Do we really want to exchange our current #1 health care system (for patient care and access) in the world, where our doctors are free to try experimental treatments (continually moving forward with all the medical breakthroughs we're blessed to have today) and work with us on pursuing treatments regardless of our age for a system where we are nothing more but a "cost" to be "cut" and the doctors we see and treatments we receive are pre-determined by a beaurocratic government board? My answer is a resounding NO!!!
I don't know anybody who thinks government-run health care is a great idea, and yet Congress is trying to rush through yet another ridiculously long bill as though their pants are on fire. Americans are finally beginning to revolt, as evidenced by Senator Specter's reception yesterday in a Town Hall meeting he held with Kathleen Sebellius in Philadelphia.
There are others as well, like this well-spoken soldier demanding an apology from his Senator for not fighting *against* nationalized health care (or "health control") which he correctly notes is not in the list of enumerated powers of the federal government.
Is our health care system in this country imperfect? Certainly. But to look to the government to provide perfection is supreme foolishness. Its obvious that a "single-payer" system is where this legislation will take us. Obama says this himself in this video as recently as 2007 and 2008 even though he is currently saying that we can "keep our private health insurance". Watch the video; its an outright lie, because private insurance will not continue to exist and they DO NOT INTEND for it to continue to exist.
As Americans, we ought to have the right to choose and pay for our own darn health care! I don't *want* to be a ward of the government against my will. I don't trust the government. I've never seen anything that the government managed well, and I sure as heck don't want them managing my health care so that I become a "burden of the state", to be refused any experimental or expensive treatments, to be put on a waiting list, to be given pills and told to go home, to have government counselors helping me learn how to die so that I can cease being a burden on the government. When I'm no longer contributing taxes, what possible value do I have to a giant bureaucratic government, when it is actually in their best interests for me to die?
What gives anyone the idea that government could possibly have their best interests in mind? If you do, just watch Obama's response to a woman who asked if her elderly mother would have been able to receive the pacemaker that prolonged her life by 5 years (and counting) under his plan -- he basically tells her that they can't make subjective decisions, there will be cutoffs in treatments determined by age, and that maybe her mother should just have taken painkillers. Hmmm. That's not the guy I want at my hospital bed-side.
The sad thing is that many Americans don't realize how good we have it. As Paul Krugman painfully discovers in this 22 second video where he goes "off-script" to actually ask the Canadians in the audience, Canadians *do* think their single-payer health care system is terrible. Which is why so many of them come to the United States and pay "out-of-pocket" to get the life-saving treatments they cannot receive in Canada. You too would pay as much as you could afford to save your life or the life of a family member when the government denies treatment or puts you on a waiting list for care. And you would be glad to do it.
Rasmussen Reports finds this morning that 48% of Americans think that our health care system "as it is currently" is good or excellent. Only 19% thought it was poor. There isn't anybody in our country who can't go to an emergency room and receive treatment, even those who are here illegally. While its true that there were 46.6 million people without health insurance in 2006, about 9.5 million of those were not U.S. citizens, another 17 million lived in households making enough income to afford it if they wanted it, 18 million were between the ages of 18 and 34 (most of whom were in good health and not necessarily in need of health-care coverage or chose not to purchase it), and only 30% of the nonelderly population who became uninsured in a given year remained uninsured for more than 12 months (almost 50% of them regained health coverage within four months). Our health care system is certainly imperfect, but it is still the *best* in the world.
John Stossel on ABC's 20/20 shows in this video how nationalizing health care necessarily kills the innovation that leads to medical breakthroughs, which is something I don't think a lot of Americans realize or are thinking about clearly. The reason we have the most medical breakthroughs in this country is because there is a *payoff* (profit) for it, and no, its not *free*. Of lesser interest is the fact highlighted toward the end of the video that if you are a pet or animal in Canada, you can receive treatments immediately -- its only human beings that have to wait several months for care. Wonderful.
One other thing that I have yet to understand is how, with Medicare and Medicaid both essentially set to go completely broke in future years (not even including the Social Security debacle), people somehow buy into the idea that we can cover even more millions of people and that it will cost less??? Having managed a household budget for many years now, I'm aware that the only way to cut costs is to spend wisely and *get* less and *lower* quality. We know the government is incapable of spending wisely. What remains then is for us to receive less care of significantly lower quality, with no other options. On this, I trust my instincts. Government-Run healthcare is not just a "bad idea", its a full-blown nightmare.
Monday, August 3, 2009
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
Questions We Need to Ask Ourselves...
Several friends have been asking me why I haven't posted anything lately here. Since I last posted in early June, I've just been quietly (and sometimes not so quietly) watching the government insanity increase with one crazy bill after another being passed and considered. It boggles the imagination.
I was shocked and dismayed to see the 'Cap & Trade' bill pass the House, even after the eighth coldest June since we've been recording temperatures. I stood at a Tea Party on July 3rd wearing pants and long sleeves and a jacket (in JULY!) shivering and pondering the irony of passing a bill that will cause home and business electricity costs to "necessarily skyrocket" (Obama's words during the campaign) in the hopes of making even the teeniest tiniest impact in decreasing the temperature by a fraction of a percent. Never mind that two of the largest growing economies in the world (China and India) have made it perfectly clear that they will never agree to cap emissions because they know it will cause irreparable harm to their economy. We stupid and arrogant Americans apparently want to be poorer and pay dearly for energy in hopes of making it..., well..., even colder than it already is. If it gets any colder, I'm going to have to move to Florida well before retirement. Fortunately, the cap and trade bill isn't actually about global warming at all and will have virtually zero impact in cooling the already cooling temperatures, because the only real accomplishment will be to set up yet another complicated governmental beaurocratic system rife with opportunities for the corrupt to capitalize on.
Government-run health care is even more frightening than the cap and trade nonsense. Cap & Trade will make us poorer, but nationalized health care may possibly kill us. I've yet to hear a satisfactory answer when I ask people who think nationalized health care is a good idea what the government has ever run efficiently and effectively that gives them a reason to hope that government health care would be a good thing. That's because, other than the military where they consistently over-spend, there *isn't* anything the government runs well or efficiently. They can't even keep track of who is alive and who is dead in this country, as social security and stimulus money consistently gets sent to people who have been dead for decades! Their primary goal in nationalizing health care is to "cut costs", and I can't help but wonder why people can't put two and two together and see that what that means is "less care that you wait longer to get (if you get it at all)". There is some truth to the old adage "you get what you pay for", and if Americans want a free ride on the government health care express, they'll find out all too soon what that really means for them. I only hope that we don't have to dismantle the best health care system in the world to reach the obvious and logical conclusion. I do not want government beaurocrats making my health care decisions for me. Not now, not ever; no thanks.
And several months after the stimulus bill passed and clearly failed to do anything that they claimed it would do, they are getting ready to do yet another one. Democrat and Obama supporter Camille Paglia called the first stimuls bill "that chaotic pig rut of a stimulus package, which let House Democrats throw a thousand crazy kitchen sinks into what should have been a focused blueprint for economic recovery" (Source) and she was right. Now it looks like we're going to do it again, and I can't find *anybody* of any political party who thinks this is actually a good idea. Its sickening to most Americans that we've increased the tax burden on our children as far into the future as the eye can see -- and if that's not taxation without representation, I don't know what is.
We shouldn't let them do this. We should camp out in Washington D.C. and tell them that we are not leaving until they stop this insanity, but we can't because we have jobs and we have lives and we have families to take care of. Its not that people don't care, it's that people are busy and they think that someone else will take care of it or that it will work out in the end anyway because this is America after all. But America has hit hard times, and what our future will be is what we make it, or what we allow to be made of it.
As we consider all this, I think there are several important questions we "thinking" people need to be asking ourselves and others:
1) Am I so wedded to a particular party or set of ideas that I'm unwilling to see other points of view or to entertain rational thought or debate about the policies that spring from that party or ideology? Is there some person or some set of people that I'm trusting implicitly without considering what their motivations may be?
2) Are we really willing to give up the freedom of "private choice" (individual/family chooses for themselves) in favor of "public choice" (government chooses for all of us; one size fits all) because we hope it will cost us and/or others less money?
3) Do we think its wise for government to make all the choices about spending in financial industries, the auto industry, energy, health care, etc. when research always and consistently shows that money is spent most efficiently and wisely when people are spending their *own* money than when spending *other people's* money? The government is always spending other people's money, and they do a terrible job of it!
4) Is the government able to run a business better than the private sector? For that matter, are government officials any more trustworthy than businessmen, that we should give them unprecented power over our lives? We can choose which store to shop at when there are several competing stores, but when there is only *one* store to shop at, freedom and choice are gone and the consumer loses.
5) Do we think its wise to borrow, print money, and spend at the levels the government is on the things the government is spending on? Would we choose those same practices in our own household budgets and effectively bankrupt our own children to spend money "today" or would we choose fiscal discipline?
6) Are we willing to enslave our children and grandchildren with an enduring tax burden that we can't even begin to imagine for the current unsustainable spending that will have no real or measurable benefit to them?
There are lots more questions than these actually, but this set of questions is a good start.
I was shocked and dismayed to see the 'Cap & Trade' bill pass the House, even after the eighth coldest June since we've been recording temperatures. I stood at a Tea Party on July 3rd wearing pants and long sleeves and a jacket (in JULY!) shivering and pondering the irony of passing a bill that will cause home and business electricity costs to "necessarily skyrocket" (Obama's words during the campaign) in the hopes of making even the teeniest tiniest impact in decreasing the temperature by a fraction of a percent. Never mind that two of the largest growing economies in the world (China and India) have made it perfectly clear that they will never agree to cap emissions because they know it will cause irreparable harm to their economy. We stupid and arrogant Americans apparently want to be poorer and pay dearly for energy in hopes of making it..., well..., even colder than it already is. If it gets any colder, I'm going to have to move to Florida well before retirement. Fortunately, the cap and trade bill isn't actually about global warming at all and will have virtually zero impact in cooling the already cooling temperatures, because the only real accomplishment will be to set up yet another complicated governmental beaurocratic system rife with opportunities for the corrupt to capitalize on.
Government-run health care is even more frightening than the cap and trade nonsense. Cap & Trade will make us poorer, but nationalized health care may possibly kill us. I've yet to hear a satisfactory answer when I ask people who think nationalized health care is a good idea what the government has ever run efficiently and effectively that gives them a reason to hope that government health care would be a good thing. That's because, other than the military where they consistently over-spend, there *isn't* anything the government runs well or efficiently. They can't even keep track of who is alive and who is dead in this country, as social security and stimulus money consistently gets sent to people who have been dead for decades! Their primary goal in nationalizing health care is to "cut costs", and I can't help but wonder why people can't put two and two together and see that what that means is "less care that you wait longer to get (if you get it at all)". There is some truth to the old adage "you get what you pay for", and if Americans want a free ride on the government health care express, they'll find out all too soon what that really means for them. I only hope that we don't have to dismantle the best health care system in the world to reach the obvious and logical conclusion. I do not want government beaurocrats making my health care decisions for me. Not now, not ever; no thanks.
And several months after the stimulus bill passed and clearly failed to do anything that they claimed it would do, they are getting ready to do yet another one. Democrat and Obama supporter Camille Paglia called the first stimuls bill "that chaotic pig rut of a stimulus package, which let House Democrats throw a thousand crazy kitchen sinks into what should have been a focused blueprint for economic recovery" (Source) and she was right. Now it looks like we're going to do it again, and I can't find *anybody* of any political party who thinks this is actually a good idea. Its sickening to most Americans that we've increased the tax burden on our children as far into the future as the eye can see -- and if that's not taxation without representation, I don't know what is.
We shouldn't let them do this. We should camp out in Washington D.C. and tell them that we are not leaving until they stop this insanity, but we can't because we have jobs and we have lives and we have families to take care of. Its not that people don't care, it's that people are busy and they think that someone else will take care of it or that it will work out in the end anyway because this is America after all. But America has hit hard times, and what our future will be is what we make it, or what we allow to be made of it.
As we consider all this, I think there are several important questions we "thinking" people need to be asking ourselves and others:
1) Am I so wedded to a particular party or set of ideas that I'm unwilling to see other points of view or to entertain rational thought or debate about the policies that spring from that party or ideology? Is there some person or some set of people that I'm trusting implicitly without considering what their motivations may be?
2) Are we really willing to give up the freedom of "private choice" (individual/family chooses for themselves) in favor of "public choice" (government chooses for all of us; one size fits all) because we hope it will cost us and/or others less money?
3) Do we think its wise for government to make all the choices about spending in financial industries, the auto industry, energy, health care, etc. when research always and consistently shows that money is spent most efficiently and wisely when people are spending their *own* money than when spending *other people's* money? The government is always spending other people's money, and they do a terrible job of it!
4) Is the government able to run a business better than the private sector? For that matter, are government officials any more trustworthy than businessmen, that we should give them unprecented power over our lives? We can choose which store to shop at when there are several competing stores, but when there is only *one* store to shop at, freedom and choice are gone and the consumer loses.
