Germany did it fast. Lets not go down this same path.

1938 Austria

The author of this article lives in South Dakota and appears to be very active in attempting to maintain our freedom. I encourage everybody to read this article and pass it along. I see so many parallels in this country-are we going to sit by and watch it happen? Spread the word; also contact your congressional reps; vote them out if they don't do what they should. Google Kitty Werthmann and you will see articles and videos.

Truly is the Greatest Country in the World. Don't Let Freedom Slip Away By: Kitty Werthmann

What I am about to tell you is something you've probably never heard or will ever read in history books.

I believe that I am an eyewitness to history. I cannot tell you that Hitler took Austria by tanks and guns; it would distort history. We elected him by a landslide - 98% of the vote.. I've never read that in any American publications. Everyone thinks that Hitler just rolled in with his tanks and took Austria by force.

In 1938, Austria was in deep Depression. Nearly one-third of our workforce was unemployed. We had 25% inflation and 25% bank loan interest rates

Farmers and business people were declaring bankruptcy daily. Young people were going from house to house begging for food. Not that they didn't want to work; there simply weren't any jobs. My mother was a Christian woman and believed in helping people in need. Every day we cooked a big kettle of soup and baked bread to feed those poor, hungry people - about 30 daily.

The Communist Party and the National Socialist Party were fighting each other. Blocks and blocks of cities like Vienna , Linz , and Graz were destroyed. The people became desperate and petitioned the government to let them decide what kind of government they wanted.

We looked to our neighbor on the north, Germany , where Hitler had been in power since 1933. We had been told that they didn't have unemployment or crime, and they had a high standard of living. Nothing was ever said about persecution of any group -- Jewish or otherwise. We were led to believe that everyone was happy. We wanted the same way of life in Austria . We were promised that a vote for Hitler would mean the end of unemployment and help for the family. Hitler also said that businesses would be assisted, and farmers would get their farms back. Ninety-eight percent of the population voted to annex Austria to Germany and have Hitler for our ruler.

We were overjoyed, and for three days we danced in the streets and had candlelight parades. The new government opened up big field kitchens and everyone was fed.

After the election, German officials were appointed, and like a miracle, we suddenly had law and order. Three or four weeks later, everyone was employed. The government made sure that a lot of work was created through the Public Work Service.

Hitler decided we should have equal rights for women. Before this, it was a custom that married Austrian women did not work outside the home. An able-bodied husband would be looked down on if he couldn't support his family. Many women in the teaching profession were elated that they could retain the jobs they previously had been required to give up for marriage.

Hitler Targets Education - Eliminates Religious Instruction for Children:

Our education was nationalized. I attended a very good public school. The population was predominantly Catholic, so we had religion in our schools. The day we elected Hitler (March 13, 1938), I walked into my schoolroom to find the crucifix replaced by Hitler's picture hanging next to a Nazi flag. Our teacher, a very devout woman, stood up and told the class we wouldn't pray or have religion anymore. Instead, we sang "Deutschland, Deutschland, Uber Alles," and had physical education.

Sunday became National Youth Day with compulsory attendance. Parents were not pleased about the sudden change in curriculum. They were told that if they did not send us, they would receive a stiff letter of warning the first time. The second time they would be fined the equivalent of $300, and the third time they would be subject to jail. The first two hours consisted of political indoctrination. The rest of the day we had sports. As time went along, we loved it. Oh, we had so much fun and got our sports equipment free. We would go home and gleefully tell our parents about the wonderful time we had.

My mother was very unhappy. When the next term started, she took me out of public school and put me in a convent. I told her she couldn't do that and she told me that someday when I grew up, I would be grateful. There was a very good curriculum, but hardly any fun - no sports, and no political indoctrination. I hated it at first but felt I could tolerate it. Every once in a while, on holidays, I went home. I would go back to my old friends and ask what was going on and what they were doing. Their loose lifestyle was very alarming to me. They lived without religion. By that time unwed mothers were glorified for having a baby for Hitler. It seemed strange to me that our society changed so suddenly. As time went along, I realized what a great deed my mother did so that I wasn't exposed to that kind of humanistic philosophy.

Equal Rights Hits Home:

In 1939, the war started and a food bank was established. All food was rationed and could only be purchased using food stamps. At the same time, a full-employment law was passed which meant if you didn't work, you didn't get a ration card, and if you didn't have a card, you starved to death. Women who stayed home to raise their families didn't have any marketable skills and often had to take jobs more suited for men.

Soon after this, the draft was implemented. It was compulsory for young people, male and female, to give one year to the labor corps. During the day, the girls worked on the farms, and at night they returned to their barracks for military training just like the boys. They were trained to be anti-aircraft gunners and participated in the signal corps. After the labor corps, they were not discharged but were used in the front lines. When I go back to Austria to visit my family and friends, most of these women are emotional cripples because they just were not equipped to handle the horrors of combat. Three months before I turned 18, I was severely injured in an air raid attack. I nearly had a leg amputated, so I was spared having to go into the labor corps and into military service.

Hitler Restructured the Family Through Daycare:

When the mothers had to go out into the work force, the government immediately established child care centers. You could take your children ages 4 weeks to school age and leave them there around-the-clock, 7 days a week, under the total care of the government. The state raised a whole generation of children.. There were no motherly women to take care of the children, just people highly trained in child psychology. By this time, no one talked about equal rights. We knew we had been had.

Health Care and Small Business Suffer Under Government Controls: Before Hitler, we had very good medical care. Many American doctors trained at the University of Vienna .. After Hitler, health care was socialized, free for everyone. Doctors were salaried by the government. The problem was, since it was free, the people were going to the doctors for everything. When the good doctor arrived at his office at 8 a.m., 40 people were already waiting and, at the same time, the hospitals were full. If you needed elective surgery, you had to wait a year or two for your turn. There was no money for research as it was poured into socialized medicine. Research at the medical schools literally stopped, so the best doctors left Austria and emigrated to other countries.

As for healthcare, our tax rates went up to 80% of our income. Newlyweds immediately received a $1,000 loan from the government to establish a household. We had big programs for families. All day care and education were free. High schools were taken over by the government and college tuition was subsidized. Everyone was entitled to free handouts, such as food stamps, clothing, and housing.

We had another agency designed to monitor business. My brother-in-law owned a restaurant that had square tables. Government officials told him he had to replace them with round tables because people might bump themselves on the corners. Then they said he had to have additional bathroom facilities. It was just a small dairy business with a snack bar. He couldn't meet all the demands. Soon, he went out of business. If the government owned the large businesses and not many small ones existed, it could be in control.

We had consumer protection. We were told how to shop and what to buy. Free enterprise was essentially abolished. We had a planning agency specially designed for farmers. The agents would go to the farms, count the live-stock, then tell the farmers what to produce, and how to produce it.

"Mercy Killing" Redefined:

In 1944, I was a student teacher in a small village in the Alps . The villagers were surrounded by mountain passes which, in the winter, were closed off with snow, causing people to be isolated. So people intermarried and offspring were sometimes retarded. When I arrived, I was told there were 15 mentally retarded adults, but they were all useful and did good manual work. I knew one, named Vincent, very well. He was a janitor of the school. One day I looked out the window and saw Vincent and others getting into a van. I asked my superior where they were going. She said to an institution where the State Health Department would teach them a trade, and to read and write. The families were required to sign papers with a little clause that they could not visit for 6 months. They were told visits would interfere with the program and might cause homesickness.

As time passed, letters started to dribble back saying these people died a natural, merciful death. The villagers were not fooled. We suspected what was happening. Those people left in excellent physical health and all died within 6 months. We called this euthanasia.

The Final Steps - Gun Laws:

Next came gun registration.. People were getting injured by guns. Hitler said that the real way to catch criminals (we still had a few) was by matching serial numbers on guns. Most citizens were law abiding and dutifully marched to the police station to register their firearms. Not long after-wards, the police said that it was best for everyone to turn in their guns. The authorities already knew who had them, so it was futile not to comply voluntarily.

No more freedom of speech. Anyone who said something against the government was taken away. We knew many people who were arrested, not only Jews, but also priests and ministers who spoke up.

Totalitarianism didn't come quickly, it took 5 years from 1938 until 1943, to realize full dictatorship in Austria .. Had it happened overnight, my countrymen would have fought to the last breath. Instead, we had creeping gradualism. Now, our only weapons were broom handles. The whole idea sounds almost unbelievable that the state, little by little eroded our freedom

After World War II, Russian troops occupied Austria . Women were raped, preteen to elderly. The press never wrote about this either. When the Soviets left in 1955, they took everything that they could, dismantling whole factories in the process. They sawed down whole orchards of fruit, and what they couldn't destroy, they burned. We called it The Burned Earth. Most of the population barricaded themselves in their houses. Women hid in their cellars for 6 weeks as the troops mobilized. Those who couldn't, paid the price. There is a monument in Vienna today, dedicated to those women who were massacred by the Russians. This is an eye witness account.

"It's true..those of us who sailed past the Statue of Liberty came to a country of unbelievable freedom and opportunity.

America Truly is the Greatest Country in the World. Don't Let Freedom Slip Away

"After America , There is No Place to Go"

Please forward this message to other voters who may not have it.

What does money teach us about importance?

