"Rights" Misused Again - DOMA & Speaker Boehner

 Over at the the Huffington Post they are trying to paint the GOP House leader as a bigot for following his oath of office, while playing the President as their knight in shining armor, even though the president will not clarify his position on gay marriage (in the past Mr. Obama has stated that he does not support gay marriage, then he did,). From the Huffington Post (Link)

"That's why I was shocked to hear that Speaker John Boehner decided to use our tax dollars to intervene and stand up for DOMA to deny LGBT Americans the rights they deserve. This is discrimination -- plain and simple."

You were shocked!  I was shocked that the Obama government used our tax dollars to sue our states for doing the job Mr. Obama won't do. 


While there are many rights that individual Americans have, there are only a few "rights" that are protected by the rule of law.  If you study the US Constitution, and including the Bill of Rights along with the rest of the amendments, you will be unable to find marriage mentioned at all.  There is a reason for this. Many natural and "implied" rights cannot and should not involve government's heavy hand to interfere with individual adult choices. And there is a reason for this.  We need only look at the state of the economy to know how well government meddling works.

Our government was founded around a mostly 'hands off' philosophy (where individuals are concerned) unless one infringes on the "protected rights" of others.  And now, some are begging government to be the decider of who can marry whom. It boggles the mind.

But as much as some people wish that their particular issue was protected by law, the plain fact is many are not.

But married people have no more actual "protected rights" than anyone else.  That is why I believe using the word "rights" when discussing gay marriage is more of a propaganda tool than an actual "right" that should be protected by law.  Those special treatments that a married couple enjoy are the result of centuries marital disputes and contract law where the aggrieved parties seek a resolution through the government.  Politicians pandering to a large voting block have enacted many marriage friendly laws.  But today, we are much more enlightened about different lifestyles and can offer the same laws covering property and other issues that arise to cover gay and lesbian couples that would be unheard of in decades past.

If you want a "right" to gay marriage, I recommend a Constitutional amendment  to add the right.  It would then be protected by government.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

Public Health Care: A Letter To My Representative

A letter to my representative, sent June 25th, 2009.

Dear Representative Buchanan,

I have been watching the current health care debate and I have to say that the Kennedy plan is the wrong plan for our country and its future as the land of the free in a world where freedom is the exception.

While the president assured everyone that the public plan will be competitive and lower costs, we only have to look to the great state of Hawaii to know the outcome. Their program lasted 7 months before they decided to repeal it due to a massive shift in private sector insured to the state plan. They nearly bankrupted the private sector insurers and ran into the red in the state budget almost immediately.

I realize that the federal government can simply print more money when it runs out, but that solution is extraordinarily inflationary and will come back to haunt us when the real costs start settling in. Besides, the president and congress have already spent us into a hole that will take decades climb out of. We simply do not have the funding for a massive health care takeover by the federal government.

The president's claim of competitiveness is false. When employers see that the government will provide insurance, they will drop their employee coverage, just as happened in Hawaii. Private sector insurance companies cannot print their own money to make up for lost customers, so they will have to price themselves out of business. Additionally, how can he claim to be competitive when the Kennedy bill calls for taxing health care benefits, but excuses union members from paying it? In addition it is violation of equal protection under the 14th Amendment and will coerce middle and lower income families to join a union to be able to have insurance.

I have a better idea. Though I'm sure some or all of this has been passed around before, I need to know that it is known to my representative.

First, change the income tax law to allow at a direct 10% or more deduction for all medical expenditures. Currently only the amount over 7% of one's gross income can be deducted on a 1040, and only when itemizing. Make it part of the 1040EZ form. It has been this way for many decades and tells a sad story about American politics. I believe this helps force people into government sponsored programs, such as Medicare.

Two: An additional dollar for dollar deduction for insurance premiums paid out of one's income. This will encourage many to purchase their own coverage instead of relying on Rep. Barney Frank for our insurance needs.

Three: Allow insurance companies to compete for customers across states. Interstate competition will lower costs by expanding the customer base. There are around 1300 health care insurance companies around this country. Let's get them all competing with each other.