5) Do we think its wise to borrow, print money, and spend at the levels the government is on the things the government is spending on? Would we choose those same practices in our own household budgets and effectively bankrupt our own children to spend money "today" or would we choose fiscal discipline?
6) Are we willing to enslave our children and grandchildren with an enduring tax burden that we can't even begin to imagine for the current unsustainable spending that will have no real or measurable benefit to them?
There are lots more questions than these actually, but this set of questions is a good start.
Wednesday, June 3, 2009
What in the World is Going On!?!?
Unlike the media or (sadly) the average American consumed (pun intended) with their own concerns, many people are beginning to question whether the people (elected and unelected) making policy and decisions in our country have any idea whatsoever what they are doing. Amidst the pandering self-interest, bailouts, record deficit spending, outright corruption, corporate takeovers, rewarding special interest groups, and changing all the rules in the interests of the unions and other special groups, one has to wonder exactly what in the world is going on? And speaking of the world, all of whom were supposed to think so much more highly of us with the election of Barack Obama, here is the sad state of affairs.
The Chinese are laughing at us (more specifically, Chinese economics students are laughing *loudly* at Secretary Treasurer Tim Geithner and his assurances that their investments in our country are safe):
Russia is mocking us for ditching capitalism and moving at "breathtaking speed" to a system which failed them for 75 years even as Russia itself becomes one of the top emerging markets using capitalist principles. Direct quote:
Canadians are begging us not to be stupid and destroy the only quality healthcare available to them. Here is a compilation of information from American Thinker on the Inequities in Socialized Healthcare. And a quote:
The U.K. is making fun of us, calling our president 'President Pantywaist' and the 'new surrender monkey on the block':
North Korea is testing us, firing missiles right and left, seemingly unconcerned with America's "rhetoric". North Korea is testing Obama's limits, and finding he has none:
Venezuala and Cuba are amused by us. This is perhaps the most surprising (and disconcerting) of all: Venezuala's Hugo Chavez says he and Fidel Castro are more conservative than left-wing "Comrade Obama" who has taken over General Motors. Seriously. Here is the direct quote:
Yeah, this seems to be going well. Can't wait to see where we are after the next 100 days. Not.
The Chinese are laughing at us (more specifically, Chinese economics students are laughing *loudly* at Secretary Treasurer Tim Geithner and his assurances that their investments in our country are safe):
"Chinese assets are very safe," Geithner said in response to a question after a speech at Peking University, where he studied Chinese as a student in the 1980s. His answer drew loud laughter from his student audience, reflecting scepticism in China..."
Russia is mocking us for ditching capitalism and moving at "breathtaking speed" to a system which failed them for 75 years even as Russia itself becomes one of the top emerging markets using capitalist principles. Direct quote:
"Prime Minister Putin, less then two months ago, warned Obama and UK's Blair, not to follow the path to Marxism, it only leads to disaster. Apparently, even though we suffered 70 years of this Western sponsored horror show, we know nothing, as foolish, drunken Russians, so let our "wise" Anglo-Saxon fools find out the folly of their own pride. Again, the American public has taken this with barely a whimper."
Canadians are begging us not to be stupid and destroy the only quality healthcare available to them. Here is a compilation of information from American Thinker on the Inequities in Socialized Healthcare. And a quote:
"Without a private system, Canadian patients have nowhere to turn, which is why so many seek care in the United States. In fact, the United States is the private arm of the Canadian healthcare system. The Cleveland Clinic, for example, has an office in Toronto."
The U.K. is making fun of us, calling our president 'President Pantywaist' and the 'new surrender monkey on the block':
"Watch out, France and Co, there is a new surrender monkey on the block and, over the next four years, he will spectacularly sell out the interests of the West with every kind of liberal-delusionist initiative on nuclear disarmament and sitting down to negotiate with any power freak who wants to buy time to get a good ICBM fix on San Francisco, or wherever. If you thought the world was a tad unsafe with Dubya around, just wait until President Pantywaist gets into his stride."
North Korea is testing us, firing missiles right and left, seemingly unconcerned with America's "rhetoric". North Korea is testing Obama's limits, and finding he has none:
"Around the globe, our enemies -- immediate and potential -- are testing Obama to see how far they can go. Thus far, he hasn't set a limit anywhere. Not a single dictator or terrorist leader got a single time-out. Last week, North Korea nuke-mooned him, then spit missiles in multiple directions. Our president admonished Pyongyang. Words solve everything in Obama-World. The Master of the Teleprompter didn't seem to grasp the basics."
Venezuala and Cuba are amused by us. This is perhaps the most surprising (and disconcerting) of all: Venezuala's Hugo Chavez says he and Fidel Castro are more conservative than left-wing "Comrade Obama" who has taken over General Motors. Seriously. Here is the direct quote:
"Hey, Obama has just nationalized nothing more and nothing less than General Motors. Comrade Obama! Fidel, careful or we are going to end up to his right," Chavez joked on a live television broadcast.
Yeah, this seems to be going well. Can't wait to see where we are after the next 100 days. Not.
Monday, May 4, 2009
Why People Stand out in the Rain in protests with Signs that say "End the Fed!" (or Part 1 of my education on the American monetary system)
I really believe that the average American moves through the financial system in an honorable fashion. We work to earn our money, we spend it responsibly (or if not, take responsibility for the consequences), and live our lives generally "within our means". However, as we do "our thing" we remain blissfully unaware of what goes on behind the scenes. Once you start reading about our monetary and banking system however, you begin to realize just how tenuous the whole thing really is.
I made a personal decision recently that I would no longer be complacent and pretend like things at a bigger level than my own personal sphere of influence a) don't matter, b) can't be influenced by me, or even worse and more naively c) would surely be taken care of by someone else far wiser than myself and with my best interests at heart. If Americans have gone wrong, this has been the path of destruction. Reading the 5000 Year Leap helped me gain the understanding that it is only by the majority of citizens being truly *educated* and aware of what is going on that we can hope to maintain our freedom. Education I've got plenty of, but I haven't actually applied it to politics, economics, or anything other than that which is natively interesting to me. So no longer will I abdicate my responsibility as an American citizen, but I'm determined to become one that the founding fathers would recognize and be proud of. I suppose this blog represents the beginnings of that quest, even before I knew what I was about.
So I've been learning about the monetary system and how it works. You've probably heard of the Federal Reserve. I always thought -- since they are the ones printing the money -- that they were part of the federal government. In actuality, they're not. They are private banking interests who were authorized by Congress (in 1913) to create our currency. In and of itself, this is probably unconstitutional, since only Congress has the power to coin money and it cannot abdicate that responsibility or transfer it to another (according to previous supreme court rulings), but that's an altogether different point.
So this seems to be how it works. When the federal government wants money they don't have (which is pretty much everything we're spending nowadays), they go to the U.S Treasury. The U.S. Treasury prints bonds and then sells them to whoever will buy them, both foreign and domestic sources who then "hold" a piece of our debt. If they can't find a buyer, they go to the Federal Reserve who prints money (from nothing) and hands it to the U.S. Treasury in return for the bonds. The federal government then owes the principal plus interest.
This is where things get interesting, because here, the U.S government ends up paying interest on its own money that it creates. Even more bizarre, the Federal Reserve earns interest on money it never had to begin with, but merely printed/created -- out of thin air! Who benefits from this system? Not the American taxpayer, but rather the private banking interests that run the Federal Reserve. Hmm. Is it any wonder that with government spending now at an unprecedented level, the Fed is happily running the printing presses night and day, heedless of the concerns of the American public about inflation, consideration of what might be in our "best interest", or the price we'll have to pay in taxes long-term for all this debt? Hmmm.
As Mikiel de Bary noted in a recent American Thinker article:
Want to see just how much more money we're printing now than ever before? See this chart. Ouch.
I made a personal decision recently that I would no longer be complacent and pretend like things at a bigger level than my own personal sphere of influence a) don't matter, b) can't be influenced by me, or even worse and more naively c) would surely be taken care of by someone else far wiser than myself and with my best interests at heart. If Americans have gone wrong, this has been the path of destruction. Reading the 5000 Year Leap helped me gain the understanding that it is only by the majority of citizens being truly *educated* and aware of what is going on that we can hope to maintain our freedom. Education I've got plenty of, but I haven't actually applied it to politics, economics, or anything other than that which is natively interesting to me. So no longer will I abdicate my responsibility as an American citizen, but I'm determined to become one that the founding fathers would recognize and be proud of. I suppose this blog represents the beginnings of that quest, even before I knew what I was about.
So I've been learning about the monetary system and how it works. You've probably heard of the Federal Reserve. I always thought -- since they are the ones printing the money -- that they were part of the federal government. In actuality, they're not. They are private banking interests who were authorized by Congress (in 1913) to create our currency. In and of itself, this is probably unconstitutional, since only Congress has the power to coin money and it cannot abdicate that responsibility or transfer it to another (according to previous supreme court rulings), but that's an altogether different point.
So this seems to be how it works. When the federal government wants money they don't have (which is pretty much everything we're spending nowadays), they go to the U.S Treasury. The U.S. Treasury prints bonds and then sells them to whoever will buy them, both foreign and domestic sources who then "hold" a piece of our debt. If they can't find a buyer, they go to the Federal Reserve who prints money (from nothing) and hands it to the U.S. Treasury in return for the bonds. The federal government then owes the principal plus interest.
This is where things get interesting, because here, the U.S government ends up paying interest on its own money that it creates. Even more bizarre, the Federal Reserve earns interest on money it never had to begin with, but merely printed/created -- out of thin air! Who benefits from this system? Not the American taxpayer, but rather the private banking interests that run the Federal Reserve. Hmm. Is it any wonder that with government spending now at an unprecedented level, the Fed is happily running the printing presses night and day, heedless of the concerns of the American public about inflation, consideration of what might be in our "best interest", or the price we'll have to pay in taxes long-term for all this debt? Hmmm.
As Mikiel de Bary noted in a recent American Thinker article:
"The Federal Reserve Board has transformed itself into an obedient appendage of the Executive Branch of government. Few seem aware that it is managing our monetary system more recklessly than ever in its history. The historic quattuordecupling of bank reserves in the last six months (that's a multiplication by 14) sets the stage for a doubling or more of the money supply. (The Fed has never before dared to promote annual money supply increases of more than around 10 percent.)"
Want to see just how much more money we're printing now than ever before? See this chart. Ouch.
Thursday, April 23, 2009
Earth Day Predictions from 1970....
Polls show that the number of people who believe in 'man-made' global warming (nowadays being referred to as "Climate Change" since its actually getting colder instead of warmer, go figure) is dropping dramatically. Reading these dire predictions from the first Earth Day in 1970 kind of helps put in perspective the dire predictions we're hearing today, despite all observable evidence to the contrary. Enjoy!
Some of my personal favorites:
I've come to the conclusion that the people (politicians) making important decisions -- decisions that will cost us billions if not trillions of dollars -- have no real clue what they are even doing. Take lightbulbs, for examples. Incandescent lightbulbs are made in Kentucky, but apparently they are not "green" enough, so legislation has been passed requiring us to use fluorescent bulbs, which contain toxic mercury and are so dangerous that they cannot be disposed of, but must be recycled. Not only that, these lightbulbs are not made in the United States, so they have to be shipped as freight from *China*. Can someone explain to me how it is somehow more green to have lightbulbs shipped from China than to buy ones made in the U.S.? It also turns out that in colder climates, households using fluorescent bulbs require more energy to heat homes, so you don't really get any benefit at all. Things that make you go 'Hmmmmm....?'
Some of my personal favorites:
“Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make. The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years.”
• Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University biologist
“Scientists have solid experimental and theoretical evidence to support…the following predictions: In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution…by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half….”
• Life Magazine, January 1970
“Dr. S. Dillon Ripley, secretary of the Smithsonian Institute, believes that in 25 years, somewhere between 75 and 80 percent of all the species of living animals will be extinct.”
• Sen. Gaylord Nelson
I've come to the conclusion that the people (politicians) making important decisions -- decisions that will cost us billions if not trillions of dollars -- have no real clue what they are even doing. Take lightbulbs, for examples. Incandescent lightbulbs are made in Kentucky, but apparently they are not "green" enough, so legislation has been passed requiring us to use fluorescent bulbs, which contain toxic mercury and are so dangerous that they cannot be disposed of, but must be recycled. Not only that, these lightbulbs are not made in the United States, so they have to be shipped as freight from *China*. Can someone explain to me how it is somehow more green to have lightbulbs shipped from China than to buy ones made in the U.S.? It also turns out that in colder climates, households using fluorescent bulbs require more energy to heat homes, so you don't really get any benefit at all. Things that make you go 'Hmmmmm....?'
Monday, April 20, 2009
Obama to Cut Budget?
In the news today is that President Obama asked the Cabinet to cut $100 million dollars from the budget within 90 days. (Admit it, you've been so blinded by the not just billions, but trillions of dollar figures they are throwing around these days that $100 million initially sounds like a rather small amount, doesn't it? Unless its the lottery, and then it sounds a lot bigger!) This proposed cut represents only .0029% of the entire budget.
