You are currently browsing the monthly archive for July 2009.
I am reposting this because it seems, again, very relevant. This was first posted on June 3rd and I was most concerned with the nomination of Ms. Sonia Sotomayor as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court. That now appears to be a done deal but we still have a chance on “The Employee Free Choice Act,” health care reform, and the VAT, though, we may never get automobile manufacturers back from State control.
Though Daniel Webster died over 150 years ago, he must have known Barack Obama or at least he knew and understood the type.
He said it best when he said,
“Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of authority. It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters.”
Think about it. If you give Mr. Obama the benefit of the doubt (and about 30% of the population is not willing to do that – see Rasmussen Poll)(July 31 update – the number is 40%), he: 1) has the best of intentions to solve our economic woes (read, take over Chrysler and G.M.); 2) has the best intentions to provide healthcare for all Americans (read universal healthcare for everyone in the USA, legal or not); 3) has the best intentions to simplify our tax code (read, impose additional VAT taxes); 4) has the best of intentions to lift up those who are limited by their race, gender, or culture (read, appoint an unqualified individual to the Supreme Court); 5) has the best intention to help workers by making it easier for them to organize (read, impose rules against businesses, in favor of Unions and against secret ballots)………
If Mr. Obama is able to get Ms. Sotomayor on the highest court, and it looks like he will succeed, he will have gone a long way toward removing the one defense we have against return to a Master/Slave relationship. I don’t know how we stop this but I do know that sending letters to each and every Senator is better than sitting and watching this happen.
Webster also warned: “Hold on, my friends, to the Constitution and to the Republic for which it stands. Miracles do not cluster and what has happened once in 6,000 years, may not happen again. Hold on to the Constitution, for if the American Constitution should fail, there will be anarchy throughout the world.” There are good reasons not to have too liberal a view of the Constitution.
“They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters.” Well put, Daniel.
Mr. Obama has once again proven just how inexperienced and naive he really is. Don’t get me wrong, for a rookie he has made all-star moves and has accomplished much of what he wanted, even if little of it has resembled the promises he made to the people who elected him. What he has failed to do is to listen to his elders and his public. His elders tried to tell him to pick something important and get it done. He chose to do everything and do it quickly. Being all things to all people has rarely worked for more than a few months for any politician. His public, or a majority of it, has consistently said that healthcare costs are too high. Mr. Obama has not listened to that and plans to add a Trillion Dollars to the bill. Polling shows that he has failed to impress over half the people and now he is losing parts of his huge majority in Congress.
Mr. Obama has a Congress that, in theory, can deliver anything he wants. Like Mr. Bush discovered when he had both houses of Congress, having a majority or better in both houses from your party is no guarantee that you will get what you want. Congress Members have big egos just like Presidents. They like to prove to their constituents (and their mirrors) that they are important. That is hard to do when you do nothing but follow the leader.
Today, 53 members of the (most) liberal wing of Mr. Obama’s party, the Congressional Progressive Caucus, signed a communique putting the world on notice that if they don’t get the “public option” that they want in the healthcare bill, they will vote against it. That, along with united Republicans would be enough to defeat any plan. Of course, this was in response to the announcement that “Blue Dog Democrats” had negotiated for, and it seemed earned, concessions that would remove the “public option” and cut about $100 Billion from the bill. Yes, there are 52 members in the Blue Dog Group, enough, with united Republicans, to defeat any bill they don’t like.
I heard a commentary today quoting one of my favorite quotes from one of my favorite commentators, Will Rogers (see my post from May on Rogers here). Rogers said, “I am not a member of any organized political party. I am a Democrat.” Mr. Obama is learning just how tricky it is to herd cats (Democrats). He may have the votes on paper, but (hopefully) he will find it VERY difficult to convert those to votes for the plan he is now proposing. Rogers also said, “Democrats never agree on anything, that’s why they’re Democrats. If they agreed with each other, they would be Republicans.”
I also like the Will Rogers quotes because Mr. Rogers would most certainly be anything but a Democrat today. As evidence, I offer the following:
“Too many people spend money they haven’t earned, to buy things they don’t want, to impress people they don’t like.” (Sound like the members of the party who voted to spend a Trillion Dollars on the “Recovery Act” to impress everyone with their power?)
