It's been awhile since my last post, but that doesn't mean I'm not paying attention. I learned in July that I will need to have the mitral valve in my heart replaced. The valve has caused me to have to deal with a bout of congestive heart failure, which means that I'm pretty much exhausted all the time. I'm back in Ohio to have the surgery done and now I'm waiting to be scheduled for it. The resting has done me some good. So much so that today I feel like blogging.
It's unfortunate for me that I've been sick during what has been one of the most exciting times to be a news and politics junkie. The health care debate has obviously taken center stage and nothing is about to change that. But with the death of Ted Kennedy, the Tea Parties, the White House czars, the Blue Dogs, Cash for Clunkers, stimulus confusion, comments from Osama Bin Laden, Town Hall Meetings, and uncovered terrorist plots I have been overwhelmed. At one point I told myself just to back away from it all and try to see a bigger picture instead of trying to focus on each little event or topic. I wish I hadn't done that. I found myself harboring a deep distrust of my own president.
When I looked at the direction of the country under Obama, I began to feel some sense of dread. Do I think he's the anti-christ? No, I really don't. He and I are both Americans who have a vision of what our country should stand for and how we should go about reaching our goals. And we agree on very little there. He is an advocate of a large and powerful national government that controls our lives from Washington instead of at the state and local level where the founding fathers placed most of the power, and where I believe it should reside today. It's why we send our federal tax money to Washington from our state, and Washington decides how much of it we get back, and in many cases tells the state how they have to spend large amounts of it. Not the intent of the countries founders. And when a president leans toward a powerful national government, they will build their agenda for the country around that ideal.
Back to Obama. I listened intently to both sides of the debate surrounding health care. I read as much of the bill HR3200 as I could understand. I found myself checking out the Canadian health care system, the British system, and the French system. I listened to the pros and cons of each from thier citizens, and tried to imagine that system replacing our private, employer based insurance. I came away wanting nothing to do with a government run system like these. Single payer (government) plans took away choice and quality of care in every instance. It may be cheaper at point of service, but what those people pay in taxes and quality of care is entirely too much for me.
My biggest problem with the Obama/Congress plan was the public option. It made me nervous because it could lead to the bankruptcy of the private insurance companies and leave us with a government run health system. But when Obama gave speeches on the topic, I would listen to him and be lulled into a sense of guilt for questioning his motives. His rhetoric is so smooth and reassuring. But all this unraveled when I heard him at a Town Hall Meeting in New Hampshire on August 11, as he answered a question about single payer. A man asked him if he didn't at one time support the single payer concept like the Canadian system. His response was that he had not supported any single payer plan. Following the meeting the news anchors began jumping all over the fact that as a candidate for the US Senate in 2003, Obama had indeed indicated he was for a single payer plan. In a You Tube video, Obama is heard saying, "I happen to be a proponent of a single payer health care program. I see no reason why the United States of America, the wealthiest country in the history of the world, spending 14% of it's gross national product on health care cannot provide basic health insurance to everybody. A single payer health care plan, a universal health care plan. That's what I'd like to see. But as all of you know, we may not get there immediately. Because first we have to take back the White House. We've got to take back the Senate, and we've got to take back the House." Over the years he has adjusted his opinion, but only because he feels that the transition from private based could be "disruptive" if done too quickly. How convenient for the public option to come along and pave the way.
But I got to thinking about how deceptive this kind of governance is. Tell the people one thing, while knowing full well that you have something entirely different up your sleeve. It was telling when Obama insisted that the congress have the bill on his desk by the end of July. There would have been no way the American people would hve had a chance to see what was actually in it. The congress hadn't even read it. Disgusting. But as I'm learning, not unusual.
I fear that my country is going to be a very different place in four years. Or even worse, in eight. Clearly, the spending going on by this government is unsustainable. It is recognized by our citizens as well as governments around the world who now eye our economy with suspicion. We are getting lectured by the Chinese to watch how we spend. And they own most of our debt. The Obama administration wants us all to believe that we can have health care for all, bail out banks and car companies, lots of new spending for social wefare and education programs, job training, wind and solar energy projects, expanded mass transit, and increase number of soldiers and their pay and benefits. And all of this without raising my taxes by "one dime" (I'm under $250k). This country will be so deeply in debt by 2012 that we may lose our stellar AAA rating. We'll could be in a position to have to print money to cover our debts. This leads to rapid inflation and the economy would tank in a matter of months. But it doesn't have to be that way. In 2010 we can take back the congress. And I've decided that wherever I am, in Ohio or in Florida, that is what I'm going to be working on. As everyone know, I am not much of an advocate of the GOP, since they played a vital role in getting us where we are now. But if we could get the majority of both houses of congress, then this race to the edge of the cliff is stopped. Even if we don't take them over, but make the majorities very small for democrats, we could make a difference.
And I mean we. If you are concerned about the direction of the country, and worry about what it will look like if if our current leftist government maintains control and begins to push through it's agenda, then you have some obligation to act. Follow the news, educate yourself on an issue you have an interest in, vote, campaign.
I didn't mean for this to become a soap box event. But this is what happens when my president loses my trust. Try to fool me on health care and I want to know what else you're planning to sneak past me.
Here is a quote that I have memorized and recite whenever I get tired of the fight. I hope we never get there....
If we fail to dare, if we do not try, then the next generation will harvest the fruit of our indifference; a world we did not want - a world we did not choose - but a world we could have made better, by caring more for the results of our labors. And we shall be left only with the hollow apology of T.S. Eliot: This is not what I meant at all. This is not it at all."
Thursday, September 24, 2009
Thursday, August 6, 2009
Hope Delayed...and Why That's a Good Thing
Barack Obama's dream of getting the health care bill he wanted is dead. And he can only blame himself. By pushing the House and Senate to rush the bill through committees for a floor vote before the congress left Washington for August recess, he raised some eyebrows. Mine included. With many members of congress complaining that they didn't have a chance to read or even see the bill, Obama played the "trust me" card and continued to insist that the bill be voted on. A group of conservative democrats, called Blue Dogs, decided that they weren't going to play that game. They were going to read the bill and be heard on issues like how to pay for the monstrosity. Speaker Nancy Pelosi was furious, and kept promising Obama that he would have his bill out before they left town. But it wasn't to be. And when average Americans began to question the big hurry, Pelosi and Obama realized the jig was up. They knew they were in trouble now.