Its a good start, but it doesn't go far enough, and it doesn't begin to address the damage that has already been done by the stimulus bill (called 'porkulus bill' by many), that could yet be repealed. Its kind of like saying you are going to seriously diet, and then when you are finished wolfing down your super-size McDonald's french fries and you get to the bottom of the container, deciding not to eat the last little crumb of a fry that is left and feeling good about your self-control. News flash: denying oneself a french fry crumb doesn't change the fact that you may be a glutton. Our federal government has definitely become a glutton, and the Tea Party movement brings attention to that and calls for much-needed fiscal discipline. Obama has recognized that his rhetoric (the 'Fiscal Responsibility' summit held recently) alone isn't going to cut it, and so will attempt to appease people with the smallest amount of action conceivable.
Before you argue, lets put this in perspective of the typical American family, who has been "cutting back" and "living within their means" in both word *and* deed. If your family of four earns $50,000 a year, and you magnanimously cut .0029% of your annual budget, you will only have spent $145 a year less than you would have otherwise. Or $36.25 per person. Thats *before* federal, state, and local taxes are taken out, so its a generous example indeed. Don't get me wrong -- I'm a believer in "every little bit counts", but somehow, I have trouble looking at this Obama pronouncement as anything more than a very pitiful attempt to appease an American people who are rightfully indignant about the profligate spending of the federal government and haven't been satisfied with his rhetoric. Get out the scalpel and go to it for real!
UPDATE: Saw a funny video last night where Press Secretary Gibbs tried to say that $100 million was a lot of money where he comes from, but he couldn't pull it off because Jake Tapper immediately reminded him that Gibbs himself said that $8 billion in earmarks was a miniscule amount in the appropriations bill. He was unable to formulate a response to that. Whoops. Nice try, Gibbs.
Its a good start, but it doesn't go far enough, and it doesn't begin to address the damage that has already been done by the stimulus bill (called 'porkulus bill' by many), that could yet be repealed. Its kind of like saying you are going to seriously diet, and then when you are finished wolfing down your super-size McDonald's french fries and you get to the bottom of the container, deciding not to eat the last little crumb of a fry that is left and feeling good about your self-control. News flash: denying oneself a french fry crumb doesn't change the fact that you may be a glutton. Our federal government has definitely become a glutton, and the Tea Party movement brings attention to that and calls for much-needed fiscal discipline. Obama has recognized that his rhetoric (the 'Fiscal Responsibility' summit held recently) alone isn't going to cut it, and so will attempt to appease people with the smallest amount of action conceivable.
Before you argue, lets put this in perspective of the typical American family, who has been "cutting back" and "living within their means" in both word *and* deed. If your family of four earns $50,000 a year, and you magnanimously cut .0029% of your annual budget, you will only have spent $145 a year less than you would have otherwise. Or $36.25 per person. Thats *before* federal, state, and local taxes are taken out, so its a generous example indeed. Don't get me wrong -- I'm a believer in "every little bit counts", but somehow, I have trouble looking at this Obama pronouncement as anything more than a very pitiful attempt to appease an American people who are rightfully indignant about the profligate spending of the federal government and haven't been satisfied with his rhetoric. Get out the scalpel and go to it for real!
UPDATE: Saw a funny video last night where Press Secretary Gibbs tried to say that $100 million was a lot of money where he comes from, but he couldn't pull it off because Jake Tapper immediately reminded him that Gibbs himself said that $8 billion in earmarks was a miniscule amount in the appropriations bill. He was unable to formulate a response to that. Whoops. Nice try, Gibbs.
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
What are the Tea Parties About?
We went to our first tea-party on Saturday, and it rocked! I've had people asking me for the past few days, "what are the tea parties about?" One Pittsburgh news site (to remain nameless) posted an article about the Tea Party on April 11 saying that it was to protest higher cigarette taxes; they took the article off the web site within 24 hours, thankfully, because the Tea Parties are about SO much more than that.
The Tea Parties reflect a growing movement among Americans (both Republicans *and* Democrats as well as Libertarians and Independents) who are concerned about wasteful government spending and excessive public debt that will (inevitably) lead to higher taxation. We are people who claim both education *and* common sense saying, "hey, the government has run out of our money", "you can't spend your way to prosperity", "printing money at a record pace will lead to inflation, which will devalue everything we have" and "surely more debt isn't the solution to a debt problem any more than more drugs would be the solution to a drug addiction." Or, as one sign I read said, "Its about the spending, stupid!"
Its all of that and more. Its concern about continuing government growth, because we recognize that the founding fathers wrote the constitution to protect us from a big government (hence the "limited, enumerated powers" that the federal government is *supposed* to have, with all other powers going to the state and the "people"); we know that (to quote Thomas Jefferson) "a government big enough to give you everything you want is a government that is big enough to take everything you have." We are no longer blind to the possibility that that can happen here, and are coming to see that it has been in the process of happening here for quite some time.
We see that growing government bureaucracy has never solved any problems or created anything that could sustain itself (for all the evidence you need there, see Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid which are entirely unsustainable programs and will no longer be there when our generation retires). Doesn't a "thinking person" have to wonder how we can afford government-run health care when we can't even come up with a plan to keep Social Security solvent? We see the prosperity that capitalism has created in this country, and we see also that raising taxes actually leads to *less* revenue because it takes money out of the private sector (where it buys goods and creates jobs) and gives it to the government where it is wasted and funneled into corrupt campaign schemes or pet pork projects that have no business being funded by taxpayer dollars.
And yes, its about taxes. We are looking ahead with the understanding that you *have to pay for* what you spend, and when you spend on credit (or DEBT), that is future tax dollars already spent. Besides the fact that it is morally reprehensible to spend the tax dollars of future generations, we are disgusted at the waste and the inability of our Congress to show fiscal restraint and responsibility. If you think there is no cause for concern, just look at the past and projected deficits chart:
Think taxes aren't going up, since Obama "promised" not to raise taxes on anyone making less than $250,000 a year (a promise already broken in several ways)? Think again. Tax Freedom Day this year (2009) was yesterday, April 13. That means that Americans who pay taxes have had to work every day so far this year up until yesterday just to cover their taxes. Guess what Tax Freedom Day will be next year? From the Tax Foundation web site: "In 2009, an unprecedented budget deficit over $1.5 trillion produces a date of May 29. This is the latest date in the year this deficit-inclusive measure has ever fallen. The only previous years when taxes and deficit spending comprised a similarly large share of national income were 1944 and 1945, at the peak of World War II. In the postwar era, this date had never fallen later than May 9 (in 1992)."
The Tea Parties are about all this and more. There is also the spirit of Americans coming together, like we did after the attacks on 9/11. You can really sense "we the people", like Americans all across the country are finally waking up and saying, "OK, this political nonsense has been going on for a long time, but its got to stop." We've had enough -- enough out-of-control spending, enough corruption, and enough big government control over our lives. We're ready to be the people that the founding fathers wrote the constitution for instead of just zoning out in front of our big screen tvs (the modern-day equivalent of burying your head in the sand) and hoping it all works out OK.
Go to a Tea Party, and you'll see what I mean! Talk to the people next to you, and you'll see that they are just regular people, like you and your family, with shared concerns. People who are willing to make "tough choices" in the short-run so that we can hand down a *better* country (rather than a bankrupt country) to our children and their children. People who would undoubtedly produce more sensible legislation than the career politicians we seem to have permanently installed in Washington. People who want to see real change, and not just hear charismatic politicians "talk" about it. We, the people.
The Tea Parties reflect a growing movement among Americans (both Republicans *and* Democrats as well as Libertarians and Independents) who are concerned about wasteful government spending and excessive public debt that will (inevitably) lead to higher taxation. We are people who claim both education *and* common sense saying, "hey, the government has run out of our money", "you can't spend your way to prosperity", "printing money at a record pace will lead to inflation, which will devalue everything we have" and "surely more debt isn't the solution to a debt problem any more than more drugs would be the solution to a drug addiction." Or, as one sign I read said, "Its about the spending, stupid!"
Its all of that and more. Its concern about continuing government growth, because we recognize that the founding fathers wrote the constitution to protect us from a big government (hence the "limited, enumerated powers" that the federal government is *supposed* to have, with all other powers going to the state and the "people"); we know that (to quote Thomas Jefferson) "a government big enough to give you everything you want is a government that is big enough to take everything you have." We are no longer blind to the possibility that that can happen here, and are coming to see that it has been in the process of happening here for quite some time.
We see that growing government bureaucracy has never solved any problems or created anything that could sustain itself (for all the evidence you need there, see Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid which are entirely unsustainable programs and will no longer be there when our generation retires). Doesn't a "thinking person" have to wonder how we can afford government-run health care when we can't even come up with a plan to keep Social Security solvent? We see the prosperity that capitalism has created in this country, and we see also that raising taxes actually leads to *less* revenue because it takes money out of the private sector (where it buys goods and creates jobs) and gives it to the government where it is wasted and funneled into corrupt campaign schemes or pet pork projects that have no business being funded by taxpayer dollars.
And yes, its about taxes. We are looking ahead with the understanding that you *have to pay for* what you spend, and when you spend on credit (or DEBT), that is future tax dollars already spent. Besides the fact that it is morally reprehensible to spend the tax dollars of future generations, we are disgusted at the waste and the inability of our Congress to show fiscal restraint and responsibility. If you think there is no cause for concern, just look at the past and projected deficits chart:
Think taxes aren't going up, since Obama "promised" not to raise taxes on anyone making less than $250,000 a year (a promise already broken in several ways)? Think again. Tax Freedom Day this year (2009) was yesterday, April 13. That means that Americans who pay taxes have had to work every day so far this year up until yesterday just to cover their taxes. Guess what Tax Freedom Day will be next year? From the Tax Foundation web site: "In 2009, an unprecedented budget deficit over $1.5 trillion produces a date of May 29. This is the latest date in the year this deficit-inclusive measure has ever fallen. The only previous years when taxes and deficit spending comprised a similarly large share of national income were 1944 and 1945, at the peak of World War II. In the postwar era, this date had never fallen later than May 9 (in 1992)."
The Tea Parties are about all this and more. There is also the spirit of Americans coming together, like we did after the attacks on 9/11. You can really sense "we the people", like Americans all across the country are finally waking up and saying, "OK, this political nonsense has been going on for a long time, but its got to stop." We've had enough -- enough out-of-control spending, enough corruption, and enough big government control over our lives. We're ready to be the people that the founding fathers wrote the constitution for instead of just zoning out in front of our big screen tvs (the modern-day equivalent of burying your head in the sand) and hoping it all works out OK.
Go to a Tea Party, and you'll see what I mean! Talk to the people next to you, and you'll see that they are just regular people, like you and your family, with shared concerns. People who are willing to make "tough choices" in the short-run so that we can hand down a *better* country (rather than a bankrupt country) to our children and their children. People who would undoubtedly produce more sensible legislation than the career politicians we seem to have permanently installed in Washington. People who want to see real change, and not just hear charismatic politicians "talk" about it. We, the people.
Friday, April 10, 2009
Funniest thing I've Read All Week...
From Exurban League blog titled 'Obama Reaches Out to "Moderate" Pirate Community':
"After maintaining his silence for two days, President Obama will soon make his first public statement about the pirate attack upon an U.S.-flagged vessel off the Horn of Africa. After several inquiries and a few well-placed bribes, Exurban League has received an early transcript of the President's remarks: "
Read on (well worth the read, and brought tears to my eyes -- the good kind!) at
http://exurbanleague.com/2009/04/09/obama-issues-statement-on-the-pirate-attack.aspx
Pirate Ransom: $2 million
A sense of humor: Priceless!
Also entertaining reading, check out this article about the trend started by Obama's new terminology. Even the Taliban is getting in on the fun. ;)
"After maintaining his silence for two days, President Obama will soon make his first public statement about the pirate attack upon an U.S.-flagged vessel off the Horn of Africa. After several inquiries and a few well-placed bribes, Exurban League has received an early transcript of the President's remarks: "
Read on (well worth the read, and brought tears to my eyes -- the good kind!) at
http://exurbanleague.com/2009/04/09/obama-issues-statement-on-the-pirate-attack.aspx
Pirate Ransom: $2 million
A sense of humor: Priceless!
Also entertaining reading, check out this article about the trend started by Obama's new terminology. Even the Taliban is getting in on the fun. ;)
Thursday, April 9, 2009
Only 53% of American adults believe capitalism is better than socialism?
According to a new Rasmussen poll, only 53% of American adults believe capitalism is better than socialism. Have we not learned *anything* from history? Do Americans today have even the faintest idea of the principles upon which this country was founded? As Richard N. Weltz says in an American Thinker article:
Not only has there never been a socialist regime that *prospered*, there has never been a state-controlled regime that exists for the well-being of the people, which is the only ideological appeal of socialism, I imagine; they have only ever existed to benefit those in power (and assure that they have the power and the resources to stay in power). Unbelievable that Americans would prefer to give up their freedom to be ruled over by their government when we are blessed to live in a country where "we the people" *are* the government. Have I woken up in a different country? Has everyone (or at least 47% of us) gone completely mad?