“It’s a good thing we don’t get all the government we pay for.”
“Things in our country run in spite of government, not by aid of it.”
Mr. Obama, the Candidate (from his Change.gov website and his comprehensive tax plan):
On Taxes:
1. Mr. Obama promised to call ”… for legislation that would allow withdrawals of 15% up to $10,000 from retirement accounts without penalty (although subject to the normal taxes). This would apply to withdrawals in 2008 (including retroactively) and 2009.”
2. ”During 2009 and 2010, existing businesses will receive a $3,000 refundable tax credit for each additional full-time employee hired.”
3. We “”will eliminate all income taxation of seniors making less than $50,000 per year. This will eliminate taxes for 7 million seniors — saving them an average of $1,400 a year– and will also mean that 27 million seniors will not need to file an income tax return at all.”
4. ”Barack Obama understands that small businesses are the engines of our economy, and he will eliminate all capital gains taxes on investments in small and start-up firms.”
On Government Transparency:
1. Mr. Obama promised that he, “…will not sign any non-emergency bill without giving the American public an opportunity to review and comment on the White House website for five days.” Just to make sure we understood him, Mr. Obama repeated in many of his campaign speeches, “When there’s a bill that ends up on my desk as president, you the public will have five days to look online and find out what’s in it before I sign it, so that you know what your government’s doing.”
2. ”I’m going to have all the negotiations around a big table. We’ll have doctors and nurses and hospital administrators. Insurance companies, drug companies — they’ll get a seat at the table, they just won’t be able to buy every chair. But what we will do is, we’ll have the negotiations televised on C-SPAN, so that people can see who is making arguments on behalf of their constituents, and who are making arguments on behalf of the drug companies or the insurance companies. And so, that approach, I think is what is going to allow people to stay involved in this process.”
President Barack Obama
On Taxes:
1. The was no mention of retirement account withdrawals without penalty in either the budget or the Recovery Act. There has been no other activity by the White House to advance this promise.
2. The was no mention of refundable tax credits for small businesses adding jobs in either the budget or the Recovery Act. There has been no other activity by the White House to advance this promise.
3. The was no mention of eliminating income taxes on seniors who earn less than $50,000 in either the budget or the Recovery Act. There has been no other activity by the White House to advance this promise.
4. The was no mention of eliminating capital gains taxes on investments in small businesses in the budget. In the Recovery Act, there is a provision to give a 75% deduction, instead of the 50% deduction in current law on capital gains from investing in small businesses. There has been no other activity by the White House to advance this promise.
On Government Transparency:
1. The first two bills he signed were not posted on the White House website for five days (both were signed within two days of hitting his desk). In late May, Mr. Obama signed four bills in four days, the day after each arrived on his desk. You could argue that the Recovery Act/stimulus bill was an “emergency” (I wouldn’t) but Mr. Obama signed the Recovery Act less than 18 hours after the bill was finalized and well before almost any member of Congress, let alone the public , had read the Bill.
2. The Healthcare debate has been carried on by Mr. Obama meeting privately with most of the parties, by Congress behind closed doors, and in speeches and townhalls. Have all the parties been brought together to discuss the issues? Has all this been aired on CSPAN? Not hardly. In fact, Mr. Obama tried his darnedest to ensure that no critic had a chance to see what was happening until the bill had passed.
Before the election, I argued that if you looked at Mr. Obama’s record instead of listening to what he said, you could not help but vote against him. His record was the most liberal in Congress. He had been the most partisan Democrat. He now is our President and is proving with his actions that his promises were just words. It does appear that the American public is beginning to wake up to learn who Mr. Obama really is, not what he says. Today’s Rasmussen Poll shows Mr. Obama’s approval rating in steady decline.
Is it worth my time to post Mr. Obama before and after information like this on other subjects like Ethics, Energy, Healthcare, etc.?
I am against government controlled healthcare.
The reasons are very complex and very simple at the same time. The reasons are simple because they all come down to this: I believe our government should do those things which we cannot do privately as individuals or businesses, and only those things. That means national defense, interstate highways, standards and oversight for interstate commerce, education and justice, etc.