$1 Trillion for Health Reform and only $15 Billion for Jobs?


When Scott Brown became the first Republican Senator elected in Massachusetts for decades the political earth shook.  This seat was held by Ted Kennedy who made it his mission to see health reform passed into law.  The Democrats reaction was a realization that their priority of health reform was not apparently the priority in the public.  Polls seemed to bear this out showing health reform second or third on the list.  The Democrats regrouped and said from that point on the priority would be jobs, jobs, jobs.

The Democrats in the House today voted for a $15 billion jobs creation package in a 217-201 vote.  That is approximately 1% of the amount to be spent health reform and 2% of the cost of the bank bailouts.  This is a commitment to jobs?

Further, this bill in the House barely sqeaked by in a 217-201 vote.  Call me crazy but that vote margin does not impress and leave an impression that job creation is really a priority.  The less than zealous focus on jobs by Democrats was again shown when the Senate voted down Scott Brown's amendment to cut payroll taxes by by $80 billion with unallocated TARP money to spur the economy and job growth.  This after Brown reached out to Democrats by supporting their job bill.  Were the tax cuts approved, this and the jobs bill would still be only about 13% that spent on bailing out banks.


There is little evidence of bipartisanship in the House and Senate even on the public's top concern of job creation.  Scott Brown's amendment may well have been voted down because he is a Republican, and in the slash and burn politics in DC, you must destroy the other party no matter the impact on the country.  In this case Democrats won by defeating the amendment, and we all lost because even less money will be devoted to jobs creation.  Worse still is the fact that the Democrats jobs bill used to be about $80 billion AND bipartisan in the Senate until Harry Reid unilaterally tossed the agreement for a puny $15 billion bill instead.  And they say Washington is broken and tone deaf to the voters.

And now we are right back at health reform.  The Democrats epiphany about jobs lasted all of about 4 weeks before they went right back to health reform trying to use the reconciliation process the pass the unpopular bill.

Thanks to PoliticalCentrist.com for this article.

Washington Update

Over the past year, Democrats have fought passionately for universal coverage.  They have fought for it even while the country is more concerned about the economy, and in the face of serial political defeats.  They have fought for it even though it has crowded out other items on their agenda and may even cost them their majority in the House.

And they’ve done it for almost no votes.  The 30 million who would be covered under the Democratic proposals are not big voters, while the millions who would pay for the coverage are strikingly unhappy.

There is something morally impressive in the Democrats’ passion on this issue.  At the same time, it’s interesting to compare it to their behavior on other issues in which they have no emotional investment.

For example, Democrats say the right thing when it comes to helping small businesses create jobs, but there’s no passion there.  For the past year, small business owners have been screaming that they can’t hire people because they don’t know what the rules will be on health care, finance or energy.  Democrats hear them, but those concerns take a back seat to other priorities.

Small business owners have been screaming about the health care bill that forces them to offer coverage or pay a $2,000-per-employee fine but doesn’t substantially control rising costs.  Democrats hear their concerns, but push ahead because getting a health care bill is more important.

Then there is the larger issue of exploding federal deficits.  A few Democrats seem to be genuinely passionate about this, President Obama says he is amongst them.  He has fought tenaciously to preserve a commission that would shift the blame for restraints on Medicare spending.  But most of those in Congress have no desire to own that same blame.

They’re going through the motions.  They’ve stuffed the legislation with gimmicks and dodges designed to get a good score from the Congressional Budget Office but don’t genuinely control runaway spending.

There is the doc fix dodge.  The legislation pretends that Congress is about to cut Medicare reimbursements by 21 percent.  Everyone knows that will never happen, so over the next decade actual spending will be $300 billion higher than paper projections.

There is the long-term care dodge.  The bill creates a $72 billion trust fund to pay for a new long-term care program.  The sponsors count that money as cost-saving, even though it will eventually be paid back out when the program comes on line.

There is the subsidy dodge.  Workers making $60,000 and in the health exchanges would receive $4,500 more in subsidies in 2016 than workers making $60,000 and not in the exchanges.  There is no way future Congresses will allow that disparity to persist.  Soon, everybody will get the subsidy.

There is the excise tax dodge.  The primary cost-control mechanism and long-term revenue source for the program is the tax on high-cost plans.  But Democrats aren’t willing to levy this tax for eight years.  The fiscal sustainability of the whole bill rests on the naïve hope that a future Congress will have the guts to accept a trillion-dollar tax when the current Congress wouldn’t accept an increase of a few billion.

There is the 10-6 dodge.  One of the reasons the bill appears deficit-neutral in the first decade is that it begins collecting revenue right away but doesn’t have to pay for most benefits until 2014.  That’s 10 years of revenues to pay for 6 years of benefits, something unlikely to happen again unless the country agrees to go without health care for four years every decade.

There is the Social Security dodge.  The bill uses $52 billion in higher Social Security taxes to pay for health care expansion.  But if Social Security taxes pay for health care, what pays for Social Security?

There is the pilot program dodge.  Admirably, the bill includes pilot programs designed to help find ways to control costs.  But it’s not clear that the bill includes mechanisms to actually implement the results.  This is exactly what happened to undermine previous pilot program efforts.

The Democrats not see themselves as having been completely irresponsible.  It’s just that as the health fight has gone on, their passion for coverage has swamped their less visceral commitment to reducing debt.  The result is a bill that is fundamentally imbalanced.

This past year, we’ve seen how hard it is to even pass legislation that expands benefits.  To actually reduce benefits and raise taxes, we’re going to need legislators who wake up in the morning passionate about fiscal sanity.  The ones we have now are just making things worse.

The bulk of this was taken from a NYT article.

Our Health Care

Health care is a fungible good; nothing more.  It's a result of capitalists doing what they do to make progress and money in the process.  President Obama will stop that progress to institute a mediocre system where everyone is treated exactly the same regardless of input, output, or creativity or productive effort or results.  No one is entitled to the efforts of others (like doctors and researchers, for example).  He's a Socialist, a system that diminishes rewards in exchange for reduced efforts of the productive.  People will still suffer and endure pain.  In fact, any of the proposed health care bills will make MORE people suffer, not fewer, because of reduced incentives to innovate.  Innovators have skin in the game and expect rewards; rewards that will not be forthcoming under the President's bill, whichever one it is.


Lawyers have the unique persepctive they can command others that will obey due to the force of law and the threat of incarceration or fiscal damage.  But they have no command over the creative to create, or way to induce the bright to peruse medicine as a career instead of the banking so many seem to detest of late.  Smart people will do what is best for them; that is the rule of the jungle whether you like it or not.  Society should never have any legitimate interest in a population's health care outside of public health.  We all die, some sooner than later.  Life's tough.  Now buck up campers and get back out there and do something productive.

The scariest thing I learned today

The curtains on the shower stalls of the men's locker room in the House gym have been removed.  Can someone please get this mental picture out of my head?

Obama openly calls for Reconciliation on Health Care

I called this one, but that was no special feat.  Obama made it clear in his public address today that he would be using the reconciliation process to force the passage of Health Care.  The process that will be used going forward is not easy or simple, but here it is in a nut shell.

First.   Obama has proposed some modifications to the bill passed in the Senate.  Due to the modifications, the bill must pass another Senate vote.  This is why the reconciliation process will have to be used.

Second.   The modified Senate bill must pass the House of Representatives with a simple majority.  For those that do not know, this is normal operating procedure in the House.  Only the Senate requires a super majority.  This should pose a challenge as the change in abortion funding between the two bills is a hotly contested issue on the Democratic side.  However, Nancy Pelosi has assured the White House that she can produce the votes needed.

Third.  Reconciliation the "Nuclear Option" - In this approach, the bill that passes in the House would then be voted on in the Senate using the reconciliation process.  This is the riskiest part of all.  Normally this procedure is used only for budgetary measures that impact up to a 5 year budget.  Therefore, the CBO would be asked to score the Health Care plan over a 5-year period instead of 10.  This will probably produces some very interesting numbers.  This 5-year report could prove unsavory enough that the embattled Reid would not be able to muster even the simple majority necessary. 

Obama may have forgotten the Massachusetts lesson already but many Democrats, in tough election battles this year, have not. 

The EVIL Sen. Jim Bunning

Well, here is what happens when you are so involved in playing the lame duck that you don't read legislation.  Bunning decided to try to make a point at exactly the wrong time.  Congress adopted pay-go legislation less than a month ago, violated it for the first time the very next week, and he was just trying to make a point about this second violation in only the first month since it was signed into law.  Laws certainly do affect people like me and you differently than they do those in Congress.

When you have a $3.5 Trillion budget and you suddenly decide that you would like to extend unemployment benefits, highway project funding, and various other miscelaneous items (I am not gonna ready the whole bill), you simply gotta cut the money from some other programs.  However, in typical Capitol Hill fashion, although there were plenty of people lining up to take credit for handing out more money (that simply does not exist); there was no one looking for the cuts to offset the new spending.  Bunning's point was not to have 2,000 highway workers furloughed for two days (for the record, these are not the actual workers that you see on the highways.  These guys were the government oversight of those workers. (feeling a little less bad about it now aren't you?)) which they were, nor was it to have unemployment benefits cutoff (although for the record I am starting to wonder if they ever do actually end, they are now up to 2 years).  His point was that it is utterly useless to make a rule and then turn right around and break it.

