Janet From Another Planet Redeux

I watched Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Janet Napolitano say that the

"The system has worked really very, very smoothly over the course of the past several days" (Read it HERE)

yesterday (Sunday) on “This Week” on ABC. She repeated her assurances on other Sunday news shows as well. Apparently she attributed the 'working' part to the passengers that subdued the "alleged" terrorist AFTER he set off his explosive device. The only part that worked in the favor of those passengers was the part where the device did not function as designed.

Today (Monday) is a new day with a new quote from Napolitano on NBC's Today Show.

"Our system did not work in this instance. No one is happy or satisfied with that. An extensive review is under way.” (see it below)

Apparently it's first things first with Janet: Getting correct quote into the airways before any other information is available. Of course, in accordance with current political philosophy, she can always "clarify" her remarks later. The Secretary seems more interested in political fallout than she is about actual security of the country and its people, or the truth. Much like the previous Janet, she is someone who has no demonstrated ability to accomplish the mission at hand.

Speaking of Janet reminds me of the last high ranking Democratic appointee who seemed to believe that international terrorism is a law enforcement problem. She was President Clinton's Attorney General, Janet Reno. Among Janet's many accomplishments were authorizing a SWAT-like raid on a family home in Miami to kidnap a 6 year old child from his family, ordering the burning of the Branch Davidian compound in Waco Texas, causing traffic problems around Florida in a red pickup truck, and addressing international terrorism against this country as a police problem as opposed to a military problem.

In order to support her political and operational position on terrorism, she sent her second in command Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick, over to federal law enforcement and intelligence agencies, primarily the FBI, NSA, CIA and military intelligence, to inform them that communicating between intelligence agents and criminal investigators would hamper her law enforcement operations. The document signed by Ms. Gorelick, known as the "wall", instructed them stop all that communicating with each other concerning foreign investigations. Ms. Gorelick has gone to earn the title of "Mistress of Disaster".


This Janet (Napolitano, pictured left of Janet Reno) is following along in the pre-9/11 Clinton/Reno law enforcement mindset that not only made this country more vulnerable to terrorist attacks, some will argue that it invites and encourages them. This administration, like previous administrations, refuses to acknowledge that we are at war with Muslim extremists and have been since 1979 when our embassy in Tehran was invaded and occupied Iranian for 444 days.

It is my belief and the belief of many others, that Iran declared war on the western nations on that day and have been sending their shadow army of international terrorists to destroy their enemies since that time. From the Marine Barracks in Beirut to today's struggle in Afghanistan and around the world, terrorists and insurgents have been and are being supported with ammunition, funding and supplies that are used to kill our troops and civilians. That is why this is a war and not a "man caused disaster" (more Obama DHS tripe... geez).

It has been very clear to me from 1992 forward that the Democratic Party elites who have no clue about the effects and unintended(?) consequences of anything thing they do. Their mean spiritedness and hatred came boiling out when they lost control of the US House of Representatives in 1995 and it has not slowed down in all that time.

I have to admit that when I see the failure of virtually every liberal/progressive idea that has become the law of the land or an administrative policy, I just have to cringe and tell myself that it will only last 4 years. With any luck, a shorter time for this majority in the US Congress and the DHS secretary.

Are Republicans, Greens, Constitution, and other political parties so awful that you are willing to destroy this country's freedoms and safety to vote for the liberal Democrats? I ask because ultimately, it's the people's choice on the direction of this country and our own safety.

Get Health Reform Right: Anti Reform or Anti THIS Reform.

Over at business insider.com they describe "Get Health Reform Right" (GHRR) as "an anti-reform group" in their article lambasting GHRR's method for gathering information. But that type of Orwellian speech has become common place in this government.

Wouldn't it be more accurate to describe them as "an anti-this reform group". I think so.

As for GHRR's methods, internet game money for taking a poll, it doesn't seem unreasonable to me when considering all the lobbyists and big money that is going into passing the damn thing (Obamacare). The thing that 70% of polled Americans are against. GHRR method doesn't cost anyone.

I am for reform, but specifically not this reform, and I fail to understand how anyone who has looked at any of it could support it in any way.

Here is what the current health care reform in the US congress does not do:

1. No tort reform (thank you lawyer lobby)

2. No income tax deductions for medical insurance (just the opposite)

3. No expanded area coverage to increase competition.

4. Does not lower insurance premiums.

5. Does not cover over 30 million uninsured. (the advertised target of reform*)

What it does do:

1. It cuts reimbursements to Medicare contracted doctors.

2. It adds a new income tax as a penalty for not acting the way the central government wants you to act.

3. This "reform" raises the before-you-can-claim-it deduction from 7.5% to 10%. Currently you can only claim medical expenses that are over 7.5% of your AGI (adjusted gross income).

5. Increases premiums for those who pay for their own insurance.

6. Influences employers to drop coverage.

7. Makes millions more Americans dependent on government instead of themselves.

Keeps the poor poor.

8. Stifles medical innovation.

9. Reduces the number of medical personnel per patient.

10 Slashes Medicare and Medicaid (except Medicaid in Louisiana and Nebraska).

11. Lowers the value of the US dollar thus making those products that Americans need, such as food, housing, clothing and transportation, more expensive and less affordable to lower and middle income Americans.

This healthcare reform is about bankrupting the middle class for generations to come in order to make them more dependent on the political class. The political class that promises to keep the "freebies"** coming.

*Much like TARP that was advertised as help for Americans to keep their homes and their retirement accounts, but did none of that. It only helped politicians and the CEOs that support them, the so-called "stimulus package" that did nothing for anyone except politicians and the Unions that support them, and Auto industry bailouts hat did nothing for anyone except politicians and the Unions that support them, the current US House and Senate Health care reform bills will do nothing for anyone other than politicians and the CEOs, unions, Big Pharma, and Big Insurance that support them (with lots of dollars). All the while it's going to cost you a fortune.

** More Orwell: There is nothing free about these "freebies". They will cost you your freedom, your earnings and your ability to make choices to guide your own life and those of your children.

GOP Health Care Alternative

I would say "finally, a GOP plan". Except there have been GOP plans submitted along with all the Democratic Party health care reform plans and for many months now. The fact that many Americans do not know of these plans calls for investigations if you ask me (something ain't right in the legacy media). Even Fox News Channel doesn't report on the GOP's plan, and they are supposed to be slanted conservative.

It's their alternative to the the new, expanded and improved HR 3200, renamed to HR 3962. The big news here is that is saves $68 billion over 10 years rather spending an additional $3 Trillion as Democrat plan does. And it is a mere 219 pages, as opposed to the 2079 pages in the Pelosi bill.

It has become news since Nancy Pelosi has allowed the GOP plan to be brought to the floor and be voted on. Of course, she does not allow any amendments or debate, but still. This the first and only of around ten Republican plans that she has allowed. She reveals the new Democratic Party version of "bipartisan". You know, the bipartisanship and equality they demanded of the "mean spirited" and "corrupt" GOP in the US Congress when Democrats were swept out in 1995?

The GOP bill is titled, "Common Sense Health Care Reform and Affordability Act". Their summary can be read HERE.

The main points are: interstate competition zones, individual access to group rates (by forming groups), expansion of health savings accounts (HSA's), children can remain on parent's policy until age 25, tort reform, insurance companies must accept preexisting conditions and cannot drop customers who become expensively ill.