Milton Friedman, Nobel-prize winning economist, explains why all people -- especially those in need -- are better off in countries that are capitalist than in countries that are socialist or countries that *depart* from capitalism:
I'd really like to find those 47% of people who think socialism is better (or aren't sure) and invite them to go live in a socialist country for a period of time, then come back and let us know if their perspective changed at all from the experience. Look at Eldridge Cleaver, who was an intellectual black radical communist in the 1960s -- he ended up fleeing America after a bout of violence and living in communist and socialist countries for several years before coming back to America. And this is what he had to say:
Several members of the Congressional Black Caucus made a trip to Cuba to visit Fidel Castro and came back gushing with praise and full of respect. But look at what Eldridge Cleaver had to say when asked (in 1975!) a question about "visitors" from America being smitten with Castro:
Clearly, we need to get educated in this country.
Most of us understand that state control of a nation's economy, whether under a socialist or communist régime has proven repeatedly to be a sure way not to prosper and progress in either wealth or liberty of the general citizenship. This lesson has been amply taught in the USSR, Eastern Europe, Cuba, China, and elsewhere.
Not only has there never been a socialist regime that *prospered*, there has never been a state-controlled regime that exists for the well-being of the people, which is the only ideological appeal of socialism, I imagine; they have only ever existed to benefit those in power (and assure that they have the power and the resources to stay in power). Unbelievable that Americans would prefer to give up their freedom to be ruled over by their government when we are blessed to live in a country where "we the people" *are* the government. Have I woken up in a different country? Has everyone (or at least 47% of us) gone completely mad?
Milton Friedman, Nobel-prize winning economist, explains why all people -- especially those in need -- are better off in countries that are capitalist than in countries that are socialist or countries that *depart* from capitalism:
I'd really like to find those 47% of people who think socialism is better (or aren't sure) and invite them to go live in a socialist country for a period of time, then come back and let us know if their perspective changed at all from the experience. Look at Eldridge Cleaver, who was an intellectual black radical communist in the 1960s -- he ended up fleeing America after a bout of violence and living in communist and socialist countries for several years before coming back to America. And this is what he had to say:
"It's one thing to study Marxism on paper, living in a capitalistic country where you have individual freedoms and so forth—you don't really see the relationship between the ideology and the form of government that comes out of that ideology. Now, when I had a chance to go and live in communist countries this individualism came into conflict with the state apparatus, and that's when I recoiled against it. But when I was here I was looking at Marxism-Leninism as a weapon, as a tool, to fight against the status quo, and you know, it's just a quality of human beings that when they are trying to tear something down they don't pay enough attention." (Source)He also said, upon his return to America:
"Pig power in America was infuriating. But pig power in the communist framework was awesome and unaccountable."My hope and my prayer is that Americans will pay enough attention to realize that its really stupid to create something significantly worse when you are trying to make minor corrections to something that seems broken. Classic 'out of the frying pan, into the fire', unfortunately.
Several members of the Congressional Black Caucus made a trip to Cuba to visit Fidel Castro and came back gushing with praise and full of respect. But look at what Eldridge Cleaver had to say when asked (in 1975!) a question about "visitors" from America being smitten with Castro:
Question: A lot of American intellectuals have gone, say, to the Soviet Union or China and come back full of praises. What you saw in Cuba, Algeria, China, or the Soviet Union, somehow they just overlooked. Do you think it's because usually these things are short, they just scurry right through? Or what was it that made you able to perceive...Wow. Would somebody please send this to Rep. Laura Richardson (D-Ca.), Rep. Barbara Lee. (D-CA), Emanuel Cleaver(D-Mo), and Bobby Rush (D-Ill.), as they have been "raving about a regime that jailed political prisoners at a higher rate than Stalin, and executed more people (out of a population of 6.4 million) in its first three years in power than Hitler executed (out of a population of 70 million) in the Reich's first six years" (Humberto Fontova).
Cleaver: It was exactly that—the shortness of it, the duration of their experience and the depth and quality of it. See, I lived in those kinds of places and I got to know people and made friends. I got to know the governments, the people in the military, people in the Communist Party or whatever they called it. That gives you a different perspective.
When I first went to those countries boy was I impressed. If you would read some of the things I wrote then! I was full of praise, because I got that standard tour that they give people to impress them. I took the same tour that Barbara Walters took in Cuba, and Senator [George] McGovern, but after the tour I had a chance to meet other people and have a different experience. If I had gone only on the basis of how the governments treated me, I would have continued praising them, because really they did treat me well. They gave me a red-carpet treatment in those countries. But when you get off the red carpet and step down in the mud where the people are, you get a chance to talk to them and hear the stories that they have to tell, over and over again.
Clearly, we need to get educated in this country.
Thursday, April 2, 2009
Goin' South
I'm frustrated with the limitations of choosing between two corrupt and entirely inept party systems (big government - Republican, or ENORMOUS government - Democrat), but I think the alternative budget proposed by the Republicans makes a great deal more sense than the massive Obama budget, which would increase government spending and growth in unprecendented ways. Paul Ryan lays it out in the Wall Street Journal article for those who might be interested in the details (the chart comparing the two budgets is especially revealing).
I believe that Americans want and need real fiscal responsibility, and that we aren't naive enough to think that holding a summit on fiscal responsibility is equivalent to actual fiscal resonsibility. (Oh please, let us not be that naive.) Especially when we're spending hand over fist before, during, and after the afore-mentioned summit. I keep hoping that Americans are smart enough to see the difference between words and actions.
And, for a little levity since my last so many posts have been primarily about the 's' word (spending), I'll leave you with this fun clip from South Park, explaining how the bailouts work. Priceless: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TxIM88_MOL8
I believe that Americans want and need real fiscal responsibility, and that we aren't naive enough to think that holding a summit on fiscal responsibility is equivalent to actual fiscal resonsibility. (Oh please, let us not be that naive.) Especially when we're spending hand over fist before, during, and after the afore-mentioned summit. I keep hoping that Americans are smart enough to see the difference between words and actions.
And, for a little levity since my last so many posts have been primarily about the 's' word (spending), I'll leave you with this fun clip from South Park, explaining how the bailouts work. Priceless: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TxIM88_MOL8
Wednesday, April 1, 2009
Tea Bag DC TODAY!
TODAY is the day we 'tea bag DC' by sending tea bags to our elected representatives. However, since an actual tea bag won't make it to their office but would be stopped at the post office, please download this word document and personalize it for your representative, then print and mail: http://www.reteaparty.com/doc/dear_rep.doc
Step 1: Find the addresses for your senators and representatives: http://www.congress.org/congressorg/directory/congdir.tt
Step 2; Download and personalize this form: http://www.reteaparty.com/doc/dear_rep.doc
Step 3: Print and mail it!
Lets show those bums in Washington that we mean business and bury them in tea bag mail. Americans across the country are participating in this; see http://www.reteaparty.com/2009/03/rick-santelli-is-as-mad-as-hell-chicago-tea-party/ for more information!
Step 1: Find the addresses for your senators and representatives: http://www.congress.org/
Step 2; Download and personalize this form: http://www.reteaparty.com/doc/
Step 3: Print and mail it!
Lets show those bums in Washington that we mean business and bury them in tea bag mail. Americans across the country are participating in this; see http://www.reteaparty.com/
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Money doesn't grow on trees?
Anyone else getting a government spending headache? I wonder when it will end. I say "when" rather than "if", because this level of spending is truly unsustainable.
From a Bloomberg article: "The U.S. government and the Federal Reserve have spent, lent or committed $12.8 trillion, an amount that approaches the value of everything produced in the country last year, to stem the longest recession since the 1930s.... The money works out to $42,105 for every man, woman and child in the U.S. and 14 times the $899.8 billion of currency in circulation."
Ouch. So, even if we assume that this is all money well spent (and I hope nobody out there is foolish enough to believe that!), there are only three ways to pay for all the spending: taxing, borrowing, or printing money. We're doing all three, but I wonder if the average American is aware of the consequences of these actions.
Taxing. Even if we were to take 100% of what all the "rich" people make, it wouldn't come close to covering these costs. Unavoidably, taxes are going to go up for all of us, but it still won't be enough to pay for what we have spent.
Borrowing. We're doing plenty of that, but that is money that has to be paid back with interest. Its our future money (our children's money) already spent. We're reaching the point where we'll be paying over $600 billion annually in interest alone on our debt -- debt which continues to skyrocket under the spending of the Obama administration.
Printing money. See a previous blog post about the Fed printing over a trillion dollars. Printing money is dangerous because it causes *inflation*; it devalues our currency (the dollar). Would any sane person choose a brutal beating later over a slap in the face now? Its very unwise to make decisions for short-term comfort without consideration for the long-term implications. No nation on earth has ever spent and printed money without it leading to inflation. To think we can spend our way to prosperity is as foolish as going on a wild spending spree when your credit cards are maxxed out and you can't pay your bills. Yikes.
There's an old saying that money doesn't grow on trees. I just wish some of our elected officials would realize that.
From a Bloomberg article: "The U.S. government and the Federal Reserve have spent, lent or committed $12.8 trillion, an amount that approaches the value of everything produced in the country last year, to stem the longest recession since the 1930s.... The money works out to $42,105 for every man, woman and child in the U.S. and 14 times the $899.8 billion of currency in circulation."
Ouch. So, even if we assume that this is all money well spent (and I hope nobody out there is foolish enough to believe that!), there are only three ways to pay for all the spending: taxing, borrowing, or printing money. We're doing all three, but I wonder if the average American is aware of the consequences of these actions.
Taxing. Even if we were to take 100% of what all the "rich" people make, it wouldn't come close to covering these costs. Unavoidably, taxes are going to go up for all of us, but it still won't be enough to pay for what we have spent.
Borrowing. We're doing plenty of that, but that is money that has to be paid back with interest. Its our future money (our children's money) already spent. We're reaching the point where we'll be paying over $600 billion annually in interest alone on our debt -- debt which continues to skyrocket under the spending of the Obama administration.
Printing money. See a previous blog post about the Fed printing over a trillion dollars. Printing money is dangerous because it causes *inflation*; it devalues our currency (the dollar). Would any sane person choose a brutal beating later over a slap in the face now? Its very unwise to make decisions for short-term comfort without consideration for the long-term implications. No nation on earth has ever spent and printed money without it leading to inflation. To think we can spend our way to prosperity is as foolish as going on a wild spending spree when your credit cards are maxxed out and you can't pay your bills. Yikes.
There's an old saying that money doesn't grow on trees. I just wish some of our elected officials would realize that.
Saturday, March 21, 2009
The Big Deal this week (and it wasn't the AIG bonus scandal)
Anyone following the news of politics in recent days might easily find themselves wondering what's really going on here. Obviously, Chris Dodd and Timothy Geithner got caught in a lie, and a big one at that. But I've been doing some reading on this, and it seems there may be more to all this than first appears.
First, Glenn Beck reminded us on his show that when the "right hand" is doing something, don't become so focused there that you miss what the "left hand" is doing. This week -- taking a backseat to all the noise over AIG bonuses -- the Fed announced a decision that most Americans aren't aware of and likely wouldn't understand anyway. As a last ditch effort to keep us out of a depression, they have printed a trillion dollars. This is a huge gamble; whether it accomplishes the goal of increasing lending and spending or not, it *will* increase inflation, and all Americans will feel the effect of this decision.
The Fed End Game reports that "the idea is that the treasury prints money, the Fed uses that to buy long term bonds to keep down interest rates and encourage investment, and then the money goes into circulation. Theoretically that money will cause inflation and — coupled with low interest rates — people will stop saving money and start buying stuff, getting out of the deflationary spiral and causing universal bliss. There are a few minor problems with this theory." [One that I can think of that isn't mentioned in the article is the fact that demographics are against that happening -- the baby boomers have peaked on spending and will be spending less for purely demographic reasons.]
Fishman summarizes, "In short, by trying to avoid a depression, they are punishing savers and rewarding debtors, and doing it in a way that makes the people that messed up have more wealth." And "they are, in practice, devaluing all industry and commerce which hasn’t failed." Swell. The worst part is that if it doesn't work, we're in for a MUCH worse depression than we would have experienced otherwise.
Obviously, I'm a much bigger fan of Reaganomic approaches to economic recovery. Pare back on goverment programs and spending, let people and businesses keep as much of their hard-earned tax money as they can (*especially* the wealthy and the corporations because they are the job-creators), and give the American people (with the greatest entrepreneurial spirit in the world) a chance to reclaim the spirit we found after 9/11 and work through this depression ourselves.
Larry Kudlow has a very insightful article on the implications (hidden agenda) behind the Congress' attempts to tax 90% of bonuses. One of the most interesting points he made:
"I wonder about this simply because there's a much better way to recoup the misbegotten AIG bonuses. Though no one in Congress is paying any attention to beleaguered Treasury man Tim Geithner, he explained in a March 17 letter to Nancy Pelosi that the Treasury "will impose on AIG a contractual commitment to pay the Treasury from the operations of the company the amount of the retention awards just paid. In addition, we will deduct from the $30 billion in assistance an amount equal to the amount of those payments." So the AIG bonus problem can be remedied in a much calmer and simpler way than returning to 90 percent tax rates."