Four: Phase out Medicaid and Medicare. The president has already said he will cut Medicare and Medicaid by $509 billion and no one squawked about it. This opens the door to move away from the government solution to a regulated private solution. It is a well-known fact that government insurance programs leads to much fraud and waste (around $60 Billion last year). Additionally, the people who watch their own hard earned money very closely are not so careful with free money from (what seems like) someone else. However, we all know, or should know, that that money to cover the doctor and hospital visits come out of our own pockets when the government is picking up the tab.

Five: Tort reform. The Democrat pundits are claiming it is a non-issue as the lawsuit judgments are relatively small when compared to the total cost of health care. But what is not said is that the malpractice insurance industry has not lowered their premiums. Doctors and hospitals still pay outrageous rates for malpractice insurance and this is passed along to the patients.

Modern society has Americans on-the-go all of the time to earn a living, raise children, maintain homes and personal budgets. I can see how there may not be much concern over having too many labs at the doctor's office when the bill is something they do not have to think about.

The answer to health care reform is for Americans to get involved in our own health care, reduce insurance costs through fair competition and tort reform. Please remember that there can be no competition between the government, with virtually unlimited assets, and private sector insurance companies, who depend on a large customer base.

I understand that changing health care from government issue to personal responsibility is a big job that may ultimately be impossible. Nevertheless, it is important to prevent this country from failing due to a lack of responsibility on the part of its citizens and a need for ever more and more power by some members of the federal government.

Thank you for your support.

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

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.

Barry's New Toy: General Motors

Reuters is reporting the American people now own a majority share of General Motors. With the government unwilling to reduce spending and printing money like it's someone elses problem, I wonder if taxpayers will be offered an automobile in lieu of tax return checks.

The highlight will be that Barry and Barney Frank get to pick what car you get. GM (Government Motors) Obamamobiles* for everyone. Barry and his friends know this is all you really need, right?

Cute

The new GM (Government Motors) proudly introduces the 2010 Obama...
This car runs on hot air and broken promises. It has three wheels that speed the vehicle through tight left turns. It comes complete with two Teleprompters programmed to help the occupants talk their way out of any violations. The transparent canopy reveals the plastic smiles still on the faces of all the "happy" owners.

Comes in S, M, L, XL and 2XL.

Note: This picture and description arrived in an email that has been forwarded all over the place. I did a search and found it everywhere and I do not know who to cite and thank for it. But it sure is timely. Whoever: Thanks for the laugh.

This Week's Big Story 17 May 2009

It's kind of hard to say which is the big story. According to the legacy media, there are lots of big stories out there. Big stories that are secondary to the real story that they just as soon tell you about after the fact.

Look over here. The President is going to Notre Dame and receive an honorary degree. What a mess that's going to be.

Look over there. The President is going to nominate a US Supreme Court Justice. The big questions are woman, minority, both?

And over there. The President is releasing CIA documents. uh, that is not so important. The NY Times has released more classified material than the pikers in the Obama administration have released. But isn't Bush bashing fun?

Don't turn away from this one. The President is going to prosecute terrorist interrogators. No wait, interrogators' lawyers. Could be important. They are lawyers, after all.

Wait look here. The President is going to release more prisoner abuse photographs. Nope, changed his mind. The big story, he's flip-flopping. Nothing new here. He's flipped on everything he campaigned on already.

Wait, Wait, Wait. The Speaker of the US House may be misleading Americans. You'd better check it out.

In the mean time....

Obama Administration and the legacy media are directing attention away from nationalized health care insurance that is being rammed through congress, quadrupled deficit spending, nationalization of banks and automobile industries, and other unsupported programs such as Cap & Trade, removing profitability from business, strong arming banks & business, and paying off supporters, such as ACORN (up to $5.2 billion in taxpayer funds). That's not to mention killing charitable non-government organizations, gun control and auto emissions.

It's all a trick. They cannot implement their agenda if attention is focused on what they are doing and understand the consequences of these real changes. They have to keep the crisis mentality alive. They don't want to waste it.

Pay Equity Debate Equals Class Warfare

The organization,United for a Fair Economy (UFE) is proud to advance the divisiveness of class warfare. Class warfare is a tool of the liberal left and the Democratic Party in the United States. They seem to believe that by pointing out the income differences in between CEO's and their employees is providing some sort of public service.

Nothing could be further from the truth. This organization seems to be a mouthpiece for those who cannot cope with or cannot understand the American way of life and they publish salary and bonus numbers to incite voters. And this helps no one.

