Uncommon Common Sense

Cursed Professional Politicians

2011-08-08T15:49:00.000-07:00

President Obama held a White House press conference on July 11, 2011. A reporter told him that polls showed that 69% of Americans opposed raising the debt ceiling and asked his response. Obama said,"Let me distinguish between professional politicans and the public at large. You know the public is not paying close attention to the ins and outs...We're paid to worry about it." Let me translate, for the stupid people (you and me): "The common people, the lesser people, you know, are worried about the kinds of things they can understand, like grubbing for food and digging ditches. We, Professional Politicians, are the only ones that can really understand this. The American people are too stupid to comprehend this stuff and so I will dismiss that poll completely because it doesn't fit with my agenda." The unflagging arrogance, in spite of the debacle that is his presidency, is utterly breathtaking. Among Barack's mulitudes of foolish statements, this one ranks high on my list. We'll disregard, for just a moment, the fact that American public is paying attention like never before and move on to the next stupid statement. During the debt ceiling debate, the President came out regularly to make public statements about the terrrible, dire, calamitous events that would await us if the debt ceiling were not raised. He said: "For the first time in history, our country's AAA credit rating would be downgraded, leaving investors around the world to wonder whether the United states is still a good bet. Interest rates would skyrocket on credit cards, on mortgages and on car loans, which amounts to a huge tax hike on the American people." He then promised us over and over that the crisis would be averted if we would only raise the debt ceiling and avoid default. Well, we raised the debt ceiling and guess what? We still got downgraded. So everything he promised to avoid is going to happen anyway. Why? Because this deal is a farce. There are no real spending cuts. They are playing us for fools once again, hoping that by tinkering with numbers and words that they can avoid the inevitable for a few more years. And now is when we can really thank the Professional Politicians for the fine job they've been doing. Perhaps a little background would be helpful.

First let's nail down the elusive Professional Politician (heretofore to be known as PP). These are the people whose only ambition in life is to hold politicial office. They come from many backgrounds and regardless of party affiliation, they see government as the solution to the problem. As Reagan once said, "Government IS the problem". The PP's live to legislate and see legislation as the solution to "what ails ya." "This here legislative snake oil will cure all yer ills, aches and pains." These "public servants" are anything but as they spend most of their time lining their pockets, making backroom deals and planning a self-serving agenda that will guide their personal future at the public's expense. They don't have to live in the real world because they are spending somebody else's money--yours. It's fun to spend somebody else's money and it's so easy. No accountability, no guilt, no hesitation, just spend, spend, spend. Then they say things like "The buck stops here!" But it never really does, does it? Whatever our problems, they never take any personal responsibility for it--it's Bush's fault, it's the Dems fault, it's the Republicans fault, it's the S&P's fault, it's the S&P's calculator's fault, it's the tsunami in Japan's fault, it's the European's fault, it's global warming's fault, I had a toothache, I have a tummy ache, my mommy was mean to me once. It goes on and on and on. The finger is always pointing but never at themselves. The PP's are extremely adept at dodging, deflecting, denying, blaming, twisting, dancing and spinning outright lies. But they do not tell the truth and they do not ever take responsibility--unless something is perceived as good, of course, and then it was all about them.

The economy was headed south when Obama took office, I will grant him that. But after two and a half years, his administration, working hand-in-hand with the Democrat controlled congress has made things much, much worse. The Republicans don't get a pass on this however, because they would not control their spending during the Bush administration. They do get credit for cutting taxes, which prevented us from a complete tailspin during George W., but they would not cut spending and thus the growing deficit. The national debt when Clinton left office was $5.7 trillion, Bush II left a larger debt of $10.6 trillion after eight years in office. Obama has been president a little over two and half years and the debt is now over $14.5 trillion dollars. (As a point of reference our current Gross Domestic Product is roughly $14.8 trillion.) The PP's have an insatiable addiction to spending; they have proven time after time that they cannot control themselves. Much as they would like to blame it on decreased revenues to the treasury (a.k.a. taxes), that is not the problem. As many wise people have said during this precipitous period, we do not have a revenue problem, we have a PP spending problem. They spend too much. We have given them a credit card without any limits for so long, without being accountable for payment, that they are absolutely not going to give it up freely. They are like the roommate you had in college that could not stop spending and ran up so much credit card debt that Daddy and Mommy had to come and take the credit cards away. And were they ever ticked. PP's are the same and noone has really attempted to take Congress' credit card away until now.

In the last election, the Republicans won in a landslide. But these weren't just any Republicans, these were generally Tea Party Republicans. This was a direct reaction to and absolute repudiation of Obama's policies. You see, the American people aren't so stupid after all. They are watching what is happening to their country and their economy. They happen to know that all spending originates in the House of Representatives. They control the check book, if you will. These new Tea Party people were elected to get spending under control; their mandate was specific at the behest of the citizens who sent them there. And now that all hell is breaking loose in the economy, in spite of Barack's hollow promises, the favorite new scapegoat of the PP's is the Tea Party. Over the weekend of the S&P downgrade announcement, the pundits, the PP's and the willing accomplices in the media blamed the Tea Party for the situation in which we now find ourselves as a nation. That logic only works in Washington DC and Alice's Wonderland. They actually expect us to believe that an entity that has been around for a few short years and only a political force in the last election is solely responsible for decades of rampant spending, irresponsible policies and unattainable promises. In the real world, the House, under Ms. Pelosi, failed to provide a budget at all in 2010, while the Senate, under the sniveling Harry Reid, has also failed to write any sort of operating budget for this fiscal year. If you're a PP, this is a convenient way to have no accountability for your spending. Then they can easily say, "I didn't authorize that spending!" "That was in the budget? I had no idea!" But, obviously, those dirty buggers in the Tea Party, who came to Washington and passed a budget, which they are required to do by the Constitution, are at fault. Every problem we have right now, every last $14.5 trillion of them is their fault! Nice thinking Alice; foolproof logic, that!

Back to the the Tea Party. After these unreasonable so-and-so's passed a budget, they then passed a curious piece of legislation called "Cut, Cap and Balance". This illogical, crazy, extreme bill would require the Federal Government to cut spending, cap spending and send a balanced budget amendment to the states for ratification. NO, NOT THAT! How could they even think of such a thing?!! Horrors!! I can't look, it's too horrible! Some PP's have even called a balanced budget amendment irresponsible. The PP's in the Senate wouldn't even debate the legislation. Well, if that's irresponsible, call me reckless. Because we live within our means, every day of every week, month and year. Wanton disregrad for others, I tell ya. Never mind that every state but Vermont has some sort of requirement to have a balanced state budget. It would be completely irresponsible to require that of the Federal Government. Shocking indeed!

The other accusation being lobbed at the Tea Party is that their rank partisanship caused the S&P downgrade to our credit rating. Of course, everybody knows that the only people that can behave in a partisan way are conservatives. When the Tea Party stands on principle it's partisanship, according to the PP's and the media. Liberals and Professional Politicians are never partisan, they are merely deliberative, thoughtful and reasonable. The truth, however, is that the PP's have found a convenient new scapegoat that they hope will remove all blame from themselves--the Tea Party. This is the same Tea Party that has been ridiculed, mocked and dismissed for the last two years as a joke. Now suddenly, they are the most nefarious and dangerous force ever to walk the halls of power. Being the good PP's that they are, they know that if they say it enough and the media repeats it enough, it will not matter if the Tea Party is to blame or not. They only need to drum it long enough to equate the Tea Party with radicalism and they will have succeeded. Facts and reality need not enter here, we will merely deal in accusation and rhetoric.

While the favorite scapegoat is the Tea Party, the PP's have also been twisting themselves into a dizzy frenzy pointing the finger of blame anyplace but at themselves. They have also turned on the credit agency, Standard & Poor's. Their job is to rate our financial strength, our credit-worthiness. Blaming S&P for our downgrade is like blaming the doctor for one's smoking induced lung cancer. Responsible adults arrive at the point where they know they have to take responsibility for their decisions. It is painful, but that is what grown-ups are expected to do. It is embarrassing to watch these people who are supposed to represent us, run around crying: "It's not my fault, it's not my fault!"

Some have used the S&P's press release as justification for targeting the political gridlock that is part of our political system. Specifically, they have tried to isolate the Tea Party members for the sole repositories of guilt in that gridlock. Of course, they were the only ones in the debate who would not budge. (Keep repeating it and it will become true.) Obviously, Obama's veto threat in regards to a balanced budget amendment is not partisanship. Nor was the Senate's abject refusal to make any real spending cuts partisan either. However, I have a message for the S&P, your job is to rate our credit worthiness, not judge our political system. Our system is ugly and it almost always has been. The Founding Fathers intended it to be. It is one of the most important checks to power they established within our Democratic Republic. If you have read any of our history, that is painfully apparent. S&P claimed that the gridlock in Washington didn't bode well for our financial future while at the same time hammering us for the amount of our debt. Had it not been for the Tea Party, the debt ceiling would have been raised yet again, with no thought for what it's doing to our national debt. Even more importantly, if the PP's had any courage and integrity, they would have passed Cut, Cap and Balance in the Senate, which would have had real cuts in it and probably would have prevented that downgrade from happening in the first place. Frankly, at this point, gridlock is my best friend. This president is hell-bent on spending us into oblivion since raising the debt ceiling has become cursory. Unfortunately for him, the Tea Party forced the Washington establishment to at least pause and think about it. There was no grand victory for the Tea Party in this--if there were, we would have real, measurable spending cuts. That did not happen. The only good thing is that they turned it into a real debate.

Lest I be accused of over-simplifying, I realize that cutting spending is not the only solution to the problem. But refusing to do it on that basis is like refusing to stop someone's bleeding in the ER because they also have a broken leg. It would be a darn fine start. And yes, I agree with Obama, revenues need to be increased. But not in the way that he wants to. Raising income taxes on top of the out-of-control regulation and spending of this President and Congress will kill what is left of this economy. We increase revenues by unleashing this economy again, putting people back to work and generating income for everyone. The tax code needs a complete overhaul. If you don't believe that you have either never had to file taxes or you didn't hear that GE paid no taxes last year. I'm not saying GE is evil, I use them as only one example of many. They used their highly paid tax attornies and found legal ways to avoid paying taxes. I'm down with that. I can't afford a tax attorney and have no tax shelters. But just like you and I, GE should be paying some taxes. The problem is that our tax code is used as a political tool by the PP's to exercise control and wield power. Were the PP's to reform the tax code, they would lose a lot of power and therefore they won't do it. Furthermore, without a balanced budget amendment, raising taxes will not result in paying down the debt anyway. Every time we have increased taxes in the past, the temporarily increased revenues have resulted in increased spending. It's a lot more fun and way more sexy for a politician to promise lollipops and rainbows than it is to pay down the national debt.

So what's the solution? It is not to give up. It is not to throw up our hands and say, "We can't fix this." We can and we must. If you're mad as hell, as I am, then the answer is to work harder. The only way changes will be made in Washington DC is if we send better people. And it will take time. This economy and this country cannot be turned on a dime. But if we give up, nothing will ever get fixed. We have to demand change. Our first mandate must be manifest through a new president and anything but a Democrat controlled Senate. It would also be nice if the Professional Politicians in the Republican Party would get tossed. We may not survive another year and a half of this President, I know we cannot survive five and a half. There will be nothing left to rescue. We must remain firm, united and determined not to let the naysayers divide and dishearten us. We know what must be done; we do it every day in our homes and businesses. The government must be commanded, by the people who own it, to do the same.

God is Good

2011-05-01T23:28:00.000-07:00

By now Osama Bin Ladin has figured out that there are no virgins. (If there are, they all weigh 600 lbs., have never shaved and have terrible B.O.) I suspect that he has discovered that the promises made in the brand of Islam he professed were, shall we say, "misleading." He has discovered once and for all that you cannot commit murder in the name of religion, or any other name, and escape the penalty for it. Life is not always just, but God is. For a brief moment, he understood that as he figured out he could not hide from the U.S. military forever.

Perhaps the Islamists, the extreme violent part of the Muslim world, will realize that we are serious, that we will not be cowed and that we will not sink to that level. Perhaps not. But this is a great day for America and for the military. God is indeed good and the U.S. military is a close second. God's justice is eternal and inescapable, but thank goodness we have the U.S. military to speed up the process sometimes. Thank you to all the members of the military for you training, your commitment and your sacrifice.

Revenge, would demand that we drag Bin Laden's body through the streets of New York City. But we're better than that. We will rise above the bestial nature of revenge and be satisfied with justice. Normally, I would mourn the loss of human life in any form, but Osama Bin Ladin was subhuman. His actions belie his nature, whatever he professed. So, instead I will take great comfort in knowing he has met his Creator to whom he cannot lie. I will take great comfort in the fact that he can't hurt or taunt us anymore.

Revenge may be a dish best served cold, but justice is satisfying hot, cold or room temperature. Osama Bin Ladin now knows that.

The Meaning of Honor

2011-03-05T15:40:00.000-08:00

Those of you who know me, know that I'm a HUGE BYU fan. (Not relative to my size, we'll save that discussion for another day, but relative to how much I love my alma mater.) This week was an emotional roller coaster for BYU basketball fans everywhere. Brandon Davies, a starting sophomore forward on the team, reported to the school an Honor Code violation. BYU, consistent as always, dismissed him from the team for the remainder of the season. The timing could not have been worse. With two regular season games left, carrying their highest national ranking ever, the chance to win the Conference title outright and get their potentially highest seed in the NCAA tournament ever, losing a starting player is a sucker punch to the gut.

The team found out on Tuesday and got annihilated at home the following night by New Mexico. Obviously, that game was not so much about basketball X's and O's, but the emotion of losing a teammate and all the accompanying ramifications. This loss was far worse than an injury. Injuries don't involve decisions and will, they just happen. I'm sure there was a degree of betrayal felt by all the players on the team, in spite of the fact that they still care about Brandon and his future, both as a basketball player and as a human being.

With potentially the National Player of the Year on the team in form of Jimmer Fredette, BYU's basketball program has gotten unprecedented media attention this season. Brandon Davies' situation therefore was shouted about in the media for all of the college basketball world to hear. I cannot imagine how horrible he must have felt, not only for having his sins shouted from the mountain tops, but knowing how his team would be affected by his absence. There was lots of support for BYU's actions in the media, but also a lot of criticism. The criticism was more frequently found in blogs and anonymous commentary and the predictable charges of stupidity, hypocrisy, lack of forgiveness, etc. were leveled both at the University and the Church.

As I always have been, I was proud to be a BYU Alum this week. The Church has standards and those have not and will not change. They have always treated students equally whether they are famous or not. The Honor Code is not a surprise to anyone who attends BYU and no-one going to school there is surprised by the expectations. In fact, they are probably hammered on more in the athletic department than anyplace else because the BYU athletes are often the face representing both the University and the LDS Church. This week, they maintained their standards. Even though part of me secretly wished for just a minute that they weren't so dang efficient and consistent--that maybe they could have ignored it just until the end of March--they did the right thing. That is honor. That is what the Honor Code is about.

I was very curious to see how the game would go today after their abysmal game on Wednesday. Happily, today was a different feeling. The team struggled in the first half. But on Senior Day, the last day of the regular season, and still having the chance to win a piece of the Conference Championship, they showed up big time in the second half and won. More importantly than the win, I think, is what took place on the sidelines and after the game. Brandon Davies, after confessing his mistake, sat on the bench. There he was for all the world to see. That takes some serious courage. He was welcomed by the crowd and the team.

After the game, as the team celebrated their accomplishments by cutting down the nets, the crowd stuck around for a long time. Brandon Davies climbed the ladder to take his turn cutting down the net and got arguably the loudest cheer of the day. That is honor too. Brandon is young and he made a mistake. But I was so proud of the reaction from the crowd, because we preach repentance and forgiveness in our Church. I would hope that Brandon felt the love and support of the fans and his team, because I'm sure we all hope that he comes back to play basketball. More importantly, we hope he rights the ship. The fact that he had the courage to admit his error at the time he did speaks volumes for his integrity. I wish him the best. In the end, I think the whole incident shows the importance of individual and institutional honor and I'm proud of how it was handled.

Now I can start praying for divine intervention in tournament play. Is that wrong?!!

GO COUGARS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The Jig is Up

2011-02-22T13:22:00.000-08:00

The unholy alliance between the teacher's unions and the Democrat Party has finally been exposed in broad daylight for all the world to see. This fetid swamp has been simmering and stewing for years. Now that the majority of state governments have reached the budgetary breaking point, the moment of truth has arrived and the stench is too great to ignore...

In many states, you cannot be hired as a public school teacher unless you join the union. As a member of the union, you are then forced to pay union dues about which you have no say in the expenditure or purposes for the money. The union negotiates your contract for you as a group of teachers, rather than a contract that would meet your individual needs or skills. This may have some benefits but also has some obvious drawbacks. One of the big drawbacks is that if you're conservative, you can be sure that you will have no say about the uses of your union dues. You see, the leadership of the teacher's unions and the Democrats have been playing a game of footsie, with their unions dues. The teacher's unions funnel millions of dollars a year to the Democrats and in return the Democrats do everything in their power to legislate in favor of unions and steer fat contracts their way. Even when these politicians realize that their promises to the unions are unsustainable, their thirst for power overrides judgment. Fear of losing this dependable and plentiful source of campaign dollars throws integrity to the wind in this reciprocally parasitic relationship. The victims in this scenario are the teachers and the students.

The current situation in Wisconsin is a classic example of the reality that has now come home to most of America. For years, politicians have been making promises they could not keep to public worker's unions, including teachers, knowing the money wasn't going to be there. Union leaders and politicians have knowingly kicked the can down the road in order to maintain current power structures, praying they would be out of power before reality hit. The reality is that Wisconsin is running a $3.6 billion deficit. Part of that deficit is due to the black hole created by union benefits and pensions. Obviously, the budget woes include many other factors as well. But, in the face of bankrupting the state, drastic measures have to be taken to correct the budgetary problems before it's too late. Wisconsin is no conservative bastion, but in this last election they overwhelmingly elected a Republican Senate and Governor. The governor ran on the idea that this budgetary mess had to be fixed. The steps he is taking are not a surprise to those who were paying attention during the election.

From the Governor's website, he has proposed the following: "First, it will require state employees to pay about 5.8% toward their pension (about the private sector national average) and about 12% of their healthcare benefits (about half the private sector national average). These changes will help the state save $30 million in the last three months of the current fiscal year." They are currently contributing $0 to their own pensions. "Additionally, the budget repair bill gives state and local governments the tools to manage spending reductions through changing some provisions of the state’s collective bargaining laws.

The state’s civil service system, among the strongest in the country, would remain in place. State and local employees could continue to bargain for base pay, they would not be able to bargain over other compensation measures... Other reforms will include state and local governments not collecting union dues, annual certification will be required in a secret ballot, and any employee can opt out of paying union dues." My understanding of the "collective bargaining" agreement is that since the union bargains for the entire state, it makes it impossible for each municipality to make any changes in order to fix their own ailing budgets. This new agreement would make it possible for the benefits to be treated on a local basis, rather than statewide. In addition, the unions would still collectively bargain for wages, but all other benefits, such as pensions and health insurance would have to be voter approved.

It stinks to be a teacher and to have been made promises that cannot be kept. I feel for those who have been counting on these pensions and benefits. Their leaders and elected representatives lied to them. But they are not without responsibility. They have also allowed the unions to behave exactly as they pleased. The unions could have been changed from within, but they were more than happy to buy the snake-oil that was being peddled. If none of them questioned or challenged it, then they share some responsibility. Furthermore, when you work for the "government" you work for the people and provide the "vital services" we have agreed to have the government provide. Neither Ronald Reagan nor the Liberal demigod FDR would countenance a strike in the public unions. Reagan fired the air traffic controllers who went on strike during his presidency. Roosevelt said, "Particularly, I want to emphasize my conviction that militant tactics have no place in the functions of any organization of Government employees. Upon employees in the Federal service rests the obligation to serve the whole people, whose interests and welfare require orderliness and continuity in the conduct of Government activities. This obligation is paramount. Since their own services have to do with the functioning of the Government, a strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent on their part to prevent or obstruct the operations of Government until their demands are satisfied. Such action, looking toward the paralysis of Government by those who have sworn to support it, is unthinkable and intolerable."

I hate to let the air out of their revolt balloon, but may I remind the union members that they do not work for the government? They work for the citizens of Wisconsin...the taxpayers. The government does not pay for their salary and benefits, the taxpayers do. When those who are protesting in Wisconsin call names, make false claims and waste time and money in the state capitol, the are in the end attacking the citizens of Wisconsin, not the governor. Very few employees outside of public unions get the kind of benefits, at so low a cost as those who are protesting. Those who are self-employed often have neither a pension nor health insurance. If they want to retire some day, they have to pay for their retirement by saving their own money. If they need to go to the doctor, they pay for it out of pocket. Even those who have jobs in this economy are accustomed to paying a much larger portion of their wages into pensions and health insurance and many have taken pay cuts just to keep their jobs.