Of course, there are already some of these consumer protections in place where preexisting conditions are concerned. Employer based insurance programs allow preexisting after a waiting period (usually 6-12 months). This has been the law for many years (did you know that? I'll bet not). What needs to happen to improve the options for the insured is to make this law available to anyone who buys insurance, instead of just being available through employers.

What it lacks are removal of the 7.5% income tax penalty Americans are charged for getting sick (the Democrat bill raises it to 10%) and no income tax incentives for purchasing insurance.

The Democratic public option is compared to Medicare in application, but Medicare is bankrupt and has been broke for decades. Over 40% of Medicare's funding comes from the general revenue (Part B subsidized at 75%). The copays, payroll taxes and monthly premiums fall short. The government cannot pay for the Democrat plan nor should we want them to.

The GOP health care reform plan looks much better than the Democrat plan due to its lower cost and no individual penalties (Dems want to tap you for 2.5% of your taxable income). Their plan relies more on expanding markets rather than government subsidized, meaning taxpayer subsidized, health care that is the public option.

If you want health care insurance reform, I suggest getting behind the Republicans on this one.

The Government Health Care Makes to the Floor

Last Saturday in a 60 (D) to 39 (R) vote, the US Senate in a rush to get a nationalized health care billed passed has moved their version of health care reform on to the floor of the US Senate for "debate", as they define it. These days debate mostly entails excluding opposing opinion. And certainly allowing no GOP amendments.

It was illuminating to see how blatant the Democrats are with their bribes and hypocracy, though. U.S. Senator Mary L. Landrieu (D-LA) received only $300 Million for her state (being called the Louisiana Purchase) for her vote. she'll vote for anything and is not afraid to brag about it. Another senator, one who railed against the public option, Senator Blanche Lincoln (D-AR), has been rolled it on as well. She made a wonderful speech in opposition to the public option and insisted she would not vote for a bill that included it, but voted to allow the bill with a public option still in it to go forward.

I honestly do not know how these people can look at themselves in the mirror each morning.

Imagration: Sanctuary Cities Are Illegal

Many cities in the United States of America are in direct violation of their own oaths of office when they declare their city to be so-called "sanctuary cities". They have adopted ordinances that prevent their police and other city employees from inquiring about a person's immigration status.

According to Wikipedia, there 31 sanctuary cities in the USA. Some of these cities

"are Washington, D.C.; New York City; Los Angeles; Chicago; San Francisco; Santa Ana; San Diego; Salt Lake City; Phoenix; Dallas; Houston; Austin; Detroit; Jersey City; Minneapolis; Miami; Denver; Baltimore; Seattle; Portland, Oregon; New Haven, Connecticut; and Portland, Maine."

So, how can this be a violation the law?

ANS: The mayors of all cities in this country and all states sign on to the US Constitution and in their oath of office, they proclaim it.

Oaths of office read ( in part):

"I, ______, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States"

Using California's Oath of office it goes on to say,

"Public officer and employee" includes every officer and employee of the State, including the University of California, every county, city, city and county, district, and authority, including any department, division, bureau, board, commission, agency, or instrumentality of any of the foregoing."

Each and every police officer, officer of the court, and most especially these mayors, have sworn, or affirmed, to uphold the law of the United States. Under the United States law, entering the country without documentation and without permission is illegal. It is ilegal all of the time and everywhere within our borders and in our embassies in other countries.

So, how is it that they can declare their cites "sanctuary cities" in violation of their oath and claim any real or moral authority? No one calls them on it.

I have to wonder sometimes what would have happened if I violated the oaths I took when I enlisted in the US Army. No, I don't wonder, I know exactly what would happen. Fort Leavenworth would happen.

These violations of the law continue today with virtually no one taking these elected public officials to task for violating their oath of office. Political correctness rules these days and has much more weight than honor, self respect and morality. How can any public official insist that anyone believe them when they are perfectly happy to violate their word and the law.

Mayor Newsom of San Francisco has recently acquired some common sense, for which he is paying, moved away from his previous position of supporting sanctuaries due to the murderous acts of Edwin Ramos, who is an illegal alien from EL Salvador and member of Mara Salvatrucha (MS-13, a street gang). His city council still insists on keeping the policy and voted to keep it.

Hypocrisy of the Left

We have been hearing the tired old tale from the left about grass roots political movements they claim are really organized the power players and pundits of the political right. So these political machinations must be a horrible thing to engage in.

Surprise! The Left, organized and led by White House insiders are now using their power for "Organizing for America". They are cruising around the country looking for and publishing stories from a few unfortunate souls they find in an effort to sell health care reform.

Isn't this a bit hypocritical? The whining and inventing of story lines claiming that the Tea Party movement and other anti-ObamaCare rallies are the product of a duped populace by high powered GOP'ers, while they flagrantly and proudly participate in that very same behavior?

And while they are at it, they (again) will not add any factual interpretation of the HR 3200, the Baucus bill or any any other iterations of there legislation's consequences. They can only use the politics of personal destruction (which the left invented) to abuse and brow beat opponents of their causes.

President Obama Signs on to UN Censorship

USA Today's Jonathan Turley notes on his blog that we, the USA, through the current administration, have agreed to something he calls "blasphemy laws", saying

"While attracting surprisingly little attention, the Obama administration supported the effort of largely Muslim nations in the U.N. Human Rights Council* to recognize exceptions to free speech for any "negative racial and religious stereotyping." The exception was made as part of a resolution supporting free speech that passed this month, but it is the exception, not the rule that worries civil libertarians. "

It is a story worth reading, along with the references to other articles, blogs, and opinion pieces and the actions that have been taken under this sort of fear (of Muslims) UN regulation.

This sort of censorship is a very bad thing. And not because it mostly supports Islamic fundamentalism (another bad thing). But because it is yet another step in demonizing, or even criminalizing, personal beliefs.

In a sort of backwards way, Mr. Turley reveals part of the administrations true intent by including among his examples, an incident where...

"In Canada, the Alberta human rights commission punished the Rev. Stephen Boission and the Concerned Christian Coalition for anti-gay speech, not only awarding damages but also censuring future speech that the commission deems inappropriate."

Since homosexuality is not a religion, how is it "blasphemous" for a Canadian minister to write a letter to the editor conveying his religious beliefs by highlighting the church's position on the homosexual agenda. (National Review Online) (Read the decision here)

The last time I looked, homosexuality was not a religion.

Mr. Turley summarizes with...

"However, the fear is that, when speech becomes sacrilegious, only the religious will have true free speech."

That may not be accurate when you consider that in the case (above) as the religious belief is being punished.

So, it isn't so much about censoring so called blasphemous speech against religion. It is about censoring speech that any particular group or individual determines is unacceptable. Commonly known as the exact opposite of free speech.

The sad part is that the Obama administration supports such un-American censorship. It lets you know that the "Real change you can believe in" has little to do with the American way of life.

Moveon.org Wants the Public Option

Moveon.org wants a public health care option. They have enlisted actress Heather Graham to sell the public option (PO) to Americans. It depicts Ms. Graham as a sprinter and the private sector insurance (Big Health Care) as a bunch of fat n' happy lallygagers, filling up on donuts at our expense. The race starts and Ms. Graham pulls ahead but Big Health Care (BHC) catches up after a while. I interpret this to mean that with the the public option, BHC will adjust down to the new premium rates imposed by big government (BG).

