Best idea ever? Sign the petition for debt-free college - Probably Not

The title, "Best idea ever? Sign the petition for debt-free college", is from an email from the Daily Kos.  They believe that having taxpayers pick up the tab for the two year drinkfest by young adults is good thing and want anyone they can influence to sign their petition.

"Petition Text - Our Message to Congressional Democrats
We support free community college as a first step toward debt-free college at all public institutions of higher learning. This is the kind of big idea that Americans are crying out for and need to see more of from Democrats. If you fight, we will fight alongside you."

This plan is another way to remove wealth, freedom and personal responsibility from more Americans.  It seems that this is the goal of all progressive ideas - less personal responsibility and a lack of discipline where someone else picks up the bill - and make no mistake, there will be a bill. The bill for the freeloader's education will be paid by taxpayers.  This is a problem as more and more people live off the labor of others there will a time when there aren't enough workers to carry the takers and the system will collapse.

Update:  The best written article about this subject is by Ann Coulter, titled "As Long as Obama Brought Up the Cost of College...".  Read and believe.

The Democratic Party's Recession

Just a thought, but it just occurred to me that liberals, progressives and Democrats always blame business for screwing over the "working stiff", who they claim to protect and care about. But if you think about, the US Congress, state legislatures and local governments always, always make a grab for your earnings in the form of taxes, fees and penalties. And they never ever find any reason to cut into their own pay.

Lately, they have not only blamed capitalism, but are quick to point out that the current recession started under the previous administration. I believe it is important to add two unchangeable facts to the conversation.

1. The US President cannot appropriate a single dime from anyone, any business or anywhere, without the US Congress first passing a law to appropriate those funds. The president can only veto the legislation if he has been advised to oppose it.

2. The country's, and the world's economy was doing just fine until 2007, when the Democrats took control of the US Congress.

The democrats are still in control of the presidency and the US Senate.

June 2011, the recession continues*.

The Republicans in control of the US House of Representatives cannot make any legislation into law without the cooperation of the US Senate and the president.

We can blame zero percent of this recession and its continuation to Republicans, although they are partially complicit in setting up the playing field for an economic meltdown.

Come November 2012 we will have an opportunity reduce the influence of the US Congress' and this president's failure to understand what they are doing by putting Republicans in control.

* The government's definition of an official recession is not the definition any unemployed person who lost their home and/or life's savings would use. Much like the way the politicians calculate inflation, it is designed to minimize blame on those politicians make and enforce (or not) those laws.

ObamaCare Passes: Progressives Have Change.

The US House of Representatives passed their health care reform legislation later last night. The progressives (i.e. liberals) have more of the change they have been looking for. They believe they are winners and are still using the GOP as a whipping kid.

Trying to share the blame, Nancy Pelosi said that "the vote may be partisan, but the bill is not as it has 300 Republican amendments". Of course she won't say what the GOP amendments are. That would allow Americans to verify her claim. But, since it's not true, and she is not truthful, we can take our cues from that.

With any luck, in November, we will replace many of these post-American politicians with some that will minimize the damage HCR will cause.

David Axelrod: Wrong on Wrong.

Mr. Axelrod, President Obama's Senior Adviser, has written a article designed to ridicule his opposition and confuse the electorate titled, "What Karl Rove got wrong on the U.S. deficit" at the Washington Post. According to his writing, he and others, including Carl Rove, were invited by the Washington Post for a sort of brainstorming session. Mr. Axelrod seems to only taken way this...

"Of all the claims Rove made, one in particular caught my eye for its sheer audacity and shamelessness -- that congressional Democrats "will run up more debt by October than Bush did in eight years."

He then starts in with a revisionist view of recent history that excludes important information (an effect of tunnel vision) and fills it in with his self-serving version.

I saw this opinion piece referenced on the Huffington Post and could not resist calling Mr. Axelrod on his deliberate misuse of the facts and his attempt at rewriting history. The HPost only allows 250 words to be posted by the rabble (me) when they don't delete them altogether. So, I've revised and continued my rant here.

Here is how it went with more...

Dear Mr. Axelrod.

I want to thank you for revealing the true nature of our current government. Orwell’s characters surely have nothing on you and the rest of the White House's leadership. You have taken a modicum of truth and twisted the facts completely out of reality. The way you write them has little relation to the real story.

Let’s try to set the record straight.

So first, from what I've seen so far not many in the White House today know how the US government lawfully operates or even have a fundamental knowledge of the US Constitution. You will have to understand how our government is supposed to work according to the written and agreed to US Constitution. Recall that the government is in place to serve the people with power on loan from them, not to serve any politician or their advisers, cabinet members or anyone holding public office.

Quickly: Congress appropriates, the executive branch spends what the congress allows them (you) to spend. Both branches, along with the third branch, the US Supreme Court, are supposed to "support and Defend the Constitution of the Unites States." Simple, really. You will see how this is important very shortly.

You continue...

"The day the Bush administration took over from President Bill Clinton in 2001, America enjoyed a $236 billion budget surplus -- with a projected 10-year surplus of $5.6 trillion."

Pop quiz, class: Who did the appropriating? (This means gathering up the funds from various sources to be spent in the service all Americans

Answer: The Republican controlled congress.

Bill Clinton didn't spend a dime that was not appropriated by congress, revealing that they, not just the president, are responsible for the surplus.

But President Clinton also left office with the country in a recession. Your party quickly turned it into an Orwellian campaign slogan claiming President Bush "caused" it. No really. During the campaign of 2000, pundits were echoing Democrat strategist talking points, specifically, they claimed Bush was "talking down the economy" when he mentioned that the economy was slowing down.

This makes me wonder if the Democrats haven't been talking down the war and costing lives. Harry Reid on Iraq 2006, "This war is lost". But I digress.

The Bush Administration inherited a recession (Washington Post), followed with the extremist Muslims finally proving that they were at war with us on 9/11/2001. Something they (Islamic extremists) have known since 11/04/1979.

These two big issues, war and recession, along with the US Congress are the major cause of the deficits, not Bush’s economic policies. In fact Bush's tax policies reversed the recession and produced real GDP growth every year after 2001 until the 2008 when the congressional banking/mortgage/securities/illiquid assets crash and burn began its meltdown.