My own opinion of the big hurry was that Obama didn't want the details to get out. I know I'm not alone in thinking that, and having now seen some of those details, I know why they were in such a hurry. Conservative think tanks, radio talk show hosts, bloggers, and average citizens are reading the bill and those details are getting out. And the more they get out, the less people like what they say. Polling on the healthcare legislation is going on daily, and the numbers are not good for Obama. The White House has already begun to spin some of what is in there and it is reported that the liberals in congress are scurrying to make changes to the bill already.
The biggest changes will need to be made to the "public option," which is drawing most of the wrath from the Blue Dogs and the conservatives. This was the part of the bill that the president and the liberals insisted must be included. It is the federal governments health insurance plan, paid for by you and me. The president would not sign a bill that didn't have a public insurance option. Why? Okay....a little history lesson.
When in the US Senate, Barack Obama was a proponent of a single payer health insurance plan for Americans. That would be a total takeover of the healthcare system like they have in Great Britain. The government owns the hospitals, sets pay for the medical staff, and government employees set policy about all forms of treatment. There is no private insurance because the government pays for everything. Read about British healthcare sometime. See if you think you'd like that here. Seriously, do your homework. There is still strong support for this kind of healthcare system among liberals in congress. I believe the president is among those who still support it. This is where I find my greatest dissapointment in Barack Obama.
When the president takes time to hold Town Hall meetings about his healthcare plan, he is always sure to insert one very important point. He tells his audience that if they like the insurance they have, they can keep it. He makes sure to reiterate that point, and adds that nobody is going to take your private insurance away. Nobody is going to force you to join the government plan. What he doesn't tell them is that his "public option" insurance plan is designed to bankrupt their private insurance company. He knows that the federal government has the resources to undercut the costs that insurance companies have to charge to stay in business, forcing them out of the market. So the government won't force you to give up your insurance and join theirs...the insurance company will have to give you up as they go into bankruptcy. This is why he insisted that there be a public option in the bill. Nice and clean, huh? Well he's telling the truth, isn't he?
There are plenty of problems with the healthcare bill, and you'll be hearing about them over the next few weeks. Some of them will make you want to scream. Some of you might actually decide to join one of the many protests that are taking place this month. And there will be a few that will choose to attend a Town Hall meeting with your congressman or senator. Here is where I get in trouble with my conservative freinds. I'm asking for restraint. Really. I have heard and seen stories about "mobs" showing up at these meetings, screaming, stomping, blowing whistles, and generally causing mayhem. They seem to think this is going to get them on the evening news and show the people just how much they oppose this healthcare bill. Many times they do not even allow the representitive to answer a question. Now to me, this is just stupid. If all we can do is go and be disruptive, we look like uneducated yeehaws who have no idea how to ask an intelligent question. And that's what we should be doing. Asking tough questions. Make them answer, too. And if you don't like the answer, follow up. This is how we educate the rest of America. We need to be diligent in making them face us and satisfy our discontent. Save the activism for the ballot box.
In the meantime, get online and find a copy of the healthcare bill. Study it. It's tough reading, but if you find a section thats easy to read and makes your blood boil, make that your niche issue. For me it was a section that talked about the government having access to all of my financial records, including bank accounts, for purposes of ensuring I could pay any out of pocket expenses I might incur. Um, I don't think so, Uncle Sam. And I'm sure I'll find other sections that concern me too. We have the whole month of August to read it and see what they didn't want us to see. Sorry about the delay, Barack. But this is transparency in action.
My own opinion of the big hurry was that Obama didn't want the details to get out. I know I'm not alone in thinking that, and having now seen some of those details, I know why they were in such a hurry. Conservative think tanks, radio talk show hosts, bloggers, and average citizens are reading the bill and those details are getting out. And the more they get out, the less people like what they say. Polling on the healthcare legislation is going on daily, and the numbers are not good for Obama. The White House has already begun to spin some of what is in there and it is reported that the liberals in congress are scurrying to make changes to the bill already.
The biggest changes will need to be made to the "public option," which is drawing most of the wrath from the Blue Dogs and the conservatives. This was the part of the bill that the president and the liberals insisted must be included. It is the federal governments health insurance plan, paid for by you and me. The president would not sign a bill that didn't have a public insurance option. Why? Okay....a little history lesson.
When in the US Senate, Barack Obama was a proponent of a single payer health insurance plan for Americans. That would be a total takeover of the healthcare system like they have in Great Britain. The government owns the hospitals, sets pay for the medical staff, and government employees set policy about all forms of treatment. There is no private insurance because the government pays for everything. Read about British healthcare sometime. See if you think you'd like that here. Seriously, do your homework. There is still strong support for this kind of healthcare system among liberals in congress. I believe the president is among those who still support it. This is where I find my greatest dissapointment in Barack Obama.
When the president takes time to hold Town Hall meetings about his healthcare plan, he is always sure to insert one very important point. He tells his audience that if they like the insurance they have, they can keep it. He makes sure to reiterate that point, and adds that nobody is going to take your private insurance away. Nobody is going to force you to join the government plan. What he doesn't tell them is that his "public option" insurance plan is designed to bankrupt their private insurance company. He knows that the federal government has the resources to undercut the costs that insurance companies have to charge to stay in business, forcing them out of the market. So the government won't force you to give up your insurance and join theirs...the insurance company will have to give you up as they go into bankruptcy. This is why he insisted that there be a public option in the bill. Nice and clean, huh? Well he's telling the truth, isn't he?
There are plenty of problems with the healthcare bill, and you'll be hearing about them over the next few weeks. Some of them will make you want to scream. Some of you might actually decide to join one of the many protests that are taking place this month. And there will be a few that will choose to attend a Town Hall meeting with your congressman or senator. Here is where I get in trouble with my conservative freinds. I'm asking for restraint. Really. I have heard and seen stories about "mobs" showing up at these meetings, screaming, stomping, blowing whistles, and generally causing mayhem. They seem to think this is going to get them on the evening news and show the people just how much they oppose this healthcare bill. Many times they do not even allow the representitive to answer a question. Now to me, this is just stupid. If all we can do is go and be disruptive, we look like uneducated yeehaws who have no idea how to ask an intelligent question. And that's what we should be doing. Asking tough questions. Make them answer, too. And if you don't like the answer, follow up. This is how we educate the rest of America. We need to be diligent in making them face us and satisfy our discontent. Save the activism for the ballot box.
In the meantime, get online and find a copy of the healthcare bill. Study it. It's tough reading, but if you find a section thats easy to read and makes your blood boil, make that your niche issue. For me it was a section that talked about the government having access to all of my financial records, including bank accounts, for purposes of ensuring I could pay any out of pocket expenses I might incur. Um, I don't think so, Uncle Sam. And I'm sure I'll find other sections that concern me too. We have the whole month of August to read it and see what they didn't want us to see. Sorry about the delay, Barack. But this is transparency in action.