Here is what they say:

"CEO Pay: We believe that the lack of pay equity in the US can be addressed by changing the rules. The better informed average workers are, the more they will be empowered to generate changes."

Their premise starts off on a positive note, but then fall into their peculiar idea of fairness. So, yes, being informed certainly is better for everyone. The question I have for them is, "why would our system need to change?"

While CEO's, executives, large and small business owners make much more than their employees in most cases, this should not be a problem, but an incentive. In fact, without our system and the risks business leaders take, the standard of living in the United States and around the world would be nothing like it is today. None of the advances in medicine, materials, and transportation would be possible. Millions people around the world would be dead, or never have been alive, if not for the work and reward system that Americans embrace.

CEO's make more because they take more risks. Employees only have to show up and do the job they contracted for. An employee's only financial risk is whether the company remains successful at the location where he/she works, and that security is a result of the leadership's expertise and commitment.

Look. If you are envious of another's wealth, that should be an incentive to do the same thing. If an employee wants make as much or more than his/her CEO, there is a very simple solution. Start your own company and take all the financial risks, the many hours of sweat equity, the learning, and abilities, and apply it to your goal. If you don't feel like you can do all that, then shut up, collect your paycheck and continue to be at the mercy of statisticians, accountants and balance sheets. With hard work, persistence and good ideas anyone in country can achieve as much success as they are willing work for. This scenario has been repeated millions of times in this country.

This is the way to become successful and wealthy in a free market system. Many politicians and organizations such as the UFE clearly do not understand this basic truth. Class warfare is used as a political tool to pedal influence. They influence millions of followers (a key word) to look to them to even out the playing field and protect them, but end up being held down, in place by those same politicians. Remember these are the same people who engineered, either by expert planning or supreme stupidity, the economic crisis this country and world are in right now. If you prefer to complain about the rich getting richer and having to work for "the man", then keep following others and looking outside yourself for help.

Our politicians have the sworn duty to make the playing field as fair as possible. They very often fall short of this while looking out for their own self interests. This is due to lobbyist approved legislation designed to give the lobbyist's employer advantage over employees and competitors. This is how we get the Enrons, the high energy costs, the S&L Crisis from the 1980s and the current economic crisis that is destroying millions of jobs.

In this country, for now at least, anyone can become whatever their own strengths, talents a perseverance allows.

Wash Your Hands

Recall after 9/11 we were advised to stock up on duct tape to prepare for terror attacks (CNN).

Now we have change we can believe in.

Your new mommy, Janet Napolitano, third United States Secretary of Homeland Security, says, "wash your hands", to be safe from Swine Flu.

She also says beware of your returning soldiers, they may become right wing terrorists (as opposed to more hip left wing terrorists).

Now that they have declared there is no war on terror, but maybe an "Overseas Contingency Operation", and have passed along even more classified military intelligence to the overseas hate groups, I really feel safe.

If this administration ever tried to be honest, they would openly declare their war on the American way.

Hating Wall Street.

There is a lot of hate over at the Huffington Post, but Arianna complains about President Obama's lack of leadership where Timothy Geithner is concerned. It seems Geithner is to be the scapegoat for the president for forcing Sen. Dodd (D-Pluto) to add the AIG bonuses to their bailout. There are 50 pages of comments at Huffington Post as I type this. One contributor actually hates Wall Street, and he refers to them as "Wall Street masters" and "idiots on the Street".

It seems there are many, many more with the same attitude at the Daily Kos, within the Democratic Party and around the country. In fact some nice folks learned (I wonder how) where some AIG executives lived, got on some buses and picketed their homes with signs shouting "Damn you AIG" (with dripping blood), "AIG Bailout CROOKS", "Money for the needy, not for the greedy!" and "Capitalism is organized crime". Hating Wall Street is very cool, so to speak.

The Obama/DNC/congressional/MSM/legacy media blame campaign seems to be working. The people are blaming and hating Wall Street executives for the hard times brought on by the US Congress and the presidents who enabled them. Democrats want voters to look elsewhere to blame our current troubles on, so they actively promote hating the achievers in America. They use class envy to encourage average Americans to despise achievement and they actively demonize anyone (read: Republicans) who support business. They do this even though they need corporate donors (see "Democrats Bid Business Adieu", WSJ) and the American people need them to provide jobs. Good old Barney Frank, sounding much like those McCarthy hearings in the 1950s, tops it off as he demands the names of the AIG executives who received bonuses (video).

