Friday, January 25, 2013
The DC Circuit opinion.
Very interesting. If this holds up, and I believe it will, this will end up putting even bigger limitations on "recess" appoints than ever.
Amazing that these days a Federal Court of Appeals will uphold the plain meaning of the language in the Constitution.
Will Obama appeal to the Supremes, or will he not take the chance?
***************************
Rand Paul to John Kerry: If it was wrong to bomb Cambodia without Congress’s approval, why is bombing Libya without approval okay?
From over at Hot Air. Kerry and the leftist Democrats are the biggest hypocrites in history, with a lot of lying as well.
Kerry thought bombing Cambodia to assist our own troops was somehow criminal without Congress' approval, but somehow it is OK to bomb Libya without any approval. And just because the President wanted to assist people who turn out to be our enemies.
Hope and Change.
Tar and feathers!
*******************************
I see where West Va. Democrat Manchin can go along with stronger background checks on gun buyers.
You know, that sounds good, but who is going to do the background checks on those that steal guns? LOL
The current background checks would do the job pretty well if the governments involved would keep up the databases. Unfortunately, they will just throw up more red tape, but won't get the crazies in the databases. Silly.
But this is more about control that it is about guns, anyway. Am seriously considering re-joining the NRA just to thumb my nose at the controllers.
Doubt if I will be able to vote are support any politician that votes to "strengthen" gun control without addressing getting the crazies in the databases and taking steps to limit their capability to get possession of the guns. Democrats will probably oppose that simply because so many of them would make the list. LOL
***************************
Aussies hit black gold. It could be the equal of Saudi Arabia. You can bet they will exploit it. Just as you can bet that the Luddites (Democrats) here in the US will try to impede our development of our own resources.
These new processes are going to revolutionize the energy business, and all of the industries that need abundant energy.
That means a lot more jobs and a lot more commerce, while at the same time, it makes the Middle East more irrelevant.
That will mean that Democrats will fight it, just like they are fighting the Keystone Pipeline.
What in the world are those people thinking?
Showing posts with label Democrats. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Democrats. Show all posts
Friday, January 25, 2013
Thursday, January 24, 2013
Thursday, January 24, 2013
Romney Care bills finally come due. This is one of the reasons I had to hold my nose real hard when I voted for Romney. he is an establishment Republican, and like them, he is more of a Democrat than like a large part of the Republican base. It is the power of the establishment that keeps giving us the wimpy Presidential nominees. Time to say "no more."
Poor old Democrat Deval Patrick is now meeting the obligations that Obama will have to meet in a couple of years when Obamacare finally hits at full strength.
"The health reform that Mitt Romney passed in 2006 in Massachusetts presaged President Obama's, and its results are showing what we can expect nationwide. The latest warning comes in a huge new tax increase proposed by Governor Deval Patrick."
*******************
Chivalry is dead. The women's libbers have now reached the pinnacle of equality. Now they have an equal right to die in combat.
I am wondering how they are going to carry the 60-80 pounds of comabat gear. Will the guys in the unit have to help them?
This absurd bit of political correctness is just going to get some people killed.
But it is an insight into how Democrats think only politically, and not practically.
Fools.
Update. NRO chimes in on the issue:
"What’s wrong with current physical requirement standards for infantry soliders? Is this official implying that more woman-friendly standards will have to be developed? The male/female upper-body strength difference is by now tediously well documented. There is no question that the average woman (and yes the average enlistee is often quite average indeed) especially in our overweight times, will have difficulty, say, carrying a wounded comrade to safety and walking for days dressed in full “battle rattle.” Study after study shows that women get injured at at least twice the rate of men — and this is in a military where women are not doing the most physically demanding jobs."
This just gets more absurd as time goes by. People will die because of this foolishness. Politial correctness has run amok. And it would not be politically correct for me to say what I really think, so I won't.
*****************
Boby Jindal is taking on the Republican establishment. A job that needs doing.
"“By obsessing with zeroes on the budget spreadsheet, we send a not-so-subtle signal that the focus of our country is on the phony economy of Washington, instead of the real economy out here in Charlotte, and Shreveport (La.), and Cheyenne (Wyo.),” Jindal is set to say at one point in the speech. At another, he will argue that “Washington has spent a generation trying to bribe our citizens and extort our states,” adding: “As Republicans, it’s time to quit arguing around the edges of that corrupt system.”
He is very much on the right track. The whole Washington setup is corrupt and getting worse by the day. By trying to be Washington insiders, the Republicans have become as corrupt as the rest of it.
Our country is not Washington, D.C., nor is it the liberal northeastern corridor. It is all of us; but in Washington, only those interests are represented.
It is time for the people to take back their country from the corrupt politicians. If the Republicans won't do it, then we need to have another party.
More from Jindal:
“Our objective is to grow the private sector. We need to focus our efforts on ideas to grow the American economy, not the government economy. If you take nothing else away from what I say today, please understand this – We must not become the party of austerity. We must become the party of growth.”
This is what Romney and the establishmant Republicans forget. It is not about Washington, it is about the rest of us.
********************
Slow day today. Other chores to do, and it is an absolutely beautiful day outside.
I did notice that Harry Reid's filibuster reform was agreed to by the Republicans, but accomplishes nothing except to save the rears of some democratic senators who now won't have to vote on gun control.
I think I would have preferred to make them actually vote on it. But they are safe now.
The story is here on HuffPo. They, of course, don't mention the gun control issue. And they quite naturally do not like it.
Romney Care bills finally come due. This is one of the reasons I had to hold my nose real hard when I voted for Romney. he is an establishment Republican, and like them, he is more of a Democrat than like a large part of the Republican base. It is the power of the establishment that keeps giving us the wimpy Presidential nominees. Time to say "no more."
Poor old Democrat Deval Patrick is now meeting the obligations that Obama will have to meet in a couple of years when Obamacare finally hits at full strength.
"The health reform that Mitt Romney passed in 2006 in Massachusetts presaged President Obama's, and its results are showing what we can expect nationwide. The latest warning comes in a huge new tax increase proposed by Governor Deval Patrick."
*******************
Chivalry is dead. The women's libbers have now reached the pinnacle of equality. Now they have an equal right to die in combat.
I am wondering how they are going to carry the 60-80 pounds of comabat gear. Will the guys in the unit have to help them?
This absurd bit of political correctness is just going to get some people killed.
But it is an insight into how Democrats think only politically, and not practically.
Fools.
Update. NRO chimes in on the issue:
"What’s wrong with current physical requirement standards for infantry soliders? Is this official implying that more woman-friendly standards will have to be developed? The male/female upper-body strength difference is by now tediously well documented. There is no question that the average woman (and yes the average enlistee is often quite average indeed) especially in our overweight times, will have difficulty, say, carrying a wounded comrade to safety and walking for days dressed in full “battle rattle.” Study after study shows that women get injured at at least twice the rate of men — and this is in a military where women are not doing the most physically demanding jobs."
This just gets more absurd as time goes by. People will die because of this foolishness. Politial correctness has run amok. And it would not be politically correct for me to say what I really think, so I won't.
*****************
Boby Jindal is taking on the Republican establishment. A job that needs doing.
"“By obsessing with zeroes on the budget spreadsheet, we send a not-so-subtle signal that the focus of our country is on the phony economy of Washington, instead of the real economy out here in Charlotte, and Shreveport (La.), and Cheyenne (Wyo.),” Jindal is set to say at one point in the speech. At another, he will argue that “Washington has spent a generation trying to bribe our citizens and extort our states,” adding: “As Republicans, it’s time to quit arguing around the edges of that corrupt system.”
He is very much on the right track. The whole Washington setup is corrupt and getting worse by the day. By trying to be Washington insiders, the Republicans have become as corrupt as the rest of it.
Our country is not Washington, D.C., nor is it the liberal northeastern corridor. It is all of us; but in Washington, only those interests are represented.
It is time for the people to take back their country from the corrupt politicians. If the Republicans won't do it, then we need to have another party.
More from Jindal:
“Our objective is to grow the private sector. We need to focus our efforts on ideas to grow the American economy, not the government economy. If you take nothing else away from what I say today, please understand this – We must not become the party of austerity. We must become the party of growth.”
This is what Romney and the establishmant Republicans forget. It is not about Washington, it is about the rest of us.
********************
Slow day today. Other chores to do, and it is an absolutely beautiful day outside.
I did notice that Harry Reid's filibuster reform was agreed to by the Republicans, but accomplishes nothing except to save the rears of some democratic senators who now won't have to vote on gun control.
I think I would have preferred to make them actually vote on it. But they are safe now.
The story is here on HuffPo. They, of course, don't mention the gun control issue. And they quite naturally do not like it.
Monday, January 9, 2012
Bits and Pieces for the Day
Speaking of Goldman Sachs, Timothy Haight, writing in The Orange County Register, says that the Dodd-Frank legislation did not solve the problem of the Too Big to Fail financial institutions.
My thought is that the FDIC should charge premiums to the large banks according to the real risk they have. But that would require that they be honest with their risks, and right now the Federal Reserve and the Treasury are permitting them all to pretend they aren't already broke. I call it The Golden Rule: those with the gold, make the rules. In spite of their anger at Obama, they have had it real good the last few years. And they have pretty much had their way with the Congress and the President.