Read his entire article -- its short and concise -- but he summarizes by saying, "You see, taxes matter. They hugely impact economic behavior. The whole economic system is run on incentives to work, invest and take risks. And it must pay, after tax, to ignite the entrepreneurial activity that really drives the economy. Like it or not, our free-market capitalist system is driven by the economic activist, provided he or she is properly rewarded."
Taxes matter, folks. Don't get so caught up in populist anger at greed and bonuses that you miss the big picture of what is really going on here. The real travesty is the government involvement.
First, Glenn Beck reminded us on his show that when the "right hand" is doing something, don't become so focused there that you miss what the "left hand" is doing. This week -- taking a backseat to all the noise over AIG bonuses -- the Fed announced a decision that most Americans aren't aware of and likely wouldn't understand anyway. As a last ditch effort to keep us out of a depression, they have printed a trillion dollars. This is a huge gamble; whether it accomplishes the goal of increasing lending and spending or not, it *will* increase inflation, and all Americans will feel the effect of this decision.
The Fed End Game reports that "the idea is that the treasury prints money, the Fed uses that to buy long term bonds to keep down interest rates and encourage investment, and then the money goes into circulation. Theoretically that money will cause inflation and — coupled with low interest rates — people will stop saving money and start buying stuff, getting out of the deflationary spiral and causing universal bliss. There are a few minor problems with this theory." [One that I can think of that isn't mentioned in the article is the fact that demographics are against that happening -- the baby boomers have peaked on spending and will be spending less for purely demographic reasons.]
Fishman summarizes, "In short, by trying to avoid a depression, they are punishing savers and rewarding debtors, and doing it in a way that makes the people that messed up have more wealth." And "they are, in practice, devaluing all industry and commerce which hasn’t failed." Swell. The worst part is that if it doesn't work, we're in for a MUCH worse depression than we would have experienced otherwise.
Obviously, I'm a much bigger fan of Reaganomic approaches to economic recovery. Pare back on goverment programs and spending, let people and businesses keep as much of their hard-earned tax money as they can (*especially* the wealthy and the corporations because they are the job-creators), and give the American people (with the greatest entrepreneurial spirit in the world) a chance to reclaim the spirit we found after 9/11 and work through this depression ourselves.
Larry Kudlow has a very insightful article on the implications (hidden agenda) behind the Congress' attempts to tax 90% of bonuses. One of the most interesting points he made:
"I wonder about this simply because there's a much better way to recoup the misbegotten AIG bonuses. Though no one in Congress is paying any attention to beleaguered Treasury man Tim Geithner, he explained in a March 17 letter to Nancy Pelosi that the Treasury "will impose on AIG a contractual commitment to pay the Treasury from the operations of the company the amount of the retention awards just paid. In addition, we will deduct from the $30 billion in assistance an amount equal to the amount of those payments." So the AIG bonus problem can be remedied in a much calmer and simpler way than returning to 90 percent tax rates."
Read his entire article -- its short and concise -- but he summarizes by saying, "You see, taxes matter. They hugely impact economic behavior. The whole economic system is run on incentives to work, invest and take risks. And it must pay, after tax, to ignite the entrepreneurial activity that really drives the economy. Like it or not, our free-market capitalist system is driven by the economic activist, provided he or she is properly rewarded."
Taxes matter, folks. Don't get so caught up in populist anger at greed and bonuses that you miss the big picture of what is really going on here. The real travesty is the government involvement.
Thursday, March 19, 2009
Live by the Teleprompter, Die by the Teleprompter
The teleprompter jokes going around due to the recent hilarious teleprompter blunders help us gain a bit of levity in a difficult time. Although the video has not yet surfaced (and there are rumors circulating that its being suppressed to keep Obama from becoming an even bigger object of ridicule), the most recent teleprompter gaffe involved President Obama thanking himself by name (as in, "Thank you, President Obama...." for throwing a party as he was accidentally fed a speech that was meant for the Irish Prime minister. Whoopsie. Read more here.
See also
Some funny Youtube videos of TFS (Teleprompter Failure Syndrome):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=omHUsRTYFAU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3hSnEMV58F8&feature=related
Barack Obama's Teleprompter starts a blog:
http://baracksteleprompter.blogspot.com/
See also
Some funny Youtube videos of TFS (Teleprompter Failure Syndrome):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=omHUsRTYFAU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3hSnEMV58F8&feature=related
Barack Obama's Teleprompter starts a blog:
http://baracksteleprompter.blogspot.com/
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
We the People Video
We the People Stimulus Package -- this is a MUST SEE video, invoking founding father Thomas Paine's reaction to what is going on in American government today:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jeYscnFpEyA&feature=channel_page
Enjoy!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jeYscnFpEyA&feature=channel_page
Enjoy!
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
Government is a Lemon and I Want My Money Back!
The AIG bonus structure has been 'known information' for months now. Chris Dodd definitely knew about the amendment to allow bonuses since he was the one who put it in there (and received over $100,000 in campaign contributions from AIG in 2008, as did Obama himself). Tim Geithner put the whole AIG package together in the first place according to the AIG, so he has no excuse for not having known about it.
So why, suddenly, is the news plastered with quotes and clips of outraged Congressmen and Senators exclaiming about how they won't rest until they reclaim the $165 million paid out (by contract) to AIG employees. They're going to break the contracts to do that. If they can break contracts, might I venture to ask what it might be that would (or COULD) stop them from taking anything they want that anyone has?
I don't know about the rest of Americans, but I personally think the AIG employees would probably do a better job stimulating the economy with their bonus money (which they are to be paid as part of their contracts) than the government could possibly do. Why bother getting money back from AIG employees when you're only going to spend it on Swine Odor Research or some other equally wasteful pet project?
The 'Bridge to Nowhere' earmark was *twice* the amount of money as these bonuses, so where does Congress get off feigning outrage at AIG when their own unique mixture of incompetence and corruption has cost taxpayers so much that $165 million is practically chump change?
Forget the AIG bonuses. That may be the only money spent well in recent months. Congress, if you must be outraged about something, how about doing something to get our money back from all the ridiculous pork projects you've passed lately. That would certainly make Americans applaud.
Here's a message for Congress: We're not outraged at AIG. We're outraged at YOU.
OK, forget everything I just said. Michelle Malkin says it so much better here: Spare us Your Fury, DC Hypocrites
So why, suddenly, is the news plastered with quotes and clips of outraged Congressmen and Senators exclaiming about how they won't rest until they reclaim the $165 million paid out (by contract) to AIG employees. They're going to break the contracts to do that. If they can break contracts, might I venture to ask what it might be that would (or COULD) stop them from taking anything they want that anyone has?
I don't know about the rest of Americans, but I personally think the AIG employees would probably do a better job stimulating the economy with their bonus money (which they are to be paid as part of their contracts) than the government could possibly do. Why bother getting money back from AIG employees when you're only going to spend it on Swine Odor Research or some other equally wasteful pet project?
The 'Bridge to Nowhere' earmark was *twice* the amount of money as these bonuses, so where does Congress get off feigning outrage at AIG when their own unique mixture of incompetence and corruption has cost taxpayers so much that $165 million is practically chump change?
Forget the AIG bonuses. That may be the only money spent well in recent months. Congress, if you must be outraged about something, how about doing something to get our money back from all the ridiculous pork projects you've passed lately. That would certainly make Americans applaud.
Here's a message for Congress: We're not outraged at AIG. We're outraged at YOU.
OK, forget everything I just said. Michelle Malkin says it so much better here: Spare us Your Fury, DC Hypocrites
Friday, March 13, 2009
Senator Judd Gregg on Obama's Budget
Here is what Senator Judd Gregg had to say in yesterday's Washington Post about Obama's budget:
"The budget the Obama administration has presented to the American people is a new type of budget: it expands our government in unprecedented ways and presents the largest tax increase in history. It raises total spending to $3.9 trillion in 2009, or 28 percent of gross domestic product, the highest level as a share of GDP since World War II.
In the next five years, the debt will double, and in 10 years, it will triple. This budget creates more debt than under every president from George Washington to George W. Bush combined … the Obama administration’s proposal is not a budget that the rest of America would recognize as a document for living within one’s means. It simply spends too much, taxes too much and borrows too much. It is a game plan for an explosive expansion of the size and intrusiveness of the national government based on a belief that bureaucrats can more effectively manage large segments of our economy and our daily lives than the private sector or the individual."
And here is what he told Secretary Treasurer Tim Geithner in Congress yesterday about the budget:
“This budget, as it’s presently constructed, pass[es] on to our children a nation which they will not be able to afford. … I think we’re putting at risk not only our children’s future, we’re clearly putting at risk the value of a dollar and our ability to sell debt.”
"The budget the Obama administration has presented to the American people is a new type of budget: it expands our government in unprecedented ways and presents the largest tax increase in history. It raises total spending to $3.9 trillion in 2009, or 28 percent of gross domestic product, the highest level as a share of GDP since World War II.
In the next five years, the debt will double, and in 10 years, it will triple. This budget creates more debt than under every president from George Washington to George W. Bush combined … the Obama administration’s proposal is not a budget that the rest of America would recognize as a document for living within one’s means. It simply spends too much, taxes too much and borrows too much. It is a game plan for an explosive expansion of the size and intrusiveness of the national government based on a belief that bureaucrats can more effectively manage large segments of our economy and our daily lives than the private sector or the individual."
And here is what he told Secretary Treasurer Tim Geithner in Congress yesterday about the budget:
“This budget, as it’s presently constructed, pass[es] on to our children a nation which they will not be able to afford. … I think we’re putting at risk not only our children’s future, we’re clearly putting at risk the value of a dollar and our ability to sell debt.”
Lobbyists, Tax Cheats, and Earmarks, Oh My!
Trying to keep up with the lies and broken promises of Barack Obama is enough to boggle the mind.
Obama Promise: President Obama promised during his campaign that lobbyists "won't find a job in my White House."
Truth: "So far, though, at least a dozen former lobbyists have found top jobs in his administration, according to an analysis done by Republican sources and corroborated by Politico." (Source)
Obama Promise: on January 6, 2009,"We are going to ban all earmarks, the process by which individual members insert pet projects without review." He also said he would go "line by line to make sure that we are not spending money unwisely."
Truth: Wednesday, Obama signed the massive $410 billion dollar omnibus bill which has over 9,000 unnecessarily and wasteful earmarks. (See also 'Obama Decries Earmarks, Signs Bill with 9,000 of them')
Obama Promise: To allow five days of public comment before signing bills. From his campaign web site: "As president, Obama will not sign any non-emergency bill without giving the American public an opportunity to review and comment on the White House website for five days."
Truth: Politifact reports this as "promise broken". (Source) Both the first and second bills Obama signed, in no way considered emergency legislation, were signed before they could be posted for public consideration. Read more... Of course, Congress hasn't even had enough time to read the bills before they vote on them, so perhaps we need to start there.
Obama Promise: After criticizing President Bush for using signing statements, Obama says "We're not going to use signing statements as a way of doing an end-run around Congress." (Source - video)
Truth: "Two days after he promised to roll back the use of presidential signing statements (and ordered the heads of federal agencies to ignore those issued by his predecessor), President Obama issued his first signing statement Wednesday as he set Congress's $410 billion omnibus spending bill into law." (Source)
These are just a few of the most blatant transgressions, but the outright contradictions are adding up:
--Campaigning as a tax-cutter and then letting the Bush tax cuts expire, raising taxes on the wealthy (small businesses and job creators included), and seeking a Cap & Trade program that would effectively raise taxes significantly (and disproportionately) on even the poorest Americans.
--Holding a farce of a "Fiscal Responsibility" summit hard on the heels of the Stimulus Bill which democrat and Obama supporter Camille Paglia called "that chaotic pig rut of a stimulus package, which let House Democrats throw a thousand crazy kitchen sinks into what should have been a focused blueprint for economic recovery" (Source).
--Talking about sweeping ethics reforms while appointing several people who didn't pay their taxes to his administration, the most notable of which is Secretary Treasurer Tim 'Turbo Tax Cheat' Geithner who is ironically now running the IRS and explaining to Congress his plans to crack down on tax cheats.
--Saying he doesn't believe in big government ("Not because I believe in bigger government - I don't.") as he proposes a budget that increases government beaurocracy, government spending, the deficit, and the national debt in unprecedented ways.
I find myself in complete agreement with Eric Kohn who wrote: "we are now left with two unavoidable conclusions: that Obama is a contradiction-in-terms and has personally invested himself fully in his own clearly contradictory rhetoric, or that he's simply duplicitous..." In summary, he's not making sense or he's a liar. Either way, it's not looking good for the rest of us. It's going to be a long four years.
Obama Promise: President Obama promised during his campaign that lobbyists "won't find a job in my White House."
Truth: "So far, though, at least a dozen former lobbyists have found top jobs in his administration, according to an analysis done by Republican sources and corroborated by Politico." (Source)
Obama Promise: on January 6, 2009,"We are going to ban all earmarks, the process by which individual members insert pet projects without review." He also said he would go "line by line to make sure that we are not spending money unwisely."