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
Beyond Tea Parties
The big news in Washington this week has been President Obama's huge push to get his health insurance bill passed before Congress takes it's August recess. He is using much of the same retoric that was used to rush through the stimulus bill, and we can see how "urgent" that spending turned out to be. The truth is that Obama and the Democrats don't want the American people to have time to hear what's really in this bill. They must know that if we found out their real plans, we'd have the capitol surrounded with angry voters, demanding the thing be destroyed. So rush it through before the unwashed masses get a clue and let the chips fall where they may. It'll be too late for us to stop them. Rolled again.
To thier credit, the liberals have not come up for air since taking power in Washington. The pace with which they have carried out their power grab has been stunning. It's only been six months, but they have managed to take over the auto industry, the banking industry, passed a huge stimulus package, alienated our ally Israel, buddied up with socialist dictators in Latin America, and now are on the verge of getting their universal health insurance bill passed. Whew! Quite alot accomplished. In my opinion, there's just one thing wrong here. Every one of these things is harmful to America.
I was afraid that when Obama got elected, he would ram through his agenda without much resistance from the Republicans. In most cases, this is what has happened. They have watched most of this damage being done to our country with an occassional, "but...but...", but nothing of any real substance. That's why I was so relieved and excited when I first heard about "Tea Parties." They were going to be a conservative, grass roots protests and opposition to the liberal agenda that would otherwise have free reign in Washington. I made my plans to attend one in Allentown, Pa. Surely the politicians in DC would hear us loud and clear, and now we would be a force to be reckoned with. I couldn't wait.
I'm not going to be specific about what I saw at the Allentown Tea Party. I will say that it seemed typical of what happened in other small cities and towns around the country. Lots of good intentions, but not much enthusiasm for the cause. As I read the following days news accounts of Party's around the country, I was disappointed. Stories that recorded "40 or so folks turned out," or "around 200 people showed up for what looked like a small family reunion," made me wonder just what went wrong. There was serious bickering in some places as to whether politicians should be aloud to speak. In other places, the event was sponsored by a political party, driving legitimacy down. The same things happened again during Tea Party events on the 4th of July.
Hey! We're not getting anywhere like this! We're losing steam at a time that we need to be building it. Network and local coverage of Tea Party's is evaporating because we appear to be so disoraganized and, well, boring. We need to come together to figure out what we are trying to do. My understanding was that we were protesting against liberal and socialist policy coming out of Washington. But even more, to stop these policies from seeing the light of day. Instead, we're gathering together for cookouts, seeing who can come up with the wittiest sign, playing ad nauseum "I'm Proud To Be an American," and listening to politicians rail against what they're doing to us in Washington.
I, for one, would like to make the future rallies and protests a little more meaningful. I would like to see us organize a bit differently in order to be more effective with our representitives. Party's or no Party's, our voices are still not being heard. We're not getting through. When the left protests, whether here, or in a foreign land, they get results. They are heard. They rally enmasse. They get in your face. On the right, we have cookouts and sing patriotic songs. Can we learn something about protesting from the left? I say we must.
Among the things I see as needed in the future is the absolute refusal of a political party sponsorship. I don't care how much money they can put toward the cause. And it's no surprise that when I say that, I'm referring to the Republican Party. I read about Tea Party after Tea Party that allowed GOP candidates to speak at the rally. And the vast majority of them sat in the House of Representitives and voted to let George W. Bush spend us into huge deficits. And I'm talking domestic spending. Here they were at the Tea Party howling about Obama and his spending. But they glossed over the fact that they were a big part of the problem. We just gave them a campaign speech opportunity, and they took advantage of us all. This is why I am against letting politicians from any party speak at a rally.
This country needs to have a huge, loud, active opposition to Obama and his liberal congress. I want to see us move beyond the Tea Party and organize in strength and numbers that will shake the halls of Congress and the pillars of the White House. If you have the same feelings I do, then contact me at ecksbox1@gmail.com. Lets stop them before they destroy that which we have fought for, died for, and wish to pass on to our children.
To thier credit, the liberals have not come up for air since taking power in Washington. The pace with which they have carried out their power grab has been stunning. It's only been six months, but they have managed to take over the auto industry, the banking industry, passed a huge stimulus package, alienated our ally Israel, buddied up with socialist dictators in Latin America, and now are on the verge of getting their universal health insurance bill passed. Whew! Quite alot accomplished. In my opinion, there's just one thing wrong here. Every one of these things is harmful to America.
I was afraid that when Obama got elected, he would ram through his agenda without much resistance from the Republicans. In most cases, this is what has happened. They have watched most of this damage being done to our country with an occassional, "but...but...", but nothing of any real substance. That's why I was so relieved and excited when I first heard about "Tea Parties." They were going to be a conservative, grass roots protests and opposition to the liberal agenda that would otherwise have free reign in Washington. I made my plans to attend one in Allentown, Pa. Surely the politicians in DC would hear us loud and clear, and now we would be a force to be reckoned with. I couldn't wait.
I'm not going to be specific about what I saw at the Allentown Tea Party. I will say that it seemed typical of what happened in other small cities and towns around the country. Lots of good intentions, but not much enthusiasm for the cause. As I read the following days news accounts of Party's around the country, I was disappointed. Stories that recorded "40 or so folks turned out," or "around 200 people showed up for what looked like a small family reunion," made me wonder just what went wrong. There was serious bickering in some places as to whether politicians should be aloud to speak. In other places, the event was sponsored by a political party, driving legitimacy down. The same things happened again during Tea Party events on the 4th of July.
Hey! We're not getting anywhere like this! We're losing steam at a time that we need to be building it. Network and local coverage of Tea Party's is evaporating because we appear to be so disoraganized and, well, boring. We need to come together to figure out what we are trying to do. My understanding was that we were protesting against liberal and socialist policy coming out of Washington. But even more, to stop these policies from seeing the light of day. Instead, we're gathering together for cookouts, seeing who can come up with the wittiest sign, playing ad nauseum "I'm Proud To Be an American," and listening to politicians rail against what they're doing to us in Washington.
I, for one, would like to make the future rallies and protests a little more meaningful. I would like to see us organize a bit differently in order to be more effective with our representitives. Party's or no Party's, our voices are still not being heard. We're not getting through. When the left protests, whether here, or in a foreign land, they get results. They are heard. They rally enmasse. They get in your face. On the right, we have cookouts and sing patriotic songs. Can we learn something about protesting from the left? I say we must.