The reasons are very complex because I believe that a lot of the abuses that occur in our system of health care delivery are created by government intervention in the market. Let’s look at just one portion of government intervention in the healthcare insurance market, mandated coverage. In some states, health insurance providers are mandated to include in every health care insurance policy the following: hormone treatment for transexuals, infertility treatments, gastric bypass surgery for diabetics, payment for midwife services, etc. I will not, here, argue against any of these mandates since that is a different debate. I will argue that they greatly increase the cost of healthcare insurance (also see here). I will argue that it is unfair, unwise financially, and an irresponsible act on the part of my government to require me to pay more for my insurance so that you may have a lower cost for your hormone therapy. It takes from me without benefit to me. It lowers the cost of therapy for you (the mandated coverage cost is spread to everyone) and therefore changes decision making for a very costly health choice (encourages you). It raises the cost of healthcare coverage to everyone not effected. In other words, by mandating something to sooth the feelings of a minority and its lobby, everyone else pays more for their coverage. Some can’t pay the ever increasing cost and therefore go without coverage.
The reasons I am against government controlled healthcare are also very simple in that I believe that the government has no business in the healthcare delivery business. In my view healthcare is something we can provide for ourselves as private individuals or private businesses. Until there is a profit motive for a government system, care will be mediocre and providers will have few consequences for poor performance. Think the Army mess hall vs. your favorite family owned restaurant and you begin to get the idea.
I am in favor of healthcare reform. Like most things, our system can be improved. I have stated what I believe are the problems. I will provide a few suggestions for solutions in a future post.
On a lighter note, I just received the following from a friend. I liked all of it except the last line:
|
Somehow, we have to stop the steamroller and save what little credit rating we have in this world. If we allow Mr. Obama’s version of Healthcare Reform to be passed and signed, it will likely cost far more than even the massive Stimulus Bill. It will put us even deeper in debt.
The evidence is mounting that this could be the straw that broke the camel’s back. Below I have links to other sites with good information that try to straighten out the disinformation on healthcare being shoveled at us by the Obama Administration. We have to say, “Nope” to huge new government agencies and ineficiencies.
After you read the information below, and, if you agree that we must stop this, please write to your senators and your congressman. See links to addresses for all members of Congress and the President in the left column of this blog. Include in your letter/email, a request that he/she promise to read the entire bill and prepare to discuss it with constituents prior to voting on it. Letters that are respectful in tone work best. Letters should remind your Senator or Congressperson that he/she is your representative and that, at the very least, he/she needs to take the time to hear from constituents.
Only if every Senator and Congressperson feels the heat will the public be heard and will Congress be slowed from its headlong pursuit of a European style healthcare system.
Read the blog at: http://www.ilovebenefits.wordpress.com This blog is focused entirely on this issue and does a nice job of compiling information essential to understanding the impacts of Government Control of Healthcare.
Read Consumer Health Care Choices at http://www.chcchoices.org/Article/25704/Consumer_Power_Report_186.html
The following article is from the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, Inc. and in spite of its relevance today, it was written when Mr. Clinton was President. The gist of the article is just say “NOPE” to government controlled Medicine. Things have not improved since this was written:
DOCS SHOULD QUIT MEDICARE, SAYS LEADING DOCTORS GROUP
Doctors Must Play Regulatory Roulette to Avoid Harming Patients
Medicare endangers seniors, rations care and punishes the best doctors whose only aim is to give the best care. For the sake of patients and integrity of the profession, doctors should get out of Medicare.
That ís the warning from the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons as it declares the 6th annual “Medicare Patient Freedom Day.” Medicare begins its 36th year this month.
“Medicare sentences seniors to lousy care, delayed care or even death,” said Dr. Jane M. Orient, AAPS Executive Director. “Doctors should refuse to be willing participants in this game of regulatory Russian roulette.”
An AAPS survey of doctors reveals that Medicare rules and government threats to prosecute doctors make it more difficult for seniors to receive appropriate, necessary and timely medical care because doctors are afraid to treat tricky cases or take on new patients. Doctors spend less time practicing medicine and more complying with incomprehensible government regulations — more than 110,000 pages.
“Spin the wheel in favor of your patient, go to jail or pay tens of thousands of dollars. The people President Clinton calls Medicare cheats are often doctors who give patients the best care. But if a government bureaucrat deems the treatment unnecessary or inappropriate, itís called fraud, and the doctor is pronounced a criminal,” said Dr.Orient.