Uh Oh. Charles Gasparino says in the New York Post that Goldman Sachs is supporting Romney this year after having been Obama's big supporter in 2008.
Romney should not celebrate this. It gives many a sound reason to oppose him. Very sound. The crony capitalism we have had the last two decades is a huge part of the financial difficulties we have been experiencing. GS and a lot of the huge institutions have way too much influence.
Tim Tebow. What more can one say? After all of the denigration and criticism, he put in a great performance to win the playoff game yesterday. Congratulations to him, and a big loud raspberry to those who have been on him for his overt Christianity. I am really getting tired of the people who belittle others for being Christian, particularly when many of them are apologists for Muslims, even the radical ones. You can guess who I am talking about.
The only known photos from the White House’s 2009 “Alice in Wonderland” party.
Why did the Obamas want to keep this secret? Why did the press go along? Goodness, Marie and Louis partied during a recession. Guess the Obamas wanted to avoid the same result. LOL
There are others. Go to the site for more.
Roger L. Simon takes on George Stephanoloupos and his question on contraceptives in Saturday night's debate here. He also is critical of the GOP for letting the leftwing media set the terms of the debates and would prefer having no moderators:
Quote of the Day:
Lance Roberts at StreettalkLive.com has a good rundown on last week's employment report:
At USA Today, Richard Wolf notes that the US national debt is now at 100% of the economy. This is the point where all analysis shows that we are in seriious trouble. And our politicians are whistling past the graveyard trying to avoid offending anyone by doing what is necessary. All of them are failing us because they are too busy playing politics. Its time for a change. They all need to be thrown out.
Gallup says that 40% of Americans prefer to be independent rather than identify with either of our political parties. 31% are Democrats and 27% are Republicans.
As dysfunctional as both parties are, I cannot really imagine anyone wanting to identify with either of them.
Unfortunately, legislation enacted does not solve the fundamental problem. It simply provides cover for those who were asleep at the wheel, while ignoring the underlying cause of the crisis.Some, of course, knew this. Including most in Congress. But many in the public were fooled. Our ignorance is going to come back and bite us. He recommends that we go back to Glass-Steagall and increase bank capital requirements. He would also cap the FDIC insurance on bank deposits per institution. That is leave the coverage where it is for smaller banks, but cap the exposure in the very big ones.
My thought is that the FDIC should charge premiums to the large banks according to the real risk they have. But that would require that they be honest with their risks, and right now the Federal Reserve and the Treasury are permitting them all to pretend they aren't already broke. I call it The Golden Rule: those with the gold, make the rules. In spite of their anger at Obama, they have had it real good the last few years. And they have pretty much had their way with the Congress and the President.
Uh Oh. Charles Gasparino says in the New York Post that Goldman Sachs is supporting Romney this year after having been Obama's big supporter in 2008.
What makes Goldman’s move to the right so striking is just how far to the left it was in 2008. The Goldman community gave more than a $1 million to the 2008 Obama campaign, bested only by donors tied to the ultraliberal University of California. But the latest contribution records (through the end of September) show that Goldman-linked givers barely crack the top 20 of Obama donors, with a little more than $50,000 toward his 2012 re-election effort.Now they are the leading source of cash for Romney. They are good at picking winners. That has given them unprecedented power and influence in Congress and the executive for many years. How else could they have gotten the huge bailouts in 2008 and since?
Romney should not celebrate this. It gives many a sound reason to oppose him. Very sound. The crony capitalism we have had the last two decades is a huge part of the financial difficulties we have been experiencing. GS and a lot of the huge institutions have way too much influence.
Tim Tebow. What more can one say? After all of the denigration and criticism, he put in a great performance to win the playoff game yesterday. Congratulations to him, and a big loud raspberry to those who have been on him for his overt Christianity. I am really getting tired of the people who belittle others for being Christian, particularly when many of them are apologists for Muslims, even the radical ones. You can guess who I am talking about.
The only known photos from the White House’s 2009 “Alice in Wonderland” party.
Why did the Obamas want to keep this secret? Why did the press go along? Goodness, Marie and Louis partied during a recession. Guess the Obamas wanted to avoid the same result. LOL
Roger L. Simon takes on George Stephanoloupos and his question on contraceptives in Saturday night's debate here. He also is critical of the GOP for letting the leftwing media set the terms of the debates and would prefer having no moderators:
I am interested in the candidates and what they have to say to each other — mano-a-mano — in the style of Lincoln and Douglas.Mark Steyn also has a post on the subject:
They should be given a topic for the debate (entitlements, Iran, whatever) and be set free to examine it. Those issues can be discussed at length and in more depth without the interference of media personalities who, besides being biased one way or the other, are often more interested in the promotion of themselves or their companies.
This country is broke, and the unprecedented scale of its brokeness is an existential threat. Yet, with the exception of Newt’s occasional flashes of contempt for the questioners, everyone else plays along with this absurd game. It’s not merely that the GOP is letting the left frame the contest but that a party willing to dignify this pitiful charade is sending a broader message about the likelihood of its mustering the determination to stand up to a Democrat-media establishment once in office and effect meaningful course correction.I think I have to agree with them both. Does anyone think Obama would do debates like this, particularly without a teleprompter?
Quote of the Day:
In a world inhabited by sincere sane leaders, willing to level with the citizens and disposed to allow financial institutions that took world crushing risks to fail through an orderly bankruptcy process, debt would have been written off and a sharp short contraction would have occurred. The stockholders, bondholders and executives of the Wall Street banks would have taken the losses they deserved. Instead Wall Street used their undue influence, wealth and power to force their politician puppets to funnel $5 trillion to the bankers that created the crisis while dumping the debt on taxpayers and unborn generations. The Wall Street controlled Federal Reserve provided risk free funding and took toxic mortgage assets off their balance sheets. The result is total credit market debt higher today than it was at the peak of the financial crisis in March 2009.Read 2012 - The Year of Living Dangerously here. This is certainly not an endorsement of everything he says. He gets off the rails a bit, particularly towards the end when he gets partisan.
Lance Roberts at StreettalkLive.com has a good rundown on last week's employment report:
First, let's start by putting things into perspective. If you take a look at the actual number of those "counted" as employed, that number has risen from the recessionary trough. However, in reality, employment is still far below the long term historical trend. Currently, the deviation from the long term trend is the widest on record and has made very little improvement.The unemployment number went down, but it was not all a happy thing.
If, and that is a big "IF", employment was truly improving, we would be seeing these numbers begin to reverse course. They aren't, and the reason is due to population growth. During the last month it is estimated that the number of individuals of working age, 16 years and over, rose by 143,000 with the working age population now residing at 240.6 million. The offset is that, while job gains are modest and primarily located in lower-paying temporary employment for the end-of-year seasonality, the population continues to grow at an unfettered clip. In simple terms, the economy is not creating jobs fast enough to keep up with population growth.There are some very good charts that show the real situation. If the government were measuring unemployment like they did during the Great Depression, the unemployment rate would be much, much higher. Read the whole thing at the site.
At USA Today, Richard Wolf notes that the US national debt is now at 100% of the economy. This is the point where all analysis shows that we are in seriious trouble. And our politicians are whistling past the graveyard trying to avoid offending anyone by doing what is necessary. All of them are failing us because they are too busy playing politics. Its time for a change. They all need to be thrown out.
Gallup says that 40% of Americans prefer to be independent rather than identify with either of our political parties. 31% are Democrats and 27% are Republicans.
As dysfunctional as both parties are, I cannot really imagine anyone wanting to identify with either of them.
Monday, March 15, 2010
The Ides of March
This year the Ides of March bring the new "final" push by the Democrats to impose Obamacare on a very reluctant nation.
Rasmussen says that the current bill (to the extent anyone knows what is in it) is supported by 43% of the country, while 53% are opposed.
They do not appear to have the votes to pass the bill by ordinary means, so we are seeing all kinds of manipulations in the House to try to force it through.
We will see how many House Democrats are willing to walk the plank for Obama and Nancy Pelosi.
Meanwhile, Paul Ryan, a Republican Congressman, has an excellent article up in the Washington Post today. Read the whole thing. Its good.
His analysis, in part, includes the following:
Rasmussen says that the current bill (to the extent anyone knows what is in it) is supported by 43% of the country, while 53% are opposed.
They do not appear to have the votes to pass the bill by ordinary means, so we are seeing all kinds of manipulations in the House to try to force it through.
We will see how many House Democrats are willing to walk the plank for Obama and Nancy Pelosi.
Meanwhile, Paul Ryan, a Republican Congressman, has an excellent article up in the Washington Post today. Read the whole thing. Its good.
His analysis, in part, includes the following:
"...Through any analytical lens, the legislation will not address the central problem of skyrocketing health-care costs. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that families' premiums could rise 10 to 13 percent; private-sector actuarial estimates top these already high numbers. The higher costs are driven by federalizing the regulation of insurance, narrowing consumers' options and reducing competition among providers. The health-care market would be dominated by government programs and the largest insurance companies, operating as de facto government utilities........"
"This legislation includes a range of job-killing tax hikes and controls on all Americans -- to fund this new entitlement and to penalize employers and individuals who don't play by Washington's new rules........"
The bill is a bad one that really does not address the real concerns that the public has about health care. Rising costs are not solved.