While the PO may be preparing for a race, it will be a race to the death of private sector health insurance and a sprint to national bankruptcy.

As Dennis Miller said many years ago (paraphrasing here), "there comes a time when these countries, such as China, say 'wait a minute, what about that other $100 billion you owe us. We gotta have something, my friend."

Of course that will not happen. What will happen is BHC will die a quick death, as Moveon, Democrats in government and the legacy media want to happen in favor of a European style single payer system.

In the video they also want us to know that 70% of Americans also want to be PO'd. Of course that is misleading in a big way.

An October 23rd, 2009, Rasmussan poll shows,

"Forty-nine percent (49%) of voters nationwide say that passing no health care reform bill this year would be better than passing the plan currently working its way through Congress." (which includes being PO'd)

But lying is a trait that liberals admire. (See Clinton, William, US President)

Rasmussan also points out,

"One reason that Democrats have been careful to distinguish between their reform plan and a single-payer system is that just 32% favor single-payer health care while 57% are opposed."

Honesty can't win it for them.

Once again, Moveon.org is barking up the socialist tree and using lies and distractions to move their agenda on. Another reason to oppose being PO'd and another reason to disregard this commercial.

The video...

Why Stimulus Did Not Work: Economic Advisers

First, I must say a few words about the current recession as the president's programs are directly related.

This recession was caused by the US Congress. There no doubt about that fact. It was a multistage, multi-year bipartisan effort. They refused to alter any of the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac legislation that was propping up an unrealistic boom in real estate sales and was the underlying cause of overpriced properties. Also, it was the US Congress that overreacted during a previous economic scandal: Enron. This resulted in the mark to market rule that arbitrarily forced financial institutions report their asset loses without regard to the effect. Along with congress, the FTC, SEC, and DoJ, failed to provide proper oversight of the mortgage securities exchange market. Of course, since this president was a member of congress, he did not inherit anything. He helped create it.

As an aside, I do not let President Bush off the hook for his part in this. While his administration attempted several times to influence congress to change the mortgage rules, they did not stress the problem enough nor did they take their concerns to the American people in any memorable way. President Obama wants his version of health care to become law, so he has made speeches to the American people more than 30 times. (This should be a lesson to politicians everywhere)

What made the president go along with this form of "economic stimulus" after promising to cut "pork" and earmarks and cut the deficit?

The answer has two parts:

1. The President has no personal knowledge of the capitalist system.

2. His advisers told him it would work, and his advisers have no practical knowledge or experience in the capitalist system.

When you look at the president's White House biography, you learn that he has no experience working for or managing any private sector enterprise. None. He has never created jobs nor held one in the private sector. You learn that he has always worked in "jobs" that rely on the generosity of others. He "worked his way through collage" on someone else's dime, did community work for some churches, was handed the job of President of the Harvard Law Review, went to Chicago to work as a community organizer registering voters, taught in Chicago school system, then state senator followed by US senator for a short period. That led to being President of the United States of America. Oh, I forgot, but does being hired as a lawyer for ACORN count as a private sector job?

No private sector work and no paying his own way. It is only natural that he would embrace a public policy that grabs money from those who earn it and ensure his own future by handed it off to his supporters. You know, "spreading the wealth".

So, knowing nothing about capitalism, how does arrive at his decisions to nationalize health care, authorize an economic stimulus package and tout his vague plans to help create jobs in America? How does he run a one year deficit 4 times his predecessor's worst fiscal year? And then, say he's not finished yet, he wants to add another $1 -2 trillion dollars to the deficit. Trillions he and the country do not have. He either doesn't know what he's doing or is trying to deepen the economic crisis to make Americans dependent on him. After all, it worked for FDR with 3 terms.

President Obama and the legacy media always refer to the Stimulus package as if the president sat down and wrote it. We know that is not correct as his "recovery and reinvestment" plan was put together by the US Congress. His involvement was limited to assuring them he would sign it. I'm of the opinion that to this day, he does not know what is in it.

The Obama stimulus package has proven to be exactly what its opponents warned of; An 8000 part pork package that is the envy of leftists in governments everywhere. It is a conglomeration of old and new lobbyist's "gimmes" pulled out of the drawer and patched together by unwitting Democrat staffers and lobbyists as payback for political support. In this respect, it is very similar to the Wall Street and autoworker bailouts. Additionally, no one has been able to identify any significant help that it has or will provide in any quantifiable way.

For a few months, the White House and their sycophants have been saying that the stimulus "brought the economy back from the precipice".

The fact is it has not.

We can know this as nothing has changed. Well, there is the exception of the White House/sycophant talking points; that has changed, but the economy has not. The White House predicted a maximum unemployment rate of 8% when selling Stimulus and it is now, a short 6 months later, approaching 10% (9.7%).

While they claimed it would save jobs, it has actually prolonged the pain as millions of Americans continue to lose their jobs, closely followed by losing their homes and their American dream. Not to mention the continued decimation of millions of retirement accounts. All of which was unnecessary.

The White House's surrogates and the president were touting last week's employment numbers; bragging that the 150 union employees that went back to work is a positive sign of recovery and that we are losing jobs at a slower rate. In the case of union employees, common sense might tell us that the Obama administration just spent $4 billion on their "Cash for Clunkers" (CfC) program which artificially spiked vehicle sales for about 2 weeks. As it is now, the car sales markets are even more depressed than they were before CfC.

Other clues into his lack of knowledge include the president's remarks in Elkhart, Indiana, on February 9th, 2009, when he said,

"We have inherited an economic crisis as deep and as dire as any since the Great Depression."

The fact is in February our recession was the worst economic crisis since the Carter administration 1979. If it were as bad as the Great Depression, unemployment would be at 12%-19%, not 8%.

O.K, who was it that said to 'look to those who he surrounds himself with if you want to know about them?' Oh that's right, the president said it in one of his campaign speeches.

His economic advisers must have advised him that all the pork would be a good thing. The problem that his advisers are real-world-clueless as well.

The president's economic advisers would be the Council of Economic Advisers and the National Economic Council (along with his political advisers). These are folks who also have little or no actual experience in the private sector.

They study, analyze, teach and advise. But actually doing it? It never happened.

The evidence is clear. Simply look to the White House web site the president's economic advisers:

National Economic Council (from the White House)

"The National Economic Council (NEC) was established in 1993 to advise the President on U.S. and global economic policy. It resides within the Office of Policy Development and is part of the Executive Office of the President. By Executive Order, the NEC has four principal functions: to coordinate policy-making for domestic and international economic issues, to coordinate economic policy advice for the President, to ensure that policy decisions and programs are consistent with the President's economic goals, and to monitor implementation of the President's economic policy agenda."

"Lawrence H. Summers is the Director of the National Economic Council and was appointed by President Barack H. Obama on November 24, 2008."