We've known for years that the American left hates and fears anyone who is successful in business, professing that they must be cheating and stealing from "the little guys". Unless, of course, that rich guy funds their issues (think "I'm having a very good crisis" - George Soros). Then they simply fail to mention them.

Of course, Senator Chuck Schumer's had to get in on the act of scolding AIG,

“If you don’t return it on your own, we will do it for you.”

This hate serves at least two purposes:

1. It gives them an enemy to defeat that is not you and me so they (congress & the president) can swoop in and save us from the evil doers. They just need our vote and our money.
2. It allows them to divert blame from themselves (explained above). No one would elect a mouthy buffoon to congress or the presidency. Would they? Really, would they?

So, did congress enable the "crisis"? Some people think so.

Testifying before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee in Washington, Franklin Raines, former Fannie Mae Chief Executive Officer, blames housing and regulators for it.

“It is remarkable that during the period that Fannie Mae substantially increased its exposure to credit risk its regulator made no visible effort to enforce any limits,” from "Raines Faults Regulators for Fannie, Freddie Missteps", Dec. 9, 08, Bloomberg.com

Fannie Mae Execs Daniel Mudd, and former Freddie Mac CEOs Richard Syron and Leland Brendsel testifies as well...

The executives said Congress pressured the companies to finance lower-income borrowers while regulators did little to curb the increasing risk that ultimately led to a government takeover that wiped out most shareholders and potentially saddles taxpayers with a $200 billion tab. James Lockhart, the companies’ regulator, said in September that exerting greater control over Fannie and Freddie was impeded by “their lobbying power.” Bloomberg.com

Why would that happen? I believe the explanation is clear.

Congresspersons who received campaign contributions from these financial institutions, including then Senator Barack Obama ($110,332.00 from AIG) and Senate Banking committee Chair Christopher Dodd ($281,038.00 from AIG), blocked any attempts to tighten them up. When the mortgage payments stopped coming in, the house of cards toppled. Among federal candidates in the 2008 Cycle a total of $644,218 was donated from AIG. Around 70% went to Democrat candidates. Senator Schumer has received $111,875.00 from AIG as well. (OpenSecrets.org) Over the past 20 years AIG has "has contributed more than $9 million to federal candidates and parties through PAC and individual contributions." (OpenSecrets.org) Our representatives in congress also receive millions from the unions. Unions that were bailed out by them as well. President Bush doesn't get a pass either as he had received $200,000.00 from AIG.

So, what have they done to cause this recession? Democrats in congress have been pushing loans to people who barely could afford them and demonize anyone who would prevent those loans. (Republicans in congress do not want to be demonized as mean and hateful for opposing this lunacy, so they only make little squeaks about it from time to time.)

The congress and federal regulators made the rules that allowed the "securities derivatives” markets that allowed the "toxic assets" to be created.

For as far back as I can remember our American style politics, the Democratic Party has been the party of 'There is a problem for working Americans and we're going to fix it. Because we care Those Republicans don't care. They are mean'. This has always been followed by them either doing nothing, which allows them to use the same issues and crisis's to campaign on, or they do something, anything, and make it worse. In the area of housing, they used their third grade vision of what is "fair" and created the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) under Jimmy Carter in 1977. This, along with the rumored pressuring the FTC to back off sub-prime loans, and some choice regulations (most likely authored by lobbyists), is the underlying issue that caused our economic dilemma.

But really, should we blame Wall Street for acting in character? Or should we blame those who rely on feelings and self-serving rhetoric to further their own goals? The fact is that with very few exceptions, exceptions that end up in jail, Wall Street plays by the rules given to it by the US Congress and enforced through federal regulators.

Didn't Secretaries Paulson and Geithner, Presidents Bush and Obama, and the entire US Congress not recognize businessmen and business contracts when they decided to give them 700 Billion Hope Dollars? They knew who they were dealing with. They have been dealing with them for decades. And the Wall Street folks did what comes naturally: They made money, and lots of it. Then, they passed out bonuses. Translation:

The federal government did not bail out the banking system. Congress bailed out the people who run these companies.