So what are the real purposes of the bill? Ryan explains:
"....If this debate had actually been about health care, we could have worked together to get a grip on costs, make quality care more accessible, address exclusions for preexisting conditions and realign the incentives of insurance companies with those of patients and doctors. Yet this process -- including its embarrassing conclusion -- demonstrates that the debate has never been about health-care policy but, instead, paternalistic ideology....."(emphasis mine)
His conclusion:
"...Should the Democrats' health-care train wreck make it to the president's desk, it will be a pyrrhic victory, and its devastating consequences will take their toll on our health-care system, our budget and our economy."
I emphatically agree. But a bright side of all of this is that the legislation, the way it has been forced on Congress by the Democratic leadership, and all of the shenanigans involved in its passage, will likely doom the Democratic Party to minority status for some time to come.
Now what we need to see is a Republican Party that will step up. So far, when given the chance, they have failed to do so.
Maybe some of the young leaders like Paul Ryan will be the Republican Party of the future.
The leaders of the past have largely failed.
Sunday, February 14, 2010
Don't tell us......
On February 19, 2009, a guy named Rick Santelli, a CNBC business news broadcaster, set the Internet afire with a rant about taxpayers having to bail out defaulting mortage holders. A Youtube version of the rant spread over the Internet like wildfire. You can find it here.
In it he called for a Chicago Tea Party to protest the bailouts.
Boy did the idea catch on. All over America, mad citizens determined to protest what was happening in our government. It was a spontaneous movement, not created or led by anyone, unless you want to credit Mr. Santelli with it. He, of course, had no idea how his rant would catch on with the people.
Now in its second year politicians and press from all sides of the spectrum seem to amazed, even frightened by the movement. They should be.
Many are even setting up strawmen in the movement to tear it down. We see the press trying to set up a lot of people as "leaders" of the movement, then attempting to discredit the movement by being critical of the "leaders." (Some of the people they have described as "leaders" or "founders" of the tea party are pretty bad people, others very controversial.)
This is an attempt by them to discredit a grassroots citizens' movement falsely and by design.
There is no particular leader, although there are many activists who speak up. Most who claim to be leaders are doing so for their own purposes. So don't believe it.
But on to the title point.
A dear friend of mine, who happens to be a liberal, sent me two articles today from Politico.com, a reputable online source for political news.
One titled Republicans woo wary tea partiers dicusses how GOP Chairman Steele is engaging with 50 "leaders" of the tea party in hopes of enticing them into the Republican Party. For most of them, that will not work.
The other article was entitled Conservative manifesto coming soon. This is a story about a large group of Republican leaders and thinkers are getting together a new manifesto describing the basic Republican mission statement. This is also a response to the tea party movement.
I want to break the news to Mr. Steele and the other Republicans and to the Democrats: you people have had your chance. You had the chance to govern well and you blew it. Badly. Both parties.
The time is over for you to tell the people how and what you will or will not do. No more top down pontificating and then continuing on as usual. That day is over for now.
It is time that political power again starts flowing from the citizens to the politicians rather than the reverse.
What we want to see from you is actions. Your words are not meaningful. So listen instead of talk. Act instead of pontificate.
Show us.
In it he called for a Chicago Tea Party to protest the bailouts.
Boy did the idea catch on. All over America, mad citizens determined to protest what was happening in our government. It was a spontaneous movement, not created or led by anyone, unless you want to credit Mr. Santelli with it. He, of course, had no idea how his rant would catch on with the people.
Now in its second year politicians and press from all sides of the spectrum seem to amazed, even frightened by the movement. They should be.
Many are even setting up strawmen in the movement to tear it down. We see the press trying to set up a lot of people as "leaders" of the movement, then attempting to discredit the movement by being critical of the "leaders." (Some of the people they have described as "leaders" or "founders" of the tea party are pretty bad people, others very controversial.)
This is an attempt by them to discredit a grassroots citizens' movement falsely and by design.
There is no particular leader, although there are many activists who speak up. Most who claim to be leaders are doing so for their own purposes. So don't believe it.
But on to the title point.
A dear friend of mine, who happens to be a liberal, sent me two articles today from Politico.com, a reputable online source for political news.
One titled Republicans woo wary tea partiers dicusses how GOP Chairman Steele is engaging with 50 "leaders" of the tea party in hopes of enticing them into the Republican Party. For most of them, that will not work.
The other article was entitled Conservative manifesto coming soon. This is a story about a large group of Republican leaders and thinkers are getting together a new manifesto describing the basic Republican mission statement. This is also a response to the tea party movement.
I want to break the news to Mr. Steele and the other Republicans and to the Democrats: you people have had your chance. You had the chance to govern well and you blew it. Badly. Both parties.
The time is over for you to tell the people how and what you will or will not do. No more top down pontificating and then continuing on as usual. That day is over for now.
It is time that political power again starts flowing from the citizens to the politicians rather than the reverse.
What we want to see from you is actions. Your words are not meaningful. So listen instead of talk. Act instead of pontificate.
Show us.
Saturday, January 23, 2010
Election Lessons
Neither side gets it.....yet.
The election of Scott Brown to the US Senate from Massachusetts has been the big election story of the past week.
Republicans are ecstatic and they think that this was a triumph for Republicans.
Democrats are, of course, very disheartened, but blame the loss on a poor campaign, not their policies.
They are both wrong. It was a victory for the great political center of our country.
What is occuring is that the political center of the country is , to paraphrase Finch's yell from Network, mad as Hell, and they aren't going to take it any more.
In 2008, Barack Obama campaigned as a "post-partisan" who was going to bring change in the way Washington works. He promised more transparency and a bi-partisan approach.
This was what the center wanted to see, John McCain represented the old ways, so they moved into the Democratic column and voted largely for Obama.
Of course, the economy was headed into the tank and the Bush administration had started a huge Federal bailout of the very people who caused the problem, and that had everyone unhappy as well.
Hope and change seemed to be a good thing, so Obama won the election handily.
Almost by the time of his inauguration, it had become clear that hope and change meant more of the same. A huge and mostly wasteful stimulus bill was rushed through Congress, and it became apparent that the United States was facing huge deficits as far as one could project. Cap and Trade was pushed through without any debate and without anyone knowing exactly what was in the bill. And the huge bailouts continued.
All that could be discerned was that the Cap and Trade bill was going to be extremely costly to ordinary Americans, but that the owners of the trading markets, such as Al Gore, were going to get very rich.
So the Tea Party movement started....and grew and grew.
During the Summer of 2009 the ObamaCare bills started to be crafted....in the dark. Rather than transparency, we saw secrecy. People became more outraged, and appeared at Town Hall meetings to protest.
Democrats in the House and Senate were very disparaging of the folks that were protesting.
Tone deaf.
The gubernatorial election in Virginia followed wherein a huge turnaround from the vote in 2008 occurred and a Republican was elected. The Democrats remained tone deaf and continued to try to ram ObamaCare through Congress.
So we get to the election to fill Ted Kennedy's seat. A liberal Democrat runs in the traditionally liberal Democratic state, and is deemed a shoe in. She even took a vacation in the midst of the campaign!
Her opponent, running on the Republican ticket was not a conservative. It was, after all, Massachusetts. But he did tap into the anger of the regular folks.
And he won.
In the aftermath, both political parties remain tone deaf.
The Democrats think they ran a poor campaign and they did not sell their program very well.
The Republicans think the election means a turn toward conservative Republican principles.
Both are wrong.
Each party has its right or left wings, but both of them have to attract the center to govern. Both of them need to understand what the center does and does not want, and neither seem to have a clue that what they have both been offering is not what is wanted. Or needed.
Bush fooled them, and Obama fooled them.
My suspicion is that incumbents of either party are going to have a hard time. They should.
It is time that both parties get a clue, or there will be a party that comes along that will.
The election of Scott Brown to the US Senate from Massachusetts has been the big election story of the past week.
Republicans are ecstatic and they think that this was a triumph for Republicans.
Democrats are, of course, very disheartened, but blame the loss on a poor campaign, not their policies.
They are both wrong. It was a victory for the great political center of our country.
What is occuring is that the political center of the country is , to paraphrase Finch's yell from Network, mad as Hell, and they aren't going to take it any more.
In 2008, Barack Obama campaigned as a "post-partisan" who was going to bring change in the way Washington works. He promised more transparency and a bi-partisan approach.
This was what the center wanted to see, John McCain represented the old ways, so they moved into the Democratic column and voted largely for Obama.
Of course, the economy was headed into the tank and the Bush administration had started a huge Federal bailout of the very people who caused the problem, and that had everyone unhappy as well.
Hope and change seemed to be a good thing, so Obama won the election handily.
Almost by the time of his inauguration, it had become clear that hope and change meant more of the same. A huge and mostly wasteful stimulus bill was rushed through Congress, and it became apparent that the United States was facing huge deficits as far as one could project. Cap and Trade was pushed through without any debate and without anyone knowing exactly what was in the bill. And the huge bailouts continued.
All that could be discerned was that the Cap and Trade bill was going to be extremely costly to ordinary Americans, but that the owners of the trading markets, such as Al Gore, were going to get very rich.
So the Tea Party movement started....and grew and grew.
During the Summer of 2009 the ObamaCare bills started to be crafted....in the dark. Rather than transparency, we saw secrecy. People became more outraged, and appeared at Town Hall meetings to protest.