Among the things I see as needed in the future is the absolute refusal of a political party sponsorship. I don't care how much money they can put toward the cause. And it's no surprise that when I say that, I'm referring to the Republican Party. I read about Tea Party after Tea Party that allowed GOP candidates to speak at the rally. And the vast majority of them sat in the House of Representitives and voted to let George W. Bush spend us into huge deficits. And I'm talking domestic spending. Here they were at the Tea Party howling about Obama and his spending. But they glossed over the fact that they were a big part of the problem. We just gave them a campaign speech opportunity, and they took advantage of us all. This is why I am against letting politicians from any party speak at a rally.
This country needs to have a huge, loud, active opposition to Obama and his liberal congress. I want to see us move beyond the Tea Party and organize in strength and numbers that will shake the halls of Congress and the pillars of the White House. If you have the same feelings I do, then contact me at ecksbox1@gmail.com. Lets stop them before they destroy that which we have fought for, died for, and wish to pass on to our children.
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
National Health Care and the Age of Responsibility
No matter where you stand on the issue of National Health Care, it's coming soon in one form or another. So, I've been talking to freinds about how they would like to see it handled, and some ideas deserve some consideration. Here's one in particular that my room mate and I discussed.
If the main concern of government in this debate is getting everyone covered, then roll all of Medicaid and Medicare into the national insurance system and provide a basic coverage for all citizens. This coverage is basic, and while it's free, it has some strings attached. I'll get to those in a minute. This coverage is mainly for health maintanance, and includes visits to the doctor for routine physicals, emergency room treatment that qualifies as a true emergency, programs for smoking cessation and weight control, diabetic supplies, and other such basic medical needs. Again, this coverage is available to all citizens, regardless of status.
This would be the "public" coverage that Washington and the Obama administration keep talking about having. Any citizen who desires to purchase medical coverage over and above this level would be able to do so. Private insurance companies continue to operate primarily the same. Costs should be lower due to the government taking over paying for emergency treatment and many other common costs. Costs will also be lowered because of those "strings" I mentioned earlier. And here they are....
Part of being able to partake in the government health program is that citizens will be responsible for their own healthcare. When joining the public plan, everyone will be expected to do what is necessary to be in optimal health. If your doctor tells you that you need to stop smoking and lose 25 pounds, you will be given all the resources you need. Counseling is covered, a gym membership, specialists like nutritionists and those who will help you quit smoking are all part of the program. Then you have two years to follow through. If, at the end of two years, you return to the doctor and are found in the same condition, having made no effort to improve your health, you can be removed from the insurance rolls. Um, yeah, really.
An entire nation of citizens who are taking care of themselves can bring down the overall cost of health care. Cases of diabetes, cancer, cardio-pulmonary disease, heart disease, and osteoparosis would be reduced. And two years is certainly enough time to make some progress in ones health. But if you choose to do your own thing and not take care of yourself, why should the rest of us have to do it? We live in a society that tells itself "someone else will be responsible for me." Combine that with living under the current administrations aim to take care of every societal ill that effects us, whether self-inflicted or not. It's the "Nanny State Syndrome." This is a very expensive train wreck we're heading toward.
So in summary, I think there is a way forward. This plan would cover basic medical care. It would encourage all Americans to focus more on their own health and provide resources and incentives to do so. It offers an option to increase coverage through private insurance companies who can lower their costs. Physicians can opt out of the public program just like they can for Medicare and Medicaid or any private insurance. Patients using the public system will be encouraged to get healthier if they plan on maintaining eligibility. And those who are detemined to need more extensive treatment will have the option of obtaining the additional private insurance at any time, regardless of past medical history. There could be a private fund set up for those on the bottom rung of the economic ladder who absolutely cannot afford private insurance.
And the bill in congress that puts this in motion will include a clause that does not allow additional coverage for this group or that. This bill should contain nothing more than the parameters of coverage and be un-amendable. I know what congress would do if they were able to add to it down the road. And this is just an idea. Attainable? I don't know. It seems too simple in a time when congressional bills and laws are printed with well over a thousand pages. This could be written on 20 pages. It would take courage to put something like this in place, and I frankly don't think many in government have it anymore. They would have to ignore the unions, lobbyists, and social scientists who would insist that their constituents are getting screwed by the simplicity of the program. If they are so concerned about covering everyone, then they should be ready to sacrifice their own seats to get it done. Where's Patrick Henry when we need him?
If the main concern of government in this debate is getting everyone covered, then roll all of Medicaid and Medicare into the national insurance system and provide a basic coverage for all citizens. This coverage is basic, and while it's free, it has some strings attached. I'll get to those in a minute. This coverage is mainly for health maintanance, and includes visits to the doctor for routine physicals, emergency room treatment that qualifies as a true emergency, programs for smoking cessation and weight control, diabetic supplies, and other such basic medical needs. Again, this coverage is available to all citizens, regardless of status.
This would be the "public" coverage that Washington and the Obama administration keep talking about having. Any citizen who desires to purchase medical coverage over and above this level would be able to do so. Private insurance companies continue to operate primarily the same. Costs should be lower due to the government taking over paying for emergency treatment and many other common costs. Costs will also be lowered because of those "strings" I mentioned earlier. And here they are....
Part of being able to partake in the government health program is that citizens will be responsible for their own healthcare. When joining the public plan, everyone will be expected to do what is necessary to be in optimal health. If your doctor tells you that you need to stop smoking and lose 25 pounds, you will be given all the resources you need. Counseling is covered, a gym membership, specialists like nutritionists and those who will help you quit smoking are all part of the program. Then you have two years to follow through. If, at the end of two years, you return to the doctor and are found in the same condition, having made no effort to improve your health, you can be removed from the insurance rolls. Um, yeah, really.
An entire nation of citizens who are taking care of themselves can bring down the overall cost of health care. Cases of diabetes, cancer, cardio-pulmonary disease, heart disease, and osteoparosis would be reduced. And two years is certainly enough time to make some progress in ones health. But if you choose to do your own thing and not take care of yourself, why should the rest of us have to do it? We live in a society that tells itself "someone else will be responsible for me." Combine that with living under the current administrations aim to take care of every societal ill that effects us, whether self-inflicted or not. It's the "Nanny State Syndrome." This is a very expensive train wreck we're heading toward.