Truth: Wednesday, Obama signed the massive $410 billion dollar omnibus bill which has over 9,000 unnecessarily and wasteful earmarks. (See also 'Obama Decries Earmarks, Signs Bill with 9,000 of them')
Obama Promise: To allow five days of public comment before signing bills. From his campaign web site: "As president, Obama will not sign any non-emergency bill without giving the American public an opportunity to review and comment on the White House website for five days."
Truth: Politifact reports this as "promise broken". (Source) Both the first and second bills Obama signed, in no way considered emergency legislation, were signed before they could be posted for public consideration. Read more... Of course, Congress hasn't even had enough time to read the bills before they vote on them, so perhaps we need to start there.
Obama Promise: After criticizing President Bush for using signing statements, Obama says "We're not going to use signing statements as a way of doing an end-run around Congress." (Source - video)
Truth: "Two days after he promised to roll back the use of presidential signing statements (and ordered the heads of federal agencies to ignore those issued by his predecessor), President Obama issued his first signing statement Wednesday as he set Congress's $410 billion omnibus spending bill into law." (Source)
These are just a few of the most blatant transgressions, but the outright contradictions are adding up:
--Campaigning as a tax-cutter and then letting the Bush tax cuts expire, raising taxes on the wealthy (small businesses and job creators included), and seeking a Cap & Trade program that would effectively raise taxes significantly (and disproportionately) on even the poorest Americans.
--Holding a farce of a "Fiscal Responsibility" summit hard on the heels of the Stimulus Bill which democrat and Obama supporter Camille Paglia called "that chaotic pig rut of a stimulus package, which let House Democrats throw a thousand crazy kitchen sinks into what should have been a focused blueprint for economic recovery" (Source).
--Talking about sweeping ethics reforms while appointing several people who didn't pay their taxes to his administration, the most notable of which is Secretary Treasurer Tim 'Turbo Tax Cheat' Geithner who is ironically now running the IRS and explaining to Congress his plans to crack down on tax cheats.
--Saying he doesn't believe in big government ("Not because I believe in bigger government - I don't.") as he proposes a budget that increases government beaurocracy, government spending, the deficit, and the national debt in unprecedented ways.
I find myself in complete agreement with Eric Kohn who wrote: "we are now left with two unavoidable conclusions: that Obama is a contradiction-in-terms and has personally invested himself fully in his own clearly contradictory rhetoric, or that he's simply duplicitous..." In summary, he's not making sense or he's a liar. Either way, it's not looking good for the rest of us. It's going to be a long four years.
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
How Many American Taxpayers Does It Take to Buy an Earmark?
Forget, momentarily, that Barack Obama promised to go through the budget line-by-line to eliminate wasteful spending. Forget (also), momentarily, that he promised to "eliminate earmarks". Forget also that we're not even spending our own tax money anymore, but printing and borrowing money that our children and grandchildren will have to pay with interest.
How many tax-payers does it actually take to pay for the $7.7 billion in earmarks in the $410 billion Omnibus bill?
According to the latest IRS data (for 2004), the average American taxpayer reported income of $51,100 and paid income taxes of $9,377 or 18% of income. (Source) If we do the math, that means it takes 821,158 tax-paying Americans to pay FOR THE EARMARKS ALONE in the Omnibus bill.
How liberating, for the average American taxpayer, to know that they contributed 1/821,158th of the money needed for such illustrious and critical projects as $250,000 for "lobster research" and "lobster boat rides", $100,000 for the 'Seals as Sentinel' program, $238,000 for the Polynesian Voyaging Society, $381,000 for Jazz at Lincoln Center, and these are just a few.
On behalf of all Americans, thank you to our elected representatives for representing us so incredibly poorly and wasting our hard-earned tax money on crap (literally, in the case of the $1.8 million swine odor research project). Our tax money -- hard at work or hardly working? Would you ever spend your own money and resources as poorly and unwisely as you have spent ours?
Since Congress and the President clearly aren't "getting it" yet, let me spell it out for you. Americans don't mind paying taxes. We are willing to pay for our country to have a strong defense and for important infrastructure projects. We are sick of the wasteful spending and knowing full well that our tax money goes into a big black hole of nonsense once it reaches Washington. I wonder how many of us it takes to pay for Nancy Pelosi's jet? Then again, maybe I don't even want to know the answer to that one.
How many tax-payers does it actually take to pay for the $7.7 billion in earmarks in the $410 billion Omnibus bill?
According to the latest IRS data (for 2004), the average American taxpayer reported income of $51,100 and paid income taxes of $9,377 or 18% of income. (Source) If we do the math, that means it takes 821,158 tax-paying Americans to pay FOR THE EARMARKS ALONE in the Omnibus bill.
How liberating, for the average American taxpayer, to know that they contributed 1/821,158th of the money needed for such illustrious and critical projects as $250,000 for "lobster research" and "lobster boat rides", $100,000 for the 'Seals as Sentinel' program, $238,000 for the Polynesian Voyaging Society, $381,000 for Jazz at Lincoln Center, and these are just a few.
On behalf of all Americans, thank you to our elected representatives for representing us so incredibly poorly and wasting our hard-earned tax money on crap (literally, in the case of the $1.8 million swine odor research project). Our tax money -- hard at work or hardly working? Would you ever spend your own money and resources as poorly and unwisely as you have spent ours?
Since Congress and the President clearly aren't "getting it" yet, let me spell it out for you. Americans don't mind paying taxes. We are willing to pay for our country to have a strong defense and for important infrastructure projects. We are sick of the wasteful spending and knowing full well that our tax money goes into a big black hole of nonsense once it reaches Washington. I wonder how many of us it takes to pay for Nancy Pelosi's jet? Then again, maybe I don't even want to know the answer to that one.
What's At Stake: Private Choice
"There is a whole school of economics called "Public Choice".... Public Choice economics demonstrates that government is populated by self-interested utility maximizers just as are other sectors of the economy, and, as Thomas Sowell has observed, the primary self-interest of politicians is to get reelected. That is Job One." (Source)
Americans have made the mistake of assuming that the government (and our elected officials) actually have our best interests at heart and that we can trust them to take care of us. What we are handing over is our freedom and liberty, and we will not be "happy" or impressed with government solutions (nor can we afford them): health care, education, retirement, etc.
It is "Public Choice vs. Private Choice", and what we lose in the equation is the very heart of the American Dream. How bitterly ironic is it that the party of "choice" is the very party ramming socialist policy down our throats that will result in the death of private choice. What are we buying into when we give the government power to impose public choice? Public choice is when the government chooses FOR you. To make the assumption that government as a bloated bureaucratic body of corrupt officials acting in their own self-interest will (by some miracle) act in your best interests is incredibly naive.
Caroline Baum gives us food for thought on what happens when the government becomes too powerful and over-reaches itself:
"Government is nothing more than a collection of individuals acting in their own -- yes, their own -- self-interest, in much the same way that Wall Street does. The only difference, according to advocates of public choice theory, is that governments make public, not private, choices: They choose for us, in other words. And we aren’t free to reject those choices.
Whereas transactions in the private sector are voluntary, the government coerces us (threat of imprisonment) to pay for goods and services via taxes." (Source)
Wow. "And we aren't free to reject those choices." What all this spending legislation means is the permanent creation of more and more bureaucracy that will -- in the guise of trying to help and save us, claiming to have our best interests at heart, but actually grasping for wealth and power -- reduce our freedom and our choices. Private choice is what this country is founded upon. Private choice is not just eroded by the Obama administration and Congress's recent legislation, its obliterated.
Americans have made the mistake of assuming that the government (and our elected officials) actually have our best interests at heart and that we can trust them to take care of us. What we are handing over is our freedom and liberty, and we will not be "happy" or impressed with government solutions (nor can we afford them): health care, education, retirement, etc.
It is "Public Choice vs. Private Choice", and what we lose in the equation is the very heart of the American Dream. How bitterly ironic is it that the party of "choice" is the very party ramming socialist policy down our throats that will result in the death of private choice. What are we buying into when we give the government power to impose public choice? Public choice is when the government chooses FOR you. To make the assumption that government as a bloated bureaucratic body of corrupt officials acting in their own self-interest will (by some miracle) act in your best interests is incredibly naive.
Caroline Baum gives us food for thought on what happens when the government becomes too powerful and over-reaches itself:
"Government is nothing more than a collection of individuals acting in their own -- yes, their own -- self-interest, in much the same way that Wall Street does. The only difference, according to advocates of public choice theory, is that governments make public, not private, choices: They choose for us, in other words. And we aren’t free to reject those choices.
Whereas transactions in the private sector are voluntary, the government coerces us (threat of imprisonment) to pay for goods and services via taxes." (Source)
Wow. "And we aren't free to reject those choices." What all this spending legislation means is the permanent creation of more and more bureaucracy that will -- in the guise of trying to help and save us, claiming to have our best interests at heart, but actually grasping for wealth and power -- reduce our freedom and our choices. Private choice is what this country is founded upon. Private choice is not just eroded by the Obama administration and Congress's recent legislation, its obliterated.
Saturday, March 7, 2009
Reclaiming our Heritage and our Freedom: The American Eagle
I strongly encourage everyone to study up on the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and its Amendments, and the writings of the founding fathers. One thing all Americans would hopefully agree upon (regardless of party or leanings) is that America was founded on truly exceptional and worthy ideas, principles, and precepts. If we are far off course now -- and we are -- the answer isn't to try to re-create America as a socialist or communist country (none of which have ever or could ever provide the kind of quality of life and prosperity we have right here right now in the U.S.A.). The answer lies in getting back on course with the principles upon which this great country was founded: reclaiming our heritage and our freedom.
I've just started reading the 5,000 Year Leap: The 28 Great Ideas that Changed the World to gain a better understanding of the founding fathers and the creation of our government. Skousen describes the "polemic process" of our founders to get "the American Eagle in the balanced center of the political spectrum". Our eagle has a right wing (responsible for conserving the nation's resources and protecting the people's freedom) and a left wing (the problem-solving wing, sensitive to the needs of people and dreaming of elaborate plans to solve these problems). When both wings work together and balance the government, the eagle (our country) flies straight and high. Maintaining the balance is crucial, as the founding father's were acutely aware. "If wing #1 becomes infatuated with the idea of solving all the problems of the nation, regardless of the cost, and wing #2 fails to bring its power to play to sober the problem-solvers with a more realistic approach, the eagle will spin off to the left, which is tyranny. On the other hand, if wing #1 fails to see the problems which need solving and wing #2 becomes so inflexible in its course of not solving problems simply to save money, or not disturb the status quo, then the machinery of government loses its credibility, and the eagle drifts over toward the right where the people decide to take matters into their own hands[, anarchy]".
Fascinating, and it should prove to us that working together, with the core principles of freedom at the heart of all involved, we can continue to hold our government in the balanced center, where it serves the people the way it was intended to. "With both of the eagle's wings flying -- one solving problems, the other preserving resources and freedom -- the American future couldn not help but ascend to unprecedented heights of wealth and influence."
So right now we are in a tailspin, and those in Washington are too entrenched in their own positions and too intent upon their own agendas to be effective in achieving the vision of our founding fathers for balanced government. Add incredible and widespread corruption to that; while there is nothing new under the sun, this is more than just tainting those holding public office, it indicates a self-interest that is in direct opposition to the responsibility of serving the people in moral and ethical ways. Can you imagine what our constitution might have looked like if lobbyist and special interest groups were buying off the founding fathers and embroiling them in a web of mass corruption (which is realistically what we have in Washington today, with the exception of a small handful of individuals)?
As much as some people might like to believe that our Constitution is not up to the challenge of our times, the founding fathers in actuality warned against the very thing that is happening in our country today. Far from being "out of touch" with modern times, great ideas transcend times. The Founders warned against the drift toward the collectivist left. From the 5,000 Year Leap, "They warned against the 'welfare state' where the government endeavors to take care of everyone from the cradle fo the grave.... They warned against confiscatory taxation and deficit spending." Sound familiar?
Thomas Jefferson wrote, "If we can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people, under the pretense of taking care of them, they must become happy." There is a very real danger to Americans coming to believe that it is the government's job to take care of them, as American Idle as well as numerous polls are now showing. This is the direct opposite of "becoming happy". Placing government in charge of our lives out of a sense of entitlement is directly in opposition to what this country was founded upon. It will not create happiness, it will destroy happiness. It will also destroy liberty and freedom by forcing "public choice" and disallowing "private choice" (see an earlier blog entry for my thoughts on public vs. private choice).
The founding fathers also warned against confiscatory taxation and deficit spending, both of which are now well past alarming and downright dangerous. In Fiscal Year 2008, the U. S. Government spent $412 Billion of your money on interest payments to the holders of the National Debt. As of 28 February 2009, the total interest spent so far this fiscal year is $148 Billion. The interest expense paid on the National Debt is the third largest expense in the federal budget. However, these numbers do not include the spending being proposed and signed by Obama. The spending of the Obama administration this year alone will give us the first trillion-dollar deficits the world has ever seen.