Democrats in the House and Senate were very disparaging of the folks that were protesting.
Tone deaf.
The gubernatorial election in Virginia followed wherein a huge turnaround from the vote in 2008 occurred and a Republican was elected. The Democrats remained tone deaf and continued to try to ram ObamaCare through Congress.
So we get to the election to fill Ted Kennedy's seat. A liberal Democrat runs in the traditionally liberal Democratic state, and is deemed a shoe in. She even took a vacation in the midst of the campaign!
Her opponent, running on the Republican ticket was not a conservative. It was, after all, Massachusetts. But he did tap into the anger of the regular folks.
And he won.
In the aftermath, both political parties remain tone deaf.
The Democrats think they ran a poor campaign and they did not sell their program very well.
The Republicans think the election means a turn toward conservative Republican principles.
Both are wrong.
Each party has its right or left wings, but both of them have to attract the center to govern. Both of them need to understand what the center does and does not want, and neither seem to have a clue that what they have both been offering is not what is wanted. Or needed.
Bush fooled them, and Obama fooled them.
My suspicion is that incumbents of either party are going to have a hard time. They should.
It is time that both parties get a clue, or there will be a party that comes along that will.
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
Are we living in a satire?
A good question. When we consider what is going on around us every day, it just has to be satire.
The President of the United States tours the world apologizing for everything our country has been.
The President of the United States offends and insults the friends and allies of our country, but snuggles up to the tyrants and dictators of the world in very obsequious ways.
The Russians are now threatening the US with nuclear preemption.
The Iranians and the North Koreans and every other two-bit dictatorship thumbs their noses at the US, correctly assuming that our President is weak.
A Republican President of the United States permits a financial coup de' etat of our economy by the huge financial institutions in New York, and his Democratic successor further enables it.
The President of the United States is awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, having been nominated therefor not later than 12 days after he took office, joining others to hold the prize like Yassir Arafat and Jimmy Carter.
The politicians in Washington are proposing huge and expensive changes in our medical care system in the middle of the worst economy in decades.
They are also proposing huge new taxes on energy use at the same time.
They are continuing to try to solve the problems in the economy caused by too much debt by going further into debt at historical rates.
When one looks at Washington, all one sees is business as usual.
We are living in Wonderland, with Alice.
Who will lead the revolution?
The President of the United States tours the world apologizing for everything our country has been.
The President of the United States offends and insults the friends and allies of our country, but snuggles up to the tyrants and dictators of the world in very obsequious ways.
The Russians are now threatening the US with nuclear preemption.
The Iranians and the North Koreans and every other two-bit dictatorship thumbs their noses at the US, correctly assuming that our President is weak.
A Republican President of the United States permits a financial coup de' etat of our economy by the huge financial institutions in New York, and his Democratic successor further enables it.
The President of the United States is awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, having been nominated therefor not later than 12 days after he took office, joining others to hold the prize like Yassir Arafat and Jimmy Carter.
The politicians in Washington are proposing huge and expensive changes in our medical care system in the middle of the worst economy in decades.
They are also proposing huge new taxes on energy use at the same time.
They are continuing to try to solve the problems in the economy caused by too much debt by going further into debt at historical rates.
When one looks at Washington, all one sees is business as usual.
We are living in Wonderland, with Alice.
Who will lead the revolution?
Thursday, October 1, 2009
Thoughts on a return to blogging
It has been a long and busy three weeks, and I have not been able to even gather thoughts in order to blog. Sorry.
There was some time to keep up with email, and to read some articles. Given what is happening in our world, there is a lot to blog about. I will try to do so with a bit more regularity than lately.
Looking about, one sees the United States, once respected, if disliked, has changed to being disrespected and still disliked.
All of that in a period of eight months.
This is because of the deliberate policies of our current government. It has sucked up to our enemies and offended and abandoned our friends. Intentionally.
Iran has just been given another pass, in spite of its threat. North Korea is ignored, to do whatever nuke development they wish.
Castro and Chavez to our south are being helped, rather than isolated, while Honduras and Colombia, our allies, are treated quite poorly.
The situation in Afghanistan is eroding, and the government is holding "meetings." There seems to be no sense of urgency, even though the President accorded Afghanistan important status when running for office.
Domestically, the economy is in the tank while the "stimulus" is spent to shore up supporters and arms of the Democratic Party. The big banking and financial institutions have been bailed out with nearly three trillion dollars of taxpayers' money, but the government entities refuse to account to the people for the money.
The majority party is trying to cram health "reform" down the throat of the 85% of the people who are satisfied with their health insurance, in order to make coverage available to an additional 11% of the people (and, of course, 12 million illegal aliens).
They are also trying to pass a "cap and trade" regime, which will enrich a few, but will constitute a huge energy tax on everyone else, even the poor. This is being done in a time of deep recession and increasing unemployment.
In the media, I notice that the New York Times has as the lead article a story about Senator John Ensign (R-Nev) and his affair, but there is not a mention anywhere of Charles Rangel (D-NY) and his series of felonies, nor of the bastard child of John Edwards, the Democratic presidential candidate, even though there is some here on Politico.
Enough.
A couple of weeks ago, as I sat out on my patio enjoying the evening with my puppy dog and an adult beverage, I had something of a premonition. Nothing specific at all, just a thought that something bad might happen. A friend that I told about it said he was having somewhat similar thoughts.
I think that when one considers the above, along with everything else, there is good reason to worry.
Perhaps that can be covered a bit in succeeding posts.
There was some time to keep up with email, and to read some articles. Given what is happening in our world, there is a lot to blog about. I will try to do so with a bit more regularity than lately.
Looking about, one sees the United States, once respected, if disliked, has changed to being disrespected and still disliked.
All of that in a period of eight months.
This is because of the deliberate policies of our current government. It has sucked up to our enemies and offended and abandoned our friends. Intentionally.
Iran has just been given another pass, in spite of its threat. North Korea is ignored, to do whatever nuke development they wish.
Castro and Chavez to our south are being helped, rather than isolated, while Honduras and Colombia, our allies, are treated quite poorly.
The situation in Afghanistan is eroding, and the government is holding "meetings." There seems to be no sense of urgency, even though the President accorded Afghanistan important status when running for office.
Domestically, the economy is in the tank while the "stimulus" is spent to shore up supporters and arms of the Democratic Party. The big banking and financial institutions have been bailed out with nearly three trillion dollars of taxpayers' money, but the government entities refuse to account to the people for the money.
The majority party is trying to cram health "reform" down the throat of the 85% of the people who are satisfied with their health insurance, in order to make coverage available to an additional 11% of the people (and, of course, 12 million illegal aliens).
They are also trying to pass a "cap and trade" regime, which will enrich a few, but will constitute a huge energy tax on everyone else, even the poor. This is being done in a time of deep recession and increasing unemployment.
In the media, I notice that the New York Times has as the lead article a story about Senator John Ensign (R-Nev) and his affair, but there is not a mention anywhere of Charles Rangel (D-NY) and his series of felonies, nor of the bastard child of John Edwards, the Democratic presidential candidate, even though there is some here on Politico.
Enough.
A couple of weeks ago, as I sat out on my patio enjoying the evening with my puppy dog and an adult beverage, I had something of a premonition. Nothing specific at all, just a thought that something bad might happen. A friend that I told about it said he was having somewhat similar thoughts.
I think that when one considers the above, along with everything else, there is good reason to worry.
Perhaps that can be covered a bit in succeeding posts.
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
Obama and the Schoolchildren
When I first heard that Obama was going to address the schoolchildren and the Department of Education has sent out a "lesson plan" to be followed, my immediate response was to object. This comes mainly from my feelings of distrust toward Obama.
After some thought, I changed my mind, at least about the Obama speech (I think the "lesson plan" was a bit over the top).
Obama has every right to address schoolchildren about appropriate subjects, and it turns out that the speech he made was fine (perhaps a bit too much "I" but that happens whenever he opens his mouth). I just hope that the kids listened and took it seriously.
One of the most serious problems in our society is the high rate of school dropouts, particularly from within the poor and minority communities. We are raising generation after generation of children from those communities without sufficient education to be much of a factor in the workplace.
Someone like Obama can make a difference there, if he will. But speeches will not be enough. More is needed, and the teacher's unions seemingly refuse to take the kinds of steps needed to improve the schools. But that is another story.
Why would Obama address the kids when there is so much on his plate? Well, for the same reason that George H. W. Bush did in 1991, and George W. Bush was doing much the same when the planes hit the towers on 9/11.....politics, purely and simply.
Folks like politicians that pay attention to the children, from kissing babies all the way to making speeches to them. So politicians do that. It makes them seem human to everyone.
Why do other politicians object? Politics again. They don't want someone on the other side to gain from such a display.
That is why the Democrats had Bush, Sr.'s speech investigated by the GAO (which found it to be perfectly legal).
The point is: its fine to address the kids if you say the right things, but it is not fine to turn it into a political show. The kids need to be left out of politics. They will have to deal with them too soon anyway.
After some thought, I changed my mind, at least about the Obama speech (I think the "lesson plan" was a bit over the top).
Obama has every right to address schoolchildren about appropriate subjects, and it turns out that the speech he made was fine (perhaps a bit too much "I" but that happens whenever he opens his mouth). I just hope that the kids listened and took it seriously.