White House biography about Lawrence H. Summers

"Until January, he was the Charles W. Eliot University Professor at Harvard University. He served as the 27th president of Harvard University from July 2001 until June 2006. From 1999 to 2001, he served as the 71st United States Secretary of the Treasury following his earlier service as Deputy and Under Secretary of the Treasury and as Chief Economist of the World Bank. Summers has taught economics at Harvard and MIT. His research contributions were recognized when he received the John Bates Clark Medal, given every two years to the outstanding American economist under the age of 40, and when he was the first social scientist to receive the National Science Foundation’s Alan T. Waterman Award for outstanding scientific achievement. He is a member of the National Academy of Science and has written extensively on economic analysis and policy publishing over 150 articles in professional economic journals. Lawrence Summers received his B.S. from MIT and his Ph.D. in economics from Harvard. He and his wife Elisa New, a professor of English at Harvard, have six children."

Council of Economic Advisers (from the White House)

"The Council of Economic Advisers (CEA) is a group of three respected economists who advise the President of the United States on economic policy.[1] It is a part of the Executive Office of the President of the United States, and provides much of the economic policy of the White House. The council prepares the annual Economic Report of the President."

President Obama's CEA:

The current Chair of the CEA is Christina Romer, the two other current members of the CEA are Austan Goolsbee and Cecilia Rouse. The two nominees were confirmed on March 10, 2009

White House biography for Christina Romer

"Romer was the Class of 1957-Garff B. Wilson Professor of Economics at the University of California Berkeley. Before teaching at Berkeley, she taught economics and public affairs at Princeton University from 1985-1988.

Until her nomination, she was co-director of the Program in Monetary Economics at the National Bureau of Economic Research and served as Vice President of the American Economic Association, where she was also a member of the executive committee."more...

White House biography for Austan Goolsbee

"Goolsbee was the Robert P. Gwinn Professor of Economics at the University of Chicago Booth School of Business. He was an economic adviser to Barack Obama’s 2004 Senate race before becoming a senior economic adviser to Senator Obama’s 2008 Presidential campaign." more...

White House biography for Cecilia Rouse

"Rouse is currently on leave from Princeton University, where she is the Theodore A. Wells '29 Professor of Economics and Public Affairs. She has been a senior editor of The Future of Children and the Journal of Labor Economics" more...

Zero real world experience

It appears that there is approximately zero real world experience at working with and understanding the American version of capitalism and forces effecting free markets in this administration. And because of that fact, the rest of us who are not well connected, such as Wall Street executives, powerful lobbyists, or any object of this administration's favor, will be picking up the tab.

Anyone who has even a passing notion of the economic history of this country (and some others) would know that excessive spending will do nothing to help the economy grow, and most likely holds it down. They would also know that the way government can stimulate the economy is to lower the cost of doing business. Lowering taxes worked for Presidents JFK, Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush.

But, no, the economic advisers, the US Congress and the President himself, have no plans to lower taxes or fees on any American. Instead, he imposes a 35% tariff on imported tires from China, raises excise taxes, and threatens to raise taxes (2.5%) on middle/lower income Americans, and even more on those who actually produce the jobs (while lowering their charitable deductions. This is nearly exactly what President Hoover did to "help" American workers in 1930. He added tariffs on imports and increased taxes on anyone with an income during The Great Depression.

Hmmm. Maybe it wasn't intended to improve the economy?

With any luck the president will fail to enact any more of his that-sounds-good policies.

Move it Right

Constitutional Birthday, 17 September 1787

Say "Happy Birthday!" to the US Constitution. It is 222 years old today.

On 17 September 1787 in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, the Constitution of the United States of America was born (completed & signed), having been written primarily by James Madison and debated in secret by the invited members of the several states. But it wasn't until the 9th state, New Hampshire, ratified it on 4 March 1788, that it became the supreme law of the land.

On that day the US government started operating under the new rules and began the work of ensuring laws enacted under the Articles of Confederation were in compliance with the new constitution.

But some weren't satisfied with the lack of specificity in some areas, so it was agreed that it would be amended to specify the people's rights and the government's limits. This brought about the first 10 amendments, known as the "Bill of Rights".

The US Constitution's premise is that the government has limited power on loan from the people and that the people of the United States are endowed by there creator with certain inalienable rights. The primary purpose of the central, or federal, government is to protect the people's rights by way of securing the nation from its enemies, both foreign and domestic, providing a system of laws and courts, and promoting the general welfare. It is a shame that it has moved way beyond.

Today, in 2009, we have a serious constitutional crisis. And this is a real crisis, not one made up by politicians, although it was created by politicians. This crisis is signaling the end of constitutional law in this country in favor of the politics of 'what-have-you-done-for-me-lately'?

When I say "-me-", I mean those who take, but lament when asked to be responsible. For example, just look at Wall Street. The movers and shakers made many very bad choices and when the bottom fell out of their schemes, they went crying to President Bush's Treasury Secretary, the former CEO of Goldman-Sachs, for relief. The Bush administration allowed Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. to fail, then along with the US Congress bent over backwards proclaiming the financial meltdown was imminent, we were in a crisis and this country would fail, jobs would be lost, and millions of Americans would lose their homes. They said we needed to put a stop to it, with money. Money we don't have. Money we won't have. Hope Dollars.

Did this huge transfer of hope dollars on loan from China make a difference? Did it prevent anyone from losing their home? The short answer is: No, it didn't do anything to help the situation. It did, however, transfer a huge amount of money to executives of the financial institutions who support the politicians in Washington.

Is this fair? Is this the founders idea of America? Is this the contract the people made with the government? Again, the answer is an indisputable "no".

It is not fair and it is not the government's job to pick winners and losers. The US Constitution is about equal protection under the law and we are not seeing fairness from our elected officials.

After the "Wall Street Bailout" they decided that the economy was going to fail anyway and they did exactly zero to help defaulting mortgage holders, they chose to help out out GM and Chrysler instead. We then learn that they gave a third share in the auto companies to the very union that is the primary cause of the US automaker's problems.

So who did they help? I would say they helped themselves and their supporters at the expense of everyone else.

This pattern is repeating itself with the Stimulus Bill, Cap & Trade, and health care reform. None of which qualifies as legitimate constitutional programs. This kind of legislation becomes law due to the fact that politicians are not concerned with topics they do not understand. They display a complete lack of understanding of everything except what their hired marketers tell them.

Some citizens pay less (many pay nothing) and demand more from government, while others receive less and pay more of their earning to government so they can "spread the wealth". This gives rise to the 'Vote for me to keep your benefits flowing' politics and self aggrandizement that we see at the national level (and Charlie Crist). When you throw in many well funded lobbyists into the mix, hard working Americans are on the bottom of the list of "interest groups" that politicians are interested in being responsible to.

The pattern no doubt started immediately after ratification but has become epidemic in a political system set up and managed by politicians that has become an incumbency protection game of twister, with each party trying more and more ways to lock up the vote. They employ gerrymandering districts, voter registration, opinion polls, and campaign donations from anyone or anything that will give.

We should use this constitutional anniversary to start a new American rights movement to bring this country back where it belongs: a free market society where you receive what you earn and the government is looking out for your welfare as opposed to their own bank accounts.

Lately, the Tea Parties and other grass roots protesters have kicked the ball into play. But under the playing field has been landscaped by politicians and it will be very, very hard to change.

Happy Birthday, US Constitution.

Move it right.