I gotta say that I think he is right.  Now now, calm down.  I am not saying that he should have caused all this ruckus.  What I am saying is that Capitol Hill needs to get their priorities straight.  I am sure what actually happened is that the party in power did not know that this funding deadline was looming after all, they have their hands full trying to get a Health Care bill passed that a majority of Americans (even those living in the bluest of states) do not want.  This loss of focus on impending deadline caused this particular one to sneak up on them.  However, once they realized that they had basically warped weeks into the future they cobbled this $10 Billion bill together just in time.  Forget the motions and procedures that are the norm, forget the partisan politics being bandied about by both sides; this is a REAL EMERGENCY!!  We gotta get it done NOW!  Wait haven't I heard all this BS before?

Bunning's theatrics forced an actual vote on this bill.  The real trick here is that they tried to pass it by universal consent so that nobody would have to take responsibility for their individual vote.  Bunning forced the vote and now the hypocrites are out in the open.  Completely exposed by the very tricks they were trying to use to cover their tracks.

The "real" Healthcare Issues

There are two problems with healthcare.  The problem "voters" want fixed is rising premiums, rising costs, etc.  The fact is that most of them have insurance, and every year it costs them more than the year before.


The problem progressives want to fix is that 47 million people don't have insurance.  Of course, this is not an entirely different problem -- assuming that health insurance is something people want, then it stands to reason that we got costs under control people would actually buy their own insurance.

In other words, if you solve the problem "voters" want solved, then the problem progressives want to solve actually becomes smaller.

This presents its own problem, since solving the 47 million problem is just an excuse for universal healthcare.  Progressives don't want any particular problem solved, they want a specific solution.  Any solution that threatens to increase coverage (by lowering prices, for example) reduces the 47 million, and along with them, the "need" for universal care.

I know people who honestly believe that progressives actually want high unemployment because it increases the number of uninsured.  I don't know if that's true.  But suddenly it doesn't seem so improbable that progressives rely on expensive healthcare dysfunction to make their costly utopian liberal healthcare reform seem "revenue neutral."

Paul Ryan (Obama Owned the transcript)

Stolen from here:

Many viewers were wowed by the president's performance at the health care summit, his command of facts and ability to rebut every point the Republicans made. We must have been watching another channel.

'Obama dominates the room at health care summit" was the headline on a Reuters dispatch that found the president "always in command not only of the room but also the most intricate policy details, as he personally rebutted every point he disagreed with."

In a Washington Post column titled "Professor Obama schools lawmakers on health care reform," Dana Milbank marveled at how the president "controlled the microphone and the clock, (using) both skillfully to limit the Republicans' time, to rebut their arguments and to always have the last word."

Milbank went on to tell how Sen. John McCain got his "knuckles rapped" by the learned professor, how Sen. Mitch McConnell was made to "look small in his chair" and how various other Republican low-achievers felt the sting of Obama's "big rhetorical paddle."

But neither Reuters nor Milbank — nor many others, it seems — noticed Obama's conspicuous non-rebuttal to Rep. Paul Ryan.

It was the Wisconsin congressman who made the most pointed remarks about Obama's reform proposal. For example:

• "This bill does not control costs (or) reduce deficits. Instead, (it) adds a new health care entitlement when we have no idea how to pay for the entitlements we already have."

• "The bill has 10 years of tax increases, about half a trillion dollars, with 10 years of Medicare cuts, about half a trillion dollars, to pay for six years of spending. The true 10-year cost (is) $2.3 trillion."

• "The bill takes $52 billion in higher Social Security tax revenues and counts them as offsets. But that's really reserved for Social Security. So either we're double-counting them or we don't intend on paying those Social Security benefits."

• "The bill takes $72 billion from the CLASS Act (long-term care insurance) benefit premiums and claims them as offsets."

• "The bill treats Medicare like a piggy bank, (raiding) half a trillion dollars not to shore up Medicare solvency, but to spend on this new government program."

• "The chief actuary of Medicare (says) as much as 20% of Medicare providers will either go out of business or have to stop seeing Medicare beneficiaries."

• "Millions of seniors who have chosen Medicare Advantage (Medicare through a private insurer) will lose the coverage that they now enjoy."

• "When you strip out the double-counting and ... gimmicks, the full 10-year cost of the bill has a $460 billion deficit. The second 10-year cost of this bill has a $1.4 trillion deficit."

• "The 'doc fix' (restoring cuts in Medicare reimbursements) costs $371 billion ... a price tag (that) made the score look bad. (So) that provision was taken out, and (put) in stand-alone legislation. But ignoring these costs does not remove them from the backs of taxpayers. Hiding spending does not reduce spending."

• "Are we bending the cost curve down or are we bending the cost curve up? If you look at your own chief actuary at Medicare, we're bending it up. He's claiming that we're going up $222 billion, adding more to the unsustainable fiscal situation we have."

In response to all this, Obama basically talked up the benefits of Medicare Advantage. Call us sticklers, but we expected something a little more, uh, professorial.

Obama OWNED (the video link)

If you don't watch anything else this week, you absolutely have to watch this.

Health Care Anyone?

"We cannot have another yearlong debate about this," Obama declared. "I'm not sure we can bridge the gap."

1.  There is no "gap" - the GOP will not support a government takeover of this much of the economy.  You knew this a year ago when you completely shut them out.
2.  Reconciliation here we come
3.  Don't forget that it will take 10 years to pay for 6 years of this plan
4.  There is no need for a provision that takes away the ability of a future Congress to repeal this bill.  Entitlements never die.  Example:
1. Greece 
2. California 
3. Social Security 
4. Medicare

Biased Media

When did the NY Times become a reliable news source? I agree that Fox News leans to the right, just like CNBC and ALL of the networks lean left.  So tell me, when I want the news and JUST the news, where can I go? The papers are not unbiased, nor is TV.  Where can I go to find out the truth about what is contained in a 2000+ page bill?

Tha answer is simple. You go to the opposition. These will be the only ones that you can count on to discover key points in a bill and point out its fundamental flaws.

The Sacred Heart University Polling Institute released its 2009 survey on “Trust and Satisfaction with the National News Media.” The September 2009 poll of 800 Americans found large majorities believe the media are “very or somewhat biased,” played a “very or somewhat strong” role in electing Barack Obama in 2008, and were “promoting the Obama presidency” and the President’s health care effort “without objective criticism.”


KEY FINDINGS:

•“Poll results found 83.6% saw national news media organizations as very or somewhat biased while just 14.1% viewed them as somewhat unbiased or not at all biased.”

•“A large majority, 89.3%, suggested the national media played a very or somewhat strong role in helping to elect President Obama. Just 10.0% suggested the national media played little or no role.”

•“Further, 69.9% agreed the national news media are intent on promoting the Obama presidency while 26.5% disagreed.”

•“Over half of Americans surveyed, 56.4%, said they agreed that the news media are promoting President Obama’s health care reform without objective criticism.”

•Six out of seven Americans (86.6%) “strongly or somewhat agreed that the news media have their own political and public policy positions and attempt to influence public opinion.” Just over 70 percent felt that way in 2003.

•Americans prefer objective reporting to coverage that just reflects their own point of view. “In results that were nearly three-to-one, 59.0% suggested they made their selection based on objective reporting, while 19.0% chose their favorite because they share the same views on issues.”

•Less than one-fourth of Americans (24.3%) “indicated they believe all or most news media reporting.”

•Two-thirds (67.9%) “agreed with a statement that read: ‘Old-style, traditional objective and fair journalism is dead.’”

What is Insurance?

Lifted from Here:

Now let’s discuss risk assessment. Ignoring pre-existing conditions might sound compassionate, but it is equivalent to declaring that a fire-insurance company must charge the same amount for a modern house with smoke detectors and interior fireproofing as for a century-old, wooden-frame former stable, complete with some hay left over, and a basement full of painting supplies. Taking the analogy further, the same premium must be charged for a well-protected, unscathed house as for one that is already on fire.


The business of insurance is about determining risk and charging accordingly. It’s why insurance companies exist. If we eliminate that, medical insurers are just form-processing companies for the government. Worse, we lose a valuable economic input: that of accurate risk assessment and pricing, without which sensible management of medical expenses is impossible.

‘Don’t Ask’

The desire to help those with pre-existing conditions is laudable. The way to do this is to help. If someone needs more medical care than he or she can pay for, direct state subsidy is far more efficient than making insurance companies pretend that the patient isn’t ill or at high risk of becoming ill. We can separately debate the degree of generosity of this subsidy, but it is efficient and honest. Making insurance companies play “don’t ask, don’t tell” with health status is neither.

Though you wouldn’t know it from the headlines, our system today, and our discussion of reform, isn’t about insurance. It’s about the total provision of health care, largely by employers, with costs hidden from individuals. Furthermore, much of the proposed reform is about eliminating the main function of an insurance company: the assessment and pricing of risk.

Creating a system of real health insurance, along with honest subsidy where necessary, is the simple solution to many of our problems, and an honest first step toward tackling the rest.