One of the most serious problems in our society is the high rate of school dropouts, particularly from within the poor and minority communities. We are raising generation after generation of children from those communities without sufficient education to be much of a factor in the workplace.
Someone like Obama can make a difference there, if he will. But speeches will not be enough. More is needed, and the teacher's unions seemingly refuse to take the kinds of steps needed to improve the schools. But that is another story.
Why would Obama address the kids when there is so much on his plate? Well, for the same reason that George H. W. Bush did in 1991, and George W. Bush was doing much the same when the planes hit the towers on 9/11.....politics, purely and simply.
Folks like politicians that pay attention to the children, from kissing babies all the way to making speeches to them. So politicians do that. It makes them seem human to everyone.
Why do other politicians object? Politics again. They don't want someone on the other side to gain from such a display.
That is why the Democrats had Bush, Sr.'s speech investigated by the GAO (which found it to be perfectly legal).
The point is: its fine to address the kids if you say the right things, but it is not fine to turn it into a political show. The kids need to be left out of politics. They will have to deal with them too soon anyway.
Monday, September 7, 2009
Labor Day
The unofficial end of Summer has arrived, and with it all sorts of things.
College football got under way last week, starting my favorite time of the year. My Texas Longhorns won, while our arch-rival Oklahoma lost at home to Brigham Young. OU's Heisman quarterback was injured, but its extent is yet unknown. I wish him a speedy recovery. He is an outstanding young man.
With it comes a breath of Fall, particularly in the mornings and evenings in West Texas. Temps at night are 10-12 degrees cooler than a month ago, and there is a freshness in the breeze. Even a few leaves are beginning to drift down in the back yard
New polls shown unions to be unpopular with the folks. That is not surprising, because now that their man is President, and they own the Congress, we are all able to see what jerks most of them are. See articles here and here.
Obama had the whistle blown on one of the several outright communists in his administration. There are more, but good riddance to Van Jones. An article here. Another is here.
Take note that the large media never covered the story until he left, and than tried to paper it over. No wonder they are all going broke. Most of them are simply an adjunct to Obama's propaganda machine. Something closely akin to Lenin's "useful idiots." One simply cannot trust anything most of them say.
This Labor Day finds us with a reported 9.7% unemployment rate, with the direction still headed down. If one were to use the same measure as was used during the Great Depression, it would be closer to 17%. Very sad.
All the liberal pundits like to talk about "green shoots" in the economy, and a "recovery" about to start. My view is that there is no recovery until jobs come back. Even Obama says that won't be until well into next year.
The use of the "stimulus" bill to pay off ACORN and other large Democratic constituencies is turning into a nightmare for unemployed Americans. Will there be any accountability for this? Probably not. Maybe November, 2010. We will see.
There are other things to cover that have arisen since I last posted. More later.
College football got under way last week, starting my favorite time of the year. My Texas Longhorns won, while our arch-rival Oklahoma lost at home to Brigham Young. OU's Heisman quarterback was injured, but its extent is yet unknown. I wish him a speedy recovery. He is an outstanding young man.
With it comes a breath of Fall, particularly in the mornings and evenings in West Texas. Temps at night are 10-12 degrees cooler than a month ago, and there is a freshness in the breeze. Even a few leaves are beginning to drift down in the back yard
New polls shown unions to be unpopular with the folks. That is not surprising, because now that their man is President, and they own the Congress, we are all able to see what jerks most of them are. See articles here and here.
Obama had the whistle blown on one of the several outright communists in his administration. There are more, but good riddance to Van Jones. An article here. Another is here.
Take note that the large media never covered the story until he left, and than tried to paper it over. No wonder they are all going broke. Most of them are simply an adjunct to Obama's propaganda machine. Something closely akin to Lenin's "useful idiots." One simply cannot trust anything most of them say.
This Labor Day finds us with a reported 9.7% unemployment rate, with the direction still headed down. If one were to use the same measure as was used during the Great Depression, it would be closer to 17%. Very sad.
All the liberal pundits like to talk about "green shoots" in the economy, and a "recovery" about to start. My view is that there is no recovery until jobs come back. Even Obama says that won't be until well into next year.
The use of the "stimulus" bill to pay off ACORN and other large Democratic constituencies is turning into a nightmare for unemployed Americans. Will there be any accountability for this? Probably not. Maybe November, 2010. We will see.
There are other things to cover that have arisen since I last posted. More later.
Saturday, August 29, 2009
Busy, busy
Have been very busy the last two weeks, and will be the next three weeks it appears. I only thought I had retired. LOL
There is a lot going on in the political world, and I will try to be commenting a bit about some of it, but time will be short.
After they get Teddy buried, I suspect some will try to use any emotion generated by his death to help push through their socialized medicine bill. Let's hope they fail.
I feel about as good about TedKennedyCare as Mary Jo Kopechne would.
The liberal press continues to give proven corrupt Democrats a pass. Rangel would lead the list, of course. One cannot count his felonies on one hand, but he still leads the House Ways and Means Committee. Apparently the majority party approves of his corruption.
Bill Richardson escaped indictment through a rules breaking decision by the Attorney General to drop proceedings against him. I guess apologies are due the Grand Jurors who spent a year doing the investigation.
Then there is Christopher Dodd and Kent Conrad, who got sweetheart deals from CountryWide as it was going busted, but a Senate committee has decided it wasn't unethical.
The list goes on. And on. And on.
Of course, there have been Republicans on such a list as well, but we were promised in 2006 that the Democrats would do away with the "culture of corruption" in Washington.
Instead, they have accelerated it.
If the House and the Senate cannot enforce ethical conduct among their members, how can we expect them to make correct decisions on anything else?
We need to throw them all out, and start over. Beginning at the very top.
There is a lot going on in the political world, and I will try to be commenting a bit about some of it, but time will be short.
After they get Teddy buried, I suspect some will try to use any emotion generated by his death to help push through their socialized medicine bill. Let's hope they fail.
I feel about as good about TedKennedyCare as Mary Jo Kopechne would.
The liberal press continues to give proven corrupt Democrats a pass. Rangel would lead the list, of course. One cannot count his felonies on one hand, but he still leads the House Ways and Means Committee. Apparently the majority party approves of his corruption.
Bill Richardson escaped indictment through a rules breaking decision by the Attorney General to drop proceedings against him. I guess apologies are due the Grand Jurors who spent a year doing the investigation.
Then there is Christopher Dodd and Kent Conrad, who got sweetheart deals from CountryWide as it was going busted, but a Senate committee has decided it wasn't unethical.
The list goes on. And on. And on.
Of course, there have been Republicans on such a list as well, but we were promised in 2006 that the Democrats would do away with the "culture of corruption" in Washington.
Instead, they have accelerated it.
If the House and the Senate cannot enforce ethical conduct among their members, how can we expect them to make correct decisions on anything else?
We need to throw them all out, and start over. Beginning at the very top.
Friday, August 21, 2009
What About Social Security?
With all the heat over the health care issues, the issue of Social Security is being ignored. That is a shame, because Social Security presents us with a far more pressing problem than health care.
Because of the current recession, it now appears that the point at which SS revenues become less than its benefit payments has advanced from 2017 as reported by the Government Accountability Office to 2012 or sooner. That means that SS is basically broke, because there is no money in the SS Trust Fund.
Benefits will have to be paid out of general revenue after that. Congress has spent the Trust Fund on other things. And there is no fiduciary responsibility for the Trust Fund as there would be for private ones. How clever.
According to the GAO in 2005( go there, it is a great report), it would take $12 Trillion dollars paid in now to fully fund future SS benefits at current levels. Try that on for size.
As a result, Social Security needs some real change, not talk. There are several ways to cure the problem and make sure that our children have some semblance of retirement security.
We could do what most private companies have done, and what most state and local governments are going to have to do. That is, go to a defined contribution plan, as opposed to the current defined benefit plan we have.
I suspect that will be a non-starter for Democrats, because the defined benefit plan has a large amount of wealth redistribution in it. That was why they were so adamantly opposed to Bush's partial privatization, which was really making part of SS a defined contribution plan.
On to other possibilities.
We could raise the tax on wages. An increase of 15% in payroll taxes today would do it. If we wait until 2041, it would have to be 41%. Of course, with the latter date, general revenue (with its tax stream) would have to finance it until then. I do not favor this. I think it would be unfair to our young people.
We could raise the cap on wages taxed. This would require those with a higher income to pay much higher taxes, but get higher benefits, though far from dollar for dollar because of the redistributionist benefit schedule. Now the maximum wage taxed is $102,000 per year.
We could change the benefits, either by reducing them significantly or by delaying the payment of them.
Both of those benefit changes would have to be phased in over a decently long period for it to be fair to those already receiving SS or nearing eligibility. Probably the way they extended the eligibility date to age 67 may be appropriate.
Delaying the benefits may be the best way. When SS was set up, the age of 65 was very old. The primary reason SS is broke is that people receiving benefits are living much longer than we used to, and so each person receives far more in benefits than planned.
The quite simple way to solve this problem is to extend the eligibility date as the life expectancy increases.
It is imperative that Congress addresses this issue. It is extremely difficult politically to do so, but there is also not much time. Support for Social Security is beginning to evaporate as more and more young people become politically active. Few of them believe that they will ever receive SS, but realize that it is they who are paying for what their elders are getting.