When AIG received billions of Hope Dollars, they were able to honor their contracts. It's what business people do. No Problemo.

Of course the US congress does not understand this train of thought. Contracts? Honor? (I can see Barney Frank's eyes rolling in wonderment now)

Since congress gave the Hope Dollars to Wall Streeters and Big Auto, but did not give any Hope Dollars to help the people that were losing their homes (as originally stated by congress, the Fed and President Bush) it seems as if the congress represents only those who are able to ante up the big bucks instead of you and me. (If your representative is not representing you, you should replace him/her and keep replacing them until you find one that does represent you." Moreover, even though I vote Republican, this challenge goes to GOPers as well.)

Our government's only proper response should be to allow those companies to find their own way. Ordering CEO's to be fired, demanding they build cars that only a few can afford, or want, and picking who wins and who loses, is not within the limited powers of this Constitutional Republic. These are the consequences of taking money from the federal government (They cannot tell you how to run your business if you don't take their money).

The free market system, capitalism, cannot work when there are third parties (Dodd, Franks, Reid, Pelosi, Obama, Bush) picking winners (AIG, GM, etc.) and losers (Lehman Bros.). Chapter 11 protection would allow these companies to reorganize using the system that (mostly) works. Try to keep in mind that the named underlying collateral, real estate, is still there and still valuable. That $300,000.00 home may now be marketable at $200,000.00, but it is not zero. Those "toxic assets" to be dealt with in the normal manner and the collateral, homes and properties, would bear their current, more reasonable, market value. The only people who would lose are the executives that allowed the extreme risk and those who were duped into investing in them. The average Americans who are covered by the FDIC may lose some, but not all and certainly not two or three trillion dollars worth.

Sure, the economy would be tough for a while, but the recession would not be as long as it's going to take to payoff the President's and congress's irresponsible spending. Spending of dollars they do not have and will not have: Hope dollars.

President Obama Has Already Failed the American People

Certain talk radio personalities have been roundly criticized for stating that he hopes "President Obama fails". Well, it looks as though his hopes have been realized already.

If you look at the agenda of the Obama election team, then we can infer that he has already failed. He's not ending the War on Terror, not closing GITMO any time soon. He has nominated lobbyists, tax evaders & cheats and has been talking down the economy. Enough to sink the country into another Great Depression.

These facts are not hard to see. Obama has countered his own words with his actions, and as nearly as I can tell, he's broken every promise of hope and change that he campaigned on. These examples are some of his demonstrations of hypocrisy and how quickly he has reversed his high minded policy positions.

Obama has set himself up as a "post partisan politician" (because partisanship is really bad. NOT) and he will bring the parties together to help Americans.

But, so far he has only been able to get 3 Republicans out of 535 members of congress to support his economic "stimulus" plan. And those three Republicans are Northeastern liberals anyway.

He has accused Republicans in the US Congress of not getting it, and of trying to make his landmark legislation political. Sorry Mr. Obama, but you've already accomplished that. He then "Chastises GOP for 'tired' tax theories" according to the Washington Post, that also notes:

The president, joined elsewhere Saturday by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, continued to wage a rhetorical battle against Republicans.

Is battling the opposition post partisan? I don't think so.

Mr. Obama says he will not allow evil lobbyists to influence his administration.

Words:

"I am running to tell the lobbyists in Washington that their days of setting the agenda are over. They have not funded my campaign. They won't work in my White House." -Candidate Barack Obama, December 16, 2007 (Chicago Sun Times)

This is a promise that President Obama made over and over again. OK, D-day (decision day) is here. So what did the "winner" do?

Mr. Obama nominates/hires lobbyists to work in his administration.

- William Lynn: Deputy Secretary of Defense
- William V. Corr: Deputy Secretary of Health and Human Services
- Tom Daschle: Not only was he a lobbyist, it was his wife, another lobbyist, who trolled in Billions for the airline industry. (Daschle dumped due to "tax problems")
- hired lobbyists for 12 White House staff positions
- At least a dozen lobbyists worked on Obama's transition team, and at least one member of his national security team was a lobbyist.