So in summary, I think there is a way forward. This plan would cover basic medical care. It would encourage all Americans to focus more on their own health and provide resources and incentives to do so. It offers an option to increase coverage through private insurance companies who can lower their costs. Physicians can opt out of the public program just like they can for Medicare and Medicaid or any private insurance. Patients using the public system will be encouraged to get healthier if they plan on maintaining eligibility. And those who are detemined to need more extensive treatment will have the option of obtaining the additional private insurance at any time, regardless of past medical history. There could be a private fund set up for those on the bottom rung of the economic ladder who absolutely cannot afford private insurance.
And the bill in congress that puts this in motion will include a clause that does not allow additional coverage for this group or that. This bill should contain nothing more than the parameters of coverage and be un-amendable. I know what congress would do if they were able to add to it down the road. And this is just an idea. Attainable? I don't know. It seems too simple in a time when congressional bills and laws are printed with well over a thousand pages. This could be written on 20 pages. It would take courage to put something like this in place, and I frankly don't think many in government have it anymore. They would have to ignore the unions, lobbyists, and social scientists who would insist that their constituents are getting screwed by the simplicity of the program. If they are so concerned about covering everyone, then they should be ready to sacrifice their own seats to get it done. Where's Patrick Henry when we need him?
Me and Sarah Palin
This week I have found that many conservatives changed the rules for being a conservative...without telling me. With the resignation of Sarah Palin as Governor of Alaska, an apparently large segment of those identifying themselves as right wingers have decided that you either love Sarah, or you're a damnable moderate RINO. Well, I take offense. I'm decidedly conservative, and I don't think Palin has what it takes to compete right now. And I'm not willing to jump on the bandwagon of whoever the "majority" of conservatives tell me to.
This has caused me some stress when dealing with my many Republican friends. I understand that Palin won many fans during the 2008 election season. She certainly worked hard to get McCain elected and it's hard to pin their loss on her. She has rabid fans on FaceBook, Twitter, MySpace and other social networking sites. She appeals to a wide swath of the electorate that see an underdog, who, like them, is fighting "the man." I would even say that I myself would like to see her prepare for a presidential run...someday. But, seriously, not 2012.
Listening to Palin make speeches reminds me of a grade school principal rallying her students to be the "bestest" they can be. She could be Sally Fields winning her Academy Award, and then saying "you like me...you really like me!" So, yes, we like you, Sarah. But you're still not ready to lead the nation. However, I think there's hope for you.
I take alot of flak for this opinion, but I really think that Republicans in 2012 must be very careful when choosing their candidate. I realize that Palin would win any popularity contest right now. But serious times require serious candidates, and Palin just isn't. We have an opportunity to stop the Obama agenda in it's tracks. But we can only win with a candidate that can articulate our vision for the country in clear and forceful tones. No happy-go-lucky platitudes will get it done in 2012.
I wish I could give credit to whoever wrote this earlier in the week. They laid out a plan for Palin to consider if she wants to seek the presidency, and I think it's right on target. It goes like this...
In 2010, Alaska's only House seat is open. Run for it. Work hard and get a grasp on national issues. Formulate opinions and action plans. Then, in 2016, go for the Senate seat of Alaska's Democrat Senator Begich. Continue to learn and gain some more experience in world affairs. this would prepare you to run for president in 2020. Sounds like a long time, but it's really not. You will only be 56 years old and will have a better and rounder understanding of what the nation and world needs.
So I'm certainly not hoping Sarah Palin disappears. But I am hoping she moves forward cautiously and puts "country first." Show me you're serious and work for it, Sarah, don't just expect it. This will certainly mean swallowing your pride and perhaps working to elect others who can keep the seat warm for you. And I'm all for that.
This has caused me some stress when dealing with my many Republican friends. I understand that Palin won many fans during the 2008 election season. She certainly worked hard to get McCain elected and it's hard to pin their loss on her. She has rabid fans on FaceBook, Twitter, MySpace and other social networking sites. She appeals to a wide swath of the electorate that see an underdog, who, like them, is fighting "the man." I would even say that I myself would like to see her prepare for a presidential run...someday. But, seriously, not 2012.
Listening to Palin make speeches reminds me of a grade school principal rallying her students to be the "bestest" they can be. She could be Sally Fields winning her Academy Award, and then saying "you like me...you really like me!" So, yes, we like you, Sarah. But you're still not ready to lead the nation. However, I think there's hope for you.
I take alot of flak for this opinion, but I really think that Republicans in 2012 must be very careful when choosing their candidate. I realize that Palin would win any popularity contest right now. But serious times require serious candidates, and Palin just isn't. We have an opportunity to stop the Obama agenda in it's tracks. But we can only win with a candidate that can articulate our vision for the country in clear and forceful tones. No happy-go-lucky platitudes will get it done in 2012.
I wish I could give credit to whoever wrote this earlier in the week. They laid out a plan for Palin to consider if she wants to seek the presidency, and I think it's right on target. It goes like this...
In 2010, Alaska's only House seat is open. Run for it. Work hard and get a grasp on national issues. Formulate opinions and action plans. Then, in 2016, go for the Senate seat of Alaska's Democrat Senator Begich. Continue to learn and gain some more experience in world affairs. this would prepare you to run for president in 2020. Sounds like a long time, but it's really not. You will only be 56 years old and will have a better and rounder understanding of what the nation and world needs.
So I'm certainly not hoping Sarah Palin disappears. But I am hoping she moves forward cautiously and puts "country first." Show me you're serious and work for it, Sarah, don't just expect it. This will certainly mean swallowing your pride and perhaps working to elect others who can keep the seat warm for you. And I'm all for that.
Wednesday, July 1, 2009
Women School Obama on Leadership...But Too Late For Honduras.
Over the last two weeks, when things were going to hell in a handbasket in Iran, President Obama has been schooled by a couple of females. First, he came out late and little on the protesting in the streets of Tehran. As people died confronting Iran's corrupt leadership, Obama was meek and non-commital on supporting them. Meanwhile, in Germany, President Angela Merkel was front and center, calling for new elections and condemning what was an obviously rigged vote in the face of angering some of her European colleagues. Merkel's strong response stood in contrast to Obama's timid mumblings about the Iranian governments treatment of the protesters. He said nothing about how obvious it was that the recent elections were clearly stolen by the ruling clerics.
It wasn't until Merkel came to Washington last week that Obama followed her lead in making a stronger statement about how "the world is watching" the events in Iran. No condemnation, no verbage regarding specific voting irregularities. Just a whiny "stop the violence, please" kind of statement.
Fox News reports that Merkel wasn't the only lady who pushed Obama to get tougher on Iran. Hillary Clinton reportedly had been "advocating a stronger U.S. response", but was rebuffed by the president. And then when he did decide to use tougher language, he didn't notify Clinton, who was caught off guard by the statement.