The HHS Inspector General admits that most doctors are honest. But to some prosecutors, there is no thing as a honest mistake. “Intent to defraud no longer matters. This Administration has chosen to cast a web so wide that honest doctors are ensnared. The results are ruined lives, both professionally and financially,” said Dr. Orient.
AAPS President, Lawrence Huntoon, a Jamestown, N.Y. neurologist, is one who spun the wheel in favor for his patients and lost. Dr. Huntoon routinely performed two blood vessel examinations to determine stroke risk. If done on two different days, $32.10 would be allowed. If at the same time, only $16.05. Dr. Huntoon choose to not make his elderly patients return and paid a steep price.
Medicare sent letters to his patients sternly warning them that their doctor broke the law by charging more than zero for the exams. After more than a year and hundreds of hours of appeals, the decision was reversed, but only after Dr. Huntoon had been slandered to his patients.
“In the name of cost-cutting, federal bean counters have destroyed the patient-physician trust, and created an atmosphere of fear in which physicians must now practice the art of medicine,” said Dr. Orient.
Federal officers raided the home and office of Dr. Danny Westmoreland. They held his 9-year-old son, staff and patients at gunpoint while they seized files. A judge eventually threw out the case, but only after Dr. Westmorelandís reputation, practice and finances were devastated.
Medicare also makes it impossible for doctors to provide free medical care under threat of criminal prosecution. In 1995, AAPS marked the first “Medicare Patient Freedom Day” by treating patients for $1 cash, while refusing to file claims for reimbursement from taxpayers. The government responded by saying it was illegal not to file a claim for payment.
Many doctors have resigned from Medicare. Dr. Nino Carmardese still treats Medicare patients, but at no charge. Neurosurgeon Michael Schlitt has accepted a model ship as payment for back surgery, and performed brain surgery for one dollar. Dr. John Bennett published his “Declaration of Independence from Medicare” stating, “I find that I must choose between the practice of Medicine and the practice of Medicare; I choose the practice of Medicine.”
All report enthusiastic patient support. Any financial impact “is more than compensated by the freedom to make the right decision for my patients and the relief of getting the government out of my operating room,” said Dr. Schlitt.
Other groups are catching on to the Medicare mess. Veteransí groups are waging a full-out battle on Capitol Hill to prevent Congress from rolling VA coverage for seniors into Medicare.
“Medicare is socialized medicine at its worst,” concluded Dr. Orient. “Itís time for doctors to stand up for their patients and send government out the door.” (AAPS is a professional association of physicians in all specialties dedicated to the sanctity of the patient-physician relationship since 1943.)
The President’s approval rating has been dropping rapidly since he started his full court press on Healthcare Reform in the middle of June. Could it be that the people see through his rush to pass a plan that has not been seen by the public, let alone the Congress that will vote on it? So, there is hope that healthcare reform will not be railroaded past a sleeping press and a lapdog Congress.
Please pass on any good information on the topic that you find by adding it as a comment to this post. Thank you.
In my earlier post asking for suggestions, I quoted noted Writer and Editor, Dorothea Brande who once penned,
“A problem clearly stated is a problem half solved.”
This will be my attempt to Define the Problem. This is my opinion and I would like to hear yours.
First, I believe that the Goal of the broader
Medical Community should be to optimize the human potential of the community by supporting the health of the community.
Next, I think that the Objectives of the broader Medical Community should be to: 1. Help patients prevent injury and ailment; 2. Diagnose injuries and ailments; 3. Provide care to bring injured or ailing patients back to health and/or to help them lessen the pain and suffering that accompanies their injury or ailment. These three objectives must be met within a budget that provides funding sufficient to ensure the health and stability of the Broader Medical Community, while conserving enough to not be a burden on the community.
Our Healthcare System (broadly speaking) is inefficient at preventing illness and injury since there is more motivation (money) to fix what is broken, than to prevent the breakage. Consider the difficulty of keeping a patient on a high calcium diet as opposed to the ease of mending a broken arm. One requires patience and large numbers of small, inexpensive interventions (pills or diet). The other requires one quick, expensive intervention (reset and imobilize) with a less expensive followup. So, in my view, issue number one is that we need to find a way to increase the emphasis on prevention of health problems over the current emphasis which is focussed on curing problems that exist. Though, as I stated in my earlier post, this is not the most commonly voiced problem, I believe it is problem #1.