Dennis Kucinich

This guy is a complete genius.  He had the audacity to go on TV today and state his plan for creating job growth.  Now get this, his plan is to lower the age for early Social Security retirement so that old people can leave their jobs earlier thereby creating openings that can be filled by younger people currently out of work.  

So, once again another career politician comes up with a solution to a problem that will both not solve the problem but have various other negative impacts.  Lets discuss:

First, and in my estimation most concerning, is the issue of adding more people to the rolls of Social Security that will be draining this insovent fund for an even longer period of time.  Just another example of short-sighted leadership from a career politician.  We should at least require an online MBA for these guys, but that would likely require that we review that standard as well.

Second, this plan does not help witht he creation of any new jobs.  It merely shuffles the deck, no net gains whatsoever.  This plan basically states that if your unemployment percentage starts to run high, jsut take workers out of the mix.  Perhaps if too few people vounteer for the program, he can suggest another method of culling the mass of working aged persons.  I hope the "permanent solution" does not occur to him. 

Third, what about the cost to companies?  I know that many of these faceless evil corporations have the temerity to turn a profit while so many "average" americans are suffering, but lets follow this to the logical conclusion.  How many of these aged retirees will actually be replaced?  Just as likely as replacing the departing personnel is the retirement of the position.  If they are replaced, how much will it cost these companies to train the incomming  personnel? (this is money that will be written-off at tax time)

Given more time I could likely come up with more.  But gee wiz, I only put an hour of thought into this so far.  I am not so smart a guy that I can outthink a congressman's entire staff, but I have done so yet again.  I expect that there will be a ton of bloggers and editorials on this.  However, I doubt a plan like this will ever see itself voted on by the general assembly.  I am just staggered by how obtuse our elected officials are.

I think it is time that we stop blaming the elected officials and just start back-handing each and every voter.

Obama continues to fight the housing bubble

In his town hall in NV today Obama unveiled plans today to "buy up vacant homes and turn them into affordable housing."  Great plan.  Kudos on both his generosity and foresight in taking the tough steps to make sure that the housing crisis does not go to waste, but can be used to further the socialist agenda. 

Am I the only one that sees the amazing flaw in this latest plan?  What happens when the home next to yours is taken over by the government and turned into "affordable" housing?  Lets assume that the people (for the most part) that live in your neighborhood worked hard to afford those homes right next door to yours.  They likely manicure their lawns, do regular maintenance on their homes, and do the various other things necessary to keep the entire neighborhood looking good.  These same folks also are more apt to instill in their children the values and work ethic that helped them achieve a similar level of success that you yourself have achieved.  What happens when the $300,000 dollar home similar to the one that you have sacrificed, saved, and worked hard for (which also happens to be right next door) is sold for $150,000 or even $200,000?  Does the school that still has the "best teachers" get to maintain its lofty standards even though the children now attending it are not pushed to study by their parents?  Administrators and teachers can only do so much with a student that will not study. 

This new program proposal from the administration can be defined in only two words.  SOCIAL ENGINEERING  I can assure you that the same family that bought the $300,000 home could have had the $200,000 neighbor if they had wanted to from day one. 

Guess what? 
They did not want it. 
Guess what? 
They're gonna get it anyway.

I have an alternative to the President's plan.  Stop spending money that you do not have.  Start reducing the deficits that you "inherited."  Trust me, I know it's not your fault.  However, feel free to start by reworking the budget YOU just submitted.  You know, the one with the largest deficit in history. 

I guess it really does all come back to education.  Obama admitted today that he did not always do his math homework.  Not a huge shocker given his track record for ignoring America's huge deficit.

Biden "Going Rogue"

In his latest "Going Rogue" event, Joe Biden stated "Washington right now is broken" and the country is in "deep trouble" unless it attacks ballooning federal deficits.


One year and a few days in and the VP is attacking the President. I guess the honeymoon is over.

However, in classic Progressive faux pas fashion he also argued that money invested in both private and public-sector initiatives has saved as many as 2 million jobs, "I don't think they realize it." He goes on to say the Stimulus program, now a year old, was designed to be implemented in two stages, saying "we've only been halfway through the act."

The facts are that we are just over a third of the way through the "act," a significant portion of the reported "saved/created" jobs are lies, and many of the "shovel ready" projects were delayed for political reasons. So lets see some math. (787B/3 = 262B/2M = 131,000) Awesome!! Each job created only cost us $131,000. Given that the average private sector employee makes roughly 40k/yr. We have created limited time jobs (these jobs will not last after the money stops coming in) for the low low cost of 3x the pay scale. I gotta give ol' Bidey the credit here, that is a great feat given that it is government. It would devastate his argument, but help his over-all credibility should they actually be able to post real numbers that do not crumble under the most mild of investigations.

Tea Party Agenda

You want a good chuckle today?  The Tea Partyists agenda almost exactly mirrors most of Obama's campaign promises.

There were promises of transparency and of a new kind of collaborative politics where establishment figures listened to ordinary Americans. We were going to see net spending cuts, tax cuts for nearly all Americans, an end to earmarks, legislation posted online for the public to review before it is signed into law and a line-by-line review of the federal budget to remove wasteful programs.

President Obama knew what the people wanted and promised it to them.  He openly stated his desire for universal health care, but with the caveat that it would not happen if it added "even one dime" to the budget.  What nobody realized was the Enron-esq accounting that he would allow to play into the plan. 

Given this, I am shocked that anyone has the ability to be blase about the Tea Party movement.  The inside joke on Capitol Hill has been, for quite some time, that lawmakers will tell you exactly what you want to hear to get elected and then forget their promises (many of which their position would never have let them accomplish). 

Can we please let some of the standards from the private sector filter into the public sector?  I am pretty sure that if I lie on my job application and my employer finds out, then I can be summarily fired.  Put this standard into place and let these guys fight for their jobs (which have about 4x the average pay for private sector and staggeringly better benefits).  What's the issue?  Other than the completely empty buildings we would have on Capitol Hill.

MARTA changes 'yellow' train line name

(AP) -- The "yellow" train line in Atlanta is now going to be called the "gold" line after members of the local Asian community complained that it was racially insensitive.

In related news, the Yellow River will now be called the golden stream and all rice will be white as eating yellow and brown rice is considered racist.

Seriously, I am too tired for this crap today.

Equality

Definition: The state or quality of being equal.

Equal - Having the same quantity, measure, or value as another.

It is important that we keep sight of the when equality is important.  We want to ensure equality of opportunity and equality in the application of law, but no one has the right to equality of outcome.  The next time someone is telling you that your ideals do not lead to fairness, that there is no equality at the end of your rainbow, please take the time to remind them that someone has to step up to their equal opportunities in order to acheive an equal outcome.

Equality simply cannot be measured by outcome.

How to Improve Economic Opportunities

Today Obama met with African-American leaders today to talk about ideas to improve economic opportunities for "blacks."  No Hispanic, Asian, nor Jewish leadership attended.  I have not seen the invitation list, but I am going out on a limb to say that they were not invited.  I will also assume that Benjamin Jealous, president of the NAACP; Marc Morial, president and CEO of the National Urban League; and the Rev. Al Sharpton, president of the National Action Network all had the best interests of all minorities in mind and not just the minority that they belong to.  That's a leap, but let's just assume.

President Obama has continually stated that he cannot enact strategies that will only help African Americans, but that he is willing to do regionally targeted economic strategies.  Taken on its face, that is a very righteous philosophy.  He has stated "This is about place.  It's not about race."  Mr. Obama, I could not agree more.

So lets get down to it.  Realizing that we are living in a post-racial era, the color of someone's skin no longer prevents them from getting a job.  So, what is the issue here?  I think it could be education.  That's right, Obama hit the nail right on the head.  The problem is with place.  Specifically speaking, just look at school statistics.  The places that have been hit the worst in regards to job loss also have the worst schools.  The government can do all the short-term, capital injection, handout programs it wants to, but none of this will help the people that are in need feed themselves tomorrow.  I am not saying that these programs cannot be pursued, but they are completely ineffective without accompanying long-term goals as well. 

Lets fix our education system.  That is the long-term solution to this mess that we have now.  As with so many of the other issues that our government faces, we cannot just patch the system that is in place and expect a better result tomorrow.  We need real change, this is ground-up change.  Will there be capital investment?  YES.  But we are not going to burn the schools to the ground, we can use them in the new system.  We need to look at these large issues facing us like a child looks at legos.  The piece, once disassembled, will (mostly) have uses in the new system.

Why does our government seem to always want to take something that is failing and "slap a new coat of paint on it" then tell us that everything will be OK.  News flash, most of the systems that our government has put in place are failing.  Please stop "fixing" things that should be rebuilt from the ground up.  Only then will you truly have anything nearing equality of economic advantage.

It is not a good thing that people continue to say that race is the issue.  I am not saying that there is no longer any racial tension, but race is no longer the biggest factor in economic inequality.  Education is.  Look for the underlying reasons for the educational imbalance and fix the problem at the root level.  That is the movement I will support. 

Sarah Palin

Like many, I was quite taken with Sarah Palin after McCain gave her the nod for the VP spot on his ticket.  I honestly felt that she was the third most qualified individual on either ticket for the spot.  I say qualified because if we have to look at job experience neither she nor Obama are anything of the sort. 

I fell prey to her history as a reformer, her ability to get into the mud pit (political arena) to kick some bureaucratic ass, and her moral character.  Having said that, I also felt that her gaffes were a result of insufficient preparation time.  She was called up to the "big leagues" too soon, taken from the safety of issues that belonged solely to her state and given only talking points for interview prep.  The result was that she was not prepared for some of the questions she had to take in interviews.  That is where she fumbled.  I laughed pretty hard when I saw the interview where she could not name the papers that she read to gain her world-view.  Although, I would have laughed harder had she said something like NY Times.

She was remarkable for her sincerity, which was never better showcased than in her moments of "going rogue."  But sincerity alone will not get you there.  I also liked her ideals, but ideals without the thoughtfulness necessary to both articulate and argue them are not enough.  I do not think that Sarah Palin is some intellectual powerhouse, and I never did. 

As I watch her now, 15 months later, I am struck by how far she has NOT progressed.  Now let me be clear, I do not want her to be a Progressive, but I would like to see some progress in her ability to handle some off-point questions.  Glenn Beck did an interview with here and threw some pretty easy softballs, but she muffed these almost as badly as she had the newspaper question. 

If America wants someone "smarter" than themselves to lead, then they should be satisfied with what they have now.  If America wants someone better (morally, constitutionally, ethically) than themselves, then Palin may not be a horrible choice.  Personally, I am holding out for that essential person that has the ethics, morals, and smarts; but that is still (against all odds) willing to answer the call to defend our great Constitution.

If you think that the Constitution is a "living document" (ei. no longer relevant), then please do not have the audacity to swear to defend it.  Disingenuous is the least offensive word that I can use to describe a person like that.

Obama is tackling healthcare... still?

Obama is having a "bipartisan" meeting to discuss healthcare reform on Feb. 25.  This is great!  Now instead of barring Republicans from the meeting altogether, he is going to have them right there in the room so that they can be ignored. 

Republicans have made it very clear that they have heard the people and will not support a federal take-over of healthcare.  This means that the entire legislative process needs to be restarted.  Obama still thinks that he can bribe Republicans enough to get them to sign onto this rediculous plan.  There is really no solution that will work in the long run because the fundamentals are the problem.  Neither the Democrat (Progressive) nor the currently recommended Republican plans for changing the system will work to fix the insolvency issue that is our current entitlement fiasco.

The fundamental issues are that as life-expectancy has increased, the retirement age has not and too many people have no "skin in the game" concerning medical costs.  This means that programs like Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are eternally doomed. 

Look at Paul Ryan's "Roadmap for America's Future" lifted in part from here:

Medicare and Social Security would be preserved for those currently receiving benefits, or becoming eligible in the next 10 years (those 55 and older today). Both programs would be made permanently solvent.

Universal access to affordable health care would be guaranteed by refundable tax credits ($2,300 for individuals, $5,700 for families) for purchasing portable coverage in any state. As persons under 55 became Medicare eligible, they would receive payments averaging $11,000 a year, indexed to inflation and pegged to income, with low-income people receiving more support.

Ryan's plan would fund medical savings accounts from which low-income people would pay minor out-of-pocket medical expenses. All Americans, regardless of income, would be allowed to establish MSAs -- tax-preferred accounts for paying such expenses.

Ryan's plan would allow workers under 55 the choice of investing more than one-third of their current Social Security taxes in personal retirement accounts similar to the Thrift Savings Plan long available to, and immensely popular with, federal employees. This investment would be inheritable property, guaranteeing that individuals will never lose the ability to dispose every dollar they put into these accounts.

Ryan would raise the retirement age. If, when Congress created Social Security in 1935, it had indexed the retirement age (then 65) to life expectancy, today the age would be in the mid-70s. The system was never intended to do what it is doing -- subsidizing retirements that extend from one-third to one-half of retirees' adult lives.

Look at these common sense solutions, then look at the quagmire that is the 2,000 page Progressive solution to healthcare.  Tell me which one makes sense for both current and future stability.

Climate Change Reality

I lifted this word for word here.  I found it to be both informative and accurate.

The media is ignoring the growing global controversy over the credibility of climate change research and in particular, of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)?


For example, unless you read the international press, especially the mainstream U.K. newspapers such as The Times, Telegraph and Guardian, you probably haven’t heard much about any of the following controversies in recent days.

(1) John Sauven, director of Greenpeace U.K., until now one of the strongest allies of IPCC Chairman Rajendra Pachauri, has called for Pachauri’s resignation, saying his judgment is flawed and a new IPCC chairman — the most important climate change job in the world — is needed to restore public confidence in climatic science.

(2) That the reason for this is increasing controversy over the credibility of the IPCC and Pachauri himself, related to the contents of its last major report released in 2007, including, but by no means limited to, a bogus claim Himalayan glaciers would disappear by 2035 — as iconic an image of the potential consequences of man-made global warming in Europe and Asia, as was the (inaccurate) one of polar bears stranded, starving and drowning on melting ice floes in North America. Worse, when the Indian government pointed out the glacier prediction was nonsense, Pachauri accused it of peddling “voodoo science,” before being forced to admit the IPCC was wrong and had ignored repeated warnings it was wrong.

(3) In the wake of Climategate, the U.K.’s Information Commissioner’s Office concluded officials at the world-famous Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia — the most prominent academic institution on which the IPCC relies for its science on man-made global warming — broke the law when they refused requests for their raw data under the Freedom of Information Act. They can’t be prosecuted due to a technicality — the complaint occurred more than six months after the violations.

(4) What had been billed as “gold standard,” “robust” and “peer reviewed” scientific research in the IPCC’s 2007 report, released to massive media publicity at the time, has recently been revealed to have relied, in some cases, upon such things as an article in a mountain-climbing magazine, a student dissertation using anecdotal evidence from mountain guides, and the unvetted claims of environmental groups.

(5) The U.K. government’s chief scientific advisor, John Beddington, has acknowledged some climate scientists exaggerated the impact of global warming and called for more honesty in explaining to the public the inherent uncertainties of predictions based on computer climate models, adding: “I don’t think it’s healthy to dismiss proper skepticism.”

(6) China’s senior climate official, Xie Zhenua, has called for “an open attitude” towards “the alternative view” to man-made global warming. That is, that climate change is mainly “caused by cyclical trends in nature itself.” Considering no global climate deal is possible without China — the world’s top greenhouse gas emitter — Xie’s statement that these views should be incorporated into the next major IPCC report in 2014, has huge implications for the future of climate science.

I’ve chosen half-a-dozen examples above of controversies now engulfing the IPCC and climate research. I could have mentioned others about the now-disputed basis for IPCC claims regarding the impact of global warming on the Amazon rain forest, hurricanes and floods, and new questions about the reliability of weather station data used to make some IPCC claims.

Plus, there’s a growing public perception the IPCC has abandoned its proper role as a dispassionate presenter of scientific research to policy makers, to become just another environmental group preaching warmist hysteria.

None of this disproves anthropogenic global warming, or proves mankind’s influence on climate is a scientific hoax. But it illustrates the absurdity of the radical warmists’ claim the debate is over, the science is settled and we must all immediately take a vow of poverty to “save the planet.”

Why has th media largely ignored this growing controversy? Perhaps the best answer is embarrassment. Having shilled for warmist hysteria for so long, having dismissed any questioning of man-made climate change orthodoxy as equivalent to Holocaust denial, they don’t know how to climb down, or cope with the tidal wave (pardon the pun) of controversy now hitting climate science all over the world.

Thus they remain paralyzed, desperately, frantically, pretending no controversy exists.

Except it does. And it’s growing.

AGW may one day be proven, but it is an issue that is sucking all the oxygen out of the environmental movement related to some near term extremely urgent things.  Overpopulation and species depletion in major global ecosystems, including reef and S Hemisphere oceanic reservoirs.  Deforestation, desertification, and loss of fossil water inventory, fossil fuels, and mineral resources needed to supply an overpopulated planet with food, fertilizer, materials...  The emergence of true Malthusian Traps like Haiti and Yemen. These are all going to be hitting us hard long before the worst AGW alarmist thinks the polar bears will be vexed or the by then-20 million Haitians have to seek higher ground...

AIG Bonuses

There is a lot of talk about the AIG bonuses that are now being paid for the second year in a row.  The 100 million is a very large sum of money to come from an organization that would not even exist if not for a public bailout.  I understand the anger, but what do you expect? 

The AG for Connecticut was on the Kudlow Report last night talking about these bonuses and about his attempts to get them back.  Where was he when the bailout was occurring?  Where was the Fed making sure that bonuses were discontinued at the inception of the bailout?  Perhaps they did not know that AIG gives bonuses.  Perhaps they did.  This is the classic stance of governmental bureaucrats.  They stick their heads in the sand until a calamity happens.  They were warned about the looming mortgage crises (that they created), and did nothing.  Barney Frank and many other Democrats actually opposed legislation introduced in 2000, 2003, and 2004 that could have seriously mitigated the meltdown saying that worries about Fannie and Freddie were "overblown." 

Clinton: I think the responsibility that the Democrats have may rest more in resisting any efforts by Republicans in the Congress or by me when I was President to put some standards and tighten up a little on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Why would you assume that someone who takes enormous risks, gets in trouble, gets bailed out with "no strings attached"; would learn a lesson?  Depository banks traditionally operate in a low-risk environment.  It is exactly that type of environment that makes a depositor feel safe.  However, investment "banks" (you should really use the work financial institutions) operate in a high-risk environment.  This is precisely the environment people turn to in "up" times to get the most return for their money.  When you reward this high-risk behavior with bailouts, you prove to these managers that their taking risks can have huge rewards with only minimal downsides.  What are we trying to teach here?  It flys directly in the face of the constitution to void these bonus contracts.

The financial institutions have been rewarding their employees the same way for well over 20 years, they have been preying on the upper and middle class for decades before that.  Why would the government think that these zebras would change their stripes now?  The government did nothing to stop these bonuses when they crafted TARP.  I don't understand why they act so indignant now.  If they had wanted these contracts broken, they should have done so as a condition of TARP funding.  They also could have provided back-stop funding for a managed restructuring of debt and all other contractual obligations (bankruptcy).  That option would have been the best for the American people since it would have allowed us to buy into these corporations much more cheaply.  The government chose to forgo these options.  It is a little more than a bit disingenuous to complain about things now.

I can guarantee you that the same people that the government "hopes" has learned their lesson have not.  More importantly, what I am hoping is that "we the people" have learned how our "protectors" play their games (and games they are).  There is not much more than CYA (cover your a$$) going on in politics.  As long as we have a culture that punishes the self-sufficient, independent man and rewards the selfish lay-about; we will have no shot whatsoever at becoming the great country that the US was intended to be.

Why did Republicans flip?

The President's biggest talking point these days is the Republicans' flip on the bi-partisan budget commission.  Now, I think this is a great talking point.  However, his talking points skip the fact that there are often major changes in a bill between its inception and the vote on its passage.  Lets look at the reasons for this "flip."

1.  Congressional votes on the proposals issued by the commission would be cast before new members of Congress elected in November are seated.  This would, unfortunately, allow disposed members to affect law that the voters will likely not want.

2.  No outside sources can be used to obtain estimates contrary to the finding of the commission.  WHAT!!!  Huge red flag.

3.  Limited chance for opposing views to be presented.  Meaning only the commissions findings would even be available for a vote.

Given these 3, I would rather think that the "flip" was the responsible thing to do.

Judd Gregg Kicks Some Ass

I came across this today and am ecstatic that someone GETS IT.  There is no way I could have said it better mayself.  In fact I said it much worse last night.

TARP Money

I hate to belabor a point, but when did the TARP funds become available for other things?  If the money is not needed for its originally intended purposes anymore, THEN RETURN IT!!  It is not a slush fund that the administration can just pull money from indiscriminantly.  If the banks are not about to fail anymore (and you are saying that they are not), then please return the money to us taxpayers.  God knows we do not want to be taxed tomorrow because you found some great social program to spend it on.

Hell, what does it take to get our elected officials to see the forest through the trees?

Ummmmm... Spending Freeze?

I have not been able to get my head around this spending freeze that has been proposed.  I just got a terrible feeling while watching CNBC.  They were talking about the big rises in the programs that are about to be frozen.  Wow.  What would be the best way to get guaranteed spending on programs you want to funnel more money to over the next few years when you know you are likely to lose control of Congress? 

They don't have 60 votes to get some of their efforts through, but the nuclear option can be used for budgetary matters and this is nothing if not a budgetary matter.  With only 51 votes needed to push this huge pile of garbage through the Senate, the administration can lay the groundwork for the next 3 years of bloated spending.

Just a thought from a very tired guy.

Obama on YouTube

I wish I could say that it was super interesting and informative, but it was only moderately so. He noted a few items of interest. Amongst those are Healthcare, student loan repayment, net neutrality, education, terrorism, and energy. See the full video here.

Healthcare - nothing new here, he still wants the government to run it.

Student loan repayment - nothing new here either. I am still struck by his thinking on this one though. Why would you let the debt expire for someone making (on average) 40k/yr after 20 years, but let someone making (on average) 70k/yr have theirs forgiven after only 10 years? The incongruity here is staggering. For that matter, why would you forgive any of this debt at all? God knows I am still paying my student loans. Instead of seeing them as a burden that I can foist off on others, I see them as the price I pay for access to the quality of life I enjoy. It is a slippery path you start down when you view your quality of life as being the responsibility of others.

Net Neutrality - wow, this is truly a can-of-worms. Please take the time to educate yourself on this point. I do not want to spoon feed anyone on this. My opinion on it - VERY BAD.

Higher Education - makes you a better citizen. Ouch.

Terrorism - I am actually pretty in-line with Obama's approach on this. I agree with each strategic decision he has made given where he found himself. I still regret going into Iraq under the pretenses that we did. Not that it did not need to be done, but we needed more concrete proof and justification for what we did there.

Energy - We are pretty much on the same page here. I advocate truly "clean" energy based on its proven ability to lower pollutants in the atmosphere. I do not endorse his indefensible opinion on climate change. We just have two separate roads to the same conclusion.

Al Gore's Problem

Apparently, Al Gore and Obama share some common delusions. Now that climate change has been completely disproven, Obama has decided to get in on the action and decry the "evil" United States for destroying the world's environment. Kinda funny coming from a guy that has decided to devote the remainder of his life to killing people merely for disagreeing with him on the type or existence of higher power.

Well Al, congratulations on your latest and hopefully last convert.

James O'Keefe responds

"I learned from a number of sources that many of Senator Landrieu’s constituents were having trouble getting through to her office to tell her that they didn’t want her taking millions of federal dollars in exchange for her vote on the healthcare bill. When asked about this, Senator Landrieu’s explanation was that, “Our lines have been jammed for weeks.” I decided to investigate why a representative of the people would be out of touch with her constituents for “weeks” because her phones were broken. In investigating this matter, we decided to visit Senator Landrieu’s district office – the people’s office – to ask the staff if their phones were working.

  

On reflection, I could have used a different approach to this investigation, particularly given the sensitivities that people understandably have about security in a federal building. The sole intent of our investigation was to determine whether or not Senator Landrieu was purposely trying to avoid constituents who were calling to register their views to her as their Senator. We video taped the entire visit, the government has those tapes, and I’m eager for them to be released because they refute the false claims being repeated by much of the mainstream media."

Not a bad response tot he allegations against him.  I am looking foward to seeing the taped evidence when it is available (likely not until after the election cycle).

 

Democrats Lash out at Supreme Court

In a speech on the Senate floor Thursday, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) singled out Alito, saying he had testified that the court has a “limited role” and should not be overstepping its bounds and “invading the authority of Congress.”

Am I the only one that knows about the separation of powers?  Didn't this guy actually put his hand on a Bible and swear to uphold the Constitution?

Shame on you Mr. Philips

Due to the high cost of tickets ($550) and the hefty speaking fee they are paying, many tea party goers are boycotting the rally in Nashville, TN.  Not only the party are the attendees bowing out, but also some of the speakers.  Both Sen. Bachmann and Blackburn are canceling their planned speaking appointments.  They have both cited both the high cost of tickets and Mr. Philips' open desire to make a profit from the rally. 

It is my understanding that the tea party is made up of a group of individuals that want to see real change in American politics.  As for you Mr. Philips; profits have a time and place and this is neither.

Government should not be seen as a profitable occupation, nor as an opportunity for anything other than humble service.  If our elected officials would conduct themselves more like Mr. Belvedere we would all be the better for it.

Obama's State of the Union Last night

I wish I could say that it was entertaining.  I wish that I could say that he had put aside partisan rhetoric.  I wish I could say that it was enlightening.  I wish that I could tell you that he has put aside his dreams of a socialist utopia.  I wish that I had any good news at all.

As I stated yesterday, Obama has hit the campaign trail with year-old news of stimulus projects that will not show any meaningful job creation for years to come.  It is obvious that a significant portion of the stimulus money was being held-back so that it could be released during the election cycle in an attempt to buy votes.  Unfortunately, the for the administration (pretty sure I can get away without capitalizing that), American voters have woken up and realized that the money we are being bribed with is coming right out of our very own pockets. 

I really was saddened by the partisan rhetoric that I heard in the speech last night, but nothing could have prepared me for the scandalous statements that followed.  The passes that have been handed down to the leftists concerning their hate-speech have been nothing more than rediculous.  Reid's statement made during the campaign as well as the comment last night by Chris Matthews are two of the most recent.  Can you imagine the reaction to a Republican making either of these comments? 

Great news, you don't have to!  Just take a look at the fall-out from Trent Lott's statement a few years ago.

Senate passes 1.9T in additional debt

Nine days after a historic defeat in Massachusetts, Senate Democrats have pushed through a bill allowing the national deficit to rise another 1.9 trillion dollars.  They needed each and every single one of the 60 votes they got to make this happen.  Would Scott Brown have been able to change the outcome?  I can tell you this, they would have had to find one more yea vote had he been there instead of the Democrat puppet that is there now.  His swearing in is expected not to happen until Feb. 3rd and it absolutely cannot happen fast enough.  The days of the Democrats stuffing bloated non-partisan bills down the throats of Americans is almost over.