Public Option Oregon Style: We'll Gladly Help You Die

The term "Death Panels" has been used by conservative talk radio and other conservatives, and most famously by former Alaska Governor and vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin. Many leftists are giving the Governor credit for coining the term, but it was actually Betsy McCaughey (former Lieutenant Governor of the State of New York) who coined the term. I wonder how far off the mark they are when I see stories like this one from Oregon.

"Health plan covers assisted suicide but not new cancer treatment"

The article shows that government run health care does make life and death decisions. In this article we learn that Oregon has a "death Panel" and they are using it.

"Her doctor offered hope in the new chemotherapy drug Tarceva*, but the Oregon Health Plan sent her a letter telling her the cancer treatment was not approved.

Instead, the letter said, the plan would pay for comfort care, including "physician aid in dying," better known as assisted suicide."

The story goes on to state that a evil big pharmaceutical is helping her with the medication. Makes wonder who has any empathy, big pharma or elected government officials.

The term "Death Panels" used in association with ObamaCare has even gotten the President's attention and he and his minions are insulting opponents and saying,

"We are closer to achieving that reform than we have ever been and that's why we're seeing some of the divisive and deceptive attacks. You've heard some of them. Ludicrous ideas. Let me give you just one example, this notion that somehow we are setting up death panels that would decide whether elderly people would live or die. That is just an extraordinary lie. This is based on a provision in the House legislation that would allow Medicare to reimburse you if you wanted counseling on how to set up a living will or other end-of-life decisions. Entirely voluntary. It gives you an option that people who can afford fancy lawyers can already exercise." - Mr. Obama

HR 3200, Section 1233, has provisions requiring government certified health care personnel visit the elderly every five years and counsel them on how to prepare in the event they are unable to communicate their end of life issues. Death panels? Maybe, maybe not. But since no one in the US Congress, the press or the president himself, can say that it is not going to be the ultimate purpose of these counselors.

It is especially questionable in light of this administration's re-posting of the end of life and disability advice for veterans pamphlet, "Your Life Your Choices". An atrocious document reportedly created by that famous supporter of the military, President Clinton. It was removed from the VA web site by the Bush administration. Now it's back. This pamphlet is a self study guide to allow you to determine how much of a burden you are to your family and the taxpayers and what you can do about it. Who needs death panels, eh?

Look, President Obama says that he will reduce the cost of health care. But he demands that any plan congress comes up with includes a 'no rescission' and 'no denials due to preexisting conditions'. These will balloon the cost of healthcare insurance.

So where is his savings coming from? He says reducing fraud, waste and abuse, but that is small change compared to entire Medicare/Medicaid system. We don't know if he means cutting all fees and services, but we do know he intends to cut some. Already in the works: An Obama administration plan to cut Medicare payments to heart and cancer doctors by $1.4 billion next year.

What effect do you think that will have? Will more cardiologists and oncologists be poring out of med school? That along with his recent insults to all doctors everywhere. More likely it will mean fewer doctors to service the (revised number) 30 million new patients.

Can you say "rationing"?

I believe it's important to look at government sponsored programs with a very critical eye. Those who have been paying attention know that most "do good" legislation has its unintended consequences and end up hurting more than it helps. Just look at welfare that makes dad unnecessary. That has led to a 70% out of wedlock birth rate in the inner cities.

I believe the President does not know anything about free markets, capitalism, competition, or health care, as he has no experience in any of those areas. He must rely on what he is told by his advisers, who also have no experience in these areas.

President Obama's health care reform ideas, if passed are going to lead to more unintended consequences that he is unable to see. It will mean higher taxes, higher health care costs, and if it's managed by government, it will bankrupt the country. Then again, most of the cost of health care comes later in life and dead people cost nothing. Hmm... Death panels???

*Tarceva, an FDA approved drug, is used for cancer treatment.

More on Health Care Reform: Competition

It seems that Team Obama's understanding of what competition is needs some real world examples. Interestingly, Senator Waxman seems to know that there are at least 52 insurance companies that provide health care insurance. We know this because Mr. Waxman send them a letter, dated August 17th, 2009, demanding payroll information from all of them.

So do we need a another insurance company to provide "competition"?

The short answer is we don't need it at all.

Common sense says that 52 companies competing against each other makes for plenty of competition. In their defense, no one has ever accused the US congress of having common sense. Besides, anyone who believes that a government program would be competitive is either ignorant of how government works or they are trying to trick everyone. Since I can't believe Obama's people are ignorant, our problem reveals itself.

FYI: None of those 52 private sector insurance companies can print their own money to cover the unintended consequences of their self-serving policies. The US government can.

See my original post, Healthcare Reform: Competition, dated 8/12/09, for more on competition.

Dear Ms. Pelosi: Helping with the Public Option

The Speaker asked for help, so I offered a suggestion HERE.

And here is my suggestion. What are the odds that it will be read, let alone considered?

Dear Speaker Pelosi,

You asked for suggestions for a better plan than the Public Option. I believe I have it figured out. We can have a public option without affecting federal deficits, making it truly budget neutral. The answer is quite simple actually.

Just craft it so that the premiums, co-pays, etc., are paid for by insured. To accomplish this, you would have to hire experienced actuaries to work out cost v. risk & payouts, just as private sector insurance companies do. This would cover the costs and make the public option truly competitive. And, according to the President, competitiveness is the watch word for a public option.

Naturally, the public option health care insurance budget would have to be free of taxpayer dollars or it would no longer be competitive. Subsidizing it with tax dollars would be unfair business practices as the private sector cannot print money or force it from the general public, and we wouldn't want that. Maybe just some seed money to get it started, but other than that: Off limits.

So, I hope you like my idea and will consider it for inclusion with health care reform.

Sincerely Yours,

Feel free to copy and send this yourself.

Dear Governor Crist: An Open Letter

Dear Governor Crist,

I was very disappointed to see the tricks you are playing to grab Senator Martinez's U.S. Senate seat for yourself. I can only believe that self-promotion is and always has been the motivating factor for your campaign and election to Governor of our great state and for appointing an unknown to the the vacated seat. Even though I know very little about George LeMieux, I'm sure he is just a "placeholder" for you as the Wall Street Journal wrote yesterday.

FYI: The US Congress has created an economic crisis in the great state of Florida and elsewhere. This state needs a governor who is dedicated to helping his/her state, as opposed to someone who is in it for their own self-aggrandizement. Your conniving move shows that your attention is focused elsewhere and not on the betterment of Florida. If you had cared about Florida as much as you care about yourself, you would have taken the high rode and appointed a well known Republican who might have a chance at keeping the senate seat. Then you would follow up by running against Senator Bill Nelson in 2012.

Although I am a registered Republican and voted for you for governor, I'm afraid you have received the your last vote from me. I would go so far as to say that if Senator Reid, Nevada's Mr. Doom & Gloom (who is going to lose in Nevada in 2010), were to establish Florida residency and campaign for Senator Martinez's senate seat, I would vote for him over you for the sole purpose of moving you out of public office.

With any luck, you will lose your Senate bid and in doing so, lose your governorship as well.

Tell us Governor, will you be appointing someone to as a placeholder for the governor's mansion while you're running a senate campaign?

Respectfully yours,

A Florida Voter.

The problem with the Health Care Debate: GOP Getting it Wrong... Again

There is a real problem for Republicans who are against "Health Care Reform".

The problem?