The funny thing is that President Bush, a truly classy individual, did not blame his predecessor for the recession and other problems. And doesn’t call Obama, and you, on your blame game.

Your "fiscal irresponsibility” remark misses the mark.

It was the regulations, or lack there of, produced by the US Congress that was "laissez-faire", with Rep. Barney Frank claiming that Fannie and Freddie were "fundamentally sound" and said Bush's proposals to fix them were "inane". Then after the fall in 2008 he voted for those changes. I would say that no one was watching AIG or the others, but somehow, I know that's not true. It seems the tax and spenders always have on eye on profit makers so they can tax and spend more. In his budget report in April of 2001, Bush asserted that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were "too large and over-leveraged" (Rove, WSJ) , but was shut down by Democrats in congress. Recall that the US Senate during President Bush's administration was not filibuster proof and Chris Dodd (D-Con) said the Bush recommendations were "ill advised" successfully filibustered any changes. In 2008 Senator Dodd supported the same changes.

Your next whopper,

"deepest economic catastrophe since the Great Depression",

is another fabrication. Unemployment is at 10+%, inflation is 0% (supposedly), and growth is stalled, but slowly coming up in the third quarter of 2009.

The truth is the current Obama/Democrat led congress-owned recession is the worst since the Carter "malaise" of the late 1970's, with double digit unemployment, inflation and mortgage rates. The Great Depression was much worse where FDR kept the unemployment rate at 14-21% throughout most of his 3 administrations (see chart HERE). The financial market "crisis" of 2008 is nowhere near as troublesome as Carter's or FDR's Great Depression.

In more classic subterfuge, you say,

“Economists across the political spectrum agreed that to deal with this crisis and avoid a second Great Depression, the government had to make significant investments to keep our economy going and shore up our financial system.”

And that’s where you lose my confidence in government's ability to handle economic issues. The president should see this as a clear learning moment to stop interfering with the free market system. The government had to do something, but it wasn’t obligating $700 Billion to hand over to the former employers of Secretary Paulson (Goldman-Sachs) among other supporters. The money that this country does not have I now refer to as “Hope Dollars”, as everyone hopes that the program will work, and they hope that America’s lenders won’t cut off the spigot and politicians hope they won't get the blame when it doesn't work. I had also thought that federal level politicians hoped that it would also get paid back. But I now know, after the next grotesque abuse of the US Constitution known as “American Recovery and Reinvestment Act“ where you obligated another $787 Billion that you do not have in pork programs, that no one in the White House or the majority in congress are concerned about it at all.

You,

“Obama administration's rigorous stewardship added transparency and accountability…”

What!

We know, from watching the US Congress that no one in government knows what the word “stewardship” means (back to laissez-faire attitudes). And as for transparency; I'm afraid that there is a disconnect between the dictionary meaning of the term and the Obama White House definition. The president of "change" has changed nothing except running up the national debt and running down confidence in America.

The textbook examples of Orwellian speech continue under your,

“At the same time, we also recognize that we need to address the long legacy of overspending in Washington.That is why, shortly after taking office, Obama instructed his agency heads to go through the budget page by page, line by line, to eliminate what we don't need to help pay for what we do."

What! Again.

Sure, you called for it, but you have no one who is capable of deciphering it even if it were fairly accurate. None of the president’s economists, nor even the president, have any real world experience. None have worked in the private sector in their adult life. Exactly how would anyone in the White House know how to address the economy in a helpful way? (I guess I’m being Orwellian now. You may be able do it in a helpful way, but the only help would go to the Obama administration.)

We know that spending was a problem and the President read his plan to us. Then he followed the speech by obligating another $420 Billion in hope dollars in March. He must have a short memory.

More...

"As a start, the president proposed billions of dollars in cuts, and he'll continue to fight for them and others in the upcoming budget."

Yes, Billions in cuts from Medicare, Medicaid and the defense budget. I seem to recall the demonization of Speaker Newt Gingrich when he spoke of, but tried to implement, a program to reduce the overhead in Medicare, characterizing it as "withering on the vine". Democrats grabbed this single phrase and turned it into 'evil Gingrich wants to end Medicare and Medicaid' when no such thing was recommended. Where are these people now that the President wants to cut over $500 Billion from Medicare in actual cuts.

And...

"Obama had been more successful in getting his proposed cuts through Congress than his predecessor was in any of his eight years in office."

Of course he did. President Obama had a filibuster proof majority in the US Senate and a majority in the US House of Representatives. President Bush did not have this luxury.

Mr. Axelrod says that the president has insisted that the health care reform not add to the deficit, but their is ample evidence that a smoke and mirror subterfuge is going on here. First the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) says it will add a trillion dollars to the deficit, even with Medicare cuts. They cannot have that, so in a show of totalitarian power, the president calls the nonpartisan CBO head into his office and miraculously, the same reform plan will really reduce deficits by $132 billion.

And this...

"But the course correction that was so badly needed after the previous administration has begun in earnest."

You know, it become so common place for this administration to continuously blame anyone they can (other than themselves) including the previous administration, so-called greedy CEO's and "Wall Street Fat Cats", for those things that go wrong that it is expected. And most all of it as a consequence of government's meddling in areas they know nothing about.

One of the first rules of leadership is to take responsibility for one's actions. This president and his followers absolutely will not accept any responsibility for the state of this union.

As I've noted above, it is the US Congress that spends the money. They are mostly responsible for the deficits and the national debt. This president was a member of the congress that voted to spend all that money on wars, Medicaid, Medicare, the executive departments and on bailing out US and foreign banking and investment institutions, from 2007 to his inaugural. He was part of the majority that did not try reign in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, even though they had the power to do so. Even previous congresses wouldn't take on Fannie and Freddie. All of your blaming Bush and others is nothing more than an attempt at slight of hand, to redirect the voters attention away from the real perpetrators: the US Congress. I have to tell you, it does not work and makes the president look amateurish.

But it is not all bad. I believe the president should have his own agenda and at times it may be at odds with the congress. This is how President Reagan ended up with deficits. He had an agenda and the US Congress had their agenda. The word of the decade was "compromise". Reagan took responsibility for the deficits on his watch, as did Presidents George H.W. Bush, William J. Clinton and George W. Bush. None of them blaming their predecessor for the problems that were theirs to solve. They had leadership abilities and did compromise with each other. This president and this congress will not.