High Speed Rail to be announced tomorrow

President Obama and VP Biden will be in Tampa to announce grants (already announced a year ago in the Stimulus package) for high-speed rail. There is virtual certainty that a line connecting Tampa and Orlando will be approved as well as a line from Sacramento to San Diego.

The Stimulus plan set aside 8 billion in funds for 13 high speed rail projects. The plan is to create or save "tens of thousands" of jobs. The is a warning included that these jobs will not come about quickly especially when you factor in the fact that there are currently nearly no firms in the US that are involved in high-speed rail planning, production, or building. Given this, many foreign firms are more excited about this news than we should be domestically.

I would like to give a shout-out to the administration for taking the time to come on down to Tampa to announce something that was part of a bill from a year ago as if it is current news.

Things are so bad there is a betting pool on which DEMOCRAT screams ‘You Lie!’ tonight.

Click here it is GREAT.

Government to FREEZE the budget.

The administration has announced a plan to freeze the budget for 3 years.  This will not affect military or security budgets.  It is expected to save 250 billion over the next 10 years. 

Only our government will project the cost/savings of a program designed to run for 3 years over a 10 year period.  I am not saying I agree or disagree with the move.  I am just asking why the government would buy a piece of chewing gum and project its cost over a 10-year period.

Is it too much to ask for a little balance here?  Eric Holder is going after lenders that used "predatory practices" to lure people into mortgages that were not advantageous to them.  What is the difference between what those guys did and what the government does to the general public every day? 

Using accounting tricks to try to pass Demacare, lying about the stimulus, and now the budget freeze.  Just man-up and give us some straight facts.

How has the Stimulus really helped?

I know there are stories in the hundreds and even thousands of how the Stimulus has helped individual people.  I am very glad that those people, who desperately need help, are receiving it.  However, what I cannot get my head around is how the government is presenting the data in a format that shows that each job saved is costing us much as five hundred thousand dollars. 

Now this is just me being a pessimist and taking free shots at our nation's progressive welfare agenda, but I don't see how giving someone a temporary job that pays 30-50k (although I rather inflated this number to sound a little less condescending) and that only stays in place for as long as government intervention in the market continues at a cost of the times more than the job is "worth" really helps.  The number of jobs saved when compared with unemployment overall is barely significant.  I am not saying that a program that creates or saves permanent jobs is not a good program, but I have yet to see anyone talk about permanent job creation.  Why is this?

The types of jobs created by artificially stimulating the economy can never be permanent.  When the funding that created (or saved) the job goes away, then so does the job.  This does not even take into account the fact that many of these alleged "saved" jobs that have been falsely claimed. 

The moneys given to many organizations are actually used to buy computers or give raises to current employees.  Couple this with the reported reluctance and refusal of many companies to share information with the media about where the stimulus money actually goes, and you are led to the conclusion that the Stimulus program is likely suffering from more fraud and abuse than Medicare/Medicaid.  Along those same lines, do you know where your cash-for-clunkers money ended up?  A good portion of it went to purchase fuel efficient cars that were traded-in within a week for cars that were less eco-friendly than the cars they replaced.  I am not joking; there was one car lot in Florida that actually advertised this program!

Simply that we are spending ten dollars for each dollar that goes to someone's salary is insane.  Would it not be more efficient to give that person two dollars for each dollar they are receiving right now?  Even that would save the tax-paying populace of this nation 80%.  Is it any wonder that our government is facing huge deficits?

When will our government learn that their welfare (socialist) programs will always be abused?

As stimulus fades, economies will face an up-hill battle

From AP:

SHANGHAI - The global economy will suffer the fallout from the financial crisis for years to come, the World Bank said Thursday in a report warning that growth may wilt later this year as stimulus spending fades.

There is optimism that we will se some economic growth this year, but no guarantees.  As the credit crisis gathers steam and home forclosure continuing, there is plenty of concrete bad news to go along with any uplifting forecasts we get.  Banks are not loosening the purse strings on lending and are following a government mandated forclosure policy, and neither of these are good portents of things to come.

Census to kick off in Alaska

Anyone else wonder why the Census would start during the dead of winter in Alaska?  Boy is government great or what?  Where do they get volunteers for that assignment?

Georgia is facing a monetary shortfall due to stimulus

Well, Atlanta is about to pay the piper for the stimulus monies it collected from the Federal government last year.  With the stimulus money all dried up the state is short over $500 million for Medicaid alone.  The result of the influx in cash last year was that the state had to agree to expand their programs.  The catch was that although the Feds would supply the money for the first year, the Federal sopply would end in 2010.  After that, the state would have to keep the expanded programs and find other ways to make up the budget shortfall.

I can't figure who is dumber, the guys that created the terms or the guys that accepted the terms.

Evil Bankers 4

There is quiet talk of an agreement by which bank will only pursue a certain number of foreclosures a month. While this may seem to be a wonderful idea on its face, here is the dark underbelly that waits. When a bank has 100 options that they can pursue for forclosure and only 10 forclosures that they can pursue and still stay under their cap, what do you think happens? I can tell you for sure. I have noted that the property on which foreclosure happens the most readily is the property that is similar in value to the remaining outstanding mortgage value. Sometimes this means that the property was purchased at a good value, but all too often it means that the property has had a significant portion of its mortgage paid off, or a significant amount of money was put down on the property from the start.


Those that found a good value have lost little, but those that put their whole savings into their new home or have lived in their home for 10 years and find that their mortgage has been foreclosed after only the minimum amount of time; this situation is devastating. In many cases, these individuals have never missed a payment before losing their job and/or have absolutely nothing to fall back on. My heart goes out to these victims. However, the banks are literally forced into this behavior by a secret policy that gives them no alternative. They cannot practice foreclosures fairly and this method certainly suits their best interests.

I have seen for myself, these unbalanced practices and could not figure out why this was occurring until a friend (that works for a bank) told me of this policy.  I can certainly see how this is supposed to help, and I know that for some, it is.  But before there were so many foreclosures to pursue that they were all given a cushion period to come current on their debts.  Now only the homes that are in the worst distress
and will eventually be subject to foreclosure once their current occupants figure out how under-water they are, are being given any leniency at all.
For this reason alone, this policy is pure garbage.  I can appreciate the intent, but the outcome is worse then the initial problem.

Can we please get the out of our businesses?  Just sit back and steal your taxes.  Do what you can with those, but leave things that you cannot possibly understand alone!  The banking industry is not broken, but the government's attempts to make it altruistic certainly are.

Obama to set limits for Wall Street

Yesterday:

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Embracing Depression-era policy and populist politics, a combative President Barack Obama chastised big Wall Street banks Thursday and urgently called for limits on their size and investments to stave off a new economic meltdown.

Investors responded by dumping bank stock.

Even after the losses this week, the stock market is still seriously over-valued.  Many economists and financial experts see fair value between 7.5k and 8.5k.  Perhaps Obama has decided it is his job to get it there.

New limits and rules are not at all what will solve the Wall St. problems.  The solution is simple (maybe that is why it is being overlooked).  This idea of "too big to fail" has to die.  Do not think for even the slightest instant that should one of these gargantuan banks fail, there would not be 50 other banks there ready and willing to buy their assets, client lists, and productive employees.  In this scenario, the people that would take the "hit" would be the investors.  If you invest in an institution and then let the board run it any way they want to, you kind of deserve to lose your money.  I am sorry that some of you don't want to hear that, but the government should never be in the business of protecting your investments.  If you can't do that for yourself, then you don't need to be investing.

Why do the American people think that personal responsibility is an idea that is too old to be relevant?

Obama "stumps" in Ohio today

Am I the only one that noticed the 20 point drop in the stock market as Obama spoke?  I guess I shouldn't have watched it on CNBC if I didn't want the humor aspect added.

I think he does a better job than any progressive before him in hiding the similarities between the progressive agenda and socialism.  I guess is is too much to ask to get even a slight bit of honesty from a politician. 

Obama did say something that I agree with completely.  He said that he wanted to make sure that when bankers take risks in the hopes of gains, that the taxpayer does not have to "foot the bill".  Let me be perfectly clear about the ONLY solution for that.  DON'T BAIL THEM OUT!!!

If you set the expectation of a bailout, then big business will continue to find ways to take big risks.  Just let businesses operate with the only two acceptable scenarios being stand on their own two feet or fail.

California Trifecta

Just about every day something stupendously insane that one state or another has done will come to my attention, but those jokers in California managed a trifecta.  They double-dipped into healthcare and still managed to bungle some inmate legislation.

First let's look at the more ridiculous of the two health care fiascos.  They have decided that since the single-payer plan will not pass for the entire country it will still suffice for the good people of California.  Were they not paying attention to the failures that similar plans have become in Tn and Ma?  Even better yet, they seem to have lost sight of their current budget crisis and are looking to spend even more money that they do not have.  Perhaps they figure that their deficit is just not big enough yet to deserve a bailout.  Well, I guarantee that they have found the vehicle to permanent financial destruction.  This legislation would triple the size of their current budget. Couple this with item number two and the repercussions are staggering.

Second on the list of WTF items for California is patient wait time.  California has already passed legislation that will reduce the time someone will wait to see a doctor.  That is correct; apparently the whole issue here was that a rule needed to be established.  The doctors have plenty of openings to see you, but since there was not rule in place limiting the wait time, they just hung out in their offices doing sudoku puzzles and playing solitaire.  Of course, since they were wasting all that time instead of seeing patients it likely saved them money in payments to administrative staff to file the insurance claims over and over again.  The new law, which goes into effect in 2011, is a huge step towards... what?  If I practiced medicine in California, I would be asking all my friends to save boxes.  I would need them for the move.

Last but not least, it looks like California is going to make good on its promise to release inmates early as a means to reduce their budget deficit.  This idea is perfect.  If you take some vocational classes while in prison you can get out early.  But the deal does not end there, there is also a reduction in parole that goes along with your early release.  By reduction I mean that many prisoners will not be monitored at all after release.  Minor infractors will no longer be monitored for two reasons.  First, if they are not monitored, then they will not violate parole and therefore, not be subject to a return to prison (logical, if you don't think of the other implications here).  Second, it will allow the more dangerous prisoners to be monitored more closely.  California is really rolling the dice on this one.  I sure am glad I live on the other side of the country.  This is just one more reason to pack your bags and move (as if you needed it).

No more campaign-finance limits

"With its ruling today, the Supreme Court has given a green light to a new stampede of special interest money in our politics. " - President Barack Obama

WOW, can you say "time to pander to those big corporations"?  I hope you enjoyed the election in Mass this week.  It is the last time you will see anything remotely fair for quite some time.

Tough Economic Times

How come when my income shrinks I have to cut back on the things I want?  When the government's income shrinks, they cut back on the things that supposedly help to make me safe, education for my children, and other services.  How about you scale back some entitlement programs instead of finding new ways to take money from those that can least afford it? 

During the last boom, entitlement program's benefits exploded.  Not only are new programs being introduced, but the programs already in place have their enrollment soaring.  Should health care be added to the tally, we will bankrupt this country in only a very few years instead of merely decades.

My lamenting of those current and proposed systems will have to wait for another time.  I am talking today about the changes that are coming to many states near you.  Gambling is on the rise.

States have toyed with gambling in many different forms for decades.  Here in Georgia, we have a lottery system.  The lottery was imposed to help fund our schools.  Now who would vote to discourage the funding of education?  Now that we have had the lottery for roughly 20 years, are any of the schools better for it? 

NOPE!!

Here is how the system works.  When the schools get additional funding from the lottery, they then need less from the government.  Therefore, the gov't has more money to spend on entitlements etc.  So the real question becomes: When the government finds a way to add funding to a program, why does the net funding for that program stay the same?

Anyway, this all came up due to the good legislative body in Delaware.  These geniuses have decided that the best way to make up for their budget shortfall is to legalize something that has previously been illegal in an attempt to protect their citizenry.  Apparently they feel that the ends justify the means.  Newsflash!!!  This is not always true.  Who will end up paying for this?

Here in Georgia, we call the lottery the poor-man's tax.  How about the supporters of gambling take a quick look at these casinos' customers?  People that depend on government assistance have already made a few bad choices in their lives.  What's a few more options? 

To be completely fair about all this, it is not really table games that are the main draw for the ultra-low income patrons.  They do tend more to the slots.  However, I have known more than a few people that have lost their rent or entire paychecks at the tables.  This is not good policy.

DOVER, Del. (AP) -- Two bills that would pave the way for Delaware to add table games such as poker, blackjack and craps to the state's gambling options passed their initial legislative hurdles Wednesday.  A state Senate committee, meanwhile released a separate bill aimed at preventing cheating on table games. That bill was approved by the full Senate later Wednesday.  In exchange for the privilege of offering table games, the casinos would pay an annual collective licensing fee nominally set at $13.5 million.  The casinos would receive 66 percent of the gross table game revenue, with 29 percent going to the state and 4.5 percent to horse racing purses.

Senate won't let TARP die

A Republican bill to shut down the Troubled Asset Relief Program was killed in the Senate yesterday.  If passed, the bill would have ensured that no additional funds would be issued.  While the fund would stay open to receive repayment, taxpayer exposure would have been capped.

Although the bill would have stripped the Democrats of the ability to use these fund for purposes for which they were never intended, it still garnered some Democrat support.  With 320 billion up for grabs, it fell short of the 60 votes required by only 7.  That makes the total number of Democrats that still have a lingering conscience and do not want to play the shell game with the public trust.

Some of the farces that have been propped-up by TARP are banks with unrealistic debt/equity ratios, the auto industry, and impossibly infrastructure projects (roads and bridges).  Chris Dodd couldn't keep his foot out of his mouth when he mentioned that Obama has promised to use some of the remaining money to help with the foreclosure crisis.

It is noteworthy that Wednesday, the day before this bill was defeated, a bill was entered into the Senate requesting an increase in the debt ceiling by 1.9 TRILLION.  That is more than a 15% increase!!!  This is money that you and I (taxpayers) owe.  How much more can you afford?  Because I am damn near out of money.
Here are some of the numbers as they sit now.

Total public debt subject to limit Jan. 20 12,270,763,000,000

Statutory debt limit 12,394,000,000,000 

Total public debt outstanding Jan. 20 12,327,381,000,000

Deficit fiscal year 2009 1,417,121,000,000

Deficit fiscal year 2008 454,798,000,000

Receipts fiscal year 2009 2,104,613,000,000

Receipts fiscal year 2008 2,523,642,000,000

Outlays fiscal year 2009 3,521,734,000,000

Outlays fiscal year 2008 2,978,440,000,000

Notice that while receipts went down, outlays when up.  That is the reason the deficit is 1 TRILLION more this year than last year.

Here is the scariest number of all.

Gold assets in September 11,041,000,000

Glacier Hoax

From USA Today:

GENEVA (AP) — A U.N. warning that Himalayan glaciers were melting faster than any other place in the world and may be gone by 2035 was not backed up by science, U.N. climate experts said Wednesday — an admission that could energize climate change critics.


In a 2007 report, the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said the Himalayan glaciers are very likely to disappear within three decades if the present melting rate continues. But a statement from the panel now says there is not enough scientific evidence to back up those claim.

Seriously, how dumb would we look right now if we had actually accomplished something at Copenhagen?

FHA Standards

The Federal Housing Administration is currently considering more stringent lending requirements and higher borrowing fees.  The new FHA standard will require borrowers with less than a 580 credit score to put down a minimum of 10 percent of the cost of the home.  Most banks that lend through the FHA require at least a 620 credit score.  Concerns that continued losses in the mortgage values could necessitate futher government bailouts have feuled this move.  Although any credit tightening is welcome, the agency will not propose an increase in the minimum downpayment for high credit scoring borrowers, currently 3.5 percent.

Although builders and realtors see this as punative, the previous regulation loosening that occurred in the late 1990s and caused the current recession, had to be reigned back in.  Many homebuyers are still spending over half of their pretax income on housing.  One could argue that continuing to allow that would be deemed "predatory lending."

10 Reasons Coakley Lost

Thank you to the AJC for this list.  It is priceless.

The Jubilee Act "Evil Bankers 3"

The Jubilee Act for Responsible Lending and Expanded Debt Cancellation (HR 4405) cancels impoverished country debt, prohibits harmful economic and policy conditions on debt cancellation, mandates transparency and responsibility in lending from governments and international financial institutions, and calls for a U.S. audit of debts resulting from odious and illegitimate lending.

Beginning in the 1960s it was decided that everyone in the world should have a good standard of living.  To that end, government-backed low-interest loans to third world countries came into vogue.  These loans were given and taken based on advice from international consultants.

The consultants came in and advised countries that they could make a good return for infrastructure developments.  A dam would supply power that could then be sold to the populace.  Roads would bring the countryside into the metropolitan commerce arena.  Airports can increase both commerce and tourism.  Add these benefits to low-interest loans and you have an opportunity that almost any governing body would recieve well.

The down-side was the cost over-runs and compounding interest costs.  Many of the governing bodies of these developing countries did not see the brick wall coming, until it hit them in the face.  Once the debt began to spiral out of control, for many nations there was no escape.

Some of the countries were run by dictators that used the money for their own personal benefit.  Many of the citizens of these countries never had a shot at a better life as a result of their government's greed.  However, many of the other country's governors were doing their best to give a better life to their countrymen.

The capitalist in me thinks that anyone lending money for the express purpose of the return, deserves their return.  However, when you send in used-car salesmen (no disrespect meant to those few in the profession that maintain their honor and dignity) in fancy suits to overstate the expected value of an investment, maybe you should get a haircut on your return. 

After a defeat by neglect in the Senate in 2008, the bill was re-introduced on December 17th, 2009 with actual bi-partisan support.  Just like so many Americans that owe more than their asset is worth due to the current mortgage crisis, I feel that some of these scammed countries should just walk-away from their debts.  This solution is good enough for the citizens of America, so why not for the third world countries?

I guess I just don't understand why the government feels the need to pass a law forgiving debts that some countries should just walk away from.  Perhaps they are creating a moral platform that they can use when we have to walk away from our own soon-to-be unserviceable debt.  Or just as likely, it is an attempt to be viewed as generous in the face of a situation that otherwise has no upside at all.  Either way someone decided to make the loan with the knowledge that their investment could be "at risk."

If we take the risk out of the market, will the rewards also be taken away?