Our current system supports both the Goal and the Objectives (above) but not to the extent that many people, including many politicians, want. Those who rail against our current healthcare system site as the prime evidence that the system is broken is the fact (highly questionable) that 42 million Americans are without healthcare. First, it is just plain untrue that 42 million Americans can’t afford or get healthcare insurance, as Mr. Obama and Mr. McCain claimed. It is estimated that at least 10 million of that number are ‘undocumented aliens.’ Another 8 million are people who make over $75,000 annually and choose to spend their funds elsewhere. You might also add in yet another 7-8 million who earn over $50,000 and are not covered. The fact is that everyone in the country who presents himself to an emergency room will receive health care. So, in fact, everyone is covered. So, in my view, Issue #2 is increasing the ease of access to and efficiency of delivery of healthcare. To many, that means ‘universal healthcare.’ Many say this is a right. My concern is that those who feel this is a right have no understanding of the costs to society for giving something at a cost to the entire society without requiring people to earn that right. For example, should illegally entering the United States give you the right to access to our healthcare system at no direct cost? Should free public healthcare be given to the person who makes a good living and who owns a boat (for recreation) paid for with the $800 a month he saves by not buying health insurance? These and other questions lead me to believe that the only thing that we should consider as universal about healthcare is that we have enough facilities, enough doctors and nurses, and enough insurance options to allow people to choose how much they want to buy. I believe that when catastrophic care insurance becomes available to all, the decision will be in the hands of the people. Access will be available to the vast majority of our population and lack of access will be due to choice, as it is for most Americans today.
Next, is the problem of cost. Our President and many members of Congress tell us that ’Healthcare costs are bankrupting our small businesses and many big ones as well’. My view is that there are many components to the cost of healthcare and there is plenty of blame to go around for its rapidly increasing cost. Plaintiff’s attorneys are blamed for driving up the cost of medical malpractice insurance which in turn increases the cost for medical professionals to provide services. Are we not to blame for voting down numerous proposals to limit liability? What about the cost of hospitals to serve anyone who walks in the door, whether insured or not. The more uninsured patients, the more the ‘emergency room healthcare system’ increases the costs to those who pay for our healthcare. What about Medicare and Medicaid? Both pay far less for treatment of their patients than the cost to the providers. To balance losses to Medicare and Medicaid, Medical Professionals and Hospitals must charge more to their regular paying customers. Now Mr. Obama and Congress seem to want us to rely more on Medicare and Medicaid since they are so ‘efficient.’ That will only lead those who pay for their health insurance to pay more to cover the provider’s losses to the government plans. There is also the problem of medical records and the paperwork associated with medical treatment. The cost of the paperwork and procedures required by government to comply with medical record keeping guidelines is another huge and growing cost of medical care that must be addressed. Many will argue, and I would be one, that if we could spend less time complying with government mandates and paperwork, we could significantly improve care and lower cost of care. There is little coordination of care facilities. As long as there are sufficient facilities to effectively treat patients in a timely manner, why should every Hospital have MRI capabilities? Why
Issue number four is Government mandates for insurance coverage. This is primarily a problem with State government mandates, but looks to be a very significant problem with a proposed government run healthcare system. Every time a government agency requires a health insurer to meet some new mandate, it drives up the cost for all those who do not fit the criteria of the mandate. For example, if a government mandates a sex change operation be covered by an insurance plan if it offers infertility treatments in its coverage, up goes the price. Or the insurance company must drop the infertility treatment coverage. Either way, the cost goes up or the care goes down. If a state should mandate smoking cessation drug treatments be covered, that raises the cost for everyone, smokers and non-smokers alike. Why is mandating that treatment better than offering an optional policy to those who want it and are willing to pay for it?
The next issue is the quality of our healthcare. This is an argument often made by those who want us to emulate European Socialized Medicine Systems. Rarely do proponents of such a plan acknowledge that timeliness of delivery of health services is key to quality and not something for the socialized systems to brag about.