Finally, some general thoughts about all the poor behavior shown by both Democrat politicians in the midwest and the Union behavior generally:

1) When there are people losing their jobs left, right and center, asking some concessions from the public unions is reasonable. Their response is entitled, spoiled and despicable.

2) The endless reaches of Democrat hypocrisy still manage to shock me. After calling for a gentler tone following the Giffords shooting, and after jumping to a baseless conclusions that conservatives were to blame, uncivil and provocative language by union protesters is either ignored or encouraged depending on which liberal media source you turn to.

3) It is illegal for teachers to strike in Wisconsin. But for the people who teach our children, it is morally acceptable to have a "sick-out" and feign illness to equally unscrupulous doctors who provide them with a doctor's excuse. What a fine example to their students.

4) If the unions refuse to budge, it will cost people their jobs. They would rather keep their unadulterated power and cost their colleagues their jobs, than behave like a grown-up and deal with reality.

5) Democrat politicians fleeing states such as Wisconsin and Indiana are showing the worst form of cowardice. As those of us dismayed by the election and policies of Barack Obama know, elections have consequences. The voters of Wisconsin spoke loudly in the last election. Their cowardly escape to neighboring states is an admission that they have lost the battle and they will stoop to anything to avoid the results of their behavior as elected representatives. Get back to your states and do your job! Am I the only one bothered by the fact that this is the only time Democrats take a principled stand? Are they always this principled when there isn't the direct threat of losing their favorite and most consistent source of campaign funds?

6) Comparing their situation with that of Egypt is beyond insulting. People in Egypt had been living under the corrupt and repressive Mubarak regime for decades. Egyptians live on an average of $3 a day. Do they really have the gumption to compare their posh union contracts being changed, for the benefit of the entire state, to living under a dictatorship? I don't know if that's just foolish rhetorical hatred or sheer stupidity. If teachers aren't smart enough to see the difference between the two situations, then should they really be teaching children anyway?

Our nation has reached the economic precipice. We have been collectively spending like drunken sailors and most of us realize that it must stop now. This is the moment. It cannot be kicked down the road any more. With as much discomfort as most Americans have been experiencing for the last few years, these union temper-tantrums are not garnering much sympathy or support. (Wait and see what will happen if those chumps in the NBA and NFL strike.) We all have had to tighten our belts and make cuts to our budgets. It's about dang time government did the same thing and that includes all of the people who work for us in the public sector. Any thought that they should somehow be exempt is arrogant and entitled. We can no longer afford such behavior as a nation.

The Grown-ups Are Coming

2010-11-04T09:27:00.000-07:00

A highly cliched societal theme is that of the parents leaving for the evening or weekend and entrusting their teenagers with the care of their home. Inevitably the teens invite their friends over to party and end up wreaking havoc. But then the parents return home and it becomes time to pay the piper. I was as uncomfortable with that concept as a teenager as a I am now. What's worse is that I feel that's what has been happening with our government over the last few decades. The "party", while the grown-ups are gone, has been steadily decaying into absolute chaos and now we have reached critical stage. It's time for the grown-ups to come home and clean up the mess and administer any and all necessary consequences.

The Europeans have been laboring under the burdens of socialism for decades. But the inevitable results of socialism are being felt in full force today. The economies of Greece, Spain, France and Britain (among others) are collapsing. The grown-ups in some of those countries are finally starting to exert some long overdue parenting. France, for example, has been allowing their citizens to retire at age 60 and receive some form of government pension for the rest of their lives. An aging population, declining birthrates and increased life-expectancies have rendered this a budgetary impossibility. So, the grown-ups decided to raise the retirement age to 62 (horrors!!). Not surprisingly, the opposition Socialist Party and the labor unions are staunchly opposed. Weeks of rioting and strikes have ensued amongst the highly entitled sector of the French population.

Meanwhile in Great Britain, the new coalition leadership in Parliament has decided to slash their deficit. Over the next four years they are cutting over $130 billion of spending, eliminating 490,000 public sector jobs AND raising taxes by$45 billion. Ouch. Similar things are of necessity happening in Germany, Spain and Greece.

Socialism at its finest has been exposed for all the world to see. In the history of the world, there has never been a successful case of socialism as an enduring, thriving form of government that allows for economic growth and G0d-given freedoms to its citizenry. Socialism is failing dramatically in Europe. Sadly, many of the people there fail to see the importance of these drastic measures for their very survival. They have been lulled to sleep by a "caring", paternal government, meeting their every need--even when it meant astronomical tax rates and oppressive, intrusive government, with its accompanying lack of freedom. Europeans have become comfortable enough, that they have also become soft and dependent. Now they are angry they have to give up the "free stuff".

In spite of the obvious examples all around us, the current administration is running pell mell down the same rat hole the Europeans dug. With government takeovers and health care "reform" alone we have done our level best to "catch up" with our European betters. Liberals have lamented for years our inferiority to Europe because we don't "take care" of our people. But the party may be ending. After decades of progressive policy, starting with Bush I, the grown-ups may be coming home. Tuesday's election results make me hopeful that the grown-ups have finally come to their senses and are retaking control of this government. The Founding Fathers always intended for the government to be run by the citizens of this nation, not a select group of elitists who think they have superior intellect and the divine right to govern their lesser neighbors. Grown-ups realize the certainties of life needed to save ourselves and our nation: 1) You can't spend more than you earn. 2) Nothing in life is free. 3) If it sounds too good to be true, it is. 4) Mature people take responsibility for their choices. 5) If we are to fix our problems, it is up to us. 5) Life isn't fair. 6) Government does not solve problems, can't create jobs and does not provide happiness. 7) Politicians are liars and cannot be trusted.

Today, I have more hope than I have had for a long time, based on Tuesday's election results. The Republicans won 66 seats (to date) in the House of Representatives and gained 6 seats in the Senate. But my confidence is not in the political parties. My confidence is in the new blood that is being sent to the legislative halls throughout the country. Ten states flipped their governorships from Liberal to Conservative. Nineteen state legislatures had the same results. Those results are all potentially positive, but I have little confidence in the Republicans and less in the Democrats. They all need to be watched and held to account. We must never be lulled to sleep again and never into the deep sleep of the Europeans.

On the other side is the Obama administration, in which I place no hope. It is my belief that Pres. Obama is a firmly entrenched ideaologue who is too committed to his cause to play the "smart" political games. He will not move to the center. In some ways, I hope he doesn't. That will ensure his defeat in 2012. I am also glad that the Democrats retain control of the Senate because they therefore still control two thirds of the government. They will still have to own the responsibility of their chosen political course. The good news is that the House now has the power to bring it all to a screeching halt, which is exactly what I want right now. The more gridlock we have in government, the better. Massive change and rollback will have to wait for the next elections with an accompanying removal of a veto threat. 2012 will be here before we know it and we will have the opportunity to further the changes mandated by the midterms. I do have hope that the American people are coming to their senses. But this is only the first battle in a long war ahead--a war that must be led by grown-ups.

What Matters

2010-10-19T13:51:00.000-07:00

I have spent my summer doing what matters: spending time with my family, vacationing, enjoying God's beautiful creations. I have also been reading as much as possible and educating myself on our nation's history. I'm sorry I have taken such a long hiatus, but I hope this post is worth your while.

As I have written multiple times, and as you are well aware, our nation is in a precarious position. That position makes this election the most important one of our lifetime. I'm not given to hyperbole, but I believe that deeply. Americans had become complacent and comfortable. To our discredit, we allowed the situation in Washington DC to deteriorate to where we now find it: huge deficits, rampant and widespread corruption, burgeoning bureaucracy, arrogant and dismissive "public servants", crippling tax burdens and an entitlement mentality. The good news is that many, many Americans are complacent no more.

As if awakening from a deep sleep, many of us realize what has been going on under our noses and that it must be corrected. This election is not the typical swing of the political pendulum, it is rather the election that will decide the future of our Democratic Republic. It will determine the very survival of the United States of America. The decisions made at this crossroads will determine whether we go down the road of slavery and ruin or begin to slow the Titanic Ship of State and then change course, before our inevitable destruction. But even if the outcome of this election leaves us hopeful, it will not be enough. Every election for the rest of our lives must be equally important. Those that pedal and preach socialism will never rest and therefore neither can we. We must be prepared to fight back this tide in every future election.

Unbeknownst to most politicians and establishment elitists, this election has little to do with political parties or politics. It has everything to do with the make-up of our government as established by the Founding Fathers and defending the Constitution with its accompanying safeguards. If we fail to do that, we will fail as a nation. What matters in this election are the principles that have set this nation apart from every other in the history of the world. What matters is this:

1) We are a nation governed by the people. The Founders were very specific and adamant about preventing a ruling class from seizing power from the people and had great confidence in our ability to govern ourselves. They were equally opposed to pure democracy, within which there is no protection for the minority. Unfortunately, our political situation has deteriorated to the point that members of both parties feel they are superior to the citizenry. They have forgotten completely the concept of "public service". This must stop. Whoever we elect this fall must be put on notice that we expect them to vote in a principled way. If their loyalties are anywhere other than with the people and the success of this nation, as established, then they should be removed. We should never let them forget for whom they labor.

2) We are a nation governed by the law. The concept of equal protection under the law was earth-shattering in its day. It had been exercised on a smaller scale in other civilizations and at other times, but never on this scale. The idea that all of our citizens would be treated the same under the law, regardless of their income, social or political standing, or any other factor is paramount. Again, we see in government offices all across the land, a group of people who feel themselves superior to, exempt from or above the laws of our land. We are steadily eroding this fundamental principle, which will leave the citizenry chained in slavery and utterly powerless.

3) The unalienable rights we were given by our Creator are those of life, liberty and the PURSUIT of happiness. This government was established to protect those rights as sacrosanct. In our political confusion however, we have been led down the primrose path of the nanny state. The words in the Declaration were neither whimsically nor accidentally chosen. There is a reason that happiness is not, nor indeed can be, guaranteed by the government or anyone else. Happiness is a pursuit. It is individual. Government should do everything it can to protect our ability to pursue happiness, however when it tries to provide happiness it necessarily infringes on our liberty. Our citizenry must be educated about the difference between happiness and pursuing happiness; politicians that don't understand that should never hold elected office.

4) The level of taxation under which we are laboring is obscene. The Founders would be utterly appalled at the size of government on every level and the funding required to feed the monster. Every time a new layer of taxation is laid on the citizen's backs we lose freedom. Whether the tax is direct (income tax, sales tax) or indirect (corporate taxes, utility fees, etc.), it always comes down to you and me, Joe Taxpayer. We are at a point where the only choices we have to survive economically are to slash tax rates and spending. Anything less will be useless. Taxation, as established by the Founders was never intended to fund research, pet projects, pork barrel spending, earmarks, the list goes on and on. The politicians will never stop until we make them. You and I do not live our lives that way, why do allow our government to?

5) It is within our power to change all of this. Voting is not just a privelege, it is our duty and responsibility. Iraqis risk their lives every time they vote, but do so undeterred at around 95% turnout. We take no risk to vote and yet our turnout has hovered in the 30th percentile for years. That is inexcusable and lazy. We must educate ourselves, our families and our neighbors about what is happening around us and take back control of our government. I would crawl on glass to be able to vote in this election and can only hope that there are many of us who feel the same way. I do have hope, but not the Obama kind. My hope lies in the inherent goodness of the American people and their desire to be free. Go vote in two weeks and help everyone you can think of to do the same. Then maybe, just maybe we still have a chance.

Oil Slicks & Slippery Slopes

2010-06-17T14:45:00.000-07:00

School's out and we're busy trying to build a house. So I've been watching the news but haven't had time to comment. I still don't have time, but I've got to comment.

Some embarrassing things have happened in and to our nation in the past, but I can't remember a time I was ever ashamed of being an American...until now. As I have watched the news over the past few weeks in reference to Israel, the oil spill, environmental science, Arizona immigration law, etc., I have become increasingly baffled and discouraged by what is happening in our nation right now. More especially, I have been sickened to watch the Obama administration flail and flounder, blame and posture, fail and politicize.

Like all Americans, I am deeply saddened by the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. It is horrible to watch. Forgive me however, if I refuse to panic and believe that this is the greatest trial to ever hit planet earth. We as a nation, and to a large degree a planet, are plagued by what I will call "Chicken Little Syndrome" or CLS. Both politicians and the media have chronic, acute and possibly incurable CLS. Whenever something bad happens anymore, they run around in circles, shouting at the top of their lungs about the sky falling. There's never any time allowed to step back and analyze what is really happening. This knee-jerk, reactionary panic to every occurrence is neither helping nor solving a single problem.

I would like to make an attempt at some sane thought. Is the oil spill a bad thing? Of course. It is going to have obvious short- and long-term consequences to the environment, the economy and the lives of the people living in that area. Unforeseen consequences will also arise. But let's take a deep breath and realize the following: 1) Crude oil is a naturally occurring substance. Mother Nature is capable of dealing with naturally occurring substances. There was an oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico twenty years ago that went on for ten months. Did you know about that? Did you further know that within 2-3 years of the cleanup, things were back to normal in that area of the Gulf? The spill was estimated to be 3.3 million barrels and stretched all the way up to Texas. Interestingly though, "...scientists noticed how fast the marine environment recovered, helped by naturally occurring microbes that feasted on the oil and degraded it...'We were really surprised. After two years, the conditions were really almost normal' ". (Wildlife Recovered Quickly After Big Gulf Spill in 1979, by Tim Johnson, McClatchy News, 5/53/10) So, yes it will be bad for a while, but once they get it capped and we get it cleaned up, we will recover. It's not the end of life as we know it.

2) CLS must stop. Running around and shouting things like: "knowing whose a** to kick", "plug the d**n hole" and "I can't suck it up with a straw" are not only useless, but immature and un-Presidential. Furthermore, halting all deep shore drilling for six months due to CLS is beyond stupid. How many years have we been drilling for oil under the ocean floor? How many times has this happened? For all the Pollyannas out there, I regret to inform you that sometimes, crap happens. Tornadoes happen. Hurricanes happen. Volcanoes spout off. Airplanes and cars crash. People get sick. Boats sink--sometimes even oil tankers. Those with an acute case of CLS will demand that we therefore ban all oil drilling, driving, flying, volcanoes, storms, illnesses and bad days generally. Seriously. Are we grown-ups or not? Life is risk. Stuff happens. Banning oil drilling for six months is not going to prevent another disaster from ever happening. But we can use it as a learning opportunity as we go forward. Until we are in a position to rid ourselves of fossil fuel use, we need crude. So, Obama's reactionary response will serve to raise the cost of gas, cost jobs in an already suffering part of our country and push forward his political agenda for which we are totally unprepared.

For the first time in a long time, gas prices actually were going down during the summer. I can't remember that ever happening. Obama has just assured that oil prices--and therefore the cost of gas, plastics, lubricants and everything else made from oil--will skyrocket. That is brilliant planning any time, but particularly during our current economy.

Louisiana is still struggling to recover from Katrina. And every other state in the nation is suffering in the current economic situation we have created. Putting those oil rigs out of business and costing jobs is a huge blow to states like Louisiana and Texas which are heavy oil producers. Brilliant planning.

The final insult is Obama's politicization of this problem. As long as he has been politically active, he has been pushing an environmental policy that would kill what is left of our economy. In January of '08, candidate Obama said, "Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket". In his June 15, Oval Office address, he insisted on pursuing this Cap and Trade boondoggle at any cost. It will not matter what pretty name it is given; it will not matter what promises are made; sacrificing our economy to the Green God will push it over the brink. Obama has continually talked about creating "Green Jobs" without bothering to tell you that for every green job created, 2.2 other jobs are lost. He regularly touts Spain's green economy as his exemplary goal for the U.S., without telling you that Spain is following closely behind Greece into the economic abyss as a direct result of their green economy. (Check out this article from that conservative bastion, the Seattle Times: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2009385016_will26.html) In fact, Google, "Spain's green economy" and see how much comes up. This one will scare you to death. (http://republicbroadcasting.org/?p=9073) Spain is quickly collapsing and we are, under this administration, chasing them deliberately over the cliff. Unbelievable.

Fixing this oil spill is the priority. This is not the time for politics. Set your green agenda aside for a while and let's just deal with this. Set aside the Jones Act, which is an antiquated protectionist piece of legislation from 1920, created to protect unions, and get the international help we need. Many have offered, most have been turned down for political reasons (i.e. Obama's personal political agenda). Unleash the creativity of the private sector. The government has never solved a dadgum thing, but they are very good at failure and red tape. People across the country have been offering suggestions for solutions, but if they're not Kevin Costner, they've been completely ignored and shut out. Bobby Jindal, the Republican governor of Louisiana has hardly had any communication with Obama administration, I suspect because of his political leanings. I wonder what the media would have said if Bush had treated New York State that way after 9/11--after all, New York didn't vote for him.

3) Shouting does not equal leadership. I hate to be the one to inform you, Barack, but this is not about you. The more you make it about you, the more you screw things up. True leaders do not have to spend every waking minute proving or reminding us who is in charge. Believe me, everyone knows who the President of the United States is. The more you try to prove that you are in charge, the more you accomplish the opposite. A true leaders knows his limits and knows where to get appropriate help. A true leader knows how to give credit where credit is due. A true leader doesn't waste time on blame. A true leader defers to others, when necessary. People will naturally follow a leader--they don't need to be flogged and berated. Obama is grossly inept in the leadership department and has wasted valuable time in this mess worrying more about himself and his reputation than any other thing. Not good.

4) An extension of this fraudulent leadership is the political witch hunt for BP heads. They may have thought they were safe, as the largest contributor (from an oil company) to Barack's campaign. Assuredly they don't now. BP holds the lion's share of the blame for this disaster. It would seem they cut corners and were sloppy. They have made no attempt to run and hide from this, nor would they be allowed to. They are legally bound to pay for the consequences of the leak. The perpetual brow-beating of BP serves one purpose: the aggrandizement of Obama and every politician that can get a minute at the mike. They must prove at every opportunity that they are "leaders" and that they're "tough"; instead they look like the vindictive, grand-standing fools that they are. Heaping fiery coals on BP's head accomplishes nothing towards stopping the leak. (If only we could stuff the hole full of politicians...a girl can dream, can't she?) I wonder in all of their political grand-standing and investigative committees if they will disclose the part that government and environmentalists played as contributors to this problem. The leak is over 5,000 feet deep, almost a mile deep, where no diver can go. Why are they drilling that deep? This is yet another example of our energy policy being held hostage by environmental extremists. If they weren't forced to drill so deep in an effort to appease the unappeasable, it would be much easier to cap the leak in the first place. The 1979 leak that I mentioned earlier was in only 160 feet of water. Even at that depth it took them 10 months to cap it. 5,000 feet of water makes it that much harder.

5) Rule of law? I am starting to seriously wonder if the rule of law means anything in our country anymore. From the inception of our nation, the idea that broke the mold was the rule of law. No-one and nothing was above the law of the land. Equal protection under the law was guaranteed by the Constitution. Now it seems we have granted Obama nearly dictatorial powers with nary a whimper of dissent. We have laws about deep water drilling that were ignored because of BP's cozy relationship with government lackeys. We have laws that require oil companies to be accountable for clean-up costs. Instead of following existing law, the President...er, King, ordered BP executives to appear at the throne where BP was ordered to create a $20 billion fund to pay for their mistake. An additional $100 million of BP money will be paid to cover the expenses of the other rigs that were ordered shut down by the king. That was Obama's decision, not BP's. Why is BP paying for that? And the high king further ordered that no dividends will be paid to BP shareholders for the second quarter. It's those darn shareholder's fault too. I'm sure the king couldn't be bothered by such details as these: 40% of BP shareholders are Americans; millions of dollars of British and American pensions are invested in BP stock; BP stock value has plummeted since the spill, already punishing the company and shareholders; BP will likely not survive this as a company. I am not trying to exonerate or excuse BP in any way. They should pay to clean up the messes and the collateral damage. Both the marketplace and natural consequences of their actions will destroy them. That is enough. We all make mistakes and do stupid things sometimes. Sometimes those stupid things are manifest on a grand scale. Who among us, would want this extra dose of vilification for our stupid mistakes? It's pointless, immature and a waste of everyone's time. Furthermore, nothing can really be fixed until the leak is capped. There will be plenty of time to go back and "get" BP if and when they fail to meet their responsibilities. But we already have laws in place for this situation--let the system work appropriately and haul them in to court if necessary. Never forget that precedence once set, can be used by corrupt people against anyone.

