suez Canal and has been a staging point for
U.S. operations in the gulf.

Back in 2010, the U.S. government ordered F-16 fighter planes from Lockheed
Martin as part of an annual aid package that regularly tops $1 billion. The next year was
the revolution that changed the leadership and the direction of Egypt. Hosni Mubarak
was removed and imprisoned. Mohammed Morsi, a leader of the Muslim Brotherhood,
was elected. The changing circumstances on the ground are why many are hesitant to
send fighter jets and tanks to Egypt.

The United States accounts for as much as 80 percent of the Egyptian Defense
Ministry’s weapons procurement costs. American taxpayers have become Egypt’s major
arms supplier. They have subsidized the supply of F-16 fighters, M1A1 Abrams battle
tanks, armored personnel carriers, Apache helicopters, and hundred of millions of dollars
of other military equipment.

Senator Rand Paul introduced legislation to stop the transfer of these weapons to
Egypt. He said it was “unwise to send tanks and our most sophisticated fighter planes at
the time at which many are saying the country is unraveling.” He added that he thought it
was “particularly unwise since Egypt is currently governed by a religious zealot who said
recently that ‘Jews were bloodsuckers and descendants of apes and pigs.’”

Senator Paul also pointed out that Egypt is a “country that detained American
citizens on trumped-up political changes.” He reminds us that it is also a “country that
allowed a mob to attack our embassy and to burn our flag.”

I believe its big mistake to send sophisticated weapons to Egypt that someday
could be used against Israel.

Congress might actually cut spending, by doing nothing. That is what will happen
if the automatic spending cuts (known as sequestration) take place March 1.

A little history is in order. The idea of sequestration was proposed and promoted
by the White House during the 2011 debt-ceiling negotiations. The political calculus was
that liberals would not allow draconian cuts in domestic spending. Conservatives would
not allow massive cuts in defense spending.

The threat of sequestration did not work. We are now just a little over a week
away from those automatic cuts. We are told that if Congress doesn’t act, these cuts will
threaten jobs and the economic security of the middle class.

Let’s inject some reality into these dire threats. The cuts from sequestration are
not even close enough to balance the budget. Two weeks ago, the Congressional Budget
Office released its forecast that took into account all of the sequestration cuts. The report
projects that the national debt will exceed (101%) the Gross Domestic Product of the
U.S. by 2030.

Put another way, we as Americans have problems even if these so-called
draconian cuts take place. Yes, there will be some pain. Yes, the federal government will
have to do some belt-tightening. That is what you get when you spend more than a
trillion dollars every year than you bring in through revenues.

These cuts will affect domestic programs. Agency heads will most likely close
down the most visible and popular programs in order to get a public outcry against
sequestration. These cuts will also force tough decisions in defense. Nevertheless,
defense spending would never fall below the 2007 levels and still grow from there.

One commentator estimated that the defense budget would be cut by $50 billion a
year. While that is a significant cut, remember that the federal government spends $10
billion every day. A cut of $50 billion is essentially five days of the federal budget.

If sequestration happens, it won’t be the end of the world.

Those of us who have met Dr. Benjamin Carson and heard him speak already
know what an incredible person he is. Now many more are familiar with this world-
renown pediatric neurosurgeon because of his speech at the National Prayer Breakfast.

Back in 1987, he and his surgical team were the first to separate Siamese Twins
conjoined at the back of the head. His book, Gifted Hands: The Ben Carson Story, has
been an inspiration to many and was adapted for television and starred actor Cuba
Gooding Jr. In 2008, President George W. Bush awarded Dr. Carson with the
Presidential Medal of Freedom (the highest civilian award in the United States).

His epic speech has now gone viral, and many more people will hear not only his
message but also his common sense proposals for problems facing America. He began by
criticizing political correctness. I have heard him speak on that subject before. He
believes it is stifling debate and saw that first hand when Emory University disinvited
him from speaking at its commencement because Ben Carson believes in intelligent
design.

He then took on America’s tax policy by reminding us that God (who he said is
the fairest individual in the universe) asked for the tithe. “You make $10 billion, you put
in a billion. You make $10 you put in one.” But what about people who say you “that’s
not fair because it doesn’t hurt the guy who made $10 billion.” Ben Carson asked,
“Where does it say you’ve got to hurt the guy?”

His solution for the cost of medical care is simple. “When a person is born, give
him a birth certificate, an electronic medical record, and a health savings account to
which money can be contributed.” He says he would have the government contribute to
the account of those who are indigent. People would then have some control over their
own health care.

I am grateful Ben Carson used this opportunity to criticize political correctness,
our complex tax system, and our inefficient health care system and then provide common
sense solutions. I’m Kerby Anderson, and that’s my point of view.