They understand that this is terribly unfair....and it is.
This week, in a poll done by Rasmussen, he found the following:
"Forty-nine percent (49%) of U.S. voters say working Americans should be allowed to opt out of Social Security and provide for their own retirement planning."
In addition:
"Sixty percent (60%) of voters are not confident that the Social Security system will pay them all promised benefits during their lifetime, with 36% not very confident and 24% not at all confident."
This does not bode well for the future of Social Security, and may be signalling a widening generational dispute.
If support is to be maintained for SS, then it must be made fair to everyone, and that includes sacrifices from us all.
This is a very emotional subject, and has been the source of a lot of demagoguing by politicians on both sides of the issues. It is time for that to stop. There has to be room for responsible compromise on the various choices. Some combination of the above will probably do the job.
Both sides of the issues need to sit down and work something out. The hyperpartisanship we have seen in Washington the last few years is not getting the job done, and will not.
Both sides had better realize that the folks back home are getting impatient. We want a government that works for all of us. But not one that is intrusive into our private lives.
That means that the "my way or the highway" attitudes by our political class has to be discarded, and the pols need to get to work.
Or else.
Because of the current recession, it now appears that the point at which SS revenues become less than its benefit payments has advanced from 2017 as reported by the Government Accountability Office to 2012 or sooner. That means that SS is basically broke, because there is no money in the SS Trust Fund.
Benefits will have to be paid out of general revenue after that. Congress has spent the Trust Fund on other things. And there is no fiduciary responsibility for the Trust Fund as there would be for private ones. How clever.
According to the GAO in 2005( go there, it is a great report), it would take $12 Trillion dollars paid in now to fully fund future SS benefits at current levels. Try that on for size.
As a result, Social Security needs some real change, not talk. There are several ways to cure the problem and make sure that our children have some semblance of retirement security.
We could do what most private companies have done, and what most state and local governments are going to have to do. That is, go to a defined contribution plan, as opposed to the current defined benefit plan we have.
I suspect that will be a non-starter for Democrats, because the defined benefit plan has a large amount of wealth redistribution in it. That was why they were so adamantly opposed to Bush's partial privatization, which was really making part of SS a defined contribution plan.
On to other possibilities.
We could raise the tax on wages. An increase of 15% in payroll taxes today would do it. If we wait until 2041, it would have to be 41%. Of course, with the latter date, general revenue (with its tax stream) would have to finance it until then. I do not favor this. I think it would be unfair to our young people.
We could raise the cap on wages taxed. This would require those with a higher income to pay much higher taxes, but get higher benefits, though far from dollar for dollar because of the redistributionist benefit schedule. Now the maximum wage taxed is $102,000 per year.
We could change the benefits, either by reducing them significantly or by delaying the payment of them.
Both of those benefit changes would have to be phased in over a decently long period for it to be fair to those already receiving SS or nearing eligibility. Probably the way they extended the eligibility date to age 67 may be appropriate.
Delaying the benefits may be the best way. When SS was set up, the age of 65 was very old. The primary reason SS is broke is that people receiving benefits are living much longer than we used to, and so each person receives far more in benefits than planned.
The quite simple way to solve this problem is to extend the eligibility date as the life expectancy increases.
It is imperative that Congress addresses this issue. It is extremely difficult politically to do so, but there is also not much time. Support for Social Security is beginning to evaporate as more and more young people become politically active. Few of them believe that they will ever receive SS, but realize that it is they who are paying for what their elders are getting.
They understand that this is terribly unfair....and it is.
This week, in a poll done by Rasmussen, he found the following:
"Forty-nine percent (49%) of U.S. voters say working Americans should be allowed to opt out of Social Security and provide for their own retirement planning."
In addition:
"Sixty percent (60%) of voters are not confident that the Social Security system will pay them all promised benefits during their lifetime, with 36% not very confident and 24% not at all confident."
This does not bode well for the future of Social Security, and may be signalling a widening generational dispute.
If support is to be maintained for SS, then it must be made fair to everyone, and that includes sacrifices from us all.
This is a very emotional subject, and has been the source of a lot of demagoguing by politicians on both sides of the issues. It is time for that to stop. There has to be room for responsible compromise on the various choices. Some combination of the above will probably do the job.
Both sides of the issues need to sit down and work something out. The hyperpartisanship we have seen in Washington the last few years is not getting the job done, and will not.
Both sides had better realize that the folks back home are getting impatient. We want a government that works for all of us. But not one that is intrusive into our private lives.
That means that the "my way or the highway" attitudes by our political class has to be discarded, and the pols need to get to work.
Or else.
Sunday, August 16, 2009
Its Not Just About Health Care
A lot of liberals are making the mistake in thinking that all of the protesting out there by the citizenry is just about the health care bills.
Nothing could be farther from the truth.
Some of it is....it is the issue du jour. But there is a lot more. A lot.
Victor Davis Hanson, is great essay, says it this way:
"There is a growing sense of a “we’ve been had”, bait-and-switch. Millions of moderate Republicans, independents, and conservative Democrats — apparently angry at Bush for Iraq and big deficits, unimpressed by the McCain campaign, intrigued by the revolutionary idea of electing an African-American president — voted for Obama on the assumption that he was sincere about ending red state/blue state animosity. They took him at his word that he was going to end out-of-control federal spending. They trusted that he had real plans to get us out of the economic doldrums, and that he was not a radical tax-and-spend liberal of the old sort."
Read the whole thing here.
Professor Hanson goes on the give reasons for why "we have been had" but there are others he misses.
And he misses one important thing: these protests are also against the Republican policies of the last few years.
The people are tired of the government messing everything up. They are tired of the corruption, the power of the big lobbyists, the huge and growing deficits, the move to have the government control every aspect of our lives, the terrible, huge bailouts of the financial institutions, the nationalization of Chrysler and General Motors with the concurrent gift of 40% of the stock in GM to the United Auto Workers, an adjunct of the Democratic Party, and a whole list of other things.
While the Democrats may be the worst offenders, Republicans started us down the path to the bailouts and the nationalizations, and certainly were running up huge deficits. They also really enjoyed slopping at the trough when they were in power.
Much of this anger is directed at the entire political process. Some did, as Hanson points out, foolishly think that Obama might really change things, and hope that government could be made to work better.
Obama's only interest is to make it work better for his political allies. Anyone who thinks differently is still being foolish.
My view is that Americans do want their government to work better than it has, but they also want it to be limited to those things government can do best.
They want the government to stay out of things that the government is incapable of doing, like making medical choices for over 300 million Americans. Some regulation, yes. Deciding when to put granny down, or whether grandpa can have a knee replaced, or a neonate should be saved or not, no.
Hell no.
Running Chrysler and General Motors, no.
Taxing energy and destroying our economy (even more), no.
Running up trillions more in national debt, no.
Expanding government at the expense of the private sector, no.
One could go on and on. Obama is trying to cram the very opposite down our throats. The Republicans so far have not really put forward credible and effective alternatives, at least none that have been well publicized.
Message to Republicans: don't try to regain power by saying "we will do better." Nobody will believe you.
Show us.
Message to Democrats: Get off the socialism now.
Nothing could be farther from the truth.
Some of it is....it is the issue du jour. But there is a lot more. A lot.
Victor Davis Hanson, is great essay, says it this way:
"There is a growing sense of a “we’ve been had”, bait-and-switch. Millions of moderate Republicans, independents, and conservative Democrats — apparently angry at Bush for Iraq and big deficits, unimpressed by the McCain campaign, intrigued by the revolutionary idea of electing an African-American president — voted for Obama on the assumption that he was sincere about ending red state/blue state animosity. They took him at his word that he was going to end out-of-control federal spending. They trusted that he had real plans to get us out of the economic doldrums, and that he was not a radical tax-and-spend liberal of the old sort."
Read the whole thing here.
Professor Hanson goes on the give reasons for why "we have been had" but there are others he misses.
And he misses one important thing: these protests are also against the Republican policies of the last few years.
The people are tired of the government messing everything up. They are tired of the corruption, the power of the big lobbyists, the huge and growing deficits, the move to have the government control every aspect of our lives, the terrible, huge bailouts of the financial institutions, the nationalization of Chrysler and General Motors with the concurrent gift of 40% of the stock in GM to the United Auto Workers, an adjunct of the Democratic Party, and a whole list of other things.
While the Democrats may be the worst offenders, Republicans started us down the path to the bailouts and the nationalizations, and certainly were running up huge deficits. They also really enjoyed slopping at the trough when they were in power.
Much of this anger is directed at the entire political process. Some did, as Hanson points out, foolishly think that Obama might really change things, and hope that government could be made to work better.
Obama's only interest is to make it work better for his political allies. Anyone who thinks differently is still being foolish.
My view is that Americans do want their government to work better than it has, but they also want it to be limited to those things government can do best.
They want the government to stay out of things that the government is incapable of doing, like making medical choices for over 300 million Americans. Some regulation, yes. Deciding when to put granny down, or whether grandpa can have a knee replaced, or a neonate should be saved or not, no.
Hell no.
Running Chrysler and General Motors, no.
Taxing energy and destroying our economy (even more), no.
Running up trillions more in national debt, no.
Expanding government at the expense of the private sector, no.
One could go on and on. Obama is trying to cram the very opposite down our throats. The Republicans so far have not really put forward credible and effective alternatives, at least none that have been well publicized.