Obama is trying make a major shift from our market based economy to a government owned and operated economy and he along with the Democrat controlled congress are spending borrowed money at a breath taking rate.

The bottom line is Karl Rove is correct. The congressional Democrats "will run up more debt by October than Bush did in eight years." Heck, they already have.

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.

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.

Left Wing Loons Still At It

Left Wing Loons Still at It.

Joan Walsh in her piece titled "Right-wing racism on the rise" over at Salon.com, is trying her best to destroy some folks whose views are different from her's. You know, for a group of people who claim to care about the other guy and claim the high ground by being liberal minded, they sure can pile on those who don't think in lockstep with their own ideas. Ms. Walsh gives perfect examples.

She starts with her version of trying to get along with others,

"First, credit where it's due: A few lonely Republican leaders are belatedly trying to clean up the party's mess of crazy, from the racially tinged character attacks on Sonia Sotomayor to the unhinged rhetoric of the Birthers to the overall vicious and fact-free spew of Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck."

She indulges her fantasy world by claiming she's giving a little credit to the other side, then immediately attempts a give childlike pounding to her perceived enemies. I would certainly like to know what "racially tinged character attack on Ms. Sotomayor" has occurred. The only discussion of racially biased quotes I have heard are Ms. Sotomayor's own remarks, e.g.,

"I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life." - Sonia Sotomayor

Please say again, who is the racist?

For evidence that Rush Limbaugh is a racist, gives us this quote,

"Here you have a black president trying to destroy a white policeman,"

Note: (This remark was made in response to the president's remark characterizing the police as acting "stupidly" in the disorderly conduct arrest of his friend Prof. Gates in Cambridge earlier in the week.)

I see nothing racist about his remark. Mr. Limbaugh's opinion may be incorrect, but "racists"? Uh, no.

While we can't know what the president was thinking, we can make our own judgments on his remarks ("acted stupidly"). It was a statement he had planned to make and it is very racial. Ms. Walsh is using the same tactic the Obama crowd used to get him elected: Throw in race card to shut them up.

The left, Democrats and Democrat supporters tried to intimidate anyone who spoke against candidate Obama's vague policies by claiming some inference to his race. Of course, that never happened, nut the facts have never stopped them from trying to leverage the situation.

My proof? Continue to read her words, where she offers exactly zero to back up her attempts to shut the opposition down.

Joanie gives Mr. Graham a thumbs up (sort of).

"Sen. Lindsey Graham tried to kick off a new GOP flirtation with decency when he announced his vote to confirm Sotomayor last week. "

I fail to understand how Mr. Graham's surrender can be moralized. Confirming or not confirming the judge has zero to do with her race, as it is considered Caucasian anyway.


In the following example, her primary targets are Limbaugh (again) & Glenn Beck.

"These two racists are projecting their own racial feelings onto Obama. Increasingly, the ranks of the racially blinkered (and I include MSNBC's Pat Buchanan here) are playing victim, insisting Obama's modest moves -- appointing a Latina justice, using the Gates case to speak out against racial profiling -- are reversing the racial order wholesale, and putting white men on the bottom of the pile." (emphasis mine)

Ms. Walsh, much like many other leftist writers, seems to have the power to read minds, and she is a psychoanalyst to boot. She knows their feelings and in her professional opinion, recognizes that they are projecting.

Well don't that beat all. The folks who have been projecting their own guilt, failings and weaknesses onto others, recognize the syndrome and accuse the opposition of doing that which they do. (it seems she must have read some of posts at the Huff)

By the way: I am not a psychoanalyst either, but I play one on the web.

Continuing... She has no proof of that any Republican or conservative in a position of power in the United States has ever claimed that the Obama appointments are racist in nature. I happen to believe that his appointments reflect a willingness to appease his base, but racist? Uh, no. Did he appoint people who if not for their political connections would be fined thousands of dollars or in prison? Yes, he did. That would be my complaint about Mr. Obama's "transparent" White House.

She rambles on,

"One look at Congress, the Supreme Court, Fortune 500 CEOs -- or conversely, at prison cells across America -- tells you how delusional the Beck-Limbaugh-Buchanan view is, but that doesn't make it irrelevant. It's likely to get worse, as persistent economic hardship plus a spike in right-wing racist rhetoric increases the appeal of scapegoat strategies." (emphasis mine)

Quite frankly, I do not see anything in her remark that proves anything racial. I can't even see her examples as explaining anything. I guess it's more than adequate for some that she merely used those words to describe people that her people dislike anyway. Yes, it looks irrational to us. But they just cannot help it. If you were a slow learner and you only half read it, you might think it says something important. If you do, then it's back to school for you. And she doesn't identify any "scapegoat strategies."

The only scapegoating I've seen is the whole of the Democratic Party, their surrogates and especially the president himself repeatedly claiming they "inherited this mess", this "crisis". The truth be known the president, the elected Democrats in congress and hope for their kind of change and childlike intellects, are at the bottom of the current financial crisis. And it is their inability to understand basic human nature (or simply disregard it) that motivates them to attack anyone that comes in opposition to their grandiose, but terminally flawed, plans for America.

More.

"It's time for more decent Republicans to take a stand against the vicious anti-Obama racism of the party fringe and their broadcast fuhrers. On Monday Ohio Sen. George Voinovich blasted the dominance of his party's Southern fringe, and its outdated Southern Strategy with its emphasis on racial division. Like Voinovich, I think GOP racism and race-baiting will consign the party to a long time in the political minority. But it could claim a lot of other victims along the way." (emphasis mine)

Again, she demonizes Republicans by implying that they need to be less vicious, racist, fringy, and to stop race baiting. As previously mentioned, it is she that is doing the race baiting.

If any Republican follows her advice, he/she should resign immediately. Her entire article is based on her hyper-partisan hate for any anyone questioning of her idol's policies. Furthermore, it is designed to make Republicans look inward for fault where no fault exists. It's a shame that many will take her words to heart.

Broadcast fuhrers. Too funny.

Orwell Would be Aghast or How the President is Faking You Out.