They are saying "health care reform" when discussing the Obama/Pelosi health care reform bill (HR 3200). This sends the message that the GOP, conservatives, grass roots protesters, and conservative talk radio are against reforming health care in America. I believe this to be false and that the legacy media and Democrats who support ObamaCare are benefiting from this confusion.

The term they should be using for ObamaCare is closer to "government health care", or "nationalized medicine", "competition killer", or "expanded government nanny state" when describing HR 3200.

Why? Simply because the characterization of Republicans and average Americans being against "reform" is ludicrous. Everyone wants health care to be less expensive and more available to the poor. The problem with HR 3200 and the debate about it is that includes nothing that would reduce the cost of health care. Instead, it has pages and pages of requirements that will only make it more expensive.

Somehow, I believe the Democratic politicians want it that way.

Fraudulent Green

In the beginning, it was hydrocarbons causing smog, and we paid extra to omit the process of adding lead to gasoline. Then we learned that there are many, many, substances in the air and water that is going to kill us, such as CFCs and acid rain. But don't panic because we paid even more, so that was being fixed. Then, our food was killing us: more cash. But it has all morphed into the number one problem of the 21st Century.

Global climate change caused by man's Killer Carbon Dioxide footprint.

Now, don't misconstrue what I'm saying here. I believe the climate is changing, but I do not believe the cause is man-made CO2. And especially not American made CO2. I believe it is a combination of factors, such as solar activity and the normal cycling that the planet goes through.

According to the smartest people in the room Carbon dioxide, CO2, is public enemy number one. It has caused the average global temperature to go up most of a degree Fahrenheit in the last half century and it is caused, mostly, by the American way of life. To defeat this evil, it's going to be expensive, so open your wallet you self-absorbed American. Never mind that the average temperature has leveled off for the last decade.



The pushers of the green agenda would have us believe that we (Americans) consume too much of the world's resources and in doing so, produce the most unnecessary CO2. (I know that's not true, but the green salespersons are not fact-checked by their followers) They paint an America lusting for unnecessarily large individual vehicles, large air conditioned homes and generally, our very wasteful ways. Then saying we insist on fancy imported delicacies, such as bananas from Brazil, pineapples from Hawaii and oranges are transported all over the USA from Florida to California and the other way around. Let's not forget importing Italian marble and granite, diamonds from South Africa and steel from Japan. Then there is oil. Big oil, from all over the world. All of that requires CO2 producing oil, and lots of it, to move it around and even to produce the fuel itself. It's horrible, I tell ya.

Well, all that prosperity has to end. We must cut back and stop being so, so... American. We must go GREEN. President Obama says so and he is the president. Just ask him.

I have some real problems with whole man-made-climate-change, or green, agenda and the extent of the intrusion of green in our lives has become enormous and promises to undermine our way of life. And I'm not talking about the perception that Americans are living lavishly at the world's expense. That's just nonsense. I'm talking about having our individual freedoms chipped away until we look like Brazil. There is big money and big payoffs in the green agenda. But not for average Americans. We are the source of the big money for the big payoffs to the Al Gores of this world.

Just look at those who are cashing in on the green religion. Many environmentalists and entertainers, and now entrepreneurs, government (Cap & Trade) and big business, have latched on to so-called "global climate change", formerly "global warming". It has become big business and big restrictive government.

There is not a half hour segment in broadcast television that does not have commercials for companies pushing their green compliance and products or telling us what is right and what is wrong. Moreover, our children are indoctrinated into green in preschool. Heck, the green agenda types even have their own network, ENN. At the same time, the automobile industry is continually lambasted for pollution and failing to produce more energy efficient/alternative fuel vehicles (we know they can, they are keeping it secret due to big oil's demands, right?). It's all part of the indoctrination.

Honestly folks, green is an overly expensive technology that does very little in actuality to reduce public enemy number one, carbon dioxide gas (CO2) in the atmosphere, but benefits a very few.

Here is how the fight is shaping up.

While some claim the climate change debate is over, such as former Vice President Albert A. Gore Jr.:

“The scientific community has gone through this chapter and verse. We have long since passed the time when we should pretend this is a ‘on the one hand, on the other hand’ issue,” he said. “It’s not a matter of theory or conjecture, for goodness sake,”

It is very hard to find anyone who is pushing the green agenda that is willing to, or has ever, debated anyone with opposing views. This makes his claim very suspect to me.

Also, since it's become a political and monetary issue, many support the idea of man-made climate change simply because they are positioned to make huge sums of money from the US government (read: tax paying Americans). Congresspersons, this president (and the last president), are more than happy to appear as though they care about green issues by talking it up and pouring trillions of dollars into these programs.

Here is what it is going to cost you.

Then comes Cap and Trade, that has passed by the US House of Representatives on June 26, 2009, after the Herculean effort of reading the 1200 pages with 300 pages of changes in a mere 16 hours. According to the CBO previous estimates, it's going to cost over $846 Billion in new taxes. The Heritage Foundation breaks it down to state and district losses and to personal incomes totaling GDP loss by 2035 would be $9.4 trillion.

The "American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, or "Stimulus", includes $43 billion in tax credits, grants and loan guarantees for energy projects." That is billions of dollars in green research, green corporate welfare and green tax incentives. Never mind that it is money we do not have. Spending hope dollars translates to devaluation of the US dollar and higher prices for everyone.

And there is some stupid going on.

The US House of Representatives, led by Rep. Nancy Pelosi, is one government agency that is proving how stupid the entire green movement has become. She has promised to make the Capital Building "carbon neutral" by the end of the 110th Congress that ended in December 2008, but so far has been unsuccessful (gee, I wonder why?). To make up for this failure, our tax dollars are being used to buy "carbon offsets" to "offset" the carbon dioxide produced by the National Monument of Geniuses. The Washington Post informs us that...

"Daniel Beard, the House's chief administrative officer, will cut a taxpayer-funded check today for $89,000 to buy credits that will offset the impact of 30,000 tons of carbon belched into the atmosphere by the U.S. Capitol's antiquated, coal-burning power plant every year."

This money is to be paid to the Chicago Climate Exchange, a clearing house for your carbon credit needs.

Carbon credits has to be one of the most beautiful scams ever created. First your are convinced by "experts", who are backed by all the smart people, that the world as we know it is going to end soon (When? Real soon.) if we don't pony up and pay extra for the energy we need, pay even more for new energy sources, and cut back on our use of CO2 producing vehicles we're all gonna die. Or, you can just buy yourself and everyone else's safety by offsetting the carbon that is produced when you do anything, such as driving your car, flying on an airplane, or breathing. You give them your money and you absolved of your evil carbon producing ways. You don't even have to think about anymore as they will ensure that your money is going to save the planet by planting trees that convert CO2 into oxygen or investing in some inefficient "green" technology (solar, wind, ethanol) and that will save us... eventually.

Our friend and savior, Al Gore, buys carbon credits as well. Apparently he produces lots of CO2 as he rides around in giant SUV motorcades/caravans, powers his mansion, and jets all over the world, producing many many times more carbon dioxide than your average American.

Who does the king of global warming pay for his carbon offsets? Himself.

Al Gore is part owner of the Chicago Climate Exchange. And don't expect that most people will know this because the legacy media is ignoring it.