6) "Grab yer partner, give a high five; poke yer ally in the eye." It has been painful enough to watch the Obama Apology Tour, as he's galavanted about the world and bad-mouthed the U.S. to our enemies, but it's even worse to watch how he has treated our allies. Obama's foreign policy seems to be right off the playground at school. When you're the school kiss-up, you spend all of your time trying to be friends with people that will never like you and will always use you; you then go around poking your real friends in the eye, at the behest of others, hoping they're too nice to ever retaliate. So Obama's foreign policy consists of appeasing people that will never like us or our way of life and poking our allies in the eye. His treatment of Israel (Gaza, building in Jerusalem, nuclear policy) and Britain (BP stands for BRITISH Petroleum, Churchill bust, gifts to Gordon Brown) and Poland and Honduras, etc. is utterly disgraceful and appalling. With friends like us, who needs enemies? I wonder how we might feel as a nation if Great Britain were going after Coca-Cola or Ford? Britain and Israel have been our two greatest allies for decades and this is how we treat our friends? I have had a friend wrong me before. When a friend apologizes, I'm much more quick to cut them slack, than I might be for a stranger. Does Britain's stalwart friendship count for nothing? Apparently not with this administration.

We are on slippery, treacherous footing when we politicize everything, throw out the rule of law and betray our allies all in the name of personal pride. The executive branch of government is completely out of control under the Obama administration. His willingness to skirt the law to accomplish any of HIS ends is a terrifying direction for our nation. I don't care what your political leanings are, this destroys the balance of power, the checks and balances, purposely established by the Founders. Remember, everything they established was a direct reaction to living under a powerful tyrant who ruled by fiat and with an iron fist. They spilled their blood and lost their fortunes to be free; we are running pell-mell into servitude.

Oil Spill Response

2010-06-16T10:13:00.000-07:00

This article has some interesting and frustrating facts about the feds inability to clean up the mess:

http://paracom.paramountcommunication.com/hostedemail/email.htm?h=bfc93aad63a15f0c4098a8c79b00cde8&CID=6421478641&ch=89303ED49B690CBEC92B68BE87D35539

Check it out!

When Will They Figure it Out?

2010-05-10T07:13:00.001-07:00

An interesting article appeared today on the Fox News website titled, "What's the Matter With Utah?" by Chad Pergram. (http://congress.blogs.foxnews.com/2010/05/10/whats-the-matter-with-utah/comment-page-3/?action=late-new&order) His column was written in response to this weekend's ousting of Sen. Bob Bennett at the GOP convention in Utah. The four-term senator didn't even make it to the state primary. Pergram's stance is not against Utah, as the title makes it sound, but it is a gross misunderstanding of what is going on at the local level. When are the pols and pundits going to figure it out?

I have nothing personally against Bob Bennett. He's seems like a really good man. But he has been in Washington too long and has gone squishy like too many others. His Democrat friend inadvertently summed up the exact reasons he has been fired by Utah. Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) said, "The Congress cannot and will not function properly if legislators are no longer allowed to govern responsibly and independently, while also advocating their party's principles." I, and many others like me, am tired of politicians we hire to represent us in Washington, who then become "independent". By definition, elected officials are supposed to be representatives--but not of their own interests or even of their party. They are supposed to represent their constituents. When they stop doing that, they need to be fired by their employer, the people. Bennett has become too invested personally in the Washington DC scene and has become more interested in his popularity there, than his popularity in Utah. Well, the boss just fired him for breach of contract.

Wyden further said, "Sen. Bennett is not only among the brightest, most consistent and most decent members of the Senate I have ever known, he is also a very conservative man in ever way." All of those things may be true, but that is apparently not enough for the people of Utah, arguably the most conservative state in the union. Until politicians generally, and conservatives in particular, figure out that popularity in the wrong place will be their downfall, they will continue to be surprised this year by election results. At least I hope so.

Washington DC is not a conservative town. In fact, it's largely a town that it is completely out of touch with the reality that is America. It is a petrie dish of politicians, media members, pundits, power seekers and lobbyists. The most savvy of operators know how to grease the skids and work the system there. No conservative, who is true to principles should ever be popular in that crowd. Unfortunately, far too many of them seem to go to Washington and get seduced by the lure of popularity from the wrong crowd, while becoming unpopular with the people who sent them there. In fact, conservatives would be wise to use DC popularity as their litmus test for job performance. If they're becoming popular in Washington, they have most likely lost their way.

Further proof that politicians are out of touch was offered by the bitter Chris Cannon, a multiple term Republican who was ousted from the House in the 2008 election. He got fat, happy and lazy in his role and was also fired by Utahns. His explanation for the voters' actions follows: "You have extreme ideologues who took control of the party and drove normal people out. It's a problem that we have to correct. They (extreme ideologues) learn to hate people who are in government, not understand how it works. It is very clear there is a mass movement in America. They are ignorant. But zealous in what they are doing." In case I had any remaining questions as to why you got your beatdown in 2008 Chris, that completely clears it up. The arrogance of politicians repeats itself over and over. "Extreme ideologues" drove out "normal people"? Or could it be that we expect our elected officials to stand by the principles they professed while running for office? And trust me, my hatred of our current "government" is based in anything but ignorance. The more I read and study, the more "zealous" I become about returning to the form of government established by the Founding Fathers. This sloppy, bloated form of legal bribery we call government is anything but the representative government intended by the founders. So Chris, you keep on believing that rhetoric; it may help you sleep at night, but you're still out. Furthermore, you, Bennett and your ilk will stay out until you figure it out. At least, therein lies my hope for our future. If this scenario is repeated in election after election this year, we just might survive as a nation. My work and my prayers will be to that end.

NaziZONA?

2010-05-01T11:40:00.000-07:00

Recently the state of Arizona did the unthinkable. The state legislature passed a law requiring law enforcement officers to enforce existing immigration laws. What?! What is this country coming to? Where is their common decency? Is there no JUSTICE in this cruel, cruel world? Surely Arizona has become the newest acolyte of Nazi principles and governance. OH MY GOSH!!!! If you listen to the mainstream media and all the liberal punditry, you just might believe that malarky.

You wouldn't know it, if you live in the United States, but we actually do have laws against illegal immigration. Generally, neither Republicans nor Democrats have been willing to see them enforced. For a while, I wondered why. Particularly during the Bush administration, I was baffled by their refusal to toughen up on illegal immigration. I wonder no longer. The reason has become painfully obvious.

As I have pointed out multiple times in this blog, politicians have become wholly self-serving. Their main and highest aims are to obtain money and power at any cost. Few exceptions exist, but on the whole, this is the greatest problem tearing at our nation's rule of law. Politicians are playing political football with this issue. It's a game to see who can win the votes of the illegal immigrant population. "But they can't vote!", did you say? No, not yet anyway. Both John McCain and Barack Obama support amnesty for illegal immigrants and streamlining their pathway to citizenship. (McCain may not support it today as he is fighting for his Senate seat, but he did support the first amnesty bill in the Senate until public outrage forced it to fail.) Why? They see it as a contest to see who can get those votes. If they become citizens, they get to vote. And the politician who makes it happen is sure to get their political support. That is of course, way more important than enforcing any laws we may have in our country. Laws are really only trivial things and are really only good for the little people. We have an entire cabinet under Barack Obama who did not and have not paid their taxes. Try that yourself and see how it works out for you.

Even though states like Texas, California and Arizona are being bankrupted and crippled by the illegal immigration problems, our government largely refuses to enforce the law. Hospitals are closing, the school systems are being strained to the breaking point and criminals are crossing the border every day. In fact, the Mexican government was kind enough to create a how-to pamphlet on immigrating illegally to the United States. (http://cryptome.quintessenz.at/mirror/mx/mx-migrants.htm) Of course, they remind people it is illegal, but in case they go anyway, they tell them what they need to know. How kind of them. As an ally and neighbor, it is quite good of them to watch out for the importance of our laws.

Earlier this week, the Mexican President, Felipe Calderon said the Arizona law: "opens the door to intolerance, hate, discrimination and abuse in law enforcement." Calderon vowed to help protect the rights of Mexicans living in the United States, offering lawyers and immigration experts. "Nobody can sit around with their arms crossed in the face of decisions that so clearly affect our countrymen."

(Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/2010/04/27/2010-04-27_mexican_president_felipe_calderon_condemns_arizonas_immigration_law.html#ixzz0mhrK6Liz" Perhaps, Presidente, if you are so concerned about your citizens, you would try harder to keep them home. Or, maybe, you could root out the corruption in your government to create a prosperous nation full of jobs for Mexicans in Mexico. Just a thought. In reality, Mexico's vested interest in perpetuating illegal immigration is purely financial. For example, in 2005, $20 billion were sent back to Mexico from workers in the U.S. I doubt those were all registered alien workers. (See: http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/view/4856) That's a big chunk of money to take out of the Mexican economy. Follow the money--therein lies the truth.

I have no problem whatsoever with immigrants from any nation. They want to come here because it is the greatest nation on earth, ever. It is fading fast, but we've still got it if we can hold on to it. We are a nation of immigrants. My family has been here for a few generations, immigrating from England, Scotland and Denmark. But they came legally. That is all I want. I want them to come through the front door. We don't need any more drug runners, murderers, gang members or child molesters. Nor do we need any more people coming here intentionally to suck the system dry: they get free health care, free education, welfare and contribute nothing to our system. Then they have the unmitigated gall to PROTEST our desire have our laws enforced and call us racists. Excuse me?!! Do you have any idea what would happen to you if you tried that in Mexico as a U.S. citizen? (Read this, it will blow your mind: http://townhall.com/content/b4b1880c-4bc1-4859-a2db-fa7f17e7b139)

This feigned anger and imaginary umbrage over the need for people to show their "papers" is beyond ridiculous. I lived in Spain for 18 months and I had to carry my Spanish ID card with me at all times. If I was ever asked for and did not have it, I would have been arrested. Those meanies. Those are the laws of Spain--I was in their country, I respected their laws. Every nation on earth has similar laws about foreigners. Guess what, I fully expect them to. But then they will all band together and criticize Arizona for trying to do the same thing. Is there no end to the hypocrisy? Furthermore, I have to carry a driver's license, registration and proof of insurance every time I drive my car. If I get pulled over, the officer will ask...for...my papers. After which I am expected to click my heels together, raise my right arm at a 45 degree angle and shout "Hail Hitler".

The fact of the matter is this: the people of Arizona are tired. They are financially tapped out. They are tired of the crime. They are tired of the murder. They are tired of the drugs, the kidnapping and the gangs. They are tired of their citizens being threatened and harmed by illegal immigrants from Mexico. Since the federal government refuses to do their job and protect the citizens, then Arizona will, apparently, have to do it themselves. Good for them. I hope every state in this country follows their example. Perhaps there is enough common sense to be found there to do what the federales won't. I wonder if then, they will finally begin listening to the CITIZENS of this country, who are tired too. We are not racists. We do not hate Mexicans. But we do love this country and know that it will only stand as a nation if we abide by the rule of law. Our laws must be enforced evenly and fairly and we must not reward lawlessness by legitimizing illegal immigrants with citizenship.

Some Enlightenment About Obamacare

2010-04-26T12:57:00.000-07:00

This is a very interesting article. Please check the link:

http://healthcare.nationalreview.com/post/?q=Y2U5YjAzMjkxODY1YTViYmNjN2JjNGZjYWY4ZjliNDc=

True Freedom

2010-04-09T10:51:00.000-07:00

Freedom. What a wonderful, patriotic and American-sounding word "freedom" is. Sadly, freedom is under attack in ways many of us never thought possible. As we assess this attack, however, we realize that this has been a long time coming. We as a nation have been surrendering our freedom for generations, perhaps without realizing it. The quickening pace of our downfall started with the permissiveness of the 60's--the free love and drug culture. It has evolved, changed and enlarged with each step of permissiveness: the fight to accept homosexual practices, divorce, substance abuse, women's lib, corruption in government, dishonest and unethical business practices. Each of these supposed "freedoms" have been exercised with increasing impunity and disastrous results. You see, freedom isn't free. Freedom without accountability is simply permissiveness and tears at the very fabric of our society. As our society has become more and more tolerant of those things that go against societal "norms" we have suffered destructive results. The women's liberation movement has become an Anything Goes Movement, as long as it's not the traditional role, with a resulting degradation of women, heightened objectification of women and girls and the sexualization of all things female. No-fault divorce has resulted in skyrocketing divorce rates and generations of children either having damaged relationships with parents or being forced to raise themselves. Government bailouts of private and public entities have sheltered the guilty and the foolish from the consequences of their mistakes. Politicians tickle the ears of voters without regard for the practical application or costs of their promises and then glibly pass the buck when things go haywire.

If we are to restore freedom to this great nation, we must restore accountability. As a mom, I try to teach my children, every day, that they are responsible for their own decisions. Once their decision is made, they have chosen a consequence. Consequences are really neither good nor bad, they are neutral. They are the result of decisions. If I choose to place my hand on the hot burner of a stove, I will get burned. No-one is punishing me or being mean, it is simply the result of what I have chosen to do. Until we return our lives to the acceptance of the consequences we have chosen, we are destined for failure. Politicians, business people, individuals make decisions every day that affect the future. The only way to improve that decision-making process is to experience the results--be they good or bad. Human nature is such that we tend to learn not to touch the burner, if we get burned. Freedom and accountability are pillars of our society, without them the whole of it will collapse. To that end, we must fight for the true freedom which allows us to learn and progress. That fight begins with an increased commitment to marriage and parenting our children, complete integrity in every aspect of our lives and the courage to stand for our convictions regardless of social and popular pressure. We further fight by patronizing companies and businesses that hold those same values. Finally, we must hold politicians accountable for both their promises and their actions. If they do not meet our standards, they must be removed from office. Only then, do we truly begin to be free once more. America can return to the greatness it once had and that is the America in which I want to raise my children.

We Are Screwed

2010-03-22T09:54:00.000-07:00

I'm not going to pull any punches today. I have tried to be as diplomatic as possible in regards to many issues, but today, frankly I am livid. I am sick, I am terrified and I am devastated. Yesterday, the House of Lords...er Representatives, boldly ignored the will of the people of this nation and "courageously" passed health care "reform". They proudly lit a slow-burning fuse that will be the end of this country as you know it. The repercussions of this legislation will destroy our medical system, our economy and our freedom. It will not be immediate but it will happen. Do you think I'm over-reacting? Wait and see. It is inevitable. There is still a slim chance that the courts will overturn this abomination. There is a chance that the legislation could be repealed, but I have very little hope or confidence in the ability of politicians to do what must be done.

If this is such a great bill for the citizens of the United States, then why did the Democrats have to lie, bribe, meet in private, hide, scheme, plot and strong-arm the members of the House to get it passed? The sickening methods used to get this passed should be enough to demonstrate the quality of the legislation to everyone in this country. The level of arrogance consuming the current administration and its lackeys should make everyone one of us fear for ourselves and our future.

To borrow Chairman Obama's favorite phrase, "let me be clear" about who bears responsibility for this debacle. Every fool or dupe who has voted for a Democrat in the last ten years has brought this on us. Every voter too lazy to go and place a vote and thereby allow this to happen is responsible. The Republicans are so far from perfect that I can barely stomach most of them, but not a single Republican in the House or Senate voted for this bill. There is nothing moderate or middle of the road about this legislation. This is pure extreme liberalism, which means socialism. The next step is communism. So kindly remember the next time you go to vote that this is Democrat legislation. From top to bottom, from start to finish, the Democrats own this. When November 2010 and 2012 comes, it should be hung around their necks and they should be sumarily tossed overboard. That is the only hope we have of fixing this. And any Republican that goes squishy and says, "Well, we can fix this bill or amend a few things", is not serious and should not be elected. The only prayer we have is to repeal it and start over. Do we need health care reform? Yes. This, ladies and gentlemen, ain't it.

Great Columns

2010-03-08T16:48:00.000-08:00

Here are some great columns by Thomas Sowell about health care:

Alice in Health Care: Part II

http://townhall.com/content/788902c8-be78-44a2-af1e-d45c9f1cc2f6

Alice in Health Care: Part III

http://townhall.com/content/d7fa9c18-e31d-4c67-9164-c4cb51e08dce

Alice in Medical Care: Part IV

http://townhall.com/content/71a60a54-d69b-4536-a6b2-080c0f04ed65

The Battle Rages On

2010-03-04T14:00:00.000-08:00

I am reading a terrifying book, "Hitler's Empire: How the Nazis Ruled Europe" by Mark Mazower. It is neither fun nor lighthearted reading; it is enlightening. Recently, while reading I came across the concept that the Nazis and Communists hated each other. Perhaps that is a no-brainer to people who are better educated than I, but it surprised me. To my mind, the Nazis and Communists aren't all that different from each other. Some of their ideologies are different, but their methodology is surprisingly alike. On the continuum of political ideology they are supposedly at the far, opposite ends of the spectrum; Communists being the extreme left and Nazis (or fascism) being the extreme right. They may start out with different aims, but that forked road converges at the same horrible destination further down the road. Whatever their stated purposes and ideologies are/were, historically they end up using the same methods to enforce their rule: mass murder, terrorizing their own citizens and others, absolute power consolidation, removal of individual freedoms and the crushing of opposition in any form. As I did further reading on their respective beliefs and political motivations, I had an "A-Ha Moment".

I am a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. (To those of you who are not members of my church, I hope you will grant me a little leeway here and permit a bit of a theological discussion.) We believe that human soul consists of two essential pieces: the body and the spirit. We also believe that God created our spirits and that we were sent to earth to receive a body to clothe those spirits and make us complete. But that plan was not forced upon us. During what we call the Pre-existence, God presented His plan to us, His spirit children. The plan involved the necessity for us to leave God's presence in order that we might get a body, live by faith and learn through our mistakes. But the key to making it all possible was that a Savior was necessary to atone for our inevitable sins and errors in order that we might repent, satisfy the demands of both justice and mercy, and one day return to God's presence. During that "Council in Heaven", two volunteers stepped forward: Jesus Christ, who promised to implement the plan that God had set forth and give the glory to the Father. The other, was Lucifer, who promised to bring every spirit back to the Father, by force and demanded that he receive the glory.

The key to the entire plan was the agency of man. God knew that in order for us to progress, we must be allowed to make choices, experience the associated consequences and thereby learn. But Lucifer's plan would have thwarted our ability to choose. We were allowed to choose whom we would follow: Jesus or Lucifer. Thus began the great "War in Heaven", where we chose sides and fought an ideological battle for the corresponding plan. Lucifer and his forces were defeated and he was cast out. His role from thence onward was to provide the necessary opposition to all things: good vs. evil, joy vs. sorrow, humility vs. pride, etc. Without said opposition, there would be no way for us to learn the necessary lessons of our existence. If we never have to taste the bitter, how will we ever know the difference in the sweet?

Now we come to my "A-Ha Moment". The battle that Lucifer lost in Heaven was not a final defeat; Lucifer has moved the battlefield, but it still rages on. Lucifer has ever fought for our slavery and it matters not to him what form that comes in. If it comes through sin, addiction, or at the hands of another human, he is successful. When we are slaves, we cannot choose. Any form of government that would make us slaves is thwarting God's eternal purposes for his children. This is the over-arching reason that the fight for our current freedoms in the United States is so critical. The Founding Fathers, regardless of their personal religious affiliations or lack thereof, knew that the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, were divinely appointed rights. They are rights given to us by our Creator, not granted to us by any government, king, dictator, etc.

When government of any form tramples our rights, we lose freedom. As we lose freedom, we lose accountability. When we lose accountability, we are separated from our ability to experience consequences and learn from our mistakes. We become useless slaves to the whims of a few who believe themselves to be superior to all others. As the United States government has stepped in to protect foolish mortgage holders, banks, auto manufacturers, etc., they have removed them from the consequences of their actions and thus prevented them from learning the necessary but painful lessons associated with their freely made choices. Not only will they continue to repeat their foolish mistakes, but they are thereby wrongly punishing the innocent and will continue to do so.

I am not suggesting that we should eliminate government. To quote Thomas Paine, "Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one." Without government we would have anarchy. But we should have the smallest government possible in order for us to have a civilized, productive environment in which to make our own choices for ourselves and our families. That government can only be maintained by the willingness of its citizens to abide by the laws upon which we have all agreed. Without that willingness, we would fail. There are not enough police officers or soldiers to enforce any laws if the people refuse to obey them.

This is where we come back to the essential principle of personal agency. Man is a fallen creature. The natural man is an enemy to God. I don't believe that means that men are inherently evil; nor do I believe we are inherently good. I do think we are very selfish creatures. A large part of our purpose here on earth is to overcome that selfishness. Without the ability to make choices, experience the resulting consequences--good or bad--we cannot learn or progress. Those of us that believe in a higher power, have the guidance of scriptures, prayer and prophets to help us overcome those selfish tendencies. In an ideal world that would be enough; while we as individuals progressed, we would have a decreasing need for government because we would make our decisions based on principles of honesty, fairness and unselfishness. In the real world, too few of us fall short of that. But the answer to solve those problems is not increased government regulation and intervention which is the antithesis of freedom. What is needed, is teaching; leaders, teachers and parents who both exemplify personal responsibility and accountability and allow it to take place. As any parent knows, sheltering your children from responsibility breeds an ever-growing monster whose selfishness and greed knows no bounds.

Our current fight for freedom is not really about government health care, taxation or government regulation. It is ultimately another skirmish in the battle for our souls. I'm not implying that government's are under Satan's control. But whether his ends are achieved by willing pawns or well-meaning dupes, the results in regards to our personal freedoms are the same. It is a battle for our God-given right to choose our own path and the resulting future. God will not interfere with our agency. If He will not, how then can anyone else think they should?

Miracles DO Happen

2010-02-11T15:54:00.000-08:00

I am witness to a real live miracle this week--a common sense solution to a community problem! The story goes like this...We've only lived in Spokane, WA for a year, but my understanding is that historically they have not charged children anything to use the community swimming pools. With the recent economic downturn the local park department was having a hard time making ends meet. They determined that the pools could no longer be free and started charging $1 per child. But when you're accustomed to free, it's hard to give that up. There was a huge outcry from the community and fears that the new policy would keep the poor from being able to swim. It was a big local hubbub. The parks department was between a rock and a hard place. They either had to find more money or shut down the pools. Raising taxes was not an option and ending the fees wouldn't work either. Amazingly enough, someone came up with a brilliant idea. They have decided to keep the $1 fee for those who can afford it and then held a fund-raiser to provide "scholarships" for those who can't. This provides an opportunity for those who have the means to be charitable and help out the less fortunate. The beautiful thing is that it's not being done through coercion (i.e. taxation). It also allows those who can't afford it the opportunity to partake in the fun. This is the kind of problem-solving that would go a long way to fix the problems that are crippling our economy and our fiscal future.

This local example provides a stark contrast with what happens at the federal level. Anyone with a rudimentary understanding of math knows that we are on a crash course with destiny. Our financial house of cards, built on huge debt at multiple levels, is about to come crashing down around our ears. Our government spending is vastly outpacing our earning capacity. The only way to fix the problem is to stop spending money on frivolous and wasteful programs. Unfortunately, that is not likely to happen any time soon.

A perfect example of this ridiculous spending is what happened in last weekend's Super Bowl. The Federal Government felt it necessary to spend $2.5 million dollars to buy a 30 second ad, during the Super Bowl, promoting the census. This is only part of the Census Bureau's $340 million ad campaign for the 2010 census. (See: http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/80113-super-bowl-spot-kicks-off-debate-about-census-ad-campaign) If you have a slight clue and a weak pulse, you will be aware that the census is required of our government every ten years. It costs them plenty of money to do the census; is it really necessary to advertise it? I don't know about you, but I could do a lot with $340 million bucks. I can speculate with a great deal of confidence that were we to add up all of the tax dollars wasted on such garbage, it would add up to be a grundle of money and would go a long way to getting us out of debt. Does it ever occur to the people that dip into the bottomless taxpayer's wallet, that perhaps we should be more careful how we spend the money? No, not really.

This leads me to conclude that one of the biggest problems facing our nation today is federal funding. Thomas Jefferson once said, "A rigid economy of the public contributions and absolute interdiction of all useless expenses will go far towards keeping the government honest and unoppressive." We are living proof of the exact opposite. The further our tax dollars get from our community and the more hands they are passed through is an invitation for disaster. For example, it is relatively easy (compared to the federal gov't) for me to trace the tax dollars that go directly to the city of Spokane. I can go downtown and demand to know where the monies are being spent and the results are verifiable. Contrast that with what happens with the tax dollars sent to Washington DC and you have a mess. It is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to trace the money filtered through DC. There are too many hands in the pot, too many political "obligations" and debts to be repaid, too much secrecy and way too much back room dealing (can you say "earmarks"?). The practice of filtering money through Washington DC has also successfully circumvented the Constitutional powers delegated solely to the states. The federal government is supposed to only have the specific powers given to it in the Constitution; every other power was to be reserved by the individual states. But our collective dependence on federal funding has surrendered those rights. Any time Washington DC benevolently "gives" the states money, it always comes with strings attached. The money has to be spent where and how the federal government specifies or the funding will be pulled. Our founding fathers must be rolling in their graves, because Jefferson also said, "Dependence begets subservience and venality, suffocates the germ of virtue, and prepares fit tools for the designs of ambition". I am constantly amazed at the foresight of the men that carefully crafted our Constitutional government. The more I read, the more I realize that human nature has changed little. They knew that and they anticipated most of the problems that would plague the governance of our nation. If we don't heed their warnings, we are doomed to fail. We must return fiscal responsibility to our government and our governance to our Constitutional roots. Only by returning to our past can our future be saved.

The State of the Obama-union

2010-01-30T16:36:00.001-08:00

The State of the Union address this week, was interesting to say the least. The illustrious President Obama successfully alienated the House, the Senate, the Supreme Court, bankers, Wall Street, big corporations, "rich" people, and anyone who doesn't agree with him completely and do as they are told; that was just for starters. Unfortunately, there simply are not enough hours in my day to translate and correct all the lies, half-truths, misdirection and rhetoric launched at the enemies of the state by the Chastiser-in-Chief. Therefore, I will only do so to my favorites.

It's Not My Fault! (The Whiner-in-Chief)

I for one, am a little more than tired of the blame-Bush-for-everything. These are just a few examples of the whining:

"At the beginning of the last decade, the year 2000, America had a budget surplus of over $200 billion. By the time I took office, we had a one-year deficit of over $1 trillion and projected deficits of $8 trillion over the next decade. Most of this was the result of not paying for two wars, two tax cuts, and an expensive prescription drug program. On top of that, the effects of the recession put a $3 trillion hole in our budget. All this was before I walked in the door." This completely ignores the MASSIVE deficit-spending incurred in the short, yet long, year that he has been President. And by the way, if we can't afford that expensive prescription drug program, how do you intend to pay for all health care for every American AND lower the deficit at the same time? Just wondering. Furthermore, tax cuts DO NOT create deficits--too much government spending does.

"Now, even after paying for what we spent on my watch, we'll still face the massive deficit we had when I took office." Waaaahh--here are some tissues. Every new President inherits problems from prior administrations. It's the nature of the beast. When you say, "I'm the President and the buck stops here", do you mean it or not? Stop making excuses and fix it.

My Enemies Will be Punished (The Divider-in-Chief)

"So I supported the last administration's efforts to create the financial rescue program. And when we took that program over, we made it more transparent and more accountable. And as a result, the markets are now stabilized, and we've recovered most of the money we spent on the banks. Most but not all.

To recover the rest, I've proposed a fee on the biggest banks. Now, I know Wall Street isn't keen on this idea. But if these firms can afford to hand out big bonuses again, they can afford a modest fee to pay back the taxpayers who rescued them in their time of need." Obama gives a lot of lip service to job creation and then hampers and punishes every aspect of our market that creates jobs. I will say again what I have said a million times, corporations do not pay taxes, or fees, or fines, or whatever tricky label the government comes up with. Those are always passed on to their consumers. This arbitrary fee will be imposed on the top 50 banks regardless of whether they took TARP money. It will also be levied whether or not they have paid back their money. It also fails to "penalize" some of the biggest sinners in the bailout: AIG, GM, Chrysler, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Goldman Sachs, etc. What Obama will succeed in doing, by persisting in this personal vendetta is to cause the banks to lend less money to individuals, corporations and small businesses. This will further clog the lending market to the very people who create jobs through buying, manufacturing or opening/expanding their businesses. I agree, that some of the salaries and bonuses are ridiculous, but is not the role of the government to address this, unless we live in communism. The shareholders and Boards of Directors are the ones that must put a stop to this. If they're not smart enough to do that then they deserve to lose money on their investments.

Did He Really Just Say That?! (The Arrogant One-in-Chief)

"But to create more of these clean energy jobs, we need more production, more efficiency, more incentives. And that means building a new generation of safe, clean nuclear power plants in this country. It means making tough decisions about opening new offshore areas for oil and gas development. It means continued investment in advanced biofuels and clean coal technologies. And, yes, it means passing a comprehensive energy and climate bill with incentives that will finally make clean energy the profitable kind of energy in America." The Cap and Trade Bill he is pushing for is completely at odds with everything he said prior. It is also at odds with everything his administration has done, to date, in terms of developing these resources. What are you waiting for? Start a nuclear plant already. Start drilling. Use some of the coal that is one of our most abundant natural resources. You've given over 400 addresses in you first year of office; lets have a little less conversation, a little more action please.

"To close that credibility gap we have to take action on both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue -- to end the outsized influence of lobbyists; to do our work openly; to give our people the government they deserve." I was absolutely stunned that he could even say this with a straight face. This, after he spent weeks in behind-closed-doors negotiations with the Democratic caucus, the unions and lobbyists on health care legislation. Even the main-stream media was asking him why it wasn't televised on C-SPAN as promised during his campaign. He has over 30 former lobbyists working in his administration. He had a closed-door meeting with lobbyists the day after his speech to discuss this speech. How dumb does he think we are?

Just when I was recovering from that whopper, he followed it with this one:

"With all due deference to separation of powers, last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests –- including foreign corporations –- to spend without limit in our elections. I don't think American elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities. They should be decided by the American people. And I'd urge Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to correct some of these problems." First of all, for someone who supposedly studied Constitutional law, he is dead wrong about this recent ruling. The Court did not change any of the restrictions on foreign campaign contributions. Secondly, the Supreme Court attends the State of the Union address as a show of unity in government and as a courtesy to the President. That he had the unmitigated gall to stand there and chastise the Supreme Court for rightfully defending free speech, was almost more than I could stomach. They did their job and ruled correctly based on the Constitution, which Obama is supposed to defend. Thirdly, I find it very interesting that Obama tries at every opportunity to tax the life out of every corporation he can find and at the same time wants to make it impossible for them to have a voice. This line of thinking belies what you really stand for Mr. President--and it ain't freedom. Finally, it was just plain arrogant, rude, cowardly and disrespectful to address the Supreme Court in such a manner.

"I'm also calling on Congress to continue down the path of earmark reform. Democrats and Republicans. Democrats and Republicans. You've trimmed some of this spending, you've embraced some meaningful change. But restoring the public trust demands more. For example, some members of Congress post some earmark requests online. Tonight, I'm calling on Congress to publish all earmark requests on a single Web site before there's a vote, so that the American people can see how their money is being spent." Now that the uncontrollable laughter has subsided, may I remind you that you signed an Omnibus spending bill that had over 4,000 earmarks in it? Do you really think we can believe what you just said? I'm sure they'll get posted online just like all the pending bills that were going to be posted for at least 5 days before they're voted on. Oh wait, that didn't happen? But, I thought...but Mr. President, you promised.

"So Democrats, I would remind you that we still have the largest majority in decades, and the people expect us to solve problems, not run for the hills. And if the Republican leadership is going to insist that 60 votes in the Senate are required to do any business at all in this town -- a supermajority -- then the responsibility to govern is now yours as well. Just saying no to everything may be good short-term politics, but it's not leadership. We were sent here to serve our citizens, not our ambitions. So let's show the American people that we can do it together." This one translates into "the people be damned". He is here to push his agenda and does not care what the voters have recently indicated. That's fine--I HOPE he will keep it up and then we will CHANGE every single one of those arrogant so-and-so's in the November election. Oh, and by the way, Mr. Pres., it's the Republicans job to provide checks and balances to the party in power. Their constituents expect them to fight and fight hard for the things they believe in. Sometimes, and in your case nearly every time, that means saying "no". It is a principled "no", not a "no" for "no's" sake. And I realize you think we're all stupid for not just doing as we're commanded and admonished, but you were elected by 52% of the voters, not 100%. The rest of us still have a say in the future of our nation. And that my friend, IS leadership.

My Way or the Highway (The Chief-in-Chief)

"Now, yesterday, the Senate blocked a bill that would have created this commission. So I'll issue an executive order that will allow us to go forward, because I refuse to pass this problem on to another generation of Americans." Okay. You refuse to pass it on but you refuse to cut spending either, so which is it really? And just out of curiosity, does "separation of powers" mean anything to you?

"But each time a CEO rewards himself for failure, or a banker puts the rest of us at risk for his own selfish gain, people's doubts grow. Each time lobbyists game the system or politicians tear each other down instead of lifting this country up, we lose faith. The more that TV pundits reduce serious debates to silly arguments, big issues into sound bites, our citizens turn away." Translation--if you were all just as good and wise as me, we wouldn't have these problems. Come, all you mindless lemmings and we'll run off the cliff together.

The Government Must Create Jobs (The Confused-in-Chief)

"Because of the steps we took, there are about two million Americans working right now who would otherwise be unemployed. Two hundred thousand work in construction and clean energy; 300,000 are teachers and other education workers. Tens of thousands are cops, firefighters, correctional officers, first responders. And we're on track to add another one and a half million jobs to this total by the end of the year.

That is why jobs must be our number-one focus in 2010, and that's why I'm calling for a new jobs bill tonight." The numbers used in the speech were shaky at best, based on the false and imaginary numbers being tossed around by this Administration. But it is also worth noting that jobs are being created in the IRS, other government entities and the Census Bureau. In fact, over a million jobs that will last from March to mid-summer will be created for census-taking purposes, but will obviously be short-lived. Furthermore, every single one of these jobs is paid for by tax dollars instead of a business that generates profits. No government job that I know of pays for itself; the salaries are paid by "working Americans" who actually pay taxes. That is hard to sustain for long with real unemployment rates at almost 20%. It sounds great, but reality can be very painful.

"Now, the true engine of job creation in this country will always be America's businesses. But government can create the conditions necessary for businesses to expand and hire more workers." This is actually a true statement--I know, I was surprised too. But everything this President does destroys the "conditions necessary for business to expand". Increased regulation, astronomical taxes, unfunded mandates, fees, etc. are strangling our business climate.

"So tonight, I'm proposing that we take $30 billion of the money Wall Street banks have repaid and use it to help community banks give small businesses the credit they need to stay afloat. I'm also proposing a new small business tax credit -– one that will go to over one million small businesses who hire new workers or raise wages. While we're at it, let's also eliminate all capital gains taxes on small business investment, and provide a tax incentive for all large businesses and all small businesses to invest in new plants and equipment." This "tax credit" nonsense has to stop. Giving a $2,000 tax credit to a small business owner to hire a new employee is just nonsense. It costs an employer much, much more than that just to pay the associated FICA and payroll taxes that would go to the government for a minimum wage employee. If he's not generating sufficient profits in his business to pay another employee, all the tax credits in the world will not create a single job. But, the Great and Beneficent Obama will grant you the ability to keep some of your tax dollars if you buy a house, replace windows, buy a car, hire an employee, or refinance your home. But, that will only happen if you can manage to navigate the red tape and jump through the hoops that accompany the tax credits. If he wants to really help, lower taxes for EVERYONE and let them spend their money the way the see fit.

I'll Explain it One More Time for the Stupid Little People (Wisdom-in-Chief)

"I know that there are those who disagree with the overwhelming scientific evidence on climate change. But here's the thing -- even if you doubt the evidence, providing incentives for energy-efficiency and clean energy are the right thing to do for our future..." The evidence is overwhelming if you're fully entrenched in the Kool-aid Drinkers Climate Association. For the rest of us, there's a lot of holes in the science and skepticism about the real agenda. Check the news lately Mr. President? The UN science bunch has been caught red-handed pushing a personal agenda behind the facade of scientific evidence. But let's not forget, I'm stupid. I'm a flat-earther because I won't just drink the Kool-aid and shutup. Unfortunately for you, I hate Kool-aid.

"Still, this is a complex issue, and the longer it was debated, the more skeptical people became. I take my share of the blame for not explaining it more clearly to the American people. And I know that with all the lobbying and horse-trading, the process left most Americans wondering, "What's in it for me?" Oddly enough, the last thing I was wondering was "what's in it for me". I've been wondering what would be left of our country and our freedoms if it passes. And no, I don't need you to explain it to me one more time. I understand what is going on with health care and I don't want it. There are a lot of us who just don't want it. The more you talk about it, the more I'm convinced...that I'm right.

First Grade Economics (The Economic Genius-in-Chief)

"That's why we extended or increased unemployment benefits for more than 18 million Americans; made health insurance 65 percent cheaper for families who get their coverage through COBRA; and passed 25 different tax cuts." Unemployment benefits are paid for by the taxpayers, this equals deficit spending. Taxpayers are subsidizing COBRA coverage, this equals deficit spending. And your "tax cuts" are really tax credits, which I've already discussed.

"Now, let me repeat: We cut taxes. We cut taxes for 95 percent of working families. We cut taxes for small businesses. We cut taxes for first-time homebuyers. We cut taxes for parents trying to care for their children. We cut taxes for 8 million Americans paying for college." Let me translate this into a true statement: We cut (some) taxes. We cut taxes for 95 percent of working families (those who already pay not taxes into the system). We cut taxes for small businesses (with tax credits). We cut taxes for first-time homebuyers (with a tax credit--IF you were lucky enough to qualify). We cut taxes for parents (who both work and are forcing the system to take care of their children and qualify for low-income assistance. The rest of us aren't really trying to take care of our children.). We cut taxes for 8 million Americans paying for college (but not the ones that make "too much" money).

"Now, one place to start is serious financial reform. Look, I am not interested in punishing banks. (Right...) I'm interested in protecting our economy. A strong, healthy financial market makes it possible for businesses to access credit and create new jobs. It channels the savings of families into investments that raise incomes. But that can only happen if we guard against the same recklessness that nearly brought down our entire economy. We need to make sure consumers and middle-class (not the poor or the rich, just the middle-class) families have the information they need to make financial decisions. We can't allow financial institutions, including those that take your deposits, to take risks that threaten the whole economy. Next, we need to encourage American innovation. Last year, we made the largest investment in basic research funding in history -- an investment that could lead to the world's cheapest solar cells or treatment that kills cancer cells but leaves healthy ones untouched." The best way to encourage innovation is for the government to get out of the way. Research funding is money forcibly taken from the taxpayers. If people want to create and invent they are going to be much more motivated and successful if they are using their own money or that of investors to whom they are accountable, than they will be with the endless fountain of government research dollars. I know, I know, that takes the control away from the government and I'm sure that's something you just can't live with.

"Starting in 2011, we are prepared to freeze government spending for three years. Spending related to our national security, Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security will not be affected. But all other discretionary government programs will. Like any cash-strapped family, we will work within a budget to invest in what we need and sacrifice what we don't. And if I have to enforce this discipline by veto, I will. We will continue to go through the budget, line by line, page by page, to eliminate programs that we can't afford and don't work. We've already identified $20 billion in savings for next year. To help working families, we'll extend our middle-class tax cuts. But at a time of record deficits, we will not continue tax cuts for oil companies, for investment fund managers, and for those making over $250,000 a year. We just can't afford it." You can't afford it? May I remind Your Presumptuousnous that it's not your money. And really, it's about time you stuck it to those creeps that make over $250,000 a year, because we all know that they aren't "working families". They are vampires who suck the financial blood out of everybody else--they don't hire anyone, they don't ever help anyone else, they don't pay nearly enough taxes, they don't invent or invest or create. And they most certainly don't work.

"Now, I know that some in my own party will argue that we can't address the deficit or freeze government spending when so many are still hurting. And I agree -- which is why this freeze won't take effect until next year -- -- when the economy is stronger. That's how budgeting works." (Laughter) In all the years I have been following politics, I've never seen this happen. The laughter in the room at this statement was not laughter with the President, they were laughing at the President because they simply could not help themselves. I laughed too, but this mentality is anything but laughable. Imagine the following at your house: "Alright kids, it's time to get our finances in order. As you know, our household income is $45,000 a year and we have $120,000 of credit card debt. So it's time to stop spending money. Next year, we are going to cut all Twinkies out of our grocery budget and put that towards our debt. By the time you're 4,723 we'll have it paid off." Seriously.

Oh, the Lies, Lies, Lies, Lies (The Prevaricator-in-Chief)

"Now, this year, we've broken through the stalemate between left and right by launching a national competition to improve our schools. And the idea here is simple: Instead of rewarding failure, we only reward success. Instead of funding the status quo, we only invest in reform -- reform that raises student achievement; inspires students to excel in math and science; and turns around failing schools that steal the future of too many young Americans, from rural communities to the inner city. In the 21st century, the best anti-poverty program around is a world-class education. And in this country, the success of our children cannot depend more on where they live than on their potential." True, but why won't you support school voucher programs? Why won't you break from from your slavish obedience to the NEA? When you do, I'll believe your statement.