President Obama embodies the spirit and soul of author George Orwell's vision of the future. When speaking he introduces a little truth, never fills in with details, sprinkles in some double-speak, misinformation, using his winning form of propaganda and seems to be mired in doublethink. The legacy media's news programing uses a burgeoning form of newspeak by slavishly catering to his agenda, not asking the hard questions or reporting the details of his proposals and plans.

Put the fear in them

President Obama has based his presidency in crisis management to gain public support for his government's helping all Americans. He makes speeches ensuring a fearful electorate that he is looking out for our welfare and then uses the various monetary crises to obligate trillions of dollars that we do not have. (Why he would want to bankrupt the United States is beyond me, but it seems to be the goal. If not, then he is getting horrible advice from his advisers and will continue to borrow, print and spend this country into a hole that could become beyond correcting.)

Doublethink

The president says that current government spending trends "cannot be sustained". OK, so he has one right. But he said that the day after signing a $420 Billion budget for half of the fiscal year. It seemed he came to his senses as if he believed we had obligated too much already. That was a few short weeks after he signed $787 Billion "stimulus Package". Throughout this time, he has been saying that he would not allow any so-called "earmarks" (read as "pork barrel projects). All of this massive spending was on the heels of TARP, $700 billion that he supported and voted on in the US Senate.

Of course, this president has done nothing wrong because he inherited all of this mess.

Does it get any more Orwellian than this?

Why, yes it does. In nearly all of his speeches he will say one thing while urging congress to do the opposite.

Consider that he claimed that there is no room in his administration for lobbyists, then he hired at least twelve lobbyists to work in the White House and chose former Senator Tom Daschle to join his cabinet.

Candidate Obama emphatically and repeatedly claimed that he would put an end to earmarks. (An earmark is a type of "pork barrel" project) Then, at his very first opportunity to sign a a spending bill, he sells and signs a bill (the Stimulus Package) that is exclusively earmarks. Thousands and thousands of earmarks.

And, he still wants to spend another $1.4 Trillion for a government takeover of health care insurance in the United States. He wants it now, before congress breaks in August.

He then said if you want to keep your current insurance plan, you can have the same coverage you have now. But he can produce no documents or study to show where private or employer paid health care insurance will be unaffected by his "competitive Public" plan. But we are all aware of what happened when Hawaii decided to provide insurance to cover everyone.

He claims that the stimulus package has saved or created over 150,000 jobs, but cannot point to any of them. All the while, unemployment continues to raise well beyond his predictions. We lost another 467,000 in June alone.

While campaigning, he and his minions lambasted Senator McCain for suggesting that employer paid health care insurance might be taxed as income (along with a tax deduction for paying for it). Now, the president wants to tax the same benefit with no suggestion of an offsetting tax deduction.

He said no one making under $250,000.00 annually would have their taxes raised. That 95% of Americans would receive a tax cut. What was the first thing newly inaugurated President Obama did? Raised taxes on cigarettes by 67 cents per pack. The vast majority of cigarette smokers are poor to middle class in America (that's under way under $250K per year). Then comes the Cap & Trade bill that introduces over $800 billion in new taxes on everyone that exhales.

In the automobile industry bailouts, he said that he did not want to run the car companies and followed that by firing General Motors' CEO, then telling GM that they weren't building cars that way he liked and if they didn't change their evil ways, he was going to pull the bailout funding from them.

Newspeak

Showing his ever increasing control over the media, the president declared that we are no longer fighting a "global War on Terror". It has been replaced with the more correct term "Overseas Contingency Operation"

During his campaign the media and Obama supporters would ostracize anyone mentioning his middle name, Hussein. Furthermore, only African Americans and his other supporters could talk about race. Unless, of course, they were gloating over the possibility of America's first black president.

Through out this presidency, the media have only told one side side of the story. Barack H. Obama's side, and they are just getting started.

Orwellian or not?

Send in the Clowns; Never mind They’re Here

Well don’t that beat all? Al Franken, former comedian and hate spewing liberal ex-talk radio failure, has been awarded a US Senate seat by the Minnesota State Supreme Court after eight months of recounts and court challenges between Mr. Franken and incumbent Senator Norm Coleman.

Originally, Mr. Franken lost the election by about 350 votes or so, and then demanded a recount. They recounted and recounted until he had the lead by 300 or so votes.

Close enough: Take ‘em to court.

In court we learned that Mr. Franken’s cronies had many absentee votes rejected due to what they call improperly filled out forms. This would include voted from service persons serving in combat zones and registered voters who file absentee because they cannot get to the polls on Election Day.

Democrats take full advantage of this very important feature of election law. They know that they can take congressional seats by whining & crying, complaining & filing lawsuits, and making sure everyone knows how badly they are treated. Treated badly mostly by those people who insist that voters are legal voters and that all the legal votes get counted. Commonly referred to as either Republicans or conservatives.

Minnesota is the state that gave us Governor Jesse Ventura in 1998, so it's no surprise that this vote, between a moderate Republican and a whacked out self-serving ex-comedian would be so close. I believe I'll check around and see how many novelty toy factories are in Minnesota as well.

After getting past the lunacy of that whole circus, you find that now, the economy crushing liberal left now have a super majority in the US Senate. This may mean that there is very little to prevent Democrats in congress and the White House from bankrupting the entire country, government, private industry, and individual Americans in record time.

By the way: The state bird of Minnesota is the Common Loon. Go figure

Cap & Trade Passes: Americans lose.

In their (now everyday) underhanded way, the Democrats in the US Congress passed this economy killer. Eight Republicans (update) turned their backs on America, while 44 Democrats revealed some common sense. Read it here and see if your representative has any common sense or not.

Underhanded because the renamed and revised 1300 page bill (Here) , with amendments (H.R. 513) was brought to the floor for debate early in the morning (3 AM) and voted on it at 7:17 Pm the same day. I wonder how many of our representatives were on hand for that? I wonder if anyone other than Rep. John Boehner (R-OH) and his staff read any of it? House Resolution 587 limited debate, changed the name to HR 2998 and designates the bill as "read". Read by whom? Clerks & Staff? I hope you read it.