Addressing the immorality of passing "the results of its extravagance in the form of debts to the next generation", Thomas Jefferson wrote "we shall all consider ourselves unauthorized to saddle posterity with our debts, and morally bound to pay them ourselves; and consequently within what may be deemed the period of a generation, or the life of the majority." Failing to heed that principle, we have already spent our children's and our grandchildren's tax money -- money which hasn't even been created or earned yet. How can we justify this? Worse still, how will we explain it to our children?
What are we spending this money on? Sickening pork projects like swine odor research, grape genetics, the promotion of astonomy in Hawaii, green golf carts, Buffalo Bill Historical Center, the Polynesian Voyaging Society, sustainable Las Vegas, Jazz in Lincoln Center, coral reef research and preservation, Montana World Trade Center, Myrtle Beach International Trade and Convention Center, and $30 million dollars to the salt marsh harvest mouse (oops, I mean "wetlands restoration"). This kind of wasteful spending would be an abomination if we actually had the money to pay for it. The fact that we are printing and borrowing money that future generations will have to pay for WITH INTEREST is beyond the pale and a travesty of the worst kind to perpetrate on our children.
As forward-looking as the founding fathers were, I wonder if even they could have envisioned a government that would bring the people to its knees with this inconceivable level of debt, even though they did envision a people who would be willing to enslave themselves to government for the sake of entitlement and under the precept of being taken care of (and deserving it). We may have that government, but we are not those people. We've got to get back to basics and firmly re-establish the principles the country was founded on, then maintain the balance (of an American eagle flying straight and high) between ideas to solve problems and the judicious use of resources to do it as well as the freedom of the people, which is non-negotiable.
I've just started reading the 5,000 Year Leap: The 28 Great Ideas that Changed the World to gain a better understanding of the founding fathers and the creation of our government. Skousen describes the "polemic process" of our founders to get "the American Eagle in the balanced center of the political spectrum". Our eagle has a right wing (responsible for conserving the nation's resources and protecting the people's freedom) and a left wing (the problem-solving wing, sensitive to the needs of people and dreaming of elaborate plans to solve these problems). When both wings work together and balance the government, the eagle (our country) flies straight and high. Maintaining the balance is crucial, as the founding father's were acutely aware. "If wing #1 becomes infatuated with the idea of solving all the problems of the nation, regardless of the cost, and wing #2 fails to bring its power to play to sober the problem-solvers with a more realistic approach, the eagle will spin off to the left, which is tyranny. On the other hand, if wing #1 fails to see the problems which need solving and wing #2 becomes so inflexible in its course of not solving problems simply to save money, or not disturb the status quo, then the machinery of government loses its credibility, and the eagle drifts over toward the right where the people decide to take matters into their own hands[, anarchy]".
Fascinating, and it should prove to us that working together, with the core principles of freedom at the heart of all involved, we can continue to hold our government in the balanced center, where it serves the people the way it was intended to. "With both of the eagle's wings flying -- one solving problems, the other preserving resources and freedom -- the American future couldn not help but ascend to unprecedented heights of wealth and influence."
So right now we are in a tailspin, and those in Washington are too entrenched in their own positions and too intent upon their own agendas to be effective in achieving the vision of our founding fathers for balanced government. Add incredible and widespread corruption to that; while there is nothing new under the sun, this is more than just tainting those holding public office, it indicates a self-interest that is in direct opposition to the responsibility of serving the people in moral and ethical ways. Can you imagine what our constitution might have looked like if lobbyist and special interest groups were buying off the founding fathers and embroiling them in a web of mass corruption (which is realistically what we have in Washington today, with the exception of a small handful of individuals)?
As much as some people might like to believe that our Constitution is not up to the challenge of our times, the founding fathers in actuality warned against the very thing that is happening in our country today. Far from being "out of touch" with modern times, great ideas transcend times. The Founders warned against the drift toward the collectivist left. From the 5,000 Year Leap, "They warned against the 'welfare state' where the government endeavors to take care of everyone from the cradle fo the grave.... They warned against confiscatory taxation and deficit spending." Sound familiar?
Thomas Jefferson wrote, "If we can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people, under the pretense of taking care of them, they must become happy." There is a very real danger to Americans coming to believe that it is the government's job to take care of them, as American Idle as well as numerous polls are now showing. This is the direct opposite of "becoming happy". Placing government in charge of our lives out of a sense of entitlement is directly in opposition to what this country was founded upon. It will not create happiness, it will destroy happiness. It will also destroy liberty and freedom by forcing "public choice" and disallowing "private choice" (see an earlier blog entry for my thoughts on public vs. private choice).
The founding fathers also warned against confiscatory taxation and deficit spending, both of which are now well past alarming and downright dangerous. In Fiscal Year 2008, the U. S. Government spent $412 Billion of your money on interest payments to the holders of the National Debt. As of 28 February 2009, the total interest spent so far this fiscal year is $148 Billion. The interest expense paid on the National Debt is the third largest expense in the federal budget. However, these numbers do not include the spending being proposed and signed by Obama. The spending of the Obama administration this year alone will give us the first trillion-dollar deficits the world has ever seen.
Addressing the immorality of passing "the results of its extravagance in the form of debts to the next generation", Thomas Jefferson wrote "we shall all consider ourselves unauthorized to saddle posterity with our debts, and morally bound to pay them ourselves; and consequently within what may be deemed the period of a generation, or the life of the majority." Failing to heed that principle, we have already spent our children's and our grandchildren's tax money -- money which hasn't even been created or earned yet. How can we justify this? Worse still, how will we explain it to our children?
What are we spending this money on? Sickening pork projects like swine odor research, grape genetics, the promotion of astonomy in Hawaii, green golf carts, Buffalo Bill Historical Center, the Polynesian Voyaging Society, sustainable Las Vegas, Jazz in Lincoln Center, coral reef research and preservation, Montana World Trade Center, Myrtle Beach International Trade and Convention Center, and $30 million dollars to the salt marsh harvest mouse (oops, I mean "wetlands restoration"). This kind of wasteful spending would be an abomination if we actually had the money to pay for it. The fact that we are printing and borrowing money that future generations will have to pay for WITH INTEREST is beyond the pale and a travesty of the worst kind to perpetrate on our children.
As forward-looking as the founding fathers were, I wonder if even they could have envisioned a government that would bring the people to its knees with this inconceivable level of debt, even though they did envision a people who would be willing to enslave themselves to government for the sake of entitlement and under the precept of being taken care of (and deserving it). We may have that government, but we are not those people. We've got to get back to basics and firmly re-establish the principles the country was founded on, then maintain the balance (of an American eagle flying straight and high) between ideas to solve problems and the judicious use of resources to do it as well as the freedom of the people, which is non-negotiable.
Friday, March 6, 2009
Reaganomics vs. Obamanomics
Interesting article by Peter Ferrera on Reaganomics vs. Obamanomics: quick summary below:
Reaganomics brought us the greatest period of wealth creation in the history of the country. How?
1) Reductions in tax rates to restore incentives for economic growth,
2) Spending Reductions
3) Anti-inflation monetary policy to restrain money supply growth
4) Deregulation
Obamanomics, on the other hand, is currently accomplishing the greatest wealth destruction in the history of the country (and this, from Jim Cramer, liberal democrat and host of Mad Money). How? By doing EXACTLY the OPPOSITE of what Ronald Reagan did. From the article:
"–He is still promising tax rate increases, at least by letting the Bush tax cuts expire.
–He just passed the greatest increase in government spending in the history of the planet.
–He is promising massive increases in regulatory burdens, including global warming cap and trade regulation that would cost the economy another trillion dollars a year.
–The Fed is already furiously reinflating the money supply, sowing seeds of further havoc in the future."
What I'm having trouble understanding is why the American people haven't figured this out yet? It doesn't take a rocket scientist; this is common sense.
We should -- ALL of us -- be demanding that Obama retract the economic policies and "transformative" agenda that is tanking the economy. The radical Obama agenda is a sinking ship; let's not wait until the last minute to get off. Wake up, America, before its too late.
Reaganomics brought us the greatest period of wealth creation in the history of the country. How?
1) Reductions in tax rates to restore incentives for economic growth,
2) Spending Reductions
3) Anti-inflation monetary policy to restrain money supply growth
4) Deregulation
Obamanomics, on the other hand, is currently accomplishing the greatest wealth destruction in the history of the country (and this, from Jim Cramer, liberal democrat and host of Mad Money). How? By doing EXACTLY the OPPOSITE of what Ronald Reagan did. From the article:
"–He is still promising tax rate increases, at least by letting the Bush tax cuts expire.
–He just passed the greatest increase in government spending in the history of the planet.
–He is promising massive increases in regulatory burdens, including global warming cap and trade regulation that would cost the economy another trillion dollars a year.
–The Fed is already furiously reinflating the money supply, sowing seeds of further havoc in the future."
What I'm having trouble understanding is why the American people haven't figured this out yet? It doesn't take a rocket scientist; this is common sense.
We should -- ALL of us -- be demanding that Obama retract the economic policies and "transformative" agenda that is tanking the economy. The radical Obama agenda is a sinking ship; let's not wait until the last minute to get off. Wake up, America, before its too late.
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
Criticizing Obama
"The President is merely the most important among a large number of public servants. He should be supported or opposed exactly to the degree which is warranted by his good conduct or bad conduct, his efficiency or inefficiency in rendering loyal, able, and disinterested service to the Nation as a whole. Therefore it is absolutely necessary that there should be full liberty to tell the truth about his acts, and this means that it is exactly necessary to blame him when he does wrong as to praise him when he does right. Any other attitude in an American citizen is both base and servile. To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. Nothing but the truth should be spoken about him or any one else. But it is even more important to tell the truth, pleasant or unpleasant, about him than about any one else." -- President Theodore (Teddy) Roosevelt
Monday, March 2, 2009
Bringing the DOW Jones Down....
I write this on a day when the DOW Jones Industrial Average has dropped well below the 7000 mark. How is our economy faring under President Obama's management?
- November 5, 2008: Dow drops 530 points the day after President Obama is elected.
- January 20, 2009: Dow drops 359 points the day the President delivers his inaugural address.
- January 28, 2009: The House passes their stimulus proposal after trading hours. The next day, the Dow drops 224 points.
- February 9, 2009: President Obama has his first prime-time press conference, followed by Treasury Secretary Geithner’s speech on the credit markets the next day. The Dow drops 381 points on February 10.
- February 13, 2009: The House passes the conference version of the stimulus bill in the afternoon, and the Dow closes 83 points down. After the Senate passes the final version late in the evening, the Dow drops 343 points the next day.
- February 17, 2009: The President signs the stimulus bill into law in Denver, CO. The Dow drops 293 points.
- February 25, 2009: The Dow drops 226 points the day after President Obama delivers his address to a Joint Session of Congress.
"Now, this type of data runs the risk of cherry-picking. So, in 2008, the Dow under President Bush averaged a loss of roughly 86 points per week. Since taking office, the Dow under President Obama dropped 1,217 points and has averaged a loss of approximately 202 points per week, or roughly 43 points per trading day. This is a rate approximately 2.5 times greater than under President Bush last year." [From Source]
When does President Obama stop and realize that maybe his economic policies of tax (the producers and job-creators) and spend (entitlement, pork, pet projects, big government) are killing our economy? Let me rephrase that, is President Obama even capable of changing course in the face of overwhelming evidence that his economic policies are destructive?
Recessions are a normal part of a cycling economy (thats what economies do, they cycle up and down, sort of like climate change cycles). President Obama is mimicking (actually well beyond mimicking, but raising the level of spending to an unprecedented level) the failed policies of the 'New Deal', which actually created and lengthened our country's great depression. These are the same failed policies implemented by Japan that led to their "lost decade". History shows that tax cuts, especially on the wealth-producers and job-creators, is what helps restore economic growth. So why are we doing the exact opposite and taxing them? Anyone? Anyone?
Friday, February 27, 2009
Say What You Mean and Mean What You Say!
Glenn Beck expresses it perfectly in this video clip. Americans are sick to death of politicians who blatantly lie and the wasteful spending of taxpayer money on pet projects like swine odor research and astronomy in Hawaii. The abuse in Government needs to stop NOW.
Milton Friedman on Greed, Socialism, and Capitalism
Watch Milton Friedman's elegant explanation of why all people -- especially those in need -- are better off in countries that are capitalist than in coutries that are socialist or countries that *depart* from capitalism (which is where we are heading now). This video interview with Phil Donahue could not be more relevant to our times.
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Style Over Substance
Now that we have an orator as President, the only thing that matters is giving a good speech and how people "feel" about it. Fox News has a focus group where democrats and republicans turn a little dial so they can record how people feel about every word and phrase in the speech. Commentators express their disappointment that Bobby Jindal didn't "perform" to the level of Obama. What about the content of what they said?
Obama, amidst a bunch of historical obfuscation (great word, huh?), seems to just throw out whatever words he thinks people want to hear:
"Not because I believe in bigger government - I don't." For someone who doesn't believe in bigger government, he's been spending every waking hour creating one. And in the very same speech, lets us know that we're irrevocably heading toward a National, government-run health care. If that's not bigger government, I don't know what is.