"To make college more affordable, this bill will finally end the unwarranted taxpayer subsidies that go to banks for student loans. Instead, let's take that money and give families a $10,000 tax credit for four years of college and increase Pell Grants. And let's tell another one million students that when they graduate, they will be required to pay only 10 percent of their income on student loans, and all of their debt will be forgiven after 20 years –- and forgiven after 10 years if they choose a career in public service, because in the United States of America, no one should go broke because they chose to go to college. And by the way, it's time for colleges and universities to get serious about cutting their own costs -– because they, too, have a responsibility to help solve this problem." My jaw hit the floor on this one. Okay, yet another tax credit (i.e. taxpayer dollars) and then you're going to pay off all the loans...with taxpayer dollars. And cut the deficit. Right. And, while you're telling colleges and universities that they have a responsibility to lower costs, you just wrote them a blank check on the taxpayer's tab. You see, the cost of tuition in this country has grossly outpaced inflation. They have convinced parents that they are responsible to pay for their kid's college education. Parents are expected to save for a lifetime, mortgage their house, drain their savings or whatever else they have to do. We have been dumb enough to buy into this mindset and have thus given them permission to endlessly raise tuition. We as consumers could put an end to this if real market forces were able to work; supply and demand would force universities to get back in the business of educating people and lower their tuition. Instead, between fawning parents and government subsidies, the cost will continue to rise.

"So, as temperatures cool, I want everyone to take another look at the plan we've proposed. There's a reason why many doctors, nurses, and health care experts who know our system best consider this approach a vast improvement over the status quo. But if anyone from either party has a better approach that will bring down premiums, bring down the deficit, cover the uninsured, strengthen Medicare for seniors, and stop insurance company abuses, let me know. Let me know. Let me know. I'm eager to see it." There's also a reason that MOST doctors are completely opposed to this boondoggle. And the Republicans have been completely silenced and shut out of all negotiations on the health care bills. Please don't tell us you want to hear their ideas (of which they have many), because the truth is that you don't give a flying fig.

"We are filling unacceptable gaps revealed by the failed Christmas attack, with better airline security and swifter action on our intelligence. (Ask the Administration to disclose the name of the person who authorized the questioning to end after 50 minutes. Why was a terrorist given Miranda Rights and a lawyer? We got no intel as a result.) That's why we stand with the girl who yearns to go to school in Afghanistan; why we support the human rights of the women marching through the streets of Iran; why we advocate for the young man denied a job by corruption in Guinea. (That's why I've said nothing in support of the people in Iran or Honduras who are fighting for their freedom.) For America must always stand on the side of freedom and human dignity. Always. Abroad, America's greatest source of strength has always been our ideals. The same is true at home. We find unity in our incredible diversity, drawing on the promise enshrined in our Constitution: the notion that we're all created equal; that no matter who you are or what you look like, if you abide by the law you should be protected by it; if you adhere to our common values you should be treated no different than anyone else. (Unless of course you cross me, are a banker, make too much money, or any other reason I can think of to punish you fiscally. Otherwise I believe in equal treatment under the law.)

Real Hope

2010-01-19T23:55:00.000-08:00

The tremor you felt last night at around 10:36 Eastern time wasn't an aftershock from any number of recent earthquakes. It was me, jumping up and down in my family room for joy. But more importantly, it was politicians everywhere falling out of their chairs. The world of the political incumbent, from any political party, was rocked last night as the unthinkable came to pass.

If you have been watching the political landscape recently, you know that Scott Brown won the special election for the vacant Senate seat in Massachusetts. He ran with an "R" behind his name, but seems to hold no deep allegiance to the Republican Party. A huge part of his campaign was his up-front and vocal opposition to the Health Care reform before the legislature. He also professes to be largely independent and ready to serve the citizens rather than his own purposes. I will wait for him to fulfill those promises and watch carefully, reserving judgment until the deeds match the words.

But the win was stunning for many reasons. The most amazing thing to me about this election is that he won a seat that Ted Kennedy held for decades; a seat the Democrats assumed to be a given. He won the seat that Kennedy seemingly held for a lifetime, while trying to fulfill his lifelong "mission" to pass socialized health care in the U.S. But Brown won anyway, in a state where Democrats outnumber Republicans 3 to 1. He won in a state that hasn't sent a Republican to the Senate since 1972. He won in a state that already has government health care, but is suffering mightily under the burden of high taxes and unemployment.

Tonight, for the first time in almost two years I have hope--not the hollow kind of politically promised Obama-hope. I'm talking about real hope; hope that stems from faith in the citizens of this country; hope in our realization that we have let the government slip out of our control, to our everlasting shame. I have hope that it's not too late. Victories like this one, as unlikely as it is, will help many of us believe that we can fix our problems and we must. That fix starts with electing better people--people that believe in our Constitution and the power of the vote; people that believe in our nation, its founding principles and our future. I have hope that we will stop electing the arrogant, self-serving thieves who scarcely acknowledge all the "stupid" people in the masses, and start electing public servants and statesmen again. I hate to confess that I have been discouraged of late and for that reason haven't had the stomach to blog. But the hope I now feel is the like the first warm rays of spring sunshine after a very long winter. IF we as citizens stay the course, we may yet salvage our inheritance. In spite of all our flaws and failings, our system still works. We still have the best form of government ever known to man and its preservation is a worthy cause if ever there was one. I have hope that many of us have learned some painful lessons and that this victory is the first of many lessons we will teach during the elections in November.

Do Not Be Alarmed!

2009-12-20T18:54:00.000-08:00

Like you, I've been mainly focused on the Holiday's recently, but I have still been paying attention to current events...I just haven't felt motivated enough to write about it. So, if you have been following the news, I want to assure you that there is NO need to be alarmed. We are in good hands.

For example, after much wrangling, arm-twisting and minimal debate in the Senate, Harry Reed has finally managed to cobble together a fragile coalition in order to pass health care. But there are many reasons not to be alarmed: 1) No one has seen the actual bill yet. 2) All of the taxpayers in the U.S. will be paying an extra $10 million to the state of Nebraska in return for the Honorable Sen. Ben Nelson's vote. 3) That goes along with the $30 million, we will be sending to Louisiana for Sen. Mary Landrieu's vote. 4) Oh, and let's not forget that the White House and Democrat leadership threatened to shut down Offutt Air Force Base. "According to a Senate aide, the White House is now threatening to put Nebraska's Offutt Air Force Base in the BRAC list if Nelson doesn't fall in line. The base employes some 10,000 military and federal employees in Southeastern Nebraska." (The Weekly Standard, Michael Goldfarb, Dec. 15, 2009) 5) It is obviously more important to extort a vote out of Ben Nelson than it is to concern ourselves with national security and jobs.

I just want to reassure all of you that this is exactly the kind of business-as-usual that we as citizens want out of Washington DC. We should not be alarmed in the slightest in regards to their morals, ethics and the desire to do what's is best for the entire country. Our representatives can not be bought. They would never do anything outside of the rules of the Senate or beyond the purview of the Constitution. Do NOT be alarmed; we are in good hands. I can't think of a better group of people to determine my future and my children's future. It almost brings a tear to me eye...

If only that were the reason for my tears.

And So It Begins...

2009-11-24T11:40:00.000-08:00

Over the last week or so, a new controversy has emerged about breast cancer screening. What has become the standard of screening over past years, has suddenly come in to question. Interestingly enough, this controversy demonstrates a perfect example of what life will be like under government health care.

For years, women have been told that they should do breast self-examinations and start their mammogram screening at age 40. On November 17, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, announced new guidelines that include the following:

-recommendation against women in their 40's receiving mammograms,

subject to individual patient needs and doctor input

-women in their 50's should receive biennial mammograms (every

other year)

-recommends against teaching women breast self-examination

Generally, I don't have a problem with these recommendations. However, I don't have a history of breast cancer in my family. On the other hand, we all know people who do and would not do well if these recommendations were adopted. We also know people with no family history who have developed breast cancer which was caught early either through self-examination or mammography.

Herein lies the problem. The USPSTF is an "independent government-appointed panel" (Washington Post, Rob Stein, 11/17/09). This is a highly influential panel made up of doctors and scientists. It's influence is felt as insurance companies and government agencies determine what care will be covered. Furthermore, "under health care reform legislation pending in Congress, the conclusions of the 16-member task force would set standards for what preventive health care services insurance plans would be required to cover at little or no cost". (Washington Post, Stein) If their recommendation becomes law, what will be the future results? Will women at high risk be able to get screening? If we are all forced on to the government plan (or should I say when?), will we be able to pay for services that are not covered? Where would that leave people that can't afford to pay full price for treatments that are not covered?

To the credit of the USPSTF, they did suggest that women make individual decisions in regards to their breast health. Unfortunately, that will neither be the result of their recommendations nor the pending legislation regarding health care. The American Cancer Society and the American College of Radiology have both strongly condemned the recommendation. It is also enlightening to know that the USPSTF panel includes neither an oncologist (cancer doc) or radiologist. By contrast, another recommendation was made in regards to women's health a couple of days later. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists "has released new guidelines for when and how often women should have Pap smears. They include: Routine Paps starting at 21 and women waiting three years between Paps if they're over 30 and have had three consecutive clear tests." (L.A. Times, Shari Roan) This recommendation carries far more weight with me than that of the USPSTF, for several reasons. The ACOG is not a government entity, it includes doctors that specialize in women's health issues and I believe their sole motivation is to address the best way to treat their patients and efficiently utilize their resources.

Ultimately though, the main issue is obscured by all of these corollary discussions. These recommendations are all useful on a certain level. But in the end, each one of us should be having a conversation with our doctor about our medical needs. Treating an individual should never be reduced to tables, statistics and number crunching. I have neither a family history of breast cancer nor have I participated in the behaviors that will put me at risk for cervical cancer. I have also never had an abnormal Pap. Why can't my doctor and I sit down and determine what kind of breast or cervical cancer screening is appropriate to me? In the end, it would save the system money to treat ME and not the statistics. On the flip side, some of my friends should start having mammograms annually at age 30 based on their family history. Will that be paid for? (It is my understanding that in Canada, you cannot pay out-of-pocket for anything not covered under the government plan.) My fear is that, in the future, those decisions will be made for us by policy wonks and government panels; breast health will only be the beginning. The only realistic solution to our health care problems is to wrest control from the government and insurance companies and return it to the rightful owners: me and my doctor.

Need to Know? Yes, you do...

2009-11-17T15:38:00.001-08:00

Please read the following from the Wall Street Journal:

http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB10001424052748704795604574519671055918380-lMyQjAxMDA5MDEwNTExNDUyWj.html

It is obvious that little or nothing has changed from the original House version of health care which I read a while ago. None of this is new and this bill is still junk.

Truth vs. Lies

2009-11-05T13:26:00.000-08:00

You may or may not have heard through the media that thousands of protesters descended on the Capital today to voice their opposition to the government takeover of health care. I would like to thank them personally for doing so. If it had been possible for me to go, I would have been there. Thank you for representing those of us who wanted to be there.

At the very moment that this rally was taking place, Pres. Obama made a "surprise" appearance at the daily White House press briefing. I don't know who would be surprised with his insatiable lust for face time in front of the camera. But I digress. I am absolutely certain the White House would deny that he even had knowledge of the protest, but his timing conveniently coincided to divert press coverage of the event. He was "grateful" to announce the endorsements of AARP and the AMA of the House health care bill. (If you would like to read his comments: http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/remarks-president-announcements-aarp-and-ama) I won't take the time to address all of the lies in this statement, just the most glaring ones.

Lie #1 & 2: "They're endorsing this bill because they know it will strengthen Medicare, not jeopardize it. They know it will protect the benefits our seniors receive, not cut them. So I want everybody to remember that the next time you hear the same tired arguments to the contrary from the insurance companies and their lobbyists." (Barack Obama, Nov. 5, 2009) Obama implies that the AARP represents all seniors. Absolutely not true. Not all seniors are members of the AARP. And of those who are members, not all of them agree with this endorsement. The President also loves to classify all opposition to his health agenda as paid insurance company defenders. I get just as frustrated with health insurance as the next guy, but I'm not getting a paycheck from any insurance company for my opposition. My opposition is free and based on principal.

Lie #3: "The AARP knows this bill will make health care more affordable. They know it will make coverage more secure." (B.O., Nov. 5, 2009) Bull. Read the bill Mr. President. Read about the $500 billion to be cut from Medicare. Read about rationing in every other socialized nation. Read about the lack of doctors we already have, that will get significantly worse. Read about the inability of the government to provide H1N1 vaccine to the country. Read about the lack of confidence that people have in this government's management of the Swine Flu and the vaccine they're pedaling. Passing this garbage bill will neither make health care affordable nor secure. It will in fact, do the opposite.

Lie #4: "So the doctors of America know what needs to be fixed about our health care system. They know that health insurance reform would go a long way toward doing that." (B.O., Nov. 5, 2009) This is actually sortof true. Most doctors would like to see some kind of reform. But the lie here is that THIS is the plan that doctors want. I know a lot of doctors and I don't know a single one that supports this plan.

Lie #5: "They would not be with us if they believed that reform would in any way damage the critical and sacred doctor-patient relationship." (B.O., Nov. 5, 2009) And that, Mr. Pres. is exactly why doctors don't support this bill. It will install the government as the supreme and unalterable last word on health care--who gets paid, what gets covered, etc., etc., etc. We will never again be able to sit down with our doctor and make a decision between us two.

Lie #6: "And now that the doctors and medical professionals of America are standing with us..." (B.O., Nov. 5, 2009) He doesn't come right out and say it, but he implies (and he's done this more than once) that the AMA speaks for all doctors. Just like with the AARP, the AMA does not represent all doctors; their membership only includes about 20% of practicing physicians. Nor can their decision reflect the feelings of all the members of the AMA. It is disingenuous at best and an outright lie at worst to imply national support based on the position of the AMA. It is even more damning for him to extrapolate that to mean that he has the support of all doctors and medical professionals.

While we're on the subject, lets mention a couple more of the President's lies about this plan. He promised no federal funding for abortion, treatment of illegal aliens and that you can keep your doctor if you want. This bill uses federal funds for abortions and every "policy holder" will pay a fee to fund them. Illegal aliens may not be covered in this bill, but Obama's solution to that is to make them all legal. He said, on Sept. 16, 2009, to the Congressional Hispanic Caucus: "Now, as you know, there's been a little controversy about who exactly will be covered under reform. I want to be clear: If someone is here illegally, they won't be covered under this plan. That's a commitment I've made. But I also want to make this clear: Even though I do not believe we can extend coverage to those who are here illegally, I also don't simply believe we can simply ignore the fact that our immigration system is broken...If anything, this debate underscores the necessity of passing comprehensive immigration reform and resolving the issue of 12 million undocumented people living and working in this country once and for all. That's what I've said from the start. That's what I say tonight." This speech was given just 10 days after his address to the joint session of Congress where he promised no health care for illegal aliens. But his stance and plan all along, is to make them legal. So technically, he told the truth, knowing that the next step would be to legalize them and make them part of the plan later. And finally, as I've said before, you can only keep your doctor until you make a change in employment or try to change your plan. Then you automatically are part of the government system and have no more say. It's in the bill.

So Mr. President, you keep on lying through your teeth but we are watching, we are listening and we don't believe you. As one Tea-Partier so aptly put it, "I don't belong to the Party of NO. I belong to the Party of HELL NO!"

The "Costs" of Medical Care by Thomas Sowell

2009-11-03T12:51:00.000-08:00

This is by far one of my favorite authors and one of the smartest people I've ever read. He is an amazing man with an inspiring life story. (See http://www.tsowell.com/ for more information.) This article is a great perspective on the current healthcare debate.

The "Costs" of Medical Care

http://townhall.com/content/6d848057-bab6-46c6-bfbc-86b55677ef93

Now, with Dr. Sowell at my back, I'll venture to add the following:

It is worthwhile to discuss the difference between "cost" and "price". People often use the words interchangeably, but they are different things. Consumers are typically much more interested in the price than the cost. But businesses have to be interested in both the price they charge and their costs for producing. For example, when a grocery store sends out a weekly ad, they cover the front page with what they call "loss leaders". Loss leaders are the items that are put on sale at a loss in order to get customers in their stores. Grocery stores bank on the fact that customers will make other purchases in order to cover their costs of operating their business, but they actually lose money if you only buy those sale items. The price is what a consumer pays for any given product or service. The cost includes the manufacturing, shipping, training, equipment, wages, facilities, etc. for any given business. Any business that does not recoup their costs in the sale price is losing money. I'll give a simple example: Kinko's charges $.10 per self-serve, black and white copy. So, the price I would pay is $.10, but the actual cost of that copy is probably much lower, if I were only paying for the paper and the toner. Factored into the price I pay are the costs of the equipment, the facility charge, maintenance and repair, employees, etc.

So what?

When we talk about lowering the "cost" of health care, we have to be careful to understand the difference between cost and price. Government lackeys love to blather on about lowering the "costs" of healthcare. What they will succeed in doing for the short term is lowering the "price" that you and I pay. But the costs that hospitals, doctors, clinics, pharmaceutical companies and insurance companies bear to run their businesses will not change. The end result will be that we will then receive the level of quality for which we pay. If they succeed in lowering "costs", we will in the end, get what we are paying for. It is a brutal but simple fact and all the politicking in the world won't change that. Cause and effect, consequences, gravity are all dispassionate, unfeeling laws of nature. Supply and demand are not much different. Costs and prices are determined by the marketplace and all the well-meaning political tinkering can do nothing to eliminate that. They can only make it worse.

A perfect example of well-meaning tinkering is the Pennsylvania Milk Marketing Board. This board sets the prices statewide for milk, cream, cottage cheese, etc. I was paying over $4/gallon for milk when we lived in PA (less than a year ago) and it could never go on sale. Now I never pay more than $2/gallon. Oddly enough, I read about the same struggles for the dairy farmers in WA and PA. The government has "fixed" the price, but it is not helping the farmers and it is hurting the consumers. Where does the extra $2/gallon go? My guess would be to operate the Milk Marketing Board. I guess the good news is they're creating jobs......

Try as I may, I can see no good outcomes for the government getting involved in the costs of health care. Any price I pay will be too high.

Manifesto with Explanation

2009-10-28T14:49:00.000-07:00

Government Reclamation Manifesto

By: Lori J. Burns, October 2009

Whereas, those elected to govern our nation have forgotten their true purpose and to whom they answer and whereas the voters, are responsible for this problem, we hereby resolve to reclaim and reform our government and return it to its rightful owners, the people.

We, the people, resolve the following:

1) We will no longer allow any politician to serve for a lifetime. We will limit their terms with our votes, thus eliminating what has become the ruling class of this free nation.

2) We will no longer vote for anyone who puts party before principles and the best interests of our entire nation.

3) We will no longer elect anyone who does not believe in the profound value and sacred nature of our Nation’s founding documents.

4) We will be silent and complacent no more. We will be engaged in the political process from its earliest stages to insure we are electing the people that represent our values, beliefs and morals.

5) We will both seek out people who represent our values to run for office and we ourselves will make the necessary sacrifices to run for office, to return our government to its Constitutional foundations.

6) We will demand accountability, responsibility and honesty of our government and elected representatives.

7) We will never surrender the sovereignty of this nation to any foreign power, world organization or special interest group.

We further resolve the following:

8) To demand that our elected representatives pass legislation that will require the reading of all bills before voted upon. And that all legislation will be made available to the public for their contemplation and feedback prior to said vote.

It is a sad, sad fact that most of our legislation is never read before voted upon. In fact, quite often it isn't completely written before voted on. It defies logic. If the bills are too long to be read, then perhaps they are too complicated. Or, perhaps we need to allow more time for them to be read before taking a vote. It seems to me that this is a basic requirement of being a legislator and must become the standard.

9) To demand that our elected representatives stop the nefarious practice of earmarks.

My understanding of earmarks is that they are typically included after a bill has been passed. Once legislation passes, the politicians scramble to get "their piece of the pie" through designating budgeted dollars by earmarking them. This process is an invitation for deceit and corruption. It makes it very easy for dishonest legislators to repay special interests, campaign contributors and lobbyists without the full Congress approving that spending. If the full Congress wouldn't vote to support such spending and it won't survive the light of day, then it shouldn't happen.

Furthermore, the practice of federally funding every project in this country is problematic at the very least. Far too often, federal funding (translate your neighbor's tax dollars) is used to fund everything from soup to nuts. I have a strong feeling that if states were to stop sending so much money to DC, they would be much better able to spend it wisely at home. Why should any federal dollars fund the pet project of any given state? If it is important enough to that state to make it happen, then they should be the ones that fund it. Otherwise, we are stealing from our neighbors to selfishly fund our own pet projects. When a project is in the best interest of the entire nation then federal funding is more appropriate, and should be voted on accordingly. My theory is that the further our tax dollars get from our homes, the less accountability and higher probability of waste and fraud.

10) To demand that our elected representatives pass legislation to require that all bills contain only related content. This will eliminate the dishonest and deceptive practice of grouping unrelated items and using that as an excuse to either vote for or against said legislation.

The ongoing practice of sneaking unrelated items into "important legislation" is both dishonest and immoral. Politicians use this as a very convenient excuse for having to vote one way or another on some particular legislation. For example, it is very common to sneak some pet project into the defense spending bill, knowing it will likely pass without the notice of fellow-politicians, the media or the voters. (Of course, if they read the bills then they would still find out. ????) Then our upstanding politicians have a ready-made excuse. You will either hear: "Well, I didn't like that particular aspect of the legislation, but we had to pass the defense budget, so I had to vote for it." OR "I'm against defense spending but this bill included the funding for my pet project, so I had to vote for it". This convenient excuse must be taken away from legislators--they must be forced to stand in the light of day with their votes and their legislation.

11) To demand that the pensions of elected officials shall be given only as one year, per each year in office. The lifetime pensions must stop.

Other than the fact that legislators have voted themselves a lifetime pension for any amount of service in Congress, I can't figure out why we are paying for this. One year of pension for each year of service is plenty, then they need to go get a real job like the rest of us and save for their own retirement. Perhaps that would make them more interested in our future, if theirs isn't a cushy guarantee.

12) To demand that our elected officials will be part of the same retirement and insurance plans that the citizens are “given”.

One of the first things that happened when the discussion of health care reform came up was that our legislators voted themselves and their health plan exempt from any future legislation. I wonder if they would be more concerned with the outcome of health care reform legislation and Social Security if they were forced to use those same plans personally.

Finally, we resolve to take responsibility for our lives and our choices. We will look to ourselves, first and foremost to solve our own problems and return our government to a place of limited interference, limited taxation and limited power.

I don't need or want to live in a nanny state. I want the freedom to live, work, worship and succeed. The only purpose of any government who wishes otherwise is to enslave its population. The government has become like an inoperable brain tumor, reaching its carcinogenic tentacles into every aspect of our lives: our finances, the marketplace, the airwaves, the press and the list goes on an on. Everything it touches, it destroys. Enough is enough.

(The post below this has just the Manifesto, without commentary. If you are interested in a PDF version to print off, e-mail me, or post it in the comments, and I'll send you that version.)

Government Reclamation Manifesto

2009-10-27T20:57:00.000-07:00

Government Reclamation Manifesto

By: Lori J. Burns, October 2009

We, the people, resolve the following:

1) We will no longer allow any politician to serve for a lifetime. We will limit their terms with our votes, thus eliminating what has become the ruling class of this free nation.

2) We will no longer vote for anyone who puts party before principles and the best interests of our entire nation.

3) We will no longer elect anyone who does not believe in the profound value and sacred nature of our Nation’s founding documents.

4) We will be silent and complacent no more. We will be engaged in the political process from its earliest stages to insure we are electing the people that represent our values, beliefs and morals.

6) We will demand accountability, responsibility and honesty of our government and elected

representatives.

7) We will never surrender the sovereignty of this nation to any foreign power, world organization or special interest group.

We further resolve the following:

9) To demand that our elected representatives stop the nefarious practice of earmarks.

11) To demand that the pensions of elected officials shall be given only as one year, per each year in office. The lifetime pensions must stop.

12) To demand that our elected officials will be part of the same retirement and insurance plans that the citizens are “given”.

Our Energy Future

2009-10-16T10:28:00.000-07:00

This is a great column by Sarah Palin:

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=Nzc2ZjhjY2MwMWUyM2M4NTM5YWRjYTcwMTEzZTNjMTc=

Weapons and Kids

2009-10-16T09:24:00.000-07:00

If you have seen any news this week then you will have heard of two interesting school cases involving "violent" behavior at schools. The first involved a 6-year old boy who took his folding "spork" to school because he wanted to eat his lunch with it. His parents bought this knife, spoon, fork, multi-tool for their Cub Scout to use for camping over the summer. Unbeknownst to them, he took it to school. So naturally when the teacher found out, she took it away and the school then sentenced the boy to 45 days of suspension and reform school. Well that makes perfect sense. Are there any adults who have any common sense left in our schools?!! I have a 6-year old son, and he's a very good boy. But being a boy, I wouldn't put it past him to put something in his backpack, without my knowledge, because he thought it was cool and wanted to show his friends. And yes, we have talked to him about the fact that there are certain things you don't take to school. I don't have a metal detector and home and I don't usually feel it necessary to search his backpack or frisk him before he heads off to school.

The other case involved a Boy Scout who has been cited by the Boy Scouts for saving his cousin's life. The Scout motto is "Be Prepared". So, being a good Scout, he carries an emerency survival kit in the trunk of his car. That kit includes a 2-inch knife, a gift from his grandfather, that he kept in his locked car. A fellow-student reported him for "carrying a weapon" and the school swooped in with their Zero Tolerance Policy and suspended him for twenty days. An aspiring West Point student, Matthew Whalen is now worried that the "weapons suspension" will hurt his chances of admission.

I agree that schools should have Zero Tolerance Policies in regards to weapons at schools. But does Zero Tolerance have to equal Zero Common Sense? Do the adults in the school system have the total inability to discern between a student with violent tendencies, problematic behavior and malicious intent versus the innocent mistake of a child? Realistically, if the schools are going to have Zero Tolerance Policies, they need to rid schools of all dangerous items: scissors, baseball bats, rocks on the playground, staples, paperclips, pens and pencils. All of those things could be used as dangerous weapon. Seriously. Inanimate objects do not hurt people, people hurt people. Of course, I'm not suggesting that it should be okay to bring a weapon to school--but honestly, do we not have the ability to think through this?

For example, the 6-year old has a chat with the principal:

Principal: So, Johnny, why did you bring this to school today?

Johnny: I wanted to eat my lunch with it.

Principal: Did you know this has a knife in it?

Johnny: Yes.

Principal: Did you know that knives are not allowed at school?

Johnny: No.

Principal: Okay, now you know. I'm going to hang on to this until your mom can come pick it up and from now on you need to leave things like this at home.

Johnny: Okay.

The principal then has a conversation with the parents, the parents have a more detailed discussion with their son and it's over. If it happens again, totally different story.

Or how about this:

Vice Principal: Matt, I've been told you are carrying a knife.

Matt: What?

Vice Principal: You don't have a knife on you?

Matt: Of course not.

Vice Principal: Why would someone tell me that?

Matt: I have an emergency kit in my car that has a little pocket knife in it.

Vice Principal: May I see it?

Matt: Yes.

Vice Principal: Okay, even though this is locked in your car, this is still school grounds and this knife is considered a weapon. You need to take it home after school and leave it there.

Matt: Okay...sorry, I didn't know it was wrong.

Vice Principal: If this happens again, you will be suspended.

The Vice Principal calls the parents and apprises them of the situation, they talk with their son. If it happens again, they throw the book at him.

I know that I'm not the only one that could figure out this situation. Sadly, this is indicative of a larger problem. I read a quote once, and I wish had the quote, that said something to the effect of: The degree to which our society declines morally is represented by the number of laws that become necessary. I'm paraphrasing badly, but that's the idea. (If anyone knows who said this or where to find it, please let me know. I don't remember where I read it and couldn't find it anywhere.) You cannot legislate morality. Morality has to be taught at home, practiced, exemplified and believed in. Passing additional blanket laws does not solve problems, it can only create punishments after the fact.

In fact, just this morning, a student in South Carolina was shot and killed by a resource offer; the student apparently attacked the officer with a knife. I'm sure they have rules about knives in that school too, but that doesn't fix the problems that cause students to act out. Until parents return to their responsibility to teach their children, to discipline their children and, most importantly, to love their children, there aren't enough laws in the world to prevent this kind of behavior. A return to responsibility by parents and common sense by adults would not only be refreshing, it would change our world.

Nobel Peace Prize?

2009-10-09T09:07:00.000-07:00

I get up and check the headlines every morning. This morning I about fell out of my chair. Our illustrious, wet-behind-the-ears president was just awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for 2009. "A beaming Obama told reporters in the White House Rose Garden that he wasn't sure he had done enough to earn the award, or deserved to be in the company of the others who had won it before him." (AP, today) Truer words were never spoken, by Obama. Although I do have to disagree about the "company" he's now in. He is perfectly in line with the sham winners that precede him: Yasser Arafat, Al Gore and Jimmy Carter. Arafat--who never did anything but subvert the peace process with Israel and line his pockets with the world's money; Carter--who is arguably the worst president in U.S. history; and Gore--who pounced on the fraudulent global warming movement and is getting rich doing it.

And actually, I guess I disagree with Obama's entire statement (that's odd). He HAS done enough to win the Nobel Peace Prize. He has spent the first few months of his reign giving speeches all over the world apologizing for the horrible, stinking, awful United States of America. He has promised to cripple our economy by bowing to the world-wide green movement and disarm us as quickly as possible. Now I know how to win a Nobel Peace Prize. Obviously the elite intelligentsia in Europe could not wait to crown him--they probably made their decision the night he was elected--and they couldn't be happier to finally see this kind of "leadership" at the helm of the United States. This is not an honor. If it is recognizing Obama for finally meeting the world's standards, then I'm ashamed and embarrassed for our country. We are in deep trouble and there isn't enough Dramamine in the world to keep me from spending the day vomiting.

Lest Ye Be Deceived...

2009-10-08T16:34:00.001-07:00

Some of you that have been following my blog know that I read most of the original House's version of Health Care Reform. (See earlier post 8/13/09). I also promised that I would stay on top of things to try and keep us aware of what is actually contained in the bills about health care. Unfortunately I can't do that. Why, you may ask? Because the "Lords and Ladies" in the House and the Senate are not going to repeat their "mistake" of this past summer and post the bills online to be read by the citizenry. There are several versions of Health Care Reform floating through committees in the House and the Senate, but the Democrats have voted time and time again against making them public. In fact, in the Senate, they voted down an effort to require the final bill to be posted online for the public to read. Furthermore, when one version of health care was voted out of the Senate HELP Committee, the Democrats made over 70 changes to the bill without the knowledge or approval of the minority members of the committee. In other words, the bill they voted out of committee was completely changed before it was sent to its next step.

Why the secrecy? What are they so terrified of? When a child is being secretive, they're usually up to something. When a used care salesman is evasive, a smart consumer runs the other way. The actions of the Democrats in the Congress right now does not pass the sniff test. I don't care if you are a Republican, Democrat or Independent, this is not how our country should be run. I would be equally ticked off if the Republicans were the majority party and were pulling the same garbage. "We the people" have the absolute right to know what is in the bills that are about to be voted on. Politicians have absolutely no right to try and hide it from us. And if their legislation cannot stand the light of day, then there is something seriously wrong. In fact, Max Baucus, author of one Senate version, whined that it would take two weeks to get the bill posted online. Is it hand-written? If it was written on a computer anywhere, he could e-mail it to me and I could have it posted in 15 minutes. Surely someone in the Capital has the ability to do such a complicated and difficult task in the modern era.

Furthermore, the proponents of Health Care Reform are crowing about the supposed CBO (Congressional Budget Office) estimates about Baucus's bill. They are claiming that it will be self-funded and cut the deficit by $81 billion in ten years. The CBO does not exactly have a glowing track record on the accuracy of their estimates. What's even more disconcerting is that they don't have an actual bill written yet. It is a draft. Therefore, it does not include all the changes that will yet be made to it and cannot therefore correctly estimate a final cost. There is even talk that the full Senate will be voting on this draft rather than a final written bill. They'll fill in the blanks later. That's like writing a blank check to a gambling addict! We're supposed to trust them with the checkbook? And then we will have no right to read it until after it is already law? This is dishonest, it is deceptive, it is condescending and arrogant on an unimaginable level and it stinks to high heaven.

There is "an effort by Reps. Greg Walden (R-OR) and John Culberson (R-TX) to change House rules to require all bills to be posted online for a minimum of 72 hours before they are brought to a vote on the House floor. More information is available at http://www.gopleader.gov/readthebill/." (http://johnboehner.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=149267) Sounds like a fabulous idea to me. Call your Senator and demand that their bill be completed and made public BEFORE they vote on it. I don't buy anything sight unseen, especially not legislation that will affect every single one of us in a massive way. Call your Representative and tell them to post the bills and let the public read them. They represent US, not the other way around.

Elites and Tyrants by Walter E. Williams

2009-10-07T10:24:00.000-07:00

Rep. Diane Watson said, in praising Cuba's health care system, "You can think whatever you want to about Fidel Castro, but he was one of the brightest leaders I have ever met." W.E.B. Dubois, writing in the National Guardian (1953) said, "Joseph Stalin was a great man; few other men of the 20th century approach his stature. ... But also -- and this was the highest proof of his greatness -- he knew the common man, felt his problems, followed his fate." Walter Duranty called Stalin "the greatest living statesman . . . a quiet, unobtrusive man." George Bernard Shaw expressed admiration for Mussolini, Hitler and Stalin.

John Kenneth Galbraith visited Mao's China and praised Mao and the Chinese economic system. Gunther Stein of the Christian Science Monitor admired Mao Tsetung and declared ecstatically that "the men and women pioneers of Yenan are truly new humans in spirit, thought and action," and that Yenan itself constituted "a brand new well integrated society, that has never been seen before anywhere." Michel Oksenberg, President Carter's China expert, complained that "America (is) doomed to decay until radical, even revolutionary, change fundamentally alters the institutions and values," and urged us to "borrow ideas and solutions" from China.

Even Harvard's late Professor John K. Fairbank, by no means the worst tyrant worshipper, believed that America could learn much from the Cultural Revolution, saying, "Americans may find in China's collective life today an ingredient of personal moral concern for one's neighbor that has a lesson for us all." Keep in mind that estimates of the number of Chinese deaths during China's Cultural Revolution range from 2 to 7 million people. Mao Tsetung was admired by many academics and leftists across our country. Just think back to the campus demonstrations of the '60s and '70s when campus radicals, often accompanied by their professors, marched around singing the praises of Mao and waving Mao's little red book, "Quotations from Chairman Mao Tsetung." Forty years later some of these campus radicals are tenured professors and administrators at today's universities and colleges, as well as schoolteachers and principals indoctrinating our youth.

The most authoritative tally of history's most murderous regimes is in a book by University of Hawaii's Professor Rudolph J. Rummel, "Death by Government." Statistics are provided at his website. The Nazis murdered 20 million of their own people and those in nations they captured. Between 1917 and 1987, Stalin and his successors murdered, or were otherwise responsible for the deaths of, 62 million of their own people. Between 1949 and 1987, Mao Tsetung and his successors were responsible for the deaths of 76 million Chinese.

Today's leftists, socialists and progressives would bristle at the suggestion that their agenda differs little from Nazism. However, there's little or no distinction between Nazism and socialism. Even the word Nazi is short for National Socialist German Workers Party. The origins of the unspeakable horrors of Nazism, Stalinism and Maoism did not begin in the '20s, '30s and '40s. Those horrors were simply the end result of long evolution of ideas leading to consolidation of power in central government in the quest for "social justice." It was decent but misguided earlier generations of Germans, like many of today's Americans, who would have cringed at the thought of genocide, who built the Trojan horse for Hitler to take over.

Few Americans have the stomach or ruthlessness to do what is necessary to make their governmental wishes come true. They are willing to abandon constitutional principles and rule of law so that the nation's elite, who believe they are morally and intellectually superior to the rest of us, can have the tools to implement "social justice." Those tools are massive centralized government power. It just turns out last century's notables in acquiring powerful central government, in the name of social justice, were Hitler, Stalin, Mao, but the struggle for social justice isn't over yet, and other suitors of this dubious distinction are waiting in the wings.

(This original column can be found at Townhall.com, a really good source of information. They send a daily e-mail with several columns like this, which I find very helpful. The link for this one: http://townhall.com/columnists/WalterEWilliams/2009/10/07/elites_and_tyrants)

Are You Kidding Me?

2009-09-30T16:35:00.000-07:00

Roman Polanski. Apparently he's a famous, Oscar-winning director--I don't think I've seen any of his films. Thirty-one years ago he was arrested for the statutory rape of a thirteen-year old girl. I'm sorry to be brutal, but to put this in perspective, he drugged her with qualudes and alcohol and then sodomized her. He admitted to having sex with her in court, plead guilty to a lesser charge and then fled the country.

He has been living "in exile" in France since then, avoiding countries that have extradition treaties with the U.S. (France won't extradite to the U.S. because we have the death penalty.) But this past weekend, Polanksi went to Switzerland to accept an award, and at the request of the U.S. government, was arrested and is being held for extradition. The French are protesting loudly that one of their citizens is being subjected to such horror. Debra Winger, the Hollywood has-been and brilliant legal mind, proclaimed: "We hope today this latest (arrest) order will be dropped. It is based on a three-decades-old case that is dead but for minor technicalities. We stand by him and await his release and his next masterpiece." She lamented that he must be allowed to continue his "important work". What?!!!!!!!!!!

Let me get this straight. Because Polanski is an "artist" and an award-winning director, he therefore gets a moral blank check that excuses him from all past actions. He served forty some-odd days before he fled to France to live in suffering for thirty years. That, apparently, is sufficient if you have his resume. I wonder, Debra, if you would say the same thing if it were your daughter who was raped. I wonder if you would say the same for Bob, the auto mechanic, who actually does important work in Anytown, USA. It's bad enough that Ms. Winger said what she said, what's worse is that she's not alone. A petition is circulating Hollywood demanding his release. (Check it out at, and please sign to help him out....http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/2235105/roman_polanski_petition_created_by.html)

Oh, okay. Whatever you say. If ever there was a more perfect example of the out-of-touch-bubble that is "Hollywood", I can't think of one. Obviously, not everyone in Hollywood is signing it, thank goodness. But I'm astonished that anyone would defend his actions...well Woody Allen does, I guess that makes sense.

I'm sorry Polanski's wife was murdered, along with his child she carried. I'm sorry he had so survive the Holocaust. No-one should have to go through those things. But nothing can justify what he did. Even if he were remorseful, which he is not, part of the repentance process is restitution. He owes a debt to society for what he did. Running away to France, no not even France, does not qualify. There's a reason that the statue of Justice in front of the Supreme Court is blindfolded--the law is blind. It can only be law if it is impartially administered to all people, regardless of who or what they are. If we make exceptions for celebrities or auto-mechanics, our system will crumble. Come on home Roman. Serve your time, pay for your crime. Believe it or not, you'll feel better.

Flawed Arguments and Stubborn Facts

2009-09-29T14:18:00.000-07:00

My last post addressed some of the things we can do to improve health care without government involvement. I got a few comments, but wanted to address a couple in particular. These comments brought up issues that are worthy of response.

One of the comments is as follows: "I would like to direct your attention to the writers first stated premise - there is no trust in the government with one sixth of our economy. My question is, how did it become one sixth of the economy? With every step of a 'free' enterprise system being everything but free, freedom is placed upon the back of those who are a dwindling base of contributors to support the greediness of astronomical proportions and the government is the recipient of easy target fingerpointing. If we insist on blaming government for a sick system, we are trying to fix the wrong problems."

My initial reply was the following: "There are many causes of the problems in medical care which I have also written about on my blog. Doctors are lousy business-men, insurance companies and employers cause problems of their own. Pharmaceutical companies and medical suppliers are making huge profits. But the single largest problem is the government sticking their big nose in everything. Ignoring that fact and involving them further will compound the problem exponentially. The government cannot fix our problems. We can. We need to stop shifting the blame and asking the government to fix the things we can fix on our own.

As to how it became one sixth of the economy--it's because we provide health care for the world. Nearly every advance in medical technology, new drugs, new treatments comes out of the US. People from all over the world come here for medical training and treatment. And we as a people are accustomed to being able to go to the doctor any time we want to. It's one sixth because we're a prosperous nation and medical care is accessible."

I didn't have enough space to adequately respond to the gentleman's comment above, but tried to briefly. First of all, based on his comment, I'm led to believe he did not read the post. The whole purpose of the post was about what we can do as individuals. And to discount everything I said simply because he felt I was "finger-pointing" at the government, is counter-productive.

John Adams once said, "Facts are stubborn things, and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictums of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." One example of such a fact is the requirement that all hospitals must treat everyone, with or without insurance. You may argue the usefulness, the need or the success of this law as one part of the issue. But the separate fact of the issue is that it has increased the cost of health care for everyone in the US. I'm not saying it is right or wrong, moral or immoral. The fact of increased cost cannot be ignored.

The fact that states require insurance companies to cover an increasing number of mandates has raised the cost of health care for every employer and participant in a health plan. Again, you can debate whether it is right or wrong, but the facts are indisputable. In order to have a productive and honest discussion about health care reform, we must address the facts. There will also be a need to discuss the emotion and morality of the issues involved in health care. But we will come up with a wholly faulty solution if we fail to address the facts too. Some of the facts we must address are: What will it cost? Who will pay for it? What will be the consequences of the legislation, intended and unintended? Is the government capable of managing health care in light of its track record with Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, the VA, etc.? How will the public option affect private insurance? Will rationing result? These are stubborn facts that must not be ignored.

A second issue that was raised came about at the end of my response above, "It's one sixth (of our economy) because we're a prosperous nation and medical care is accessible." One reader, responded: "Accessible yes. Affordable no." This argument, is quite simply, frustrating to me. First of all, I disagree. Secondly, "affordability" is a relative issue. Health care is a business and like any business in this country it is responsive to supply and demand. Because we have a greater supply of quality health care, the demand increases, therefore the supply is increased to meet the demand. The problem is, that health care is expensive, especially the kind we're accustomed to. We're not talking about apples here, we're talking about expensive procedures like MRI's, CT scans, x-rays, and ultrasounds. The equipment for these procedures is incredibly expensive and as those in the health care world try to meet the demand they have to add expensive pieces of equipment. Do you think they get it for free? Our demands are one of the reasons that health care is so expensive.

Furthermore, any American could go to South America or the heart of Africa and get the best health care money could buy...there--it would be very affordable. I don't suppose they get a lot of MRI's there, but it would be affordable. I would like to drive a Cadillac Escalade, but I can't justify the expense and therefore it's not affordable. Does that mean someone's trampling on my right to drive an Escalade? We as Americans kindof lose our minds when it comes to health care. We get caught up in the emotion (understandably) and forget the stubborn facts. Fact #1: Health care is expensive. Fact #2: It's your responsibility. Fact #3: Life is hard. We think we should be able to get Cadillac health care on a Volkswagen budget. It doesn't work that way. And if we start paying "Volkswagen rates" for our health care, then we will get "affordable" prices and care that would rival anything you can get in any given third world country. Those of us who are responsible adults, budget for a home, car, food, utilities, etc. Why don't we budget for health care? Life is full of surprises both pleasant and unpleasant. Stuff happens and then we have to pay to fix it. When my fridge breaks, I have to pay to get another one, whether it's in the budget or not, or go without. If I had no health insurance and a sick child, I would do whatever I had to do to get the Cadillac health care and I would figure out how to pay for it. If I had to spend the rest of my life paying $20 a month to pay off the bill, I would. But I would pay for it. That's called personal responsibility.

The final comment was thought-provoking but I felt flawed in many ways. "A few questions: First, questions on personal responsibility: How can those with mental illness or extreme pressures of physical illness be expected to have personal responsibility (ie. the majority of those receiving treatments)? What % of the people that are "lifers" really would be able to succeed in a "personal responsibility" system? How many would fall through the cracks? Who is responsible for the well-being of the citizens of the USA? MANY nations take themselves out of the well being of their citizens and leave it up to them, is this a good model to follow? Is the question really about whether or not health care is a "right" or is it a basic need? Should the needs of society be made free to all American citizens? If health care shouldn't be a government issue then why is education? Why is there public education? Would our country benefit from following the models of other countries that have healthy citizens? Is there such a model out there?"

The premise of her questions are that the only two choices are either personal responsibility or the government (forgive me if I have misunderstood you). Certainly they are not. Personal responsibility is the ideal and is where we should all be destined. Obviously there are those among our citizenry who are incapable of that level of responsibility. We already make provision for them through Medicare/Medicaid. But there are also charitable organizations all over the country that do great works, we as individuals help each other out, Churchs help their members, neighbors help neighbors, communities rally around the needy and hospitals and doctors donate millions of dollars each year in care to the indigent and needy. Is it a perfect system? Of course not. But we don't blow up our house and start over just because we have a leaky faucet. Tearing this health care system down, starting over and putting the government in charge, is the equivalent. That assumes the government can then re-create a new, improved and flawless house in its place. That's a big leap of faith--not based on any stubborn facts, like their history.

"How can those with mental illness or extreme pressures of physical illness be expected to have personal responsibility (ie. the majority of those receiving treatments)?" The majority of people have insurance and jobs and they pay for it like they pay for the rest of their bills. That's how I expect them to have personal responsibility. We don't have to blow up the system to take car of the exception. We finds ways to treat the exception and keep the rule.

"What % of the people that are 'lifers' really would be able to succeed in a 'personal responsibility' system?" How will we know if we never give them the chance? You don't teach a child responsibility by sheltering them from the consequences of life. You also remove all incentive to improve your life situation by giving endless handouts. "Give a man a fish, you feed him for a day; teach a man to fish, you feed him for life." America is still the land of opportunity--if you don't like your life, then you can go to work and change it.

"Who is responsible for the well being of the citizens of the USA? MANY nations take themselves out of the well being of their citizens and leave it up to them, is this a good model to follow?" I am responsible for my own well-being. We are responsible for the well-being of our family. The government is responsible to get the heck out of the way. Is it a good model? Yes, we created it. It's called freedom. You are free to succeed or fail and the attending consequences. It's the only way to learn and progress.

"Is the question really about whether or not health care is a 'right' or is it a basic need? Should the needs of society be made free to all American citizens? If health care shouldn't be a government issue then why is education? Why is there public education?" First of all, if you're asking these questions then your public education has failed you miserably. Using public education is a very poor example. Many would argue that the government should not be in the business of education because they are botching it all over the country. We spend more per capita, with less to show for it than just about any country on earth. If that is an example of the government taking care of a right, it does nothing to generate my confidence in their abilities. But I digress. No-one has a right to an education. We as a society have decided that it is of sufficient importance that we will provide it for all our citizenry (heck, we even provide it for non-citizens), that does not make it a right. Check the Bill of Rights: http://www.ratical.org/co-globalize/BillOfRights.html. The last right reads, "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." So, yes, you have the right to go and get your own health care. The Constitution was established to "promote the general welfare" (not provide it) and "and secure the blessings of liberty". Those are your rights, along with "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" (Declaration of Independence). You have the right to live, to be free and to chase happiness. There is no guarantee you will catch it, but you have the right to pursue it. Those are the rights, including those listed in the Bill of Rights that you are guaranteed in the founding documents of our nation.

To try and define health care as a right is simply...wrong. When we, as a nation, get in the business of becoming the nanny to all of our citizens we are destined for abject failure. All incentive to work hard, succeed and achieve will be destroyed and then who will pay for all the programs? There is not one single historical example of success where the government provides everything. Whether you label it socialism, communism, Naziism or the public option, it is all the same and history has shown it to fail in every case. The very wise Thomas Jefferson, author of the Constitution, said, "A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have." It matters not which party reigns, the more power we cede to the government, the less freedom we have. That is one of those stubborn facts that people choose to ignore all too often. You have the right to go and seek health care; you do not have the right to have the government pay for it. In fact, lets nix this talk of the the government ever paying for anything, because they don't generate a dime of income, they can only take it from one citizen and give it to another. You do not have the right to have your fellow-citizens and taxpayers (i.e. government) pay for your health care. Nor is it your right to have your fellow-citizens buy your food, house, car or anything else you think you have a right to. Go to work and get it. That's the American way. That's the responsible way.

"Would our country benefit from following the models of other countries that have healthy citizens? Is there such a model out

there?" This implies that we have unhealthy citizens. I don't think that's accurate in the first place. Healthy compared to what and using what statistics? And when we aren't healthy, in many cases it's our own dumb fault. We overeat, we aren't active enough, we eat the wrong things. Are we to legislate that? In a movie called "The Island", Ewan McGregor's character got to have his urine tested every morning by a computer which determined what he was allowed to eat for breakfast. We must think beyond the "now" and look at the "next". You can't legislate "healthy" unless you're prepared to lose all your freedom. No thanks. Furthermore, I defy you to find one historical example of a continually increasing government leading to anything but the decreasing prosperity and freedom of any nation.

Let me conclude by saying this: The fabric of our nation is made stronger each time we serve and help each other. Americans are generous people, that is a big part of who we are. But by turning that charitable nature over to the anonymous government, we will be poorer for it. We will care less for our neighbors or for those in our community because of the assumption the government will take care it. You cannot legislate charity. On the flip-side, when you have a citizenry that is entitled, they become ungrateful and lazy. I have never appreciated anything as much, nor savored an achievement as deeply as when I have had to work hard to get it. Without the opportunity to work, to achieve, to serve and to be served when we need it, we as a nation will become completely selfish, isolated, unproductive and weak. To quote Ronald Reagan, "...government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem."

So What Can We Do?

2009-09-11T22:28:00.001-07:00

I have spent a lot of time picking apart the liberal plan for reforming health care in the U.S. I do not have any confidence in a government that cannot run anything cheaply or efficiently. They are the last people I would trust to manage one sixth of our economy--I wouldn't trust them to do my lawn care. So, it's high time to talk about what can and should be done instead. Here are some ideas that would go a long way to lowering the cost of health care for everyone without a government takeover of health care.

1) Individual responsibility:

As with anything in life, when we are directly responsible for the outcomes of our decisions, we are better for it, individually and as a society. That responsibility includes being accountable for our life choices, the amount of risks we take and paying our bills. It seems like a no-brainer doesn't it? Unfortunately, we have gotten away from that thinking in reference to our health care. If I choose to have multiple sexual partners, why is it anybody else's responsibility to pay for the resulting medical problems? If I choose to drive drunk, or recklessly, why should others pay for my choices? If I choose not to pay my financial obligations, it affects my fellow customers and increases costs for everyone. Is that okay? Others are not responsible to carry our weight for us--that is selfish and immature. That is one aspect of personal responsibility that needs to be considered.

The other aspect is the erroneous idea that health care is a right. Health care is a business, not a right. That sounds cold and sterile, but it is the truth. Like any business, it most be operated to turn a profit and meet its obligations or it will cease to exist. No one owes you health care. In fact, health insurance came about as a perk, offered by employers that needed more leverage than just wages to entice employees into their fold. Employer-based health insurance is relatively new to our economy (within the last few decades), but it evolved very quickly from a perk, to an expectation, to a right. You have the right to seek health care anywhere you want, but with that right, as with any other, comes responsibility--the responsibility to pay for it. That principle holds true to housing, food, cars and gas. I don't have the right to food or a house--I do have the right to work for it and the responsibility to pay for it. We must recognize the difference.

Having said the above, that does not preclude the need for help. Sometimes we find ourselves in trouble financially due to unexpected medical expenses and in need of help. That can come in many forms and should come in the following order: 1) Self: exhaust your savings if you must, but meet your obligations. 2) Family: draw on your immediate and/or extended family for support as they are able. 3) Church: look to those organizations that are already set up and organized to help people. 4) Community and charitable organizations: fund raisers in your local area to help you meet your needs, or the assistance of those organizations already established for that purpose. 5) Government: the last resort. Every dollar you get from the government was taken forcibly from the wallet of a fellow-citizen. Americans are among the most generous people in the world and also the most willing to render aid. In our collective looking to the government to solve problems, we eliminate the opportunity to serve and help one another, to be involved in each other's lives. Government programs do not engender a sense of community, they sterilize and mask the challenges we face as individuals and families. The fabric of our society is weaker for it. I would much rather keep and additional $100 from my paycheck, that rather than going to taxes, I could spend any way I see fit. And when someone needed the help, I would have the extra cash around to do so. And if you are among those who feel that government programs are the way to go, then you go ahead and pay all the taxes you want to pay. I'm sure the IRS won't turn away your dollars. But forcibly taxing money away from one group of citizens to help another group of citizens, is not charity, it's socialism. Trust us to be wise in the spending of our money, including how and when we want to help our fellow-man.

Medical reform will also require a change in our thinking, in taking responsibility for our medical care. I am as guilty of this as anybody else. When we go to the doctor and we are told we need additional treatment, my first question is always, "Will my insurance cover that?" That is not the right question. What we should be asking is: What will that accomplish? Is it necessary? How much will it cost? Would it be cheaper for me to pay for it out of pocket? Will it be successful? What are the possible outcomes? How can we cut costs? What would you do, independent of the insurance company's influence? These are the kinds of questions that will return the responsibility for medical choices to us and to our doctors. We should be just as careful with the costs for our treatment as we would be if we were to pay every penny out of pocket. I guarantee that will change things. To that end, see number 2 below.

2) Health Savings Accounts and higher deductibles:

One of the most underused tools in our medical savings arsenal, is the HSA. Very few of us know the benefits and how easy they are to use. Part of the problem is that it's our responsibility to set it up and make it happen; no one will do it for you. We finally got around to it, determined what we would deposit in our account each month and the bank we worked with sent us a debit card that will directly access our account. It is our money and it will roll over from year to year, earning interest, if we don't use it all. Once we reach retirement, we can then use the money for whatever we need, not just medical expenses. And it is all pre-tax dollars. It is a great way to prepare for unexpected medical expenses and to benefit from your planning if you don't ever need it for that purpose.

The deductible on our health insurance is quite high, higher than I'm used to. We therefore funded our HSA to match our $5,000 deductible, which amounts to a little over $400/month. I realize that not everyone will be able to do that, but for those of us who can, it's a great benefit. And for those who can afford it, but choose not to carry health insurance, it's an excellent way to pay for their medial care with tax-free dollars.

Having that higher deductible has greatly changed my perspective on going to the doctor. It's not like we were running to the doctor every month, but since so much of that money comes out of our pocket, we are very careful how we spend it. We include cost factors when making our medical decisions, which makes us wiser consumers. It's funny how we weigh cost with every other decision we make when we make purchases, but got away from that when it came to our health care. We now do a better job of cutting costs where we can and seeking better prices when available.

3) Everyone should pay something:

Free stuff is great. Everyone loves free stuff. But as a consistent modus operandi in society, free stuff can be detrimental. We all know spoiled children who get everything they want, are never required to work and have no responsibilities. They are intolerable to be around. Our society has its share of "spoiled children" who have gotten so much "free stuff" that they are equally intolerable. I'm not talking about people who have fallen on hard times for a period; that could happen to any of us. I'm talking about the lifers, who expect society to provide for their needs; those who feel the world owes them a living. That way of thinking breeds a lack of responsibility, productivity and self-respect. It is very damaging to our society as a whole. It would benefit both the individuals concerned and the country if everyone was required to pay something for their health care. Even if it were only $5, that would accomplish several purposes. It would make people think twice before they run off the ER as their primary care physician--the most expensive medical care in the US. They would reconsider unnecessary office visits. It would give them the dignity of having paid for a part of their care. Anything they're told by the doctor will be taken more seriously when it hits their pocketbook. And for those who don't even have $5, we can figure something out. That's where the generous American spirit steps in and we help each other out.

4) Return medical decisions to the doctor and patient:

It is time for us to regain control of the relationship with our doctors. We have allowed our insurance coverage to dictate our care for too long. I have learned that my annual pap smear is generally a waste of money. The only man I've ever been with is my husband. At most, I would probably only need a pap smear every 3-5 years because I don't participate in risky sexual behaviors necessitating an annual pap smear. Because the insurance pays for it, it costs the system unnecessary money. On the other hand, my husband is at great risk for prostate cancer due to his family's medical history. We need to be pro-active and make sure he gets the proper screening, at an earlier age than normal, whether the insurance will pay for it or not. We must have a conversation with our doctor, like the one I listed above, and return the decision-making to where it belongs. The responsibility lies with the doctor to do his/her best and we make a decision together and live with the consequences. That kind of decision-making would also eliminate a lot of malpractice lawsuits. In fact, I heard once that the difference between doctors who get sued and those who don't, is three minutes. Those who don't get sued, spend an average of three more minutes with their patients than those who do. Nothing complicated about that.

5) Increase Medicare/Medicaid reimbursements:

One of the biggest contributing factors to the increasing cost of medical care lies directly on the doorstep of the federal government. The reimbursement rates of doctors who treat Medicare/Medicaid patients are ridiculously low. As in any business, if a customer doesn't pay or under-pays the owner, he must make up those costs elsewhere to keep his business afloat. Doctors have overhead just like any other business: employees pay, employee benefits, office space, office supplies, medical supplies, medical equipment and their whopping malpractice insurance premiums. The fact that they are running a business is not a measure of their compassion. Doctors perform more pro bono work than in any other business and they get little or no credit for it. In fact, most people don't even know they do it--and they do it because they are compassionate, not so they can go around talking about it. Every hospital in this country writes off millions of dollars every year in unpaid bills. How many of us think of that when we're complaining about the cost of the great care we get from our medical system? The government's refusal to pay doctors and hospitals a fair reimbursement costs all of us a lot of money. The next time you see your doctor, ask about it. You will be shocked. And in the end, it causes many doctors to drop patients with Medicare/Medicaid because they simply cannot afford to treat them anymore. The government compounds the problem of "the uninsured" through their short-sighted policies based on emotion, not sound economic principles. This is a glaring example of a well-meaning but inept government, whose good intentions don't always match the results.

6) Tort reform:

Any discussion of health care reform that doesn't include tort reform is just plain silly. Every doctor, because of the lawsuit happy society we live in, is required to carry malpractice insurance. Before your doctor ever starts making any money in any given fiscal year, he/she must pay the malpractice premium which runs anywhere from $60,000 to $150,000 per year. How many small business owners could handle that? The premiums vary from specialty to specialty and from state to state, but the costs of those premiums are, of necessity, passed on to the patient. Every time someone brings a frivolous malpractice lawsuit to court and every time the jury makes a ridiculous pain and suffering award, the premiums go up and so does the cost of your health care.

I am not suggesting that people should not be able to bring malpractice lawsuits, that's not what tort reform is. Tort reform, would not prohibit lawsuits. It would not limit the money required to right the wrong. It would cap the pain and suffering awards at say $2 million, for example, instead of $22 million. It would also require the loser to pay the court costs for both parties. So, if you have an ambulance-chasing lawyer, looking to get rich, who brings a frivolous case to court, they are going to make sure their client can pay them first. And if you have a gold-digger, thinking they are going to put the screws to the rich doctors, they either better have a solid, legitimate case, or be prepared to pay the legal fees.

Furthermore, I must go back to the personal responsibility idea. Doctors are not gods--they are imperfect people doing the very best they can with the limited information they have. They know much, but there are still vast amounts of information yet to be discovered. Nonetheless, we expect them to have all the answers and never make a mistake. Do we hold ourselves to that same standard? Stuff happens. Doctors cannot control the human body, they cannot foresee every complication or problem that may arise in treating a unique and very individual patient. Complications and mistakes are not malpractice. It's part of life. We need to recognize that fact and accept the idea that something could go wrong. That doesn't mean it's the doctor's fault or that there has to be someone to blame. Malpractice is when someone is incompetent, willfully negligent or grossly under-trained. If lawsuits were brought, rightfully so, in just those cases, they would be few and far between.

This is actually an area where the government could be useful. Tort reform would severely reduce the number of frivolous lawsuits and thereby reduce malpractice premiums out of the stratosphere. As the premiums go down, so goes the overhead and the costs passed on the to the patient. Furthermore, if doctors weren't in constant fear of being sued, they wouldn't practice defensive medicine. When doctors are practicing defensive medicine, they order twelve tests instead of the necessary one, out of fear they might get sued. So, to cover their behinds and because the insurance will pay for it, we spend millions of dollars per year on unnecessary tests, etc. Once again, that increases the costs for all of us.

7) Tax deductions for pro bono care:

There are a few bad apples here and there in the medical world, but most physicians are very caring, concerned and conscientious practitioners. Unheralded, doctors do a lot of free work for those that simply can't afford it. At present, they are not allowed to use that as a tax write-off. Why not? It's charitable work. That doesn't stop doctors from doing it, but why not encourage it? Doctors are slammed with high income taxes, which includes the "income" they use to pay malpractice premiums. I think it would encourage even more pro bono work, if they could also get the tax benefits. We have plenty of economic history to prove this principle--as taxes go up, charitable donations go down and vice versa. It doesn't take a genius to understand that.

8) Cash discounts:

Try negotiating with your doctor about the costs of your care. Most doctors are willing to offer you a discount for full payment on the day of service. It is cheaper for them to take a discount off the top than it is to go through the hassle of filing a claim and waiting, waiting, waiting for reimbursement. It will save you money and will save him money.

9) Open insurance up to actual competition:

The current health insurance system is really weird. "They" keep talking about the fact that we need "choice and competition". I agree. But creating a government form of insurance (i.e. Medicaid) has done and will do nothing for the cost of insurance. That's not real competition. Let's look at auto insurance. It's required for all drivers to carry minimum coverage and the insurance industry has adjusted to compete for those policies. You can go almost anywhere in the country to find an auto insurance policy that will meet your needs in terms of cost and coverage. You can't do that with health insurance. Health insurers won't insure individuals, which makes it almost impossible for small employers or the self-employed to get affordable health insurance. You are also not allowed to shop outside of your state for health insurance. That restriction limits the competition and therefore the price. If an employer is shopping for employee coverage, he is usually limited to just two or three insurers within his state. That's not real competition. And it usually leads to the biggest insurer driving out the smaller ones. If the competition were opened up nationwide, the best companies, who provided the best coverage for the best price, would rise to the top. The other companies would either improve their coverage and costs or they would go out of business. Good old American capitalism would do more for the insurance marketplace than any government program ever could. Surely those same capitalists can find a way to make insurance available to the self-employed and small businesses.

Government meddling has caused other problems here as well. Over-regulation in individual states has raised the costs of health insurance for everyone. That has come about as state governments have legislated more and more coverage mandates (for example, some states have mandated coverage for elective procedures such as sex changes or prescription coverage of Viagra). What that means is that the minimum policy is required to have more mandated coverage. Insurance companies base their premiums on their perceived risks of a payout. Each mandated coverage item therefore increases the premium for everybody. Again, that limits competition and makes it hard for insurance companies to provide the kinds of policies that would sell like crazy in the marketplace. If we, as the consumer, could actually buy some minimum coverage, like catastrophic coverage at a minimum price and have the flexibility to actually purchase the coverage we need, that would change the whole health insurance landscape. But because of government regulations, that cannot be done right now. Another example of governmental good intentions with short-sighted policies.

In the end, there's very little that the government can or should do. I'm not a business major, I'm not a economist, but I am a pretty smart consumer. These things are common sense ideas that would encourage the government to pass tort reform, de-regulate the insurance industry and let the marketplace do it's thing. These changes, coupled with an increased infusion of personal responsibility when it comes to health care, could solve most of our problems. We live in the greatest country that has ever existed on the earth. It is filled with brilliant and generous people, full of ideas who love to face a challenge and solve a problem. Let's not look to the government, let's look to ourselves. We, the people, need to fix this and help our representatives understand that the best thing they can do is get out of the way. I certainly haven't covered every possible fix and I would love to hear other ideas. Maybe this is the kind of thing we should be discussing with our government representatives.

Mr. Obama's Speech

2009-09-10T15:52:00.000-07:00

I listened to the President's speech last night with a somewhat skeptical ear. But I tried to keep an open mind. He was obviously passionate and visibly irritated with those who disagree with him, but he said some good things. I am concerned however, that it is just a bunch of words. People love to have their "ears tickled" with what they want to hear and politicians are master ear-ticklers. I am withholding judgment until I see any actual legislation that includes the things he promised last night.

You see, he kept talking about, "my plan", but he hasn't written a bill. He has left that job to the House and Senate. That's fine--that's their job. But I have read the House version of the bill and the promises he made last night are simply not contained in it. If those promises are to be met, a new bill must be authored because the current House version of the bill is totally irreconcilable with the President's speech. For example:

1) Illegal aliens won't be treated. There is a vague provision in the bill about this, but Obama has said that he wants to grant the illegal aliens citizenship. So technically, they will be citizens, but will they be contributing any more to our economy then than they are now?

2) Abortion will not be paid for by federal dollars. It is not specifically prohibited in the bill--it is not addressed at all. Are we simply to trust his word alone, his solemn promise, that it will not happen? Forgive me if I don't trust government to act upon his word alone.

3) An insurance co-op will be created instead of a public option. There is no mention (that I can remember, at least) of said co-op in the house bill. Instead, pages and pages of the bill empower the government to have the final say on what will be insured, what will be treated and how much will be paid. That is not a co-op--it is government health care. It does not matter what you call it, if the verbiage of the bill is not changed, you have simply re-labeled it.

4) You will be forced to have minimum health coverage. How is this to be enforced? Are health care providers to become the health insurance police? In the current bill it will be enforced by the IRS, through fines and intra-government information sharing. What is the plan Mr. Obama? What are the details? You are long on rhetoric and short on details. I will read the next bill that comes out and then I will make my final judgment.

I don't disagree that we need to make some reforms in our medical system, but I have grave concerns about the government's ability to fix anything. They have bankrupted Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid, we are running a ridiculous deficit and frankly they are a bunch of self-serving idiots. If they do not scrap the existing bill in the House, it will be the largest power-grab, the grossest over-reaching of government authority in the history of this country. The private sector needs to step up and make the necessary fixes on their own, this is not the government's place.

Stay tuned....

Oh Say, Can You See...

2009-08-27T00:12:00.001-07:00

It's well past midnight and I should be sleeping, but I can't. I am sick at heart and am not sure what to do about it. My father was a great patriot; he loved this country with a deep and abiding love. My mother is his equal. They both instilled in me a deep love for the United States of American and freedom. Because of their example I have loved this country from my very beginning. That love was strengthened by the time I spent in Europe. I loved my time overseas and had a wonderful experience--but it also served to deepen my appreciation for the rights and liberties I had taken for granted most of my life. I fear that too few of us realize what a precious gift it is to be born an American--a privilege and a blessing, with an attending responsibility and duty.

I have never been able to get through our national anthem without crying. Not once. It causes feelings to well up in me that are hard to express. This year on the Fourth of July it was different. For the first time in my life, I didn't weep for gratitude and pride, I wept out of sorrow. For the first time in my life, I feel real fear for the future of the nation that I love. The partisan bickering--no, warring--that goes on in our nation's capital is sickening beyond words. Doing what is best for our nation is now utterly incomprehensible to politicians in their insatiable lust for power, fame and riches. The public servant, as I understand it, is no more. Our "leaders" have become the very aristocracy that our founding fathers threw off and sacrificed everything to be free of. Free to live their lives and exercise the rights that God had granted them. The Constitution they wrote recognized a higher power. It was so important to them, in fact, that they wrote it down in the Declaration of Independence as a statement of their purpose. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it..."

Think about the power of those words. Our government was set up from the very beginning to guarantee our God-given right to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. The government derives their powers from the consent of the governed--not the other way around. How is it that we have gotten to the point that our "leaders" in Washington believe we derive our power to live and pursue happiness from them? Way back in the Old Testament, Isaiah prophesied "Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!" (Isa. 5:20) We are living in that day.

We live in a day when it's okay to kill an unborn child, but not a tree. It's better to read a terrorist the Miranda rights that belong to US citizens, than to protect those very citizens from his diabolical aims. Instead of our elected representatives listening to their constituents, they say we citizens lack the intelligence to understand what's really going on. We cut funding to the military that is actively fighting a war in Afghanistan and fund research on the sexual habits of co-eds at Syracuse University. We, as a nation, have elected a President who, while asking us to tighten our belts, uses Air Force One as his private jet to galavant about the country lying with every word he utters. He lies about the economy, healthcare, national security, even his deepest-held beliefs, while flying in Kobe beef and Maine lobster on the taxpayers dime, during a recession no less. He belittles and pooh-poohs (or wee-wees) the citizens of this nation who disagree with him while asking for a respectful discourse. The world is upside-down.

I could not stand Bill Clinton. I hated his policies and disagreed with just about everything he did and represented. But Mr. Obama, or shall I call him King Obama, is making Bill Clinton look like a blessed savior. Barack seems to be a likable person and a good father and husband, but his policies and the people he surrounds himself with are terrifying. The bulk of his advisors are avowed socialists and communists who hate America and capitalism. That is a bold charge. It makes me cringe that I have to even say it. But the simple fact is that it is the truth.

This is not Democrat Party politics as usual. For most of my life, Democrats and Republicans have generally wanted to achieve the same goals, but usually differed about the route to get there. I don't know a single Democrat who wants to see this country destroyed. But this new breed of Democrats, the Obamacrats, are an entirely new thing. They have an agenda and will stop at nothing to see it realized. Most of it is happening right under our noses without us even seeing it. They hate capitalism first and foremost as something inherently evil. They hate the "rich" and want to see their wealth taken away forcibly and given to the "working class". They do not trust the individuals of this nation, or any other, to make wise decisions for their own futures. They believe that only they are smart enough to do so. They hate the military and see it as a representation of the "American imperialism" they are so ashamed of. They use race and class and misinformation as weapons to be used at any given moment to achieve their aims. And they will not stop until they have gained absolute control over every aspect of our government and our lives.

As a nation, we are reaping the harvest we have sown with our apathy, ignorance and detachment from what is going on in Washington DC. But I am not prepared to give up the freedoms that God gave me and the Constitutions guarantees. I will not lie down and be overwhelmed by the press of evil that is overtaking our government. I will not sit idly by to see our rights to worship, exercise free speech, and pursue happiness be taken away forever. I will do whatever it takes, within the law, to stop the wave. I don't know what that will entail, but if I must sacrifice everything, to protect the freedoms I hold dear, is that too high a price? I don't believe it is too late for us as a nation. But the time is now. We must not allow the forces of evil to advance any further. It stops here. It stops now. We must do whatever is necessary to take our country back from the aristocrats. The founding fathers faced much steeper odds, in fighting the Revolutionary War, than we now face. We must not be idle, we must not fail. "Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just, And this be our motto: 'in God is our Trust'! And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave!" I pray to God that He will give us the wisdom, the stamina and the knowledge to right the ship.

The Current State of Medicine

2009-08-25T10:30:00.000-07:00

This is a very informative letter I received from a friend. I have contacted this doctor and post this with his permission. This should make all of us stop and think.

"August 06, 2009

ObamaCare and me

By Zane F. Pollard, MD

I have been sitting quietly on the sidelines watching all of this national debate on healthcare. It is time for me to bring some clarity to the table by explaining many of the problems from the perspective of a doctor.

First off, the government has involved very few of us physicians in the healthcare debate. While the American Medical Association has come out in favor of the plan, it is vital to remember that the AMA only represents 17% of the American physician workforce.

I have taken care of Medicaid patients for 35 years while representing the only pediatric ophthalmology group left in Atlanta, Georgia that accepts Medicaid. For example, in the past 6 months I have cared for three young children on Medicaid who had corneal ulcers. This is a potentially blinding situation because if the cornea perforates from the infection, almost surely blindness will occur. In all three cases the antibiotic needed for the eradication of the infection was not on the approved Medicaid list. Each time I was told to fax Medicaid for the approval forms, which I did. Within 48 hours the form came back to me which was sent in immediately via fax, and I was told that I would have my answer in 10 days. Of course by then each child would have been blind in the eye. Each time the request came back denied. All three times I personally provided the antibiotic for each patient which was not on the Medicaid approved list. Get the point -- rationing of care.

Over the past 35 years I have cared for over 1000 children born with congenital cataracts. In older children and in adults the vision is rehabilitated with an intraocular lens. In newborns we use contact lenses which are very expensive. It takes Medicaid over one year to approve a contact lens post cataract surgery. By that time a successful anatomical operation is wasted as the child will be close to blind from a lack of focusing for so long a period of time. Again, extreme rationing. Solution: I have a foundation here in Atlanta supported 100% by private funds which supplies all of these contact lenses for my Medicaid and illegal immigrants children for free. Again, waiting for the government would be disastrous.

Last week I had a lady bring her child to me. They are Americans but live in Sweden, as the father has a job with a big corporation. The child had the onset of double vision 3 months ago and has been unable to function normally because of this. They are people of means but are waiting 8 months to see the ophthalmologist in Sweden. Then if the child needed surgery they would be put on a 6 month waiting list. She called me and I saw her that day. It turned out that the child had accommodative esotropia (crossing of the eyes treated with glasses that correct for farsightedness) and responded to glasses within 4 days, so no surgery was needed. Again, rationing of care.

Last month I operated on a 70 year old lady with double vision present for 3 years. She responded quite nicely to her surgery and now is symptom free. I also operated on a 69 year old judge with vertical double vision. His surgery went very well and now he is happy as a lark. I have been told -- but of course there is no healthcare bill that has been passed yet -- that these 2 people because of their age would have been denied surgery and just told to wear a patch over one eye to alleviate the symptoms of double vision. Obviously cheaper than surgery.

I spent two years in the US Navy during the Vietnam war and was well treated by the military. There was tremendous rationing of care and we were told specifically what things the military personnel and their dependents could have and which things they could not have. While I was in Vietnam, my wife Nancy got sick and got essentially no care at the Naval Hospital in Oakland, California. She went home and went to her family's private internist in Beverly Hills. While it was expensive, she received an immediate work up. Again rationing of care.

For those of you who are over 65, this bill in its present form might be lethal for you. People in Britain face rationing of care in that there is an eight month wait for cataract surgery, 11 for hernia and the same for disc and total hip. The government wants to mimic the British plan. For those of you younger, it will still mean restriction of the care that you and your children receive.

While 99% of physicians went into medicine because of the love of medicine and the challenge of helping our fellow man, economics are still important. My rent goes up 2% each year and the salaries of my employees go up 2% each year. Twenty years ago, ophthalmologists were paid $1800 for a cataract surgery and today $500. This is a 73% decrease in our fees. I do not know of many jobs in America that have seen this sort of lowering of fees.

But there is more to the story than just the lower fees. When I came to Atlanta, there was a well known ophthalmologist that charged $2500 for a cataract surgery as he felt the was the best. He had a terrific reputation and in fact I had my mother's bilateral cataracts operated on by him with a wonderful result. She is now 94 and has 20/20 vision in both eyes. People would pay his $2500 fee. However, then the government came in and said that any doctor that does Medicare work cannot accept more than the going rate (now $500) or he or she would be severely fined. This put an end to his charging $2500. The government said it was illegal to accept more than the government-allowed rate. What I am driving at is that those of you well off will not be able to go to the head of the line under this new healthcare plan, just because you have money, as no physician will be willing to go against the law to treat you.

I am a pediatric ophthalmologist and trained for 10 years post-college to become a pediatric ophthalmologist (add two years of my service in the Navy and that comes to 12 years). A neurosurgeon spends 14 years post -college, and if he or she has to do the military that would be 16 years. I am not entitled to make what a neurosurgeon makes, but the new plan calls for all physicians to make the same amount of payment. I assure you that medical students will not go into neurosurgery and we will have a tremendous shortage of neurosurgeons. Already, the top neurosurgeon at my hospital who is in good health and only 52 years old has just quit because he can't stand working with the government anymore. Forty-nine percent of children under the age of 16 in the state of Georgia are on Medicaid, so he felt he just could not stand working with the bureaucracy anymore.

We are being lied to about the uninsured. They are getting care. I operate on at least 2 illegal immigrants each month who pay me nothing, and the children's hospital at which I operate charges them nothing also.This is true not only on Atlanta, but of every community in America.

The bottom line is that I urge all of you to contact your congresswomen and congressmen and senators to defeat this bill. I promise you that you will not like rationing of your own health.

Furthermore, how can you trust a physician that works under these conditions knowing that he is controlled by the state. I certainly could not trust any doctor that would work under these draconian conditions.

One last thing: with this new healthcare plan there will be a tremendous shortage of physicians. It has been estimated that approximately 5% of the current physician work force will quit under this new system. Also it is estimated that another 5% shortage will occur because of the decreased number of men and women wanting to go into medicine. At the present time the US government has mandated gender equity in admissions to medical schools. That means that for the past 15 years that somewhere between 49% and 51% of each entering class are females. This is true of private schools also, because all private schools receive federal funding.

The average career of a woman in medicine now is only 8-10 years and the average work week for a female in medicine is only 3-4 days. I have now trained 35 ellows in pediatric ophthalmology. Hands down the best was a female that I trained 4 years ago -- she was head and shoulders above all others I have trained. She now practices only 3 days a week.

Background: Dr. Zane F. Pollard

I did my undergraduate work at Northwestern University in Evanston, Illinois. I graduated Tulane University medical School Alpha Omega Alpha (medical school's top 10% of graduating class). Internship at the Univ. of Southern California in Los Angeles, one year of General surgery residency at the U. of California in San Francisco. Two years in the US Navy. Residency in Ophthalmology at the U.of S. California in Los Angeles, fellowship in pediatric Ophthalmology at the Wills Eye Hospital in Philadelphia. In practice with Eye Consultants of Atlanta for the past 35 years. Published 90 papers in peer reviewed Scientific Ophthalmology Journals. Member of the American Association for Pediatric Ophthalmology and Strabismus, American Academy of Ophthalmology and the American Ophthalmological Society. Board certified in Ophthalmology."

The Real President Obama

2009-08-25T10:14:00.000-07:00

I received this letter from a friend and I checked back and am confident of its veracity. I don't know this lady personally, but her experience is enlightening to say the least. Do you want to learn how this White House operates? This is her letter in its entirety (as I received it).

"Hello All,

By now you have probably heard that President Obama came to Montana last Friday. However, there are many things that the major news has not covered. I feel that since Bill and I live here and we were at the airport on Friday I should share some facts with you. Whatever you decide to do with the information is up to you. If you choose to share this email with others I do ask that you DELETE my email address before you forward this on.

On Wednesday, August 5th it was announced locally that the President would be coming here. There are many groups here that are against his healthcare and huge spending so those groups began talking and deciding on what they were going to do. The White House would not release ANY details other than the date.

On about Tuesday Bill found out that they would be holding the "Town Hall" at the airport. (This is only because Bill knows EVERYONE at the airport) Our airport is actually located outside of Belgrade (tiny town) in a very remote location. Nothing is around there. They chose to use a hangar that is the most remotely located hangar. You could not pick a more remote location, and you can not get to it easily. It is totally secluded from the public. FYI: We have many areas in Belgrade and Bozeman which could have held a large amount of folks with sufficient parking. (gymnasiums/auditoriums). All of which have chairs

and tables, and would not have to be SHIPPED IN!! $$$$$ During the week, cargo by the TONS was being shipped in constantly. Airport employees could not believe how it just kept coming. Though it was our President coming several expressed how excessive it was, especially during a recession. $$$$$

Late Tuesday/early Wednesday the 12th, they said that tickets would be handed out on Thursday 9am at two locations and the president would be arriving around 12:30 Friday.Thursday morning about 600 tickets were passed out. However, 1500 were printed at a Local printing shop per White House request. Hmmmm......900 tickets just DISAPPEARED. This same morning someone called into the radio from the local UPS branch and said that THOUSANDS of Dollars of Lobster were shipped in for Obama. Montana has some of the best beef in the nation!!! And it would have been really wonderful to help out the local economy. Anyone heard of the Recession?? Just think...with all of the traveling the White House is doing. $$$$$ One can only imagine what else we are paying for.

On Friday Bill and I got out to the airport about 10:45am. The groups that wanted to protest Obama's spending and healthcare had gotten a permit to protest and that area was roped off. But that was not to be. A large bus carrying SEIU (Service Employees International Union) members drove up onto the area (illegal) and unloaded right there. It was quite a commotion and there were specifically 2 SEIU men trying to make trouble and start a fight. Police did get involved and arrested the one man but they said they did not have the manpower to remove the SEIU crowd.

The SEIU crowd was very organized and young. About 99% were under the age of 30 and they were not locals! They had bullhorns and PROFESSIONALLY made signs. Some even wore preprinted T-shirts. Oh, and Planned Parenthood folks were with them.....professing abortion rights with their T-shirts and preprinted signs. (BTW, all these folks did have a permit to protest in ANOTHER area) Those against healthcare/spending moved away from the SEIU crowd to avoid confrontation. They were orderly and respectful. Even though SEIU kept coming over and walking through, continuing to be very intimidating and aggressive at the direction of the one SEIU man. So we had Montana folks from ALL OVER the state with their homemade signs and their DOGS with homemade signs. We had cowboys, nurses, doctors you name it. There was even a guy from Texas who had been driving through. He found out about the occasion, went to the store, made a sign, and came to protest.

If you are wondering about the press.....Well, all of the major networks were over by that remote hangar I mentioned. They were conveniently parked on the other side of the buildings FAR away. None of these crowds were even visible to them. I have my doubts that they knew anything about the crowds. We did have some local news media around us from this state and Idaho. Speaking of the local media...they were invited. However, all questions were to be turned into the White House in advance of the event. Wouldn't want anyone to have to think off the top of their head. It was very obvious that it was meant to be totally controlled by the White House. Everything was orchestrated down to the last detail to make it appear that Montana is just crazy for Obama and government healthcare. Even those people that talked about their insurance woes........the White House called our local HRDC (Human Resource and Development Committee) and asked for names. Then the White House asked those folks to come. Smoke and mirrors...EVERYTHING was staged!!!!!!!!!!!

I am very dismayed about what I learned about our current White House. The amount of control and manipulation was unbelievable. I felt I was not living in the United States of America, more like the USSR!! I was physically nauseous. Bill and I have been around when Presidents or Heads of State visit. It has NEVER been like this. I am truly very frightened for our country. America needs your prayers and your voices. If you care about our country please get involved. Know the issues. And let Congress hear your voices again and again!! If they are willing to put forth so much effort to BULLY a small town one can only imagine what is going on in Washington DC. Scary!!

Kathy

Bozeman, Montana"

I think one of the saddest things is that she won't list here full name. My guess is that she's nervous about any backlash and thus wanted her e-mail removed. I can certainly understand why she wanted it that way. But I thought free speech was protected here in the USA. Scary.

By the way...

2009-08-18T20:25:00.001-07:00

I have heard a lot of discussion about the "death panel". Just by way of clarification, this death panel does not exist in the House version of the healthcare proposal. It was in the Senate version, which I have not read, only read about. Supposedly, it has been removed from the Senate version due to its controversial nature. The House version does provide for end of life counseling, which already happens with any decent doctor anyway. I'm not sure why it's even written in to this legislation, other than they're trying to encourage people to do it (which is a good idea). But we really don't need to fund a government program to do it, we should do it as responsible individuals by talking to our doctors.

Also, the House healthcare bill, no. 3200 was written way back in November 2008. I would really like to know who wrote this bill. Supposedly, Washington has been negotiating with the interested parties (insurance companies, doctors, hospitals, etc.), but I wonder how much they have actually listened. The bill had to have been written well before Obama was even elected but wasn't made available to the public until July 15, 2009. I'm really, really curious to know who authored the bill. That would be very enlightening.