Message to Republicans: don't try to regain power by saying "we will do better." Nobody will believe you.
Show us.
Message to Democrats: Get off the socialism now.
Thursday, August 13, 2009
The Real Problem With the Health Care Debate
The real problem with health care is that they have done it in a way that nobody can really be informed. Clearly the Congress is not, and clearly the folks on both sides are not.
This is the crux of the matter: the whole issue has been presented in such a poor way that nobody really knows or appreciates what is actually in the various bills, and the attempt to rush it through with no debate, like the stimulus and the cap and trade bill, leaves the public to assume that the health care bill is as bad as the others.
This is just real poor politics by Obama and the Congressional leaders. Camille Paglia had it right.
People fear the unknown. The bill's provisions are unknown....deliberately. The Democrats are losing the fight for that reason, and should.
What needs to be done is that Obama needs to lay out the bill he wants, and then the various committees in Congress should hold public hearings and hear everyone's views.
After hearings and a fair markup debate, what comes out should be freely debated on the House floor (or the Senate, as the case may be) and voted up or down after any amendments. In other words, they should follow their own procedures.
Instead, the Democrat leadership in the House tried to rush something through without debate and without really informing the public what was in it.
This is not how a Democratic Republic like ours is supposed to work. It is a violation of all the tenets of fairness.
For that reason all of the bills should be voted down, and a new start made.
We were promised bi-partisanship by Obama. Instead, we have gotten worse partisanship than even Tom DeLay caused.
Shame on them all.
This is the crux of the matter: the whole issue has been presented in such a poor way that nobody really knows or appreciates what is actually in the various bills, and the attempt to rush it through with no debate, like the stimulus and the cap and trade bill, leaves the public to assume that the health care bill is as bad as the others.
This is just real poor politics by Obama and the Congressional leaders. Camille Paglia had it right.
People fear the unknown. The bill's provisions are unknown....deliberately. The Democrats are losing the fight for that reason, and should.
What needs to be done is that Obama needs to lay out the bill he wants, and then the various committees in Congress should hold public hearings and hear everyone's views.
After hearings and a fair markup debate, what comes out should be freely debated on the House floor (or the Senate, as the case may be) and voted up or down after any amendments. In other words, they should follow their own procedures.
Instead, the Democrat leadership in the House tried to rush something through without debate and without really informing the public what was in it.
This is not how a Democratic Republic like ours is supposed to work. It is a violation of all the tenets of fairness.
For that reason all of the bills should be voted down, and a new start made.
We were promised bi-partisanship by Obama. Instead, we have gotten worse partisanship than even Tom DeLay caused.
Shame on them all.
Tuesday, August 4, 2009
Utopia Versus Freedom
Thomas Sowell has a very thoughtful article on this subject over at Real Clear Politics. He is absolutely right about what he says.
We are in the midst of a great debate between liberals who want to impose, through the government, a utopia on all of us, and those who would rather preserve their freedom. His thought:
"... If everything that is wrong with the world becomes a reason to turn more power over to some political savior, then freedom is going to erode away, while we are mindlessly repeating the catchwords of the hour, whether "change," "universal health care" or "social justice.""
And that is it in a nutshell. Turning your life over to the government erodes your freedom. Its really as simple as that.
He goes on to say:
"Ultimately, our choice is to give up Utopian quests or give up our freedom. This has been recognized for centuries by some, but many others have not yet faced that reality, even today. If you think government should "do something" about anything that ticks you off, or anything you want and don't have, then you have made your choice between Utopia and freedom."
Our health care system is not perfect, but 80% of Americans are satisfied with their coverage. Everytime we ask the government to do something about that, or anything else, it usually leads to more imperfections. The track record of the government is not good. See the Veteran's Administration for the operation of hospitals, and see Medicare and Medicaid for its operation of insurance. Nothing the government has ever done in this area has been done without far exceeding its projected costs. The example of the VA is horrendous. Medicare and Medicaid are merely broke
Anytime you get politicians involved in anything, it is all about distributing largesse, not about doing it right.
The message I have to all the people who want the Democrats to lead us to a socialist utopia is to understand that people who love their freedom will not stand for it.
A hat tip to William Katz at Urgent Agenda.
We are in the midst of a great debate between liberals who want to impose, through the government, a utopia on all of us, and those who would rather preserve their freedom. His thought:
"... If everything that is wrong with the world becomes a reason to turn more power over to some political savior, then freedom is going to erode away, while we are mindlessly repeating the catchwords of the hour, whether "change," "universal health care" or "social justice.""
And that is it in a nutshell. Turning your life over to the government erodes your freedom. Its really as simple as that.
He goes on to say:
"Ultimately, our choice is to give up Utopian quests or give up our freedom. This has been recognized for centuries by some, but many others have not yet faced that reality, even today. If you think government should "do something" about anything that ticks you off, or anything you want and don't have, then you have made your choice between Utopia and freedom."
Our health care system is not perfect, but 80% of Americans are satisfied with their coverage. Everytime we ask the government to do something about that, or anything else, it usually leads to more imperfections. The track record of the government is not good. See the Veteran's Administration for the operation of hospitals, and see Medicare and Medicaid for its operation of insurance. Nothing the government has ever done in this area has been done without far exceeding its projected costs. The example of the VA is horrendous. Medicare and Medicaid are merely broke
Anytime you get politicians involved in anything, it is all about distributing largesse, not about doing it right.
The message I have to all the people who want the Democrats to lead us to a socialist utopia is to understand that people who love their freedom will not stand for it.
A hat tip to William Katz at Urgent Agenda.
Monday, August 3, 2009
Will ObamaCare Ration Health Care to Seniors?
Absolutely YES.
Senator Brownback, in a post on NRO lays it on the line:
"This became abundantly clear when Senator Mike Enzi (R., Wyo.) introduced an amendment designed to ensure that the new center could not put a value on life-saving treatment by using “quality of life” and “cost-effectiveness” measures “for the denial of Medicare benefits to patients against their wishes.” Because Democrats rejected the amendment in a party-line vote, the proposed new entity would be able to impose restrictions on access to treatment, as is common in European countries with socialized medicine. Elderly, disabled, and medically dependent patients would be at greatest risk of being denied necessary care."
Medicare certainly needs fixing, but there are many ways to do it that do not include denial of health care to the elderly and infirm.
The fact that we are being lied to about it, makes it even worse.
I am working and then out of town most of this week, but I do have some thoughts about how to help fix the Medicare problem that I will try to post at some point.
The conduct of the majority party in Washington is shameless.
Senator Brownback, in a post on NRO lays it on the line:
"This became abundantly clear when Senator Mike Enzi (R., Wyo.) introduced an amendment designed to ensure that the new center could not put a value on life-saving treatment by using “quality of life” and “cost-effectiveness” measures “for the denial of Medicare benefits to patients against their wishes.” Because Democrats rejected the amendment in a party-line vote, the proposed new entity would be able to impose restrictions on access to treatment, as is common in European countries with socialized medicine. Elderly, disabled, and medically dependent patients would be at greatest risk of being denied necessary care."
Medicare certainly needs fixing, but there are many ways to do it that do not include denial of health care to the elderly and infirm.
The fact that we are being lied to about it, makes it even worse.
I am working and then out of town most of this week, but I do have some thoughts about how to help fix the Medicare problem that I will try to post at some point.
The conduct of the majority party in Washington is shameless.
Friday, July 31, 2009
Good Enough For Us, But Not For Them
The Great, Fabulous health care bill that will have deep and lasting effects upon all of us, has been determined by the House Energy and Commerce Committee to be not good enough for the President and the Congress.
I see this over at Redstate in a post by Jeff Emmanuel.
The committee site is here, but it is not functioning because of the high traffic, and has not kept up with the voting.
The first vote was on an amendment to permit all Americans to share the same medical plan that Congress has. That was voted down by the Democrats by 31-28.
The second would have required all Members of Congress and Federal public officials to be automatically enrolled in the so-called public plan.
This was ruled not germane by Democratic Chairman Waxman, saving the Democrats from having to vote on it.
Surprise, surprise.
Who would have thought that we would see Congress feeling that their plan was too good for us peons, and their plan for us was not good enough for them?
That is precisely what they have done.
Outrageous.
But what can we expect from that den of thieves?
Will Rogers was right:
"The only native criminal class in America is Congress."
And the worst are Democrats.
I see this over at Redstate in a post by Jeff Emmanuel.
The committee site is here, but it is not functioning because of the high traffic, and has not kept up with the voting.
The first vote was on an amendment to permit all Americans to share the same medical plan that Congress has. That was voted down by the Democrats by 31-28.
The second would have required all Members of Congress and Federal public officials to be automatically enrolled in the so-called public plan.
This was ruled not germane by Democratic Chairman Waxman, saving the Democrats from having to vote on it.
Surprise, surprise.
Who would have thought that we would see Congress feeling that their plan was too good for us peons, and their plan for us was not good enough for them?
That is precisely what they have done.
Outrageous.
But what can we expect from that den of thieves?
Will Rogers was right:
"The only native criminal class in America is Congress."
And the worst are Democrats.
Thursday, July 30, 2009
Who do they work for?