"Not because I'm not mindful of the massive debt we've inherited - I am." Apparently, he's mindful of the massive debt he's inherited, but conveniently sweeping under the rug the massive debt his adminstration and congress have created since they've been in power. In little over a month, they've managed to spend more money than we've spent in total on the war in Iraq, the war in Afghanistan, and the recovery from Hurricane Katrina.
Bobby Jindal hits the nail on the head:
"Democratic leaders say their legislation will grow the economy. What it will do is grow the government, increase our taxes down the line, and saddle future generations with debt. Who among us would ask our children for a loan, so we could spend money we do not have, on things we do not need? That is precisely what the Democrats in Congress just did. It's irresponsible. And it's no way to strengthen our economy, create jobs, or build a prosperous future for our children."
Obama, amidst a bunch of historical obfuscation (great word, huh?), seems to just throw out whatever words he thinks people want to hear:
"Not because I believe in bigger government - I don't." For someone who doesn't believe in bigger government, he's been spending every waking hour creating one. And in the very same speech, lets us know that we're irrevocably heading toward a National, government-run health care. If that's not bigger government, I don't know what is.
"Not because I'm not mindful of the massive debt we've inherited - I am." Apparently, he's mindful of the massive debt he's inherited, but conveniently sweeping under the rug the massive debt his adminstration and congress have created since they've been in power. In little over a month, they've managed to spend more money than we've spent in total on the war in Iraq, the war in Afghanistan, and the recovery from Hurricane Katrina.
Bobby Jindal hits the nail on the head:
"Democratic leaders say their legislation will grow the economy. What it will do is grow the government, increase our taxes down the line, and saddle future generations with debt. Who among us would ask our children for a loan, so we could spend money we do not have, on things we do not need? That is precisely what the Democrats in Congress just did. It's irresponsible. And it's no way to strengthen our economy, create jobs, or build a prosperous future for our children."
Call to Duty
"We have the duty to change bad laws and resist grave evil in our public life, both by our words and our non-violent actions." --Archbishop Charles Chaput
Source: http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=15176
But the Archbishop goes on to say, "it doesn’t matter what we claim to believe if we’re unwilling to act on our beliefs". Excellent point. The question for all to consider then is: how shall we act?
I've called my congressional representatives. Senator Specter's office took their phones off the hook and Senator Casey's voicemail is full (thanks for listening to your constituents ) . I've also emailed my representatives, and received, from all three, a lukewarm form letter explaining that even though the stimulus bill wasn't perfect or what they wanted, they voted for it because they had to act.
I've talked to people about the stimulus and what I've found is that people are in one of three camps:
a) those who are just as appalled as I am, and equally lethargic and lax, immobile and disengaged. To be fair, we don't know what to do or how to do it, and we're not sure that we can make any kind of difference.
b) those who have no idea what's going on. These are people who are just living their lives and hoping that everything will work out OK. They try not to pay too much attention, probably because they realize that if they did, they wouldn't like it and wouldn't be able to do anything about it. They keep busy with other things.
c) those who think this is all a good idea, but can't explain exactly why or provide uncontested proof of how it has ever worked in the past.
We've got to connect and network. We've got to look for opportunities to do our "duty" beyond calling congress and then let each other know when we find them, and make the most of them.
Source: http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=15176
But the Archbishop goes on to say, "it doesn’t matter what we claim to believe if we’re unwilling to act on our beliefs". Excellent point. The question for all to consider then is: how shall we act?
I've called my congressional representatives. Senator Specter's office took their phones off the hook and Senator Casey's voicemail is full (
I've talked to people about the stimulus and what I've found is that people are in one of three camps:
a) those who are just as appalled as I am, and equally lethargic and lax, immobile and disengaged. To be fair, we don't know what to do or how to do it, and we're not sure that we can make any kind of difference.
b) those who have no idea what's going on. These are people who are just living their lives and hoping that everything will work out OK. They try not to pay too much attention, probably because they realize that if they did, they wouldn't like it and wouldn't be able to do anything about it. They keep busy with other things.
c) those who think this is all a good idea, but can't explain exactly why or provide uncontested proof of how it has ever worked in the past.
We've got to connect and network. We've got to look for opportunities to do our "duty" beyond calling congress and then let each other know when we find them, and make the most of them.
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Tea Parties all 'round!
If you haven't seen Rick Santelli's infamous rant on cnbc, check out the video on YouTube.
Join us for the Re-Tea Party. Its as simple as this:
1) "With sincerity and respect, we ask that you join us on April 1st, 2009, in sending the Oval Office a Tea Bag, in honor of the party in Boston on December 16, 1773, and in anticipation of its nationwide symbolic re-enactment in the summer of 2009."
2) "We WILL be dumping SOMETHING into the Ocean/Lake. (Feel free to comment below suggesting what that something should be. We will have a poll soon). This event will be held in early July, 2009. (We are leaning on Saturday, July 4th, however the date will be more definite when event permits are secured and sponsors are finalized.) We have decided to hold 3 Major Tea Parties, however, we may hold more in other areas of the country depending on support levels. (Boston, Chicago, and LA)
3) On March 10th, send an email to your congressional representatives (a symbolic act even if it accomplishes nothing) and remind them of the 10th Amendment: "This is a friendly reminder that I still believe in the 10th Amendment. Please represent me." Simple!
In case you are rusty on the Constitution:
Amendment 10: Powers of the States and People.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Its time to let BIG government know how we feel by some peaceful demonstrations. Sign up now at reteaparty.com!
Join us for the Re-Tea Party. Its as simple as this:
1) "With sincerity and respect, we ask that you join us on April 1st, 2009, in sending the Oval Office a Tea Bag, in honor of the party in Boston on December 16, 1773, and in anticipation of its nationwide symbolic re-enactment in the summer of 2009."
2) "We WILL be dumping SOMETHING into the Ocean/Lake. (Feel free to comment below suggesting what that something should be. We will have a poll soon). This event will be held in early July, 2009. (We are leaning on Saturday, July 4th, however the date will be more definite when event permits are secured and sponsors are finalized.) We have decided to hold 3 Major Tea Parties, however, we may hold more in other areas of the country depending on support levels. (Boston, Chicago, and LA)
3) On March 10th, send an email to your congressional representatives (a symbolic act even if it accomplishes nothing) and remind them of the 10th Amendment: "This is a friendly reminder that I still believe in the 10th Amendment. Please represent me." Simple!
In case you are rusty on the Constitution:
Amendment 10: Powers of the States and People.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Its time to let BIG government know how we feel by some peaceful demonstrations. Sign up now at reteaparty.com!
Public Choice Vs. Private Choice
Caroline Baum gives us food for thought on what happens when the government becomes too powerful and over-reaches itself:
"Government is nothing more than a collection of individuals acting in their own -- yes, their own -- self-interest, in much the same way that Wall Street does. The only difference, according to advocates of public choice theory, is that governments make public, not private, choices: They choose for us, in other words.
"Government is nothing more than a collection of individuals acting in their own -- yes, their own -- self-interest, in much the same way that Wall Street does. The only difference, according to advocates of public choice theory, is that governments make public, not private, choices: They choose for us, in other words.
And we aren’t free to reject those choices. Whereas transactions in the private sector are voluntary, the government coerces us (threat of imprisonment) to pay for goods and services via taxes." Source: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aLzfDxfbwhzs
Wow. "And we aren't free to reject those choices." What all this spending legislation means is the permanent creation of more and more bureaucracy that will -- in the guise of trying to help and save us -- reduce our freedom and our choices. Private choice is what this country is founded upon. Private choice is not just eroded by Obama's recent legislation, its obliterated.
National Health Care in Stimulus Bill (Things You Should Know)
Another must-read article shedding some much-needed light on what other travesties lurk in the Stimulus Bill is Betsy McCaughey's "Ruin Your Health With the Obama Stimulus Plan" at http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aLzfDxfbwhzs
Highlights: Betsy outlines how all your medical treatments will be tracked by a federal database, but there's more. "One new bureaucracy, the National Coordinator of Health Information Technology, will monitor treatments to make sure your doctor is doing what the federal government deems appropriate and cost effective. The goal is to reduce costs and “guide” your doctor’s decisions (442, 446)." Also, "Medicare now pays for treatments deemed safe and effective. The stimulus bill would change that and apply a cost-effectiveness standard set by the Federal Council (464)." To summarize, a federal government board will be making decisions on what care or treatments you can receive based on how much they cost and how much longer you are likely to live.
Hmm, I don't remember reading that one in the Constitution. Is there an amendment that gives the federal government the power to control what treatments I can receive for my illnesses? And what, do you think, will be the consequences of effectively forcing American patients to forgo experimental treatments? Today's experimental treatments -- many of them -- are tomorrow's routine treatments. Heart by-pass surgery was once considered an experimental treatment. Food for thought.
Highlights: Betsy outlines how all your medical treatments will be tracked by a federal database, but there's more. "One new bureaucracy, the National Coordinator of Health Information Technology, will monitor treatments to make sure your doctor is doing what the federal government deems appropriate and cost effective. The goal is to reduce costs and “guide” your doctor’s decisions (442, 446)." Also, "Medicare now pays for treatments deemed safe and effective. The stimulus bill would change that and apply a cost-effectiveness standard set by the Federal Council (464)." To summarize, a federal government board will be making decisions on what care or treatments you can receive based on how much they cost and how much longer you are likely to live.
Hmm, I don't remember reading that one in the Constitution. Is there an amendment that gives the federal government the power to control what treatments I can receive for my illnesses? And what, do you think, will be the consequences of effectively forcing American patients to forgo experimental treatments? Today's experimental treatments -- many of them -- are tomorrow's routine treatments. Heart by-pass surgery was once considered an experimental treatment. Food for thought.
The RAT Board (Things You Should Know)
There are so many "things you should know" that its hard to know where to begin, so in no particular order, lets start with "the RAT Board", one of the many transformative things in the "Stimulus Bill" that has absolutely nothing to do with "stimulus".
"In the name of accountability and transparency, Congress has given the RAT Board the authority to ask “that an inspector general conduct or refrain from conducting an audit or investigation.” If the inspector general doesn’t want to follow the wishes of the RAT Board, he’ll have to write a report explaining his decision to the board, as well as to the head of his agency (from whom he is supposedly independent) and to Congress. In the end, a determined inspector general can probably get his way, but only after jumping through bureaucratic hoops that will inevitably make him hesitate to go forward." --Byron York
Ed Morrissey summarizes what this means in his blog post:
"What the RAT Board can do, as York points out, is direct or quash investigations by Inspectors General throughout the federal bureaucracy. Until now, IGs have had independence of action in order to avoid charges of politicization (remember that word?) and to conduct probes without interference from the Department of Justice, the White House, or Congress. Now they will answer to Congress not on general performance, but on the specifics of their probes."
Source: http://hotair.com/archives/2009/02/19/smelling-a-rat/
Appalled? You should be. But its too late. Congress has signed this "RAT" into law.
"In the name of accountability and transparency, Congress has given the RAT Board the authority to ask “that an inspector general conduct or refrain from conducting an audit or investigation.” If the inspector general doesn’t want to follow the wishes of the RAT Board, he’ll have to write a report explaining his decision to the board, as well as to the head of his agency (from whom he is supposedly independent) and to Congress. In the end, a determined inspector general can probably get his way, but only after jumping through bureaucratic hoops that will inevitably make him hesitate to go forward." --Byron York
Ed Morrissey summarizes what this means in his blog post:
"What the RAT Board can do, as York points out, is direct or quash investigations by Inspectors General throughout the federal bureaucracy. Until now, IGs have had independence of action in order to avoid charges of politicization (remember that word?) and to conduct probes without interference from the Department of Justice, the White House, or Congress. Now they will answer to Congress not on general performance, but on the specifics of their probes."
Source: http://hotair.com/archives/2009/02/19/smelling-a-rat/
Appalled? You should be. But its too late. Congress has signed this "RAT" into law.
Obama and Fiscal Responsibility?
My kids have a game they call "Opposite World". When in "Opposite World" everything you say actually means the opposite. When I see President Obama host a "Fiscal Responsibility" summit hard on the heels of the most wasteful spending bills ever passed in the history of our country, I begin to wonder... am I dreaming, or are we in "Opposite World" where we do the opposite of what we say?
When it comes to spending money on liberal causes ($30 million to the salt marsh mouse in California, just one example), "fiscal responsibility" goes out the window. But Obama's idea of "fiscal responsibility" appears to be raising taxes on the very people in our country who actually *create* jobs. I'm not an economist, but I don't think it takes an economist to realize that spending like crazy on one hand (on what, apparently, it doesn't matter, just spend!) while raising taxes in order to create the appearance of "fiscally responsibility" is a recipe for disaster.
When it comes to spending money on liberal causes ($30 million to the salt marsh mouse in California, just one example), "fiscal responsibility" goes out the window. But Obama's idea of "fiscal responsibility" appears to be raising taxes on the very people in our country who actually *create* jobs. I'm not an economist, but I don't think it takes an economist to realize that spending like crazy on one hand (on what, apparently, it doesn't matter, just spend!) while raising taxes in order to create the appearance of "fiscally responsibility" is a recipe for disaster.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
Posts