This is why Latin American tinpot dictators are now flexing their muscles. They see the American President as someone they can ignore. And they got a great example of Obama's ideation on their region this week. When the coup occured in Honduras, and the legally elected President was exiled, it was immediately condemned by world leaders. But all President Obama could muster was that he was "deeply concerned." He doesn't want to ruffle any feathers down there.
Here you had a country that has a constitution. In that constitution its states that the president is only allowed to serve one four-year term. It also said that if the citizens wanted to change that law, it could call a referendum through it's congress. In this case, the president, Mel Zelaya, decided that he wanted to be president longer than four years. So he decided to have his own little election. Skipping the whole constitutional referendum thing, he called on his Venezuelan buddy, Hugo Chavez, to send him some ballots. Chavez knows a thing or two about becoming a lifelong dictator. He tried to force this on his people recently, and was told to forget it. But he was willing to put his freind Zelaya in a position to make it work in Honduras.
The Honduran Supreme Court told Zelaya that his vote would be unconstitutional. Zelaya told the military to prepare to have the vote anyway, and they have alot to do with distributing ballots in Honduras. The Supreme Court demanded that the military refuse the presidential order. Zilaya decided that he could win the majority of soldiers over, and he ordered them to break in and steal the ballots, which had been locked away in a military warehouse. A small group did just that, and began distributing the ballots to anyone who wanted one. This was clearly against the constitution of the country, and in the end Mr. Zelaya was sent packing.
Obama (with the backing of Hillary at the State Department) is now demanding that Zelaya be returned to power. They are in strange company on this. The Hondurans say that they are following their constitution, as is the Supreme Court and Congress. And they are right. Why is our country joining Chavez and a host of others, including the Castro's in Cuba, in condemning a countries effort to follow it's constitution? They are insisting that "military coups" are not how to deal with problems like these. They call it barbaric. But this was not a military coup. It was the removal of a law breaker.
If they want to have Zelaya back in Honduras, it should be done by way of a trial. He can return to face the court system and the people who he tried to rule by fiat. Sorry, Hugo, Fidel, Raul, Daniel, and, well, Barack. This time a constitution will stand strong. It is an effort to prevent a president from becoming a dictator. Don't laugh, America. We may be next.
It wasn't until Merkel came to Washington last week that Obama followed her lead in making a stronger statement about how "the world is watching" the events in Iran. No condemnation, no verbage regarding specific voting irregularities. Just a whiny "stop the violence, please" kind of statement.
Fox News reports that Merkel wasn't the only lady who pushed Obama to get tougher on Iran. Hillary Clinton reportedly had been "advocating a stronger U.S. response", but was rebuffed by the president. And then when he did decide to use tougher language, he didn't notify Clinton, who was caught off guard by the statement.
This is why Latin American tinpot dictators are now flexing their muscles. They see the American President as someone they can ignore. And they got a great example of Obama's ideation on their region this week. When the coup occured in Honduras, and the legally elected President was exiled, it was immediately condemned by world leaders. But all President Obama could muster was that he was "deeply concerned." He doesn't want to ruffle any feathers down there.
Here you had a country that has a constitution. In that constitution its states that the president is only allowed to serve one four-year term. It also said that if the citizens wanted to change that law, it could call a referendum through it's congress. In this case, the president, Mel Zelaya, decided that he wanted to be president longer than four years. So he decided to have his own little election. Skipping the whole constitutional referendum thing, he called on his Venezuelan buddy, Hugo Chavez, to send him some ballots. Chavez knows a thing or two about becoming a lifelong dictator. He tried to force this on his people recently, and was told to forget it. But he was willing to put his freind Zelaya in a position to make it work in Honduras.
The Honduran Supreme Court told Zelaya that his vote would be unconstitutional. Zelaya told the military to prepare to have the vote anyway, and they have alot to do with distributing ballots in Honduras. The Supreme Court demanded that the military refuse the presidential order. Zilaya decided that he could win the majority of soldiers over, and he ordered them to break in and steal the ballots, which had been locked away in a military warehouse. A small group did just that, and began distributing the ballots to anyone who wanted one. This was clearly against the constitution of the country, and in the end Mr. Zelaya was sent packing.
Obama (with the backing of Hillary at the State Department) is now demanding that Zelaya be returned to power. They are in strange company on this. The Hondurans say that they are following their constitution, as is the Supreme Court and Congress. And they are right. Why is our country joining Chavez and a host of others, including the Castro's in Cuba, in condemning a countries effort to follow it's constitution? They are insisting that "military coups" are not how to deal with problems like these. They call it barbaric. But this was not a military coup. It was the removal of a law breaker.
If they want to have Zelaya back in Honduras, it should be done by way of a trial. He can return to face the court system and the people who he tried to rule by fiat. Sorry, Hugo, Fidel, Raul, Daniel, and, well, Barack. This time a constitution will stand strong. It is an effort to prevent a president from becoming a dictator. Don't laugh, America. We may be next.
Friday, June 26, 2009
Conservatives vs. Republicans: A History
As a conservative, I'm in a tremendous amount of pain as I watch the Democrats tear down my country. And, like many others, I'm asking how we could have allowed this to happen. It's a long story, actually. I've given some thought to it, and I've come to a startling conclusion. At least it's startling to me. This may come as no suprise to some, but I lay the blame at the feet of the Republican Party itself. I have concluded that Barack Hussien Obama can thank one man for his election. That man is Lee Harvey Oswald. Stay with me here....
In November 1963, it was becoming clear that John Kennedy may be vulnerable to a strong Republican candidate in 1964. That was the reason he went to Dallas in the first place, to shore up support in the south where he was weakest. The Republicans were chomping at the bit to take him on, believing that they could use a growing conservative movement to beat Kennedy. The White House had a long list of southern visits scheduled for the president, and he had just been to Tampa, Florida before visiting cities in Texas. The conventional wisdom was that the November elections would be a re-visit of the close race Kennedy and Nixon ran four years earlier, but the south would come through for a Republican this time.
With Kennedy's assassination at the hands of the "lone nut," Oswald, Lyndon Johnson was poised to pop the Republicans bubble. As a southerner, he took some of the wind out of the
Republican strategy. The party looked to Richard Nixon to run again. Nixon was considered a moderate in the party, and that's what the Republican "establishment" was looking for. Nixon passed on running again, so the party promoted the candidacy of New York Gov. Nelson Rockefeller, another moderate. But the conservative wing of the party rallied behind Arizona Sen. Barry Goldwater, a champion of smaller government, lower taxes, and states rights. The primaries proved that both men had strong support in their respective corners of the party, but it looked like the issue wouldn't be decided until they faced off at the national convention. It was a Rockefeller family matter that decided the race. He had recently married a divorced woman, and there were rumors that he had been having an affair with her, prompting a quick divorce and marriage to Rockefeller. While neck and neck going into the final primary in California, Rockefellers wife gave birth to Nelson Rockefeller Jr. three days before the vote, and that opened the adultry issue all over again. Goldwater won, and went to the convention with the delegates to win the nomination. But the Establishment Republicans were not going down without a fight, and the convention turned nasty. Goldwater survived, only to be crushed by Johnson. He was never able to get the support of his vanquished foes. Rockefeller and his moderates sat silently while Johnson destroyed Goldwaters reputation.
Four years later, Johnson was forced out of running for re-election because he was so unpopular in escalating the war in Viet Nam and having no plan to end it. Richard Nixon returned to the stage in 1968 and was the front runner from the start. With the Democrats in disarray following the assassination of Robert Kennedy during the primaries, and war protesters outside their Chicago convention, Nixon looked like a winner. The opposition came in the person of Vice-President Hubert Humphrey. Nixon was ready this time, and with superior campaign orginization, he narrowly beat Humphrey. Again, Nixon was considered a moderate, and his main rival had been conservative California Gov. Ronald Reagan. Conservatives, not content to sit on their hands, flocked to the cause of Alabama Gov. George Wallace. Wallace was percieved by many to be racist due to his opposition to segregation in public schools. He insisted that this opposition was more about states rights to decide these issues, rather than the federal government forcing the states hand in deciding such things. Nearly ten million voters pulled the lever for Wallace, making him the first third party candidate to win a state in a national election.
The election of 1972 saw Nixon roll over liberal S. Dakota Sen. George McGovern. The Republican Party was riding high, the Establishment had the power to crush any conservative candidate who threatened to challenge the status quo. But things got messy after 1973, when the Watergate burglary took center stage in American politics. Nixon's vice-president, Spiro Agnew resigned amidst charges that he had accepted bribes in excess of $100,000. Nixon, who was already feeling the heat of the Watergate investigation, calculated that if he chose someone that would be unacceptable as president to be his vice-president, he would never be impeached. So he chose a man that he considered dull and "not very smart," Gerald Ford. The Republican Establishment assured him that the people would never get rid of him now. He was safe.
Well, not so much. Nixon is out in disgrace in 1974 and Ford is President. By 1976, the party decides that the moderate Ford should be in good shape for re-election, and works to help him defeat the increasingly popular Ronald Reagan in the primaries. Reagan, again the conservative choice, arrived at the convention within striking distance of Ford. But, in what I consider his biggest gaffe, he chose Pa. Sen. Richard Schweiker, a liberal, as his running mate. Why? To appease the moderates. Bad move for Reagan. It caused the conservatives, who had brought him this far, to bolt and throw their votes behind a New York senator who had not even run. Republican Party 4, Conservatives 0.
Ford was a likable guy, who filled in nicely. He did nothing to help or hurt himself as president. he did get into some trouble by saying silly things during the presidential debate, namely that Eastern Europe was not under Soviet domination at the time. That pretty much wrapped the election. Jimmy Carter dispatched Ford by being a "Washington outsider." Republicans wandered around scratching their heads and wondering how a peanut farmer from Georgia could oust a sitting president. By 1980, Ronald Reagan knew the answer to that, and put together a strategy to build a coalition that the party could not block. He went into the primaries with such momentum that the moderates, who supported George H.W. Bush, found themselves overwhelmed. While Bush won a few primaries, Reagan swept to the nomination. Carter had basically forfeited the office by being inept and allowing the economy to tank, the Iranians to hold Americans hostage at our embassy, watching interest rates climb to over 20%, and blaming all our ills on...us! Reagan gave him an electoral beating, and suddenly the Republican Party was in love with him.
Reagan gave way to his vice-president after eight successful years that saw him win re-election in 1984, this time putting a whipping on the very liberal Walter Mondale. Everybody knew that Bush was going to be "Reagan Lite", but the party gathered behind him and on he went to win the nomination. This time the conservatives had supported N.Y. Congressman Jack Kemp, who they felt would be closer to Reagan in economic policy than Bush. Bush then faced a political light-weight in Massachusetts Gov. Mike Dukakis, and beats him and the democrats senseless. It looks good for the Republicans, and the party is nearly fearless. They have their moderate president and now they go for the congress.
Bush goes back on a campaign promise not to raise taxes, thus ending any chance he has at a second term. The Establishment is scrambling, because they fear that the democrats will be swept into power. After all, they were the ones who insisted that Bush raise those taxes. They got enough moderates to see things their way, and the conservatives were shut out again. Now comes William Jefferson Clinton, and it really looks bleak. He took Bush to task for breaking the tax pledge and being out of touch with average Americans. Conservatives, for some of the same reasons, rally behind political commentator Patrick Buchanan. A surprise entry by third party candidate Ross Perot shook things up considerably. Perot touched on the disappointment members of both parties felt about the choices they had. He argued that it was time to "clean out the barn" in Washington, and millions of Americans agreed. Clinton squeaked out a win and we all thought we'd heard the end of the Bush's.
The election of 1996 was when I personally decided that the Republican Party was a mess. I have been one to say that the voters should have complete control over who a party nominates. During the '96 election, I heard party leaders start saying that Kansas senator and former vice-presidential nominee Bob Dole "deserved" the nomination, and I nearly screamed. It didn't stop there. More and more of the party leadership got behind Dole, with the phrase "he has earned it" being espoused. I don't care who you are, you have earned nothing unless you have fought for it. Bob Dole was a great guy. But we had a very popular and relatively young Clinton in office, and throwing a 70-year old senator who had a reputation for being boring and crotchety was hardly the best we could do. But the Party says Bob deserves it, and throws it's support behind him. There were several other candidates that began to prove themselves capable money raisers and campaigners, but the decision had been made. Dole, a moderate, chose Jack Kemp as his VP, but to no avail. The two were trounced by Clinton.
But a storm had been brewing in the country. While the party had made a poor choice in pushing Dole on the voters, it had cultivated some strong congressional candidates. Republicans had taken over the House of Representitives for the first time in decades, lead by southern conservatives. Just as Clinton was preparing to take the country to the left, Newt Gingrich and his crew put the brakes on and began challenging the presidents agenda. National health insurance, tax hikes, and a larger federal deficit were all put on hold. Conservatives were pretty sure the 2000 election would be their next chance at holding the White House. They were wrong again.