Daniel Henninger over at the Wall Street Journal has a piece about the Blue Dogs where he asks the title question.:
"....The issue is: Do they work for us, or do we work for them? "
That is a question we can ask about all of our folks in the Federal Government including all of Congress, the Executive and the Judiciary.
Who is the master, and who is the slave?
If you explore almost any issue, it comes down to this: one group up there is pro government, and wants the government to make sure we are led down the "correct" paths. These are mostly Democrats. Another group mostly favors (they say) having the private sector do the leading. These are mostly Republicans. The last group is on the fence. They cannot decide who to favor, the government or the people. This includes the Blue Dogs and so-called "moderate" Republicans.
The problem we have is that when the pro-private sector folks have gotten in charge, they have joined the pro government group.
The result has been an unprecedented growth in government the last 80 years. This has left us all less free and less well off than we otherwise would be.
Our government has gotten to the point that it serves the special interests that feed it, and not the people who, through their taxes, are required to support it.
Just look at the absolutely huge sums expended by lobbyists and other big special interests to support the power and elections of the politicians. Is it any wonder that the whole system has become so corrupt?
We all need to send a message to the politicians: you represent us, or you are gone.
Actually, we just need to throw all the bums out and start over.
Read all of Henninger's article here.
"....The issue is: Do they work for us, or do we work for them? "
That is a question we can ask about all of our folks in the Federal Government including all of Congress, the Executive and the Judiciary.
Who is the master, and who is the slave?
If you explore almost any issue, it comes down to this: one group up there is pro government, and wants the government to make sure we are led down the "correct" paths. These are mostly Democrats. Another group mostly favors (they say) having the private sector do the leading. These are mostly Republicans. The last group is on the fence. They cannot decide who to favor, the government or the people. This includes the Blue Dogs and so-called "moderate" Republicans.
The problem we have is that when the pro-private sector folks have gotten in charge, they have joined the pro government group.
The result has been an unprecedented growth in government the last 80 years. This has left us all less free and less well off than we otherwise would be.
Our government has gotten to the point that it serves the special interests that feed it, and not the people who, through their taxes, are required to support it.
Just look at the absolutely huge sums expended by lobbyists and other big special interests to support the power and elections of the politicians. Is it any wonder that the whole system has become so corrupt?
We all need to send a message to the politicians: you represent us, or you are gone.
Actually, we just need to throw all the bums out and start over.
Read all of Henninger's article here.
The Pelosi Payroll Tax; UPDATE:Demo says even they don't understand the bill
The Wall Street Journal today points out that there is more than one tax in the proposed health care reform bill.
Its an up to 10% payroll tax on workers whose employers don't provide health insurance. Now it is in the bill as a tax on employers, but it is no secret that such taxes will result in lower pay and benefits for the workers.
"To put this in actual dollars, a worker earning, say, $70,000 a year could lose some $5,600 in take home pay to cover the costs of ObamaCare. And, by the way, this is in addition to the 2.5% tax that the individual worker would have to pay on gross income, if he doesn’t buy the high-priced health insurance that the government will mandate. In sum, that’s a near 10-percentage point tax on wages and salaries on top of the 15% that already hits workers to finance Medicare and Social Security."
This is just one of the things that would not be discussed if the bill had been hurried through like she tried to do.
The four Blue Dogs who caved in yesterday at least give us some time to carefully go through this bill, something we were not able to do with the cap and trade bill.
It will be interesting to discover what else is hidden in the legislation.
Isn't it nice to have such open and transparent processes in the Democrat Congress?
Criminal, at best.
UPDATE: According to Politico, even Democrats in Congress don't understand the health care reform:
"A Democratic lawmaker, Rep. Collin Peterson of Minnesota, agrees. “The members don’t even understand what’s in it,” he confessed of the legislation. As for his constituents? They are “not exactly sure what this is about, and they’re not really sure whether they like it or not.” "
What does that say about them and their haste to rush it through? Transparency? Hope and change? Tyranny of the majority?
Its an up to 10% payroll tax on workers whose employers don't provide health insurance. Now it is in the bill as a tax on employers, but it is no secret that such taxes will result in lower pay and benefits for the workers.
"To put this in actual dollars, a worker earning, say, $70,000 a year could lose some $5,600 in take home pay to cover the costs of ObamaCare. And, by the way, this is in addition to the 2.5% tax that the individual worker would have to pay on gross income, if he doesn’t buy the high-priced health insurance that the government will mandate. In sum, that’s a near 10-percentage point tax on wages and salaries on top of the 15% that already hits workers to finance Medicare and Social Security."
This is just one of the things that would not be discussed if the bill had been hurried through like she tried to do.
The four Blue Dogs who caved in yesterday at least give us some time to carefully go through this bill, something we were not able to do with the cap and trade bill.
It will be interesting to discover what else is hidden in the legislation.
Isn't it nice to have such open and transparent processes in the Democrat Congress?
Criminal, at best.
UPDATE: According to Politico, even Democrats in Congress don't understand the health care reform:
"A Democratic lawmaker, Rep. Collin Peterson of Minnesota, agrees. “The members don’t even understand what’s in it,” he confessed of the legislation. As for his constituents? They are “not exactly sure what this is about, and they’re not really sure whether they like it or not.” "
What does that say about them and their haste to rush it through? Transparency? Hope and change? Tyranny of the majority?
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
Blue Dogs Cave on Health Care Reform; Updated: No vote until late September or later: Obama
There are reports out this afternoon that the Blue Dog Democrats have compromised with the "yellow dog" Democrats, and have agreed on an outline of a bill that would radically change health care in the United States.
Given that the Congressional Budget Office has cited the huge costs of the bill...over one trillion dollars..... the Blue Dogs could be said to have caved in by agreeing to reduce the costs by only an estimated one hundred billion dollars. That is a lot of money, but only a drop in the bucket.
So, what else did they get? Well, they didn't get the national insurance out of the provisions, but they did require that government insurance company negotiate fees with doctors rather than unilaterally set them like it does with Medicare. But that still gets the government's nose under the tent, and we all know where that will go.
They did get a increase in the ceiling for mandatory insurance, doubling it to payrolls of $500,000 or less. That is still too low by far.
There is no mention of Medicare.
It seems a lot of the savings will come from two places, as reported by the New York Times:
"¶ Medicaid would be expanded, as under the original bill, but states would have to pay a small share of the additional costs, perhaps 7 percent. The federal government would have paid the entire cost under the original bill.
"¶ Workers would have to pay slightly more of their income on premiums for employer-sponsored insurance — 12 percent, rather than 11 percent — before they could qualify for federal subsidies."
So savings would come from charging workers more money, and putting additional costs on the states. Isn't that nice? Guess who still pays?
What do we have at the end of the day? The best part of it is that they delayed the bill from coming up for a vote until after Labor Day.
That will at least mean that someone will have a chance to read the bill after it is marked up in committee, and before it is presented to the House for a vote.
That is a change. Celebrate the small things.
They won't be able to change that sow's ear into a silk purse during the recess. But they will try to sell it as one.
And the so-called "conservative" Democrats, the Blue Dogs, showed their true colors once again.
The term "conservative" Democrat is an oxymoron, by the way. If they were conservative, they would not be Democrats. It has been thirty years since there was a real live conservative in the Democratic Party. We all left back then.
UPDATE: Obama is quoted this evening as saying there will not be a vote on the Health Care Reform Bill until late September or mid-October.
This is a major defeat for Obama and Nancy Pelosi and the Democratic leadership.
Given that the Congressional Budget Office has cited the huge costs of the bill...over one trillion dollars..... the Blue Dogs could be said to have caved in by agreeing to reduce the costs by only an estimated one hundred billion dollars. That is a lot of money, but only a drop in the bucket.
So, what else did they get? Well, they didn't get the national insurance out of the provisions, but they did require that government insurance company negotiate fees with doctors rather than unilaterally set them like it does with Medicare. But that still gets the government's nose under the tent, and we all know where that will go.
They did get a increase in the ceiling for mandatory insurance, doubling it to payrolls of $500,000 or less. That is still too low by far.
There is no mention of Medicare.
It seems a lot of the savings will come from two places, as reported by the New York Times:
"¶ Medicaid would be expanded, as under the original bill, but states would have to pay a small share of the additional costs, perhaps 7 percent. The federal government would have paid the entire cost under the original bill.
"¶ Workers would have to pay slightly more of their income on premiums for employer-sponsored insurance — 12 percent, rather than 11 percent — before they could qualify for federal subsidies."
So savings would come from charging workers more money, and putting additional costs on the states. Isn't that nice? Guess who still pays?
What do we have at the end of the day? The best part of it is that they delayed the bill from coming up for a vote until after Labor Day.
That will at least mean that someone will have a chance to read the bill after it is marked up in committee, and before it is presented to the House for a vote.
That is a change. Celebrate the small things.
They won't be able to change that sow's ear into a silk purse during the recess. But they will try to sell it as one.
And the so-called "conservative" Democrats, the Blue Dogs, showed their true colors once again.
The term "conservative" Democrat is an oxymoron, by the way. If they were conservative, they would not be Democrats. It has been thirty years since there was a real live conservative in the Democratic Party. We all left back then.
UPDATE: Obama is quoted this evening as saying there will not be a vote on the Health Care Reform Bill until late September or mid-October.
This is a major defeat for Obama and Nancy Pelosi and the Democratic leadership.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)