Simple Catastrophic care Insurance coverage is not available on a large scale. This is partially due to mandated coverage. If all those who were medically qualified could get $10,000 (or some similarly high amount) deductible catastrophic care coverage, I think most young people who opt out of insurance due to the cost, would opt back in. This would add to the pool of funds and take much pressure off of the “free emergency room and ‘almost free’ Medicare that now cover large numbers in our population.
Portability of Insurance is my last problem area. Since much of the population is covered by insurance plans provided through places of employment, people often lose coverage when they lose their job.
SO THIS IS MY STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM:
1. Our System Lacks an Emphasis on Prevention;
2. Access to and Delivery of Health Services can both be Improved;
3. Costs Need to be Contained and Cost Drivers Eliminated;
4. There are Too Many Government Mandates;
5. Quality of Care Varies and our System Lacks Easily Understood (by patients) Standards for Outcomes;
6. We need Simple, Low-cost, High-deductible Catostrophic Care Insurance as an Option;
7. We need the Option of Portability of Healthcare Insurance.
To solve this problem without creating new problems (increasing expensive, non-responsive bureaucracies, making care less personal, etc.) is the challenge we face. With Congress and the President seemingly intent upon a system based on Government Control of health care, I am not optimistic that their solution will achieve the needed results. We should be discussing this problem, not just trying to craft a fix that will put government agencies in control.
We have wonderful examples of successful systems (Grand Junction, Colorado, the Woodland Clinic, Kaiser Permanente Health Plan, the Mayo Clinic, etc.) that have been made less efficient by Government Mandates and limitless medical malpractice liability. Why don’t we look at these systems rather than trying to build on the failing Medicare model? I think the answer to that question is, “Politics.”
If you haven’t written to your Senators or Congressman to give them your input, you will have no one to blame but yourself when you find yourself covered by a socialized medicine system similar to Canada or much of Europe. If you think that is what you want, chat with a friend who lives in Canada and ask him why he comes to the U.S. to get timely care.
Since Mr. Obama and his team predicted an 8% unemployment rate even with his massive stimulus package, unemployment has ballooned to 9.5%. His claim now is that without the 800 Billion plan, things would be worse. Nope. The markets look at the long term effects on the economy and can see the huge deficit and the problems it will create. If anything, the over-the-top spending (and the fact that the stimulus bill was stuffed with pork) has helped fuel the fear that is driving businesses to stop spending and cut costs like never before, thus putting the brakes on the economy.
Since Mr. Obama started selling his Healthcare Reform plan he has said on numerous occasions that Medicare is more efficient and less expensive than private healthcare in delivering our medical needs. Nope. Only because Medicare can dictate how much it will pay can it hold costs at all. Doctors and Hospitals lose money with almost every Medicare case they take. Look at the Medicare fraud rate. In some communities (Miami, Brownsville, etc.), it is reported to be up to 25% of all medicare billing. The number of Doctors who do not accept Medicare patients is growing because Doctors lose control of their patients and must do only what Medicare allows.
Since Mr. Obama has been stumping for his Energy Plan based on a cap and trade system, he has been telling us that one of the benefits of his plan is the great number of new jobs that will be created in the alternative energy industry. Nope. The fact is that he glosses over the huge number of jobs that will be lost in other industries as we become less competitive due to cap and trade. Why else would the legislation have built into it a program to retrain and to pay workers who lose their jobs due to the results of the energy bill? Answer – because they all know that this will be a huge job loss creator and they won’t get their Union friends to support it if they don’t spend billions on Union members who will lose their jobs.
Am I wrong?
Taupe is a color that defies precise definition. It is a word that refers to almost any grayish brown color. It is hard to pin down. Everyone has his or her own idea of what taupe is.
It makes me think of the word, “Hope.” As a marketing concept for the Obama Campaign, it was brilliant choice. It is a word that relates to aspirations and confidence in some future outcome. It is hard to pin down. Everyone has his or her own idea of what hope is. They know what they each hope for.
In his stump speeches, Mr. Obama often said, “Hope is not blind optimism.” Pause. “Hope is not sitting on the sidelines or shirking from a fight.” Pause. “Hope is that thing inside of us that insists, despite all the evidence to the contrary, that there is something greater inside of us.”