His promises of transparency are not holding either:

Sunlight Before Signing: Too often bills are rushed through Congress and to the president before the public has the opportunity to review them. As president, Obama will not sign any non-emergency bill without giving the American public an opportunity to review and comment on the White House website for five days. Read

What he actually did:

- Signs his first two bills into law within minutes of them coming out of the US Congress. They are the non-emergency Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act and SCHIP. So much for that promise.

- Then, for the stimulus bill, legislation that will save America if it's passed (now, now now) he coerces Congress to approve it without reading it, let alone allowing us to look it over. Even he has not read it.

Obama goes on TV and talks like Ronald Reagan, i.e. a new era of personal responsibility, and follows it with $787 Billion in pork and payoffs outwardly designed specifically to remove responsibility and consequences from the American people.

At Mr. Obama's "change" Website, he lists keeping of states secrets as a problem.

Secrecy Dominates Government Actions: The Bush administration has ignored public disclosure rules and has invoked a legal tool known as the "state secrets" privilege more than any other previous administration to get cases thrown out of civil court.

Here we see some more of that famous "post partisan politician". He follows up by maintaining the Clinton/Bush policies for treatment of state's secrets where extraordinary rendition is involved. Read
The new president says...

A High Standard: Unlike other candidates Obama's campaign refuses to accept contributions from Washington lobbyists and political action committees.

But, as adverse to PAC/lobbyist money as Mr. Obama claims to be, he had no problems with them in the past. According to the Boston News, he accepted $6,239,000 from 1996 through 2006 and an additional $58.9 million that lobbyists and lobbying firms helped him raise in the first six months of 2007. Not to mention the fact that he has his own PAC, Hopefund for America, which now directs you to his sign-up page. He is credited with not taking PAC or lobbyist money by the legacy media during the presidential campaign, however, he did take $1570.00 from a federally registered PAC. According to the FEC, he received donations of $13,175.00 from "Other Political Committees" and "Other Authorized Committees" gave him $86,950,000.00. He will be unable to convince me that bundling campaign contributions from multiple donors does not constitute some form of a PAC or special interest groups.

Missing from Mr. Obama's ethics page is any sort of requirement for members of his administration to meet some standard of ethical behavior. And, as if to throw it in our faces, he nominates an income tax cheater to oversea the IRS. I wouldn't normally beg the question, but come on, is this one of John Edwards "two Americas", where the privileged class can break the law and be forgiven, but if you or I "forget" to pay our taxes, after being warned several times, then only pay it when it became public, would we be so easily forgiven? Is Mr. Geithner going to enforce IRS law and force Americans to pay their taxes and any fines that may be appropriate?

EDIT 3/3/09: Mr. Obama asks for more ethical problems. Ron Kirk, Obama’s nominee for U.S. Trade Representative, owes some $10,000 in back taxes. Fox News

The new president has his own ethical problems as well. He seems to be less than honest in his rhetoric:

"We are in the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression, and a lot of you I think are worried about your jobs, your pensions, your retirement accounts."

Funny, I didn't consider the Carter administration's high unemployment, 1% growth in productivity, double digit interest rates (Prime lending rate was 21.5% in December 1980), double digit inflation, and gas shortages to be "The Great Depression". But, if he wants to characterize the Carter administration that way, I'm not going to argue with him. But he should clarify.

How can we in the worst economic climate since the Carter administration, or the Great Depression, when so far, we do not have any inflation, interest rates are as low as they can get (and have been), unemployment is nowhere near Great Depression rates, and there is no shortage of gas. But, we can give President Obama a break on this. After all it was another Democratic President who mismanaged all of that.

But no breaks on this.

I expect the President of the United States to be reassuring, upbeat and positive.

President Obama ran on the the same type of upbeat and positive platform as President Reagan. He said he was "change" and that Americans and the world could have "hope" for a better life under his administration. However, as soon as the polls closed in November 08, the president- elect started in with his ongoing theme of doom and gloom and talking down the economy. I have no respect for someone who modulates their rhetoric solely for personal gain. He knew his upbeat platform would get him elected, then as some as that milestone was met, he did a complete reversal to the fear monger that he is today. He pressed to adopt his "Stimulus" package or we we fall into a catastrophe, another Great Depression. He says millions of families are suffering and it will be months, maybe years, before he can make it better.