Well, here we are. After that little trip down memery lane, we're back to something most of us remember pretty well. We watched the Republicans lick their chops and set their sights on power. All that stood in the way was Vice-President Al Gore. There was no shortage of republicans standing in line for the race. Once again there would be the Establishment candidate, and in this case it would be George W. Bush, son of the former president. The party leadership got together and made the decision that this would be the nominee before any votes had been cast. All of the old Bush cabinet came out for him, as did much of the GOP congressional leadership. Conservatives were leary, again, and chose to follow Arizona Sen. John McCain, who was then considered to be more conservative than Bush. The primaries got ugly when Bush ran a push poll in South Carolina indicating that the child McCain adopted from Bangladesh was his own, born out of wedlock. The party looked the other way and Bush successfully slowed the McCain surge that had been building. He went on to win the nomination, and then lost to Gore. Or at least 500,000 more people voted for Gore than Bush, but....oh, nevermind.
Bush would have likely been a quiet and slightly liberal president, if not for the attacks of September 11, 2001. But his response to that day gave him unprecidented popularity, and he soon found himself unable to do any wrong. He began hosting Ted Kennedy to talk about education, and other liberals also found the White House door mysteriously open to them. Bush was busy growing the deficit and fighting a war that became increasingly unpopular, but the party was happy to let him go against nearly everything the conservative wing supported. The "No Child Left Behind" bill was written by Kennedy and Bush gladly signed it, snubbing his "base" in the process. A new Medicare prescription bill was passed without conservative support, and the race to explode the budget deficit was on. And explode it did. Let's see, where does that leave the score?
Republicans 8 Conservatives 2
Bush pulled off an upset by beating back challenger John Kerry in 2004. Not by being conservative, but by being less liberal than Kerry. It may have been the party's last hurrah for some time. Now, in 2009, the Republicans are again scratching their collective heads wondering how the election of 2008 could have happened. The moderate Bush hands off to the moderate McCain in 2008. The party decided that McCain had "earned it" and threw their full support behind him, snubbing conservatives Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee, Ron Paul, Fred Thompson and Duncan Hunter. Liberal candidates Rudy Guliani and Sam Brownback fell off the radar screen after a few primaries. The party got their man the nomination by allowing early primary states to throw open the Republican balloting, thus letting anyone vote in the primary, regardless of party affiliation. Plenty of democrats did just that, and voted for McCain. The republican establishment chuckled and said that the democrats voted for McCain because he was an attractive candidate. The truth was that they were doing whatever they could to have Republicans nominate the weakest candidate possible. And they went ahead and did just that. Obama went on to crush McCain.
So, it really all started on that November day in 1963 when a disgruntled 24 year old punk took history into his own hands. Welcome to the White House, President Obama. The next time you stare at that portrait of JFK, you should thank your lucky stars.
In November 1963, it was becoming clear that John Kennedy may be vulnerable to a strong Republican candidate in 1964. That was the reason he went to Dallas in the first place, to shore up support in the south where he was weakest. The Republicans were chomping at the bit to take him on, believing that they could use a growing conservative movement to beat Kennedy. The White House had a long list of southern visits scheduled for the president, and he had just been to Tampa, Florida before visiting cities in Texas. The conventional wisdom was that the November elections would be a re-visit of the close race Kennedy and Nixon ran four years earlier, but the south would come through for a Republican this time.
With Kennedy's assassination at the hands of the "lone nut," Oswald, Lyndon Johnson was poised to pop the Republicans bubble. As a southerner, he took some of the wind out of the
Republican strategy. The party looked to Richard Nixon to run again. Nixon was considered a moderate in the party, and that's what the Republican "establishment" was looking for. Nixon passed on running again, so the party promoted the candidacy of New York Gov. Nelson Rockefeller, another moderate. But the conservative wing of the party rallied behind Arizona Sen. Barry Goldwater, a champion of smaller government, lower taxes, and states rights. The primaries proved that both men had strong support in their respective corners of the party, but it looked like the issue wouldn't be decided until they faced off at the national convention. It was a Rockefeller family matter that decided the race. He had recently married a divorced woman, and there were rumors that he had been having an affair with her, prompting a quick divorce and marriage to Rockefeller. While neck and neck going into the final primary in California, Rockefellers wife gave birth to Nelson Rockefeller Jr. three days before the vote, and that opened the adultry issue all over again. Goldwater won, and went to the convention with the delegates to win the nomination. But the Establishment Republicans were not going down without a fight, and the convention turned nasty. Goldwater survived, only to be crushed by Johnson. He was never able to get the support of his vanquished foes. Rockefeller and his moderates sat silently while Johnson destroyed Goldwaters reputation.
Four years later, Johnson was forced out of running for re-election because he was so unpopular in escalating the war in Viet Nam and having no plan to end it. Richard Nixon returned to the stage in 1968 and was the front runner from the start. With the Democrats in disarray following the assassination of Robert Kennedy during the primaries, and war protesters outside their Chicago convention, Nixon looked like a winner. The opposition came in the person of Vice-President Hubert Humphrey. Nixon was ready this time, and with superior campaign orginization, he narrowly beat Humphrey. Again, Nixon was considered a moderate, and his main rival had been conservative California Gov. Ronald Reagan. Conservatives, not content to sit on their hands, flocked to the cause of Alabama Gov. George Wallace. Wallace was percieved by many to be racist due to his opposition to segregation in public schools. He insisted that this opposition was more about states rights to decide these issues, rather than the federal government forcing the states hand in deciding such things. Nearly ten million voters pulled the lever for Wallace, making him the first third party candidate to win a state in a national election.
The election of 1972 saw Nixon roll over liberal S. Dakota Sen. George McGovern. The Republican Party was riding high, the Establishment had the power to crush any conservative candidate who threatened to challenge the status quo. But things got messy after 1973, when the Watergate burglary took center stage in American politics. Nixon's vice-president, Spiro Agnew resigned amidst charges that he had accepted bribes in excess of $100,000. Nixon, who was already feeling the heat of the Watergate investigation, calculated that if he chose someone that would be unacceptable as president to be his vice-president, he would never be impeached. So he chose a man that he considered dull and "not very smart," Gerald Ford. The Republican Establishment assured him that the people would never get rid of him now. He was safe.
Well, not so much. Nixon is out in disgrace in 1974 and Ford is President. By 1976, the party decides that the moderate