In an email to constituents, Rep. Vern Buchanan writes:

"The 1,200-page bill was being rewritten hours before the scheduled vote to attract support. Washington is broken, and nowhere is this more evident than in the fact that complicated, far-reaching legislation is being brought to the floor that no member could possibly have read ahead of time."

It is amazing that anyone could have read the thing while it made it's way through 13 committees in 3 days. (OpenCongress.org). The review period for each committee of 3 hours each was ordered by the Speaker.

Here are some of the mechanisms included to bankrupt the middle, now that they've bankrupted the US financial, mortgage and automobile industries.

Health care is next.

CBO and the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) estimate that over the 2010-2019 period
enacting this legislation would:

Increase federal revenues by about $846 billion; and
Increase direct spending by about $821 billion.

The US Congress and the current president are planning to raise your taxes by and additional $846 billion

$846 billion in new taxes!

The Heritage Foundation...

"An analysis of the Waxman-Markey bill (as reported out of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce) by The Heritage Foundation found that unemployment will increase by nearly 2 million in 2012, the first year of the program, and reach nearly 2.5 million in 2035, the last year of the analysis. Total GDP loss by 2035 would be $9.4 trillion. The national debt would balloon as the economy slowed, saddling a family of four with $114,915 of additional national debt. Families would also suffer, as the bill would slap the equivalent of a $4,609 tax on a family of four by 2035."

The Heritage Foundations' Web Memo 2504, How the Waxman–Markey Climate Change Bill Would Affect the States, by Congressional District breaks the costs down. Speaker Nancy Pelosi pushed this for in her district: The personal income loss for 2012 is $560.24 Million and averages $327.30 each year through 2035. In Author Henry Waxman's district it is –$550.66 and –$318.93. Edward Markey's district: –$560.24 and –$324.47. In my district (13 FL, Rep. Vern Buchanan) it will be –$504.97 in 2012 and –$292.46 each year through 2035. This means that in my district alone it will cost a total of $7,231,550,000.00 lost to the government through 2035.


The AP describes the bill as

"an effort to curb global warming"

Uh, OK.

Some Bloggers. Sheesh

Some bloggers censor their blogs. I would like to believe that the main attraction to to blogging is the free exchange of ideas.

However, while looking for a quote on public health care insurance, I came across "GOP Lies About American Health Care", Our Rants & Raves - Politics, by Michael Boh. It appears that Mr. Boh is only interested in opinions that match his own. I posted a rebuttal to his rant at about 9 PM Tuesday night and it yet to appear. I normally wouldn't be spending time ranting about someone else's blog, but this guy is just way too in the can for the Democrat policies and President Obama, while spewing hate for opposing politicians, and, apparently, opposing opinions.

Of course I have no problem with managing one's own blog, but censoring for opposing opinions is un-American. Especially when he says, "All opinions are welcome!"

I kind of liked Mikey's rules and thought I might plagiarize them for this blog. He'll never see it, so it would probably not be a problem. Here are his, very reasonable rules. Some of which he has violated.

Rules
1. Write your own. (Did that)
2. Respect to be respected. (Did that)
3. Debate the topic at hand. (Did that)
4. Cite only reputable facts. (a matter of opinion)
5. No distractions, distortions. (a matter of opinion)
6. No "F" bombs, sexual language. (Did not do that)
7. No harassing, abusing bloggers. (Did not do that)

All opinions are welcome! Michael (Not so much)

You can read Mikey's rant and decide if I violated any of his rules.

My post to Rants and Raves:

This is incredible.

The singular cause of skyrocketing health care costs is the federal government.

Medicare and Medicaid set prices, control access and reduce the paying customer base for private insurance. The US Congress setup these programs while being influenced by lobbyists from the pharmaceutical, hospital, and doctors' organizations.

More government, especially a "public Program", will only make it worse. Look to the lesson of the great state of Hawaii. They instituted public health care insurance to compete with private insurance and fill in the the insurance gap. Hawaiians dropped their I-have-to-pay-for-it-out-of-my-pocket insurance for the better deal of the state program.

Some competition, aye?

Since the state cannot print their own hope dollars, they closed it after 7 months.

The lie is not the with the Republicans on this. The lie is that Obama's program will be competition.

The lie is that it will reduce costs. Only competition will do that. And competition is what Obama is trying to destroy.

Moveitright.blogspot.com

Mr. Boh's response: by Michael Boh said...

Mover/GR - I had to reject your recent comments for the following reason(s): they include misleading and/or disreputable facts (Rule #4) as well as distrations/distortions (Rule #5).

Unlike most "conservative" blogs, I will post comments that disagree with my own. However, I will not do it if I feel they are designed to mislead or disrupt the issue being discussed. Have a good day. June 24, 2009 7:55 AM

Cash for Clunkers Passes

I dislike being a pessimist all of the time, but...

Cash for Clunkers, officially known as Consumer Assistance Recycle and Save Act of 2009, pretends to offer consumers vouchers worth up to $4500.00 to trade in their presumed "gas guzzler" for more fuel efficient vehicles. You can find out how much your vehicle can qualify for at Fuel Economy.gov

So this will turn out to be another in the long line of Democrats in government, and Republicans going along for the ride, using voter dollars to buy votes from them. This one will likely be a zero some gain for car buyers and a boon to the UAW, who Democrats in government unquestioningly support. (Just look at the auto industry's government imposed failures that led to government supervised bankruptcies for proof. The result is the UAW receives a 17% ownership in General Motors. Now that is collective bargaining!)

What I predict will happen is this: Automobile manufacturers and Dealers, who are offering $1000 -$10,000 off of MSRP for new vehicles, will now be offering $500 to $5500 off MSRP. it will be a zero sum gain for consumers, and will be another government handout to autoworkers.

So we, as consumers, have to decide what we are going to do with this new free benefit. Use it or not?

I'm going to say "take it", and here is why. This government is going to ensure that gasoline prices become prohibitively expensive. They don't want to drill for domestic oil and natural gas and they want to squander billions on "alternative energy" and "green" research. They have spent us into a real hole already and are planning many more new spending programs, the most aggressive being "Public health care insurance".

So get a vehicle that will last and gets better gas mileage. Use your own money (Cash for Clunkers) to help pay for it. If your a good negotiator, it may be helpful. If you can, you should take as much advantage of this program as possible.

Go in to trade in your "high pollutin' gas guzzler". Just remember: It's a trick.

Say No to Public Health Care Insurance

The president's plan for universal health care is another bad idea in a long line of bad ideas on this subject. If he, or anyone is congress, would like to actually help folks obtain health care insurance he would push for tort reform, interstate competitiveness, medical savings accounts, and dollar for dollar tax credits to incentivise working Americans to purchase health care insurance for themselves.

Some folks already have medical savings accounts, but it should be made available to everyone.
Interstate competitiveness may be another hard nut to crack because it would in large part remove the several states' power to regulate medical insurance.

I realize this would be a long shot in today's political environment as our illustrious representatives do not understand the term "tax cut". If you explain it to them (and there is no camera or microphone near by) they may let you know that you're talking crazy talk. Tax cuts indeed! Tax cuts to elected Democrats is like garlic to vampires.

The other issue, tort reform, isn't going to happen anytime soon either. Can you imagine two rooms full of lawyers who get to make law and give themselves pay raises suddenly deciding to cut or remove the the largest jackpot lawyers have ever found? Yeah, me either.

All of these issues would have to take on life as a real grass roots issue. Much like the Tea Parties around the country, or the grass roots effort that killed the lame version of so-called "immigration reform".

But, I cannot just pick on the president all of the time as on some points, he gets it right. In fact this is his forte. He will say that which is so true that it defies contradiction. Wonderful. But then he will go on to say something that is completely contradictory or simply wrong. He outlines, as much as he has been able to, his government health care plan in a letter to congress.

In his letter to congress concerning health care insurance he says,

"Soaring health care costs make our current course unsustainable. It is unsustainable for our families, whose spiraling premiums and out-of-pocket expenses are pushing them into bankruptcy and forcing them to go without the checkups and prescriptions they need. It is unsustainable for businesses, forcing more and more of them to choose between keeping their doors open or covering their workers. And the ever-increasing cost of Medicare and Medicaid are among the main drivers of enormous budget deficits that are threatening our economic future."

I agree 100%. Like a hammer he's hit the nail on the head.

But then he ruins it with this...

"I strongly believe that Americans should have the choice of a public health insurance option operating alongside private plans. This will give them a better range of choices, make the health care market more competitive, and keep insurance companies honest."

Public health care insurance is going to lower costs for everyone?

To borrow a phrase: "Here's yer sign."

But I wonder if Mr. Obama, or anyone in government, know why Health care and health care insurance has become so expensive? I believe they either do know why, and are not saying, or they really do not know why, in which case, they should be replaced with people who have a clue.

Health care in America has become prohibitively expensive because of our government. Through Medicare and Medicaid, government set prices on services and prescriptions, allow waste and fraud to run rampant, has become an unfair competitor to private insurance, and a lawyer led get-rich-quick scheme called "malpractice".

Sorry folks, but attributing cost savings to government would not only be unlikely, it would be impossible. I'm afraid our president's advisers have not learned the lessons of public health care insurance from the great state of Hawaii, the government plan to fill the gap for the uninsured in Hawaii. It lasted an entire seven (7) months before being dismantled. The reason? The people who already had insurance dropped their expensive private insurance in favor of the free insurance and almost bankrupted the state while destroying the private insurance companies. People are not stupid. If the government is going to use someone else's money to buy them insurance, it would only be in their best interests to get in on the deal. Of course, private insurance companies cannot force dollars out of the pockets of their customers, so they were left hanging. It won't work.

A quick glance at Medicare and Medicaid's history is a huge clue. In 1980 Medicare accounted for .7% of the country's health care spending. It has now grown to 19.7% of total health care spending. To ensure participation in this government program, Americans are forced into Medicare at age 65 or earlier if they receive Social Security Disability payments. All of this has reduced the number of people buying private insurance and a smaller customer base means higher prices. (just look at your utility bill. Save a lot and they raise the price.) Read more about Medicare here, here and here.

On Medicaid, the numbers are scary as well. (from Reuters, Report says Medicaid spending "unsustainable")

"In 1970, the report said, combined federal and state expenditures for Medicaid represented 0.4 percent of the economy, but this percentage grew to 0.9 percent in 1980, 1.2 percent in 1990, 2.0 percent in 2000 and 2.3 percent in 2007."

Another inflationary problem with universal health care insurance is the same problem that continues to run up the cost of Medicare and Medicaid: Cost control.

When I have to pay for something out of my pocket, I go for the best price I can get. If someone else is paying for it, then the price is not so much of a concern.

Malpractice Insurance. Doctors are charged huge premiums for malpractice insurance, which they must pass along to patients and their insurance companies. In order to hold back these costs, some governors have frozen insurance premiums in their states. Also, back in 2002 in the article, "High Insurance Premiums Jeopardize Rural OBs" (Rural Health News, Vol. 9, No. 1), they report...

"Citing data from a survey by Medical Liability Monitor, ACOG said that nationally, the median insurance premium for OB/GYNs increased 167 percent from 1982 to 1998. In 2000, it rose seven percent. In 2001, it went up another 12.5 percent. For 2002, the expected increase is 15 percent.

According to American Medical News, eight states saw two or more liability insurers raise rates by at least 30 percent in 2001. In more than 12 states, one or more insurers raised rates by 25 percent or more."

How can this not affect doctor, prescription and hospital fees?

Sheila Guilloton, of the Examiner, writes that...

"Malpractice insurance for OB/GYNs is reported to have one of the highest premium for medical malpractice, with some areas reporting premiums of $100,000 per year for OB/GYN coverage. Premiums in major metropolitan areas can be as much as $250,000 per year."

You can read more on The Tort Threat at the the Insurance Information Institute (I.I.I.)

On the Bill Bennett radio show, Morning In America, Senator Bill Frist said that when a doctor asked if a patient had insurance and the answer is "no", the doctor will prescribe generic, less expensive drugs. If the answer "yes", then the doctor can prescribe the more costly name brand drugs. Since a patient on Medicare or Medicaid is "insured", the fees and prescriptions will add to the taxpayers' burden.

If the federal government enacts public health care insurance, the same pattern will follow. People are not stupid. If they can get free (to them) health care insurance, they will abandon private insurers in favor of saving hundreds or even thousands of dollars each month. Wouldn't you?

So, there you have it. Medicare and Medicaid, along with malpractice insurance rates, are the prime reason that health care costs so much. The way to reduce these costs is not to add more government, as the president, his advisers and the US Congress believe. The answer is less government. Much less government.

Tax breaks will enable the working to afford their own insurance and that will act to keep medical expenses and insurance premiums lower. Tort reform will reduce the number of excuses insurance companies have to increase premiums while lowering doctor and hospital costs.

It needs to be mentioned that government is now intruding into areas of individual freedom that Americans are not accustomed to, such as deciding what to eat and how much exercise we need (or not), what kind of cars we need and what kind of energy usage is better for us. As government moves to further influence our lives, they will use the excuse of 'saving taxpayer dollars to reduce health care expenditures' by a reward and punishment system to be more healthy, just as I did when raising my children.

We are not children and do not need the impersonal government dictating lifestyles of Americans. Americans did just fine when there were no big government babysitting programs and we will do just fine again when they go away.

Rebranding the GOP

The GOP's latest gambit is to rebrand the GOP/Republican/conservative name. Branding and rebranding are marketing terms that mean the brand name, such as "GOP" becomes synonymous what whatever image the leadership is searching for, such as being labeled as moderates, and moving the image away from its current implementation, such as right wing extremists, which is a loser for the party.

On May 9th, 2009, Myriam Marquez writes:

"Jeb Bush hopes to change the GOP’s tattered image from an immigrant-hating, privacy-meddling party of the Deep South to the national optimism of the Reagan years."

To get a handle on their image problem, the primary question is, "Why does the GOP have this image?"

The answer because they allowed it to happen.

From what I have seen of the GOP playbook, if one responds to these charges of hate or racism, one adds legitimacy to those charges. While that may be somewhat true, the GOP's deafening silence on the matter only allows the lies to live and grow. Granted there are some that call themselves conservatives who go way beyond today's standards of civility and use what can be described as hate speech. But those are few and far between and have no power in influencing politics, policy or politicians.

Note: In today's political and media lexicon, if a Republican agrees with a Democrat, that Republican is a moderate. If a Republican disagrees with a democrat, he/she is an extremist. The media never label Democrats who disagree with Republicans as extremists. The media are mostly Democrats.

By the way, if the media would like to see real hate and vitriol they should just visit the Daily Kos (today's featured speaker: Bill Ayers, 6/1/09), Huffington Post, many entertainers (Here, Here) and some preachers. I see no moderation in their speech.

So, I agree that the GOP's image needs changing. But what can they do?

First, they need to put the labels to bed. When the opposition's talking points include racism, when responding to the GOP's position on immigration, the GOP needs to get their own talking points out there, and do it repeatedly. When the DNC made noises about the presidential candidate being African American and that GOP'ers better tread lightly, the GOP should have pointed to the Clinton's rhetoric to show who is using race in that election. And they should have repeated it often.

Additionally, there is a new Gallup poll that shows conservatives are the single largest voting group in America. The next smaller group is moderates, followed by liberals. Among Independents and Democrats, 34% and 22% respectively are conservative, with 73% of Republicans saying they are conservative.

Compromising on issues, such as keeping alive programs that don't work, does not help. The base wonders 'why bother? I'm not being represented'. Reports are they were really proud of Republicans in congress who all voted against the President's spending plan. The same voters ask, "Where was these convictions when you were the majority?" To me, it looks like GOP politicians have been trying the DNC's political tactics, such as voting for liberal programs to make the legacy media like them. Even though that has never worked. The base knows better and if properly stated, moderates would support them as well.

They need the intestinal fortitude to vote their convictions. What the GOP should have learned from the 2006 elections is that conservative issues win votes. When the DNC ran their candidates on conservative issues in 2006 to take incumbent seats from Republicans, it should have been a rallying point rather than abdication of their platforms. The left's rhetoric that Republicans lose votes due to being too conservative is total nonsense.

So, If the GOP wants to win elections, how about being conservative? That would include voting and talking conservative.

Next, the GOP should be facing the media with clearly stated answers to the country's problems without the name calling, hostility or anger that their friends across the isle use.

There are several changes that the GOP could emphasize to put them back into the good graces of conservative voters.

1. All things in Moderation. The vast majority of Americans, including me, are moderates. Conservatism is moderate by nature. We don't don't want a lot of radical changes in the way government interacts with the people, make and enforce laws. We do not want the country to become bankrupt by the out of control spending that is going on now. And the scary part is that the Democrats are considering more "stimulus" money.

Personally, I want the government to restrict itself to those constitutionally authorized functions. And picking which businesses live, which ones die, who runs them and what they produce, is not listed anywhere in the US Constitution or in any US law, as the job of the federal government. All of this to the detriment of the average working family. Republicans need to go on ABC, NBC & CBS, and their subordinate outlets, to pleasantly and calmly explain in just a few words why government cannot keep spending Hope Dollars. The country is already broke and the value of the dollar is dropping fast (gas at the pump is up 25% in eight weeks) due to deficit spending.

2. The legacy media. Republicans need to take charge of the conversation and get up front on this label to prove the image wrong in the legacy media. Republicans talk, talk talk, on CNN, Foxnews network and MSNBC and have always portrayed a moderate point of view. They don't seem to know that most average American voters do not watch cable news channels. The Democrats in the legacy media has told them that cable news channels cater to right wing extremists and no one needs "extreme" anything. Why would they tune that in if they consider themselves to moderates?

O'Reilly may have the most popular cable news opinion show, but he reaches a very small percentage of the voters in America. Republicans need more face time on these legacy media programs.

2. Campaign Finance Reform. Revamping federal and state election rules to remove the money from people and groups that are not eligible to vote for that Mayor, councilperson, state or US senator or representative, Governors, etc. To me, this non-eligible group includes all non-residents, companies, corporations, unions, PAC's, lobbyists and foreign nationals. Many will claim a First Amendment right to donate to any candidate, but that is a twisting of the intent of the First Amendment. Just recall the Boston Tea Party. Its message was "taxation without representation". Since the colonials had no say in how government was conducted, they did not want to finance it. In our time, our representatives' should be focused on their own constituency, not campaign financing and perks from special interests and other entities who are ineligible to vote. (small note: I sent a letter to Senators McCain and Feingold during the debate over campaign finance reform and recommended what I've written here. You know the outcome.

3. Feelings. I've heard it said that many people agree with conservative principles and Republican policies, but the GOP must be doing something wrong because they don't talk like they care about anyone other than their big business friends. To remedy this, Republican candidates and elected officials need to use the words "feel", "feelings" and "my feelings" whenever they are being interviewed or make speeches. I can guarantee you that you will never here a Democrat making a speech or being interviewed that does not talk about his/her feelings. It seems to be a key factor in the likability index. The GOP speaks with passion, but does not reveal feelings. So, instead of saying something like, "The president's plan will bankrupt America". They should say, "I feel like we are headed for trouble with all this spending. My feeling is that the poor will suffer the most when the dollar is devalued. That's how I feel about it". Don't use any statistics or facts. We know this from the Obama campaign. Even some tried and true Republican voters start saying, "yeah, yeah, yadda, yadda, yadda", when you tell them any facts. They just don't have a feel for it.

On a final note. I doubt that many voters are going to fall for more marketing gimmicks. If the GOP really wants votes, they need to go back to the dictionary and look up the words "represent" and "representation". These are not hard words to understand. The voters understand the meaning and they think they've been shortchanged. That is why Republicans were replaced by Democratic Party candidates. The people want people to represent them, not lobbyists, special interests, big business or each other. The GOP seems to have forgotten this. The Democrats that won incumbant GOP seats by campaigning on less gun control, smaller and more responsible government and caring about the people's issues. As it stands now, many voters, such as myself, have a difficult time determining exactly who has been represented. My skeptical side says they have been representing themselves and this will not do.

Why Does the UAW President Still Have His Job?

Barry fired GM's CEO and replaced a large chunk of the Board of Directors.

Why does the President, Ron Gettelfinger*, of the UAW still have his job along with his executives?

The UAW leadership helped usher GM into bankruptcy, yet Barry rewards them with a piece of the action (17% ownership).

The UAW will own over half of Chrysler if the judge approved Barry's bankruptcy plan.

Barry's new deal: He decides who wins and who loses.


*No link provided. the UAW's web site seems to be compromised.

The left's universal health care plan, explained at Think Progress, The Case For A Public Health Care Plan, tries to make the case for government run "competitive" Medicare replacement. The smartest people in the room say that they want a "new public health insurance plan that can compete with private insurers equally and transparently within an insurance exchange" and is "on a level playing field with private health insurance plans". In several major sections, they describe the benefits, as they see them; Lowers cost, improves quality, designing fair public-private competition.

Is this a smart idea and will it accomplish those goals?

Uh, no. It is not a smart plan unless your goal is to wipe out private insurance companies and make virtually everyone dependent on the government's largess.

First off, it is impossible for private insurers to compete with government. Proffering the idea that it can be done "competitively" is pure nonsense designed to influence the slow witted, the uninformed and the gullible. Recall that the federal government is allegedly a "non-profit" organization with the ability to print money (hope dollars) and force us to pay for their mistakes.

Take the lesson from the Great State of Hawaii. In the editorial, Study: Hawaii's Lessons in the Perils of Universal Health Insurance, By Carrie Lukas, 4/3/2009, the consequences of government mandated universal health care are spelled out.

Highlights from the study:

• Before expanding government programs to create “universal” health insurance, policymakers should consider states' experiences with similar efforts.

• Hawaii created a universal health insurance program in hopes of reaching the uninsured population, but found that more than eight in ten of those who enrolled previously had insurance. Lawmakers decided to terminate this program just seven months after its launch.

• Government programs to create free or subsidized insurance will encourage many who currently have private insurance to join the government program. This is inefficient and will ultimately erode the private insurance system in the United States.

It was sold as "competitive" with private insurance policy rates, 8 of 10 who signed up for the government program already had health care insurance. This means that for those had to stay with their private insurance company, the costs were going to skyrocket. Fewer paying customers means higher premiums in order to provide the same level of coverage. They new that, so they dropped it in favor of the "free" health coverage.

Then, the legislature did not expect the mass migration to the state system and it ran way over budget.

Congresses, state and federal, have a long grand tradition of unintended consequences. Normally, average citizens shouldn't worry too much about it, but in recent months their unintended consequences have cost us at least 6 million jobs, over $500,000.00 in debt to each household (TARP, Stimulus, budgets, etc.), and a breakdown of traditional families.

Finally, Hawaii had to rescind the law after 7 months to save their budget and to save those privately insured voters who were going to take a beating from their government. Just like President Obama is planning on doing to you.

Medicare and Medicaid spiraled up in a similar fashion and continues to spiral out of control even now. The US Congress created Medicare in 1965 (H.R. 6675) and have changed it many times. But nothing they've changed has helped to lower health care costs.

The power of government is a free market killer when abused by those who do not understand the US Constitution, the American way, or capitalism.

Republican Plan: A one page idealistic document at this point, looks a lot like an Obama campaign speech, only less substance.

My plan: There is a simple fix to health care in America: Tax cuts, tort reform and get government out of the way.

A direct one or one dollar tax cuts to those who buy their own health care insurance. It will incentivise individuals to buy their own insurance. This will be hard to enact because it would remove the need for our earnings from the US Congress. They don't like that sort of talk either.

Tort reform. Too many judgments are based on emotion rather medical fact. This vastly increases the cost of liability insurance for doctors, nurses, hospitals and emergency medical services. While I believe in holding medical personnel and pharmaceutical companies responsible for their services and products, the laws that allow any law suit to turn a "victim" into a prize winner needs to change.

Liability judgments have the additional consequence of making free clinics extinct. Remember them? Free clinics used to be everywhere and doctors along with other medical personnel could provide pro bono services to the poor. No more. It costs too much and the government is taking care of the poor, right? Not.

Government has been unfairly competing against private insurance companies with Medicare and Medicaid, as mentioned above. With the government's lack of oversight billions of dollars are wasted each year on fraud and abuse of the system. The answer is to get rid of that system.