Since then, he has his stimulus package and Hope has turned into "Hope Dollars", money that does exist, but he and congress hopes they will be able to spread around to their supporters anyway. The only change we see is the change from the Bush administration to the Obama administration.

Everything that matters in government: how politicians pretend to run the country, how they promote themselves and how they try to subordinate the opposition party, their partisanship, and exactly who they represent has remained unchanged.

Mr. President, you fail.

Salary Cap: Says Who?

President Obama is calling for a salary cap on company executives who receive any TARP bailout money, claiming it is "the height of irresponsibility" to pocket taxpayer dollars.

Now don't that beat all. He's upset because he and President Bush gave the Wall Street bankers and auto makers hundreds of billions of hope dollars and did not think to put any meaningful restrictions on how the money was to be used. They all just "hoped" the bankers would do their version of the responsible thing.

So who is the irresponsible one in this mess?

He and Bush couldn't imagine that the money-makers on Wall Street would be pocketing large amounts of the hope money. If the two Presidents and US Congress had not interfered with the US economic system in October, the Wall Street executives would have received pay and bonuses equal to their performance. A company that is bankrupt cannot handout huge paydays to those who led it to that end. Well, unless it's the government we're talking about.

This just emphasizes why the government must be stopped from mortgaging the country's future with the largest pork package in US history (to be paid after those making these lousy decisions are long gone).

Additionally, this is the next step in the destruction of free market capitalist system. The very system that made it possible for this country to become the world leading country that it is. This is just one reason why the entire hoax that is TARP and the Lobbyists' Stimulus and Recovery Act of 2009 needs to be tossed and sooner rather then later.

Government officials, including the president and US Congress should not be in the business of dictating how much anyone should be paid in private industry, whether rich, poor or between. The US Congress should restrict their payroll machinations to giving themselves raises. And this President, who has no meaningful experience at anything (especially the private sector), is the last person who should be dictating salaries and wages.

By the way: Rich people getting richer is not a crime. But, stealing money from people is a crime and using the power of government to force people to pay for the failures of others is also a crime in my book. Barack Obama, Christopher Dodd, Barney Frank, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and the George W. Bush administration are principly responsible for the current trumped up economic crisis. I can see no provable reason why these people should be permitted to meddle with the economy. US House Speaker Nancy Pelosi doesn't even have the slightest clue about how many people actually work in this country. She claims 500,000,000 will lose their jobs if the Lobbyists' Stimulus and Recovery Act of 2009 is not passed quickly.

I'll admit that I, just like any other average worker, marvel at the astronomical sums being raked in by many private sector CEOs and executives. And I marvel at the huge sums being raked in once politicians leave office. But capping wages and bonuses will only hamstring the economy further. The only way to ensure that the capitalist system is functioning properly is to allow it to work. To get out of the way as much as possible while ensuring compliance with the law. And that includes allowing companies fail. If President Bush and President Obama had gotten out of the way, the bad actors would be looking for work in other fields rather than reaping the benefits of the elected class's largess. All the money that would be lost would have belonged to those who supported such irrational investment "instruments". The real property that is blamed for the mess is still here, still available and still worth a lot more than zero,as we nhave been led to believe.

I'm positive many of our neighbors would have lost their jobs with or without this government interference. However, not it not by their own doing. But rather by the US Congress, the FTC, the SEC, the DoJ and the Presidents' doing, or lack thereof.

For our neighbors I say extend unemployment benefits, freeze owner occupied home foreclosures, create new home financing instruments that help working Americans, and force the banks to play or go away. (My conspiratorial side tells me that Wall Street, in collusion with government officials, manufactured this "credit crisis" for the express purpose of fleecing the US taxpayers.)

Capping income by government is not the way to fix anything. Government interference in the process needs to be limited to preventing the cheaters, such as the Bernard Madoffs, Enrons, Fannie Maes and Freddie Macs, from committing crimes, exacting justice on those who do, and to prevent the public from being financially injured by the process as much as possible.

To President Obama:

Keep your government bailouts and supporter payola. You do not understand the long term affects of all this government interference (or you do, which would be much, much worse). Allow the country to recover from this financial pain quicker and easier without pounding the national debt. The monstrous spending bills that have been passed in congress will only make the economy worse, much worse. You can pay back your supporters in other ways.