The key to Mr. Obama was to convince everyone that “despite all the evidence to the contrary” he could:
1. Improve our Economy;
2. End the fighting in Iraq;
3. Greatly increase government services without increasing ‘your’ taxes (only the taxes of others would go up);
4. Provide healthcare to all;
5. Solve our dependence on foreign energy sources while increasing job opportunities in new “Green Industries;”
6. Seek and give time for input from all of us prior to signing any new bill;
7. Do all these things and pass the cost on to the”rich.”
8. Etc.
As the most recent daily Rasmussen polls show, fewer people each day agree that Mr. Obama’s idea of what “HOPE” means is the same as theirs.
The Audacity is still there. The rush to be all things to all people (typical politician) is still there. The rush to do everything at once so nobody has the time to carefully investigate before voting (or before voicing opinions against any of Mr. Obama’s many proposals) is still there. The throngs of true believers is dwindling (outside of the world of those who write for, edit and publish newspapers and magazines). I think it is because promises are not being kept and people are starting to wake up to the amazing costs involved in just the actions taken to date. Do we really want a multi-trillion dollar increase to our national debt? Do we really want the automobile industry nationalized? Do we really want nationalized healthcare? Are we sure it will be the rich who get soaked for the bill or could it trickle down to us?
I hope we can move back to a country with more freedoms and fewer controls on us from our government. That is just my hope and my definition. It is not the one Mr. Obama wants us to have.
How about you?
There are three ways I can think of to view the huge government Stimulus Plan.
1. Take Rahm Emmanuel’s line “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste.” The Obama Administration is using the financial crisis (which has built up over the past 20 years or more) to grab power and nationalize the majority of the economic activity in the USA.
2. In spite of ample evidence that this is not a cure (Depression of the 30s, Japan in the 90s) the Obama Administration is hoping that with literally trillions of dollars, they will be able to manipulate the markets enough to stabilize the economy and produce the votes needed in 3+ years to ensure a second term.
3. The Obama Administration is just made up of too many dopes (or people on dope) and they actually believe they are solving the problem, not creating a bigger one (spending the country into a debt burden that may never be overcome).
What do you think?
It is now obvious to all but the ‘true believers’ that Mr. Obama’s campaign was one of real hype more than realistic hope. He made many promises that he knew he could not deliver. It is really pretty simple. Either Mr. Obama is nowhere near as smart as advertised or he was intentionally deceiving the public to get votes. In my opinion, it was intentional. He looked at the potential gain and decided that he could cover up the lies and exaggeration easier than he could run on his record.
Let’s look at the hype from his campaign so we can better recognize the hype Mr. Obama is now using to sell programs that portend to deliver on some of his more audacious ‘hopes.’ I will give just 3 simple examples of the hype and promises that I believe were things Mr. Obama never intended to do but which he knew would bring in many votes if he could get the voters to believe him.
Promise #1 – On healthcare reform, Mr. Obama said, ”That’s what I will do in bringing all parties together, not negotiating behind closed doors, but bringing all parties together, and broadcasting those negotiations on C-SPAN so that the American people can see what the choices are, because part of what we have to do is enlist the American people in this process,” To date, I have seen nothing of the negotiations broadcast on C-SPAN, and, almost all of the work on the ‘healthcare plan’ has been done behind closed doors. Do you feel like you have been part of the process?
Promise #2 – “Obama and Biden are calling for legislation that would allow withdrawals of 15% up to $10,000 from retirement accounts without penalty (although subject to the normal taxes). This would apply to withdrawals in 2008 (including retroactively) and 2009.” Not only was this not part of the ‘Stimulus Bill’, it was not part of the budget request from the White House to Congress. Mr. Obama must have forgotten this one because everything he asked for in the stimulus (plus almost every bit of pork that was asked for by Members of Congress) found its way into the legislation. Or maybe he just felt he could use the extra money and since he already had the votes that he needed, this was no longer important to him.