Smile Al.

Then I find THIS page on the web. The climate map for South America where they are confusing erosion with rising sea levels. In number 45, they say that in...

"Recife, Brazil -- Sea-level rise. Shoreline receded more than 6 feet (1.8 m) per year from 1915 to 1950 and more than 8 feet (2.4 m) per year from 1985 to 1995. The dramatic land loss was due to a combination of sea-level rise and loss of sediment supply following dam construction, harbor dredging, and other coastal engineering projects."

Come on people. This is the type of overstatement and confused "facts" that drive the green agenda. While I can see losing six feet of shoreline each year due to their stated reasons (dam construction, harbor dredging, and other coastal engineering projects), the claimed measurable rise in the sea levels at this point has been 20 centimeters (cm) from 1890 through 2000.

Telling stories.

These two charts tell a story. The first one graphs estimates in sea level rise over a recent 120 year period (20 cm). Number two shows estimates over the last 24,000 years with the sea level rising about 140 meters through 5000 years ago, then leveling off. If you were just rely on these charts, common sense would dictate that the rise in sea levels is actually slowing down to a snail's pace.



As for the plague of human caused CO2 (or is it just a plague of humans that disturbs the greenies?) in the atmosphere and it's affect on climate change, there are many who are breaking away from the herd and acknowledging that CO2 actually may have little, if any, influence on climate change, especially the minimal percentage that human activity produces. (Personally, I believe climate has more to do with planetary cycles, wobble, Earthquakes, volcanoes, and solar activity.)

So let's talk a little carbon dioxide .

If you look at the Wikipedia page on carbon dioxide in the Earth's atmosphere, you can learn that:

"As of November 2007, the CO2 concentration in Earth's atmosphere was about 0.0384% by volume, or 384 parts per million by volume (ppmv). This is 100 ppmv (35%) above the 1832 ice core levels of 284 ppmv"

(I will not be able to prove this, but last year wiki said that CO2 was about 0.0285% of the atmosphere, up from about 0.0250% over the last 100 years.)

They go on to say that:

"Despite its relatively small concentration overall in the atmosphere, CO2 is an important component of Earth's atmosphere because it absorbs and emits infrared radiation at wavelengths of 4.26 µm (asymmetric stretching vibrational mode) and 14.99 µm (bending vibrational mode), thereby playing a role in the greenhouse effect".

"Relatively small" is an understatement.

This is one of the logical reasons I do not believe that man made CO2 is causing global warming. At 0.0385% it is a very small amount and is about 1/10th of the amount of the water vapor in the air.

The not-so-funny thing is, they never mention water vapor as a contributor or mediator of temperature.

CO2 weighs more than air, so the vast majority of it stays close to ground level where plants can use it to live (you know, growing green plant life that exhales oxygen). Only a small percentage of that small percentage reaches any real altitude in the troposphere, so how much affect can it have? Understand also that CO2 dissolves in water, so whenever it rains, the air gets somewhat scrubbed of CO2 and other pollutants. When it is blown over bodies of water, some is dissolved in the water. If the temperature of the planet were to become consistently hotter, there would be more water vapor in the atmosphere and that would have a cooling affect on the planet. SO it kind of balances out.

The number one location for measuring CO2 in the atmosphere is in Hawaii where they have continuously active volcanoes that do what? Spew large amounts of CO2. That makes me a little apprehensive about the accuracy of the sampling.

If you're looking for a something that affects the climate, check out solar activity. It has far more influence than a little CO2. Moreover, water (liquid and vapor) have the most Earthbound influence on climate at any particular time (Maybe we should study how not reduce water levels, ay?).

We gotta have it

Atmospheric CO2 is necessary for our life to exit. Plants breath in CO2 to live and exhale O2 (oxygen) so the we and other animals can live. It's a balance that has been going on for millions, if not billions of years. Nature spews more CO2 and other pollutants than human activity ever will. When the eruption of Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines blasted off, it threw more "greenhouse gases" into the atmosphere than all of the cars in the history of driving.

Then we have Dr. Richard Lindzen, back in 2006 saying there are doubts and that it may be a career stopper to speak out in opposition to global warming.

A new book by Ian Plimer, "Heaven and Earth: Global Warming, the Missing Science" ,

"an evidence-based attack on conformity and orthodoxy"

The vast majority of people who swear that climate change is being caused by the activities of man are those lay people who support their chosen causes and those who are personally profiting from it. They can't and don't know the science. They depend on scientists and "experts" in the news to tell them what is going on. Scientists themselves live and prosper by way of tax dollars and grants support the green agenda. Their livelihood depends on money given to them so that they may conduct research. If the research isn't supported by the money brokers (politicians and wealthy philanthropists) then scientists go to work in patent offices. Politicians believe they will profit by showing they care what happens to "the people", thus ensuring their reelection.

The climate is changing. The climate is always changing and man's activities may have an influence, however small. The biggest problem that I have with the green agenda is that it will cause average and poor Americans to reach even deeper into their pockets to finance an agenda that will only have minimal returns while providing an rich lifestyle to the purveyors of the global warming fear. Our ability to live independently will be reduced, while dependency on government grows. Government is already telling us what we must drive, or ride, what fuel we use, what we should and should not eat and buy our votes with massive Ponsey schemes. There are to be trillions of tax dollars spent or borrowed to work at preventing the oceans from rising 2 feet over the next 50 years.

You have to ask yourself, who will be hurt by a two foot higher sea level? The first thing that comes to my mind are the wealthy people and industry who own waterfront property. It will have no effect on anyone else. Is mortgaging your children's future worth it?

And let's not forget the polar bears. What about their shrinking habitat? Well, the problem with that is that it is another fake crisis. The pictures you are shown of the momma bear and cub seemingly searching for a place to live? That is stock footage of a normal Spring thaw. Something Polar bears have been living with for untold eons. Again, it's a fraud.

Personally, I am looking forward to global warming. I was raised in Northern Ohio and lived in Michigan, Utah, and Germany. I even spent a few weeks of winter in and around Anchorage, Alaska. I know what it's like to be cold. That is why I moved to Florida. Oh, and I bought property that is 26 feet above sea level.

Bring on the global warming and dump the fraudulent green. Mr. Gore and others have made enough off of this scam.

Facts Are Stubborn Things, You Snitch: Update

I received the infamous unsolicited White House email from Senior White House Adviser David Axelrod.

You I did the patriotic thing: I reported it to flag@whitehouse.gov.

Here is what I wrote:

Dear flag,

I wanted you to know that I have been receiving fishy emails from the the person below. I believe he may be illegally using email addresses gathered by the government to send spam filled with misinformation concerning health care reform. Thank you for you attention to this matter.

Regards,

I never thought I could have fun using White House's shenanigans.

Healthcare Reform: Tax Relief

A show of hands. How many people believe the 111th Congress would offer tax cuts as part of a health care reform plan?

Oops, I don't see any hands.

OK, that is because you are right. This congress would never conceive of giving taxpayers a break. It's just not in their genes.

But our government has been using tax law to influence the behavior of Americans as far back as 1862. For example, they give tax breaks for buying a home, having children, charitable giving (for now) and for medical expenses over 7.5% of your adjusted gross income (if you file the long form with Schedule A). It has been this way for many decades.

Why do they not allow you to deduct all of your medical expenses? They allow business to deduct all of the Benefits they offer, which include medical insurance expenses, and they do not even need to use a long form. (IRS Form 1120, line 24). I'm sure this situation has a lot to do with the amount of money lobbyists have to offer.

I believe they should continue using tax law to influence Americans (in the way I would, of course) and enact a dollar for dollar tax credit for medical expenses. That would be all medical expenses including doctor, hospital, laboratory fees, prescription drugs, insurance premiums, deductibles and co-pays. This would influence more people to buy their own insurance, maybe start a health care savings account, and pay for their own health care. With a few other reforms, such as tort, Medicare, Medicaid reform and expanding competitive regions, the cost will be reduced, further encouraging personal ownership of health care insurance. Personal ownership would also make portability much easier to realize.

Ya know, I would like to have a tax deductible health care savings account, but government regulation won't allow it due to the health care insurance program I am in. It makes no sense.

Lowering income taxes: Good. Adding new taxes: Bad.

If they wanted to make health care more accessible and save you and I some of our earnings, our representatives could cut taxes on healthcare expenses. As it is, H.R. 3200, includes plans to make everyone, rich and poor, subject to an additional a new tax penalty (Title IV-- Amendments to Internal Revenue Code). It is in the form of a 2.5% fine on individuals without "acceptable" health care coverage. So, congress and the president want to mandate that you spend your money on their committee's version of "acceptable" health care insurance or you will see your taxes go up.

Giving a tax credit, as opposed to the current new tax penalty, would help many more Americans to purchase their own healthcare insurance and remove dependency on bloated government programs. When people pay for goods and services out their own earnings, they are careful to ensure they are getting the most cost effective

I believe government's meddling in the health care arena helps force, I mean "influence", people to move into government sponsored programs, such as Medicare. Medicare looks like a good deal because the true costs are hidden from consumers. Medicare Part B participants only pay about 25% of the actual cost. The other 75% is paid out of the general fund. If we were to ween people off of Medicare that would add 42 - 47 million paying into a private health care insurance plan. Gee another way to lower private sector insurance costs.

Adding people to the government rolls via the "public option", or government option, will only make matters worse.

Healthcare Reform: Competition

In his town hall meeting Tuesday in Portsmouth, NH, the president said,

"I mean, if you think about it, UPS and FedEx are doing just fine, right? No, they are. It's the post office that's always having problems."

How this remark helps his cause is unknown to me. If anything, he is acknowledging that a government run "business" in competition with private sector businesses, including the health care industry, will fail to be competitive.

'Nuf said.... almost.

Competition is the engine of self sufficiency and wealth in America. It is what created the most advanced living conditions in the history of man. Competition is responsible for the rapid advance of every aspect of American life. This includes the state of modern health care. Some Americans who do not believe that they are "competitive" will always end up in unions, on assembly lines or on welfare, and being dependent on those who are competitive enough to win them any income and benefits they may have. Competition lowers prices and costs as evidenced by the impetus to institute anti-monopoly laws in this country.

The same holds true for healthcare insurance. Competition, fair competition, will lower the cost of healthcare insurance and the cost of healthcare in general. There are some anti-competitive policies in place in this country right now that are causing the costs to skyrocket. Government healthcare programs and state restrictions on out of state insurers.

I found it interesting that some push the "public option" for healthcare insurance, claiming it will be "competitive". If you believe private sector insurers can compete with the federal government, then, answer these questions...

Do private sector companies print their own money?
Do private sector companies use their power to forcibly extract money from others?
Do private sector companies make their own laws and regulations?

Of course not, which makes the argument for a public option irrational. Heck, the government doesn't even have to pay for advertising.

The question to ask is, "Do government programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid cause healthcare costs to go up?"

The answer to that is a firm "yes".

There are at least two reasons for this.

- One is that when the government pays the medical bills, those millions are removed from the customer base of insurance companies. According to Health Harbor, "Medicare covers between 42 million and 45 million Americans, making it the largest single payer of healthcare in the nation." That is 42-45 million people who are not buying private sector healthcare coverage, which causes insurance providers to raise fees on others to stay in business.

We all know that the insurance company model is to "spread the wealth" (to steal a phrase), or risk, among their policy holders. More policy holders means the risk is spread thinner and the cost to each would be lower.

- Another is that people using Medicare and Medicaid cannot see how much it is costing everyone. Sure, they see their own charges. But to most, those figures are meaningless. Why? Because the payment isn't coming out of their checkbook. They have no need to be concerned and if they were concerned, they have no way to tell if Medicare or Medicaid are being over or under charged. There is nothing for them to compare it with.

Many believe that Medicare Part B is paid for with payroll taxes, monthly premiums, copays and deductibles.

Not true. In fact about 75% of the payouts to Part B claims comes from general revenue, with payroll taxes, etc., covering the remainder (2007 numbers).

- Medicare and Medicaid limit prices. Logic would say that limiting prices would limit costs and make it less expensive. But Doctors, hospitals and big pharma cannot put an equal limit on their costs. They must earn enough to allow them to pay their bills and stay operational. Remember, no matter who pays for for goods and services, someone must get paid to make that product or provide that service. The government price fixing forces them to look elsewhere to make up the difference between what they need to pay their staffs, office space, utilities, medical equipment, etc. They end up charging more to those patients who use private sector insurance and those who pay cash. For proof, just look at any bill that is paid by Medicare/Medicaid. It will show how much their fee is for the service and how much Medicare/Medicaid allowed.

The bottom line is there is no way possible that a government public option would be competitive with private sector insurance providers and that the federal government's meddling in what should be private sector businesses is what has caused healthcare and healthcare insurance to skyrocket for almost four decades since Medicare and Medicaid stated.

Real competition is the road to lower healthcare and healthcare insurance costs.

Healthcare Reform:: Preexisting Conditions.

Denial of preexisting conditions is one of the talking points the administration and congress are using to try and sell their "public option" insurance plan. The president is using it as I type in his town hall meeting today.

Insurance companies do not refuse the vast majority of applicants because of preexisting health conditions. They require a waiting period before coverage of the preexisting condition starts, usually 12-18 months, and charge more for coverage.

We know this because of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) is "a federal law that:

* Limits the ability of a new employer plan to exclude coverage for preexisting conditions;
* Provides additional opportunities to enroll in a group health plan if you lose other coverage or experience certain life events;
* Prohibits discrimination against employees and their dependent family members based on any health factors they may have, including prior medical conditions, previous claims experience, and genetic information; and
* Guarantees that certain individuals will have access to, and can renew, individual health insurance policies."

What can ObamaCare, or DemoCare, do to fix this?

They could expand HIPAA to include individuals who want to purchase healthcare insurance but who were not a member of a group plan. Of course this change would run up the cost of the insurance, but congress doesn't mind. They won't be in that insurance system. And besides, running up costs may just be their plan.

While providing health care is the humanitarian way, providing health care and insurance is not a right, as in a constitutionally protected right, such as free political speech or lodging soldiers in your home. If it were, it would be guaranteed by the US Constitution and given to Americans "free". Of course it cannot be free as the health care providers need to earn a living just like you and I, so they must be paid.

HR 3200's preexisting condition clause ensures the cost of insurance will increase. Ultimately someone must pay for it.