Promise #3 – “No political appointees in an Obama-Biden administration will be permitted to work on regulations or contracts directly and substantially related to their prior employer for two years. And no political appointee will be able to lobby the executive branch after leaving government service during the remainder of the administration.” This went out the window with about a half dozen early appointments including William Lynn, Depty. Secretary of Defense (Ratheon Lobbiest), Jocelyn Frye, appointed direcor of Policy for the First Lady’s staff (lobbied for the National Partnership for Women and Families for at least the last 6 years), and Cecilia Muñoz who is the Administration’s key liaison with the Hispanic Community (lobbiest for the La Raza for the past 10 years).
Now let’s look at some of the hype he is using to sell a Government run healthcare plan, an energy plan based on ‘cap and trade,’ and to sell an unqualified person to become an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court.
First, take the Sotomayor appointment: Mr. Obama and Ms. Sotomayor are hyping her record as and independent and tough minded judge. They are playing up her credentials as a very moderate judge. With the aid of a compliant mainstream media, anyone who points out her racist remarks or her activist decisions is labeled an extremist. Mr. Obama is playing the race card again when he continually points to her race not as the main reason he has chosen her but as the main reason people who oppose her nomination do so. Both these views (chosen for her race and opposed because of her race) are, in my view, smokescreens. If we look at her history and see what she has done in the past, not what she and Mr. Obama are saying now, we will see that she is not qualified to be a associate justice. Both her judicial activism and her belief that her race (and others) are owed reparations (by the majority) are out of synch with the requirements to be a member of The Court. James Taranto has an interesting piece at The Best of the Web Today that paints a better picture of Ms. Sotomayor than the one I see. The latest change in the hype is that, ‘you better confirm Sotomayor or you will get someone far more liberal and we have the 60 votes to get anyone through we want.’ It will be very interesting to watch Ms. Sotomayor should she become an Associate justice. Do you think she will flop back to become the liberal that her past actions suggest? Or, will she be the pure constructionist that she is pretending to be in the hearings? My bet is that she will be the liberal, activist justice that she has been as a judge.
Next, look at an Energy Plan based on a Cap and Trade system that would most penalize the productive in our society and which has very serious unintended consequences that are being written off by the Administration. Mr. Obama points to successful “cap and trade” systems in use in Europe (Emissions Trading Scheme in the EU). He brushes off the huge negative effect these policies have had on the economies of the nations affected. He also glibly says that caps will be placed and then companies and individuals will be able to buy or trade for credits to burn more fuel. Rewards will be given to those who conserve. Who decides what your cap is? If you have been consciencious about conserving and use half as much fuel as your neighbor, will you be happy when your cap is half that of your neighbor? Will it make sense when he gets rewarded for conserving now like you have for years? Cap and trade will cost jobs. Why else would the bill that passed the House already have huge benefits for those who lose their jobs due to the legislation? The only beneficiary of this Energy Plan is the government who will gain control of all economic activity and, of course, Al Gore and his friends who will profit from their energy credit trading companies. Mr. Obama can hype his energy plan all he wants. It is still one of the biggest bottles of snake oil ever sold. Take away all the government tinkering and let the market do its job. I bet the price of oil would rise sharply leading to innovations to offset those costs with conservation and alternative strategies that will come without bleeding off Billions of Dollars in administrative program costs. You would do well to read the article at prison planet about what the current offering from Mr. Obama and team will do. It is not a pretty picture and it is vastly different from the hype.
Last, consider the hype behind the sale of Mr. Obama’s Healthcare Plan. It starts with the crisis: ”42 million uninsured Americans” and goes downhill from there. The 42 million has been shown to be about 16 million (here and here among many others). That is pure lying with statistics. Does he ever mention that those people, whether 16 million or 42 million, are seen at emergency rooms and do not go without health care. They just don’t pay for it. You and I do through our healthcare insurance plans and our taxes that support medicare, etc. Like the Energy Plan, the basis of the entire Healthcare Reform Plan offered by this administration is to gain control of the industry. Yes, our healthcare system needs reforms. No, the hype from Mr. Obama and his Administration is not the solution. The result of the current plans being offered (most are still in development in back rooms, not in the light of public scrutiny) will be massive taxation, massive governmental programs, and possibly the end to what has for over 50 years been, without question, the finest medical establishment in the world.
Mr. Obama and the Democrat controlled Congress are bringing change as they promised. It is not the change they hyped. It is not the change the American People want.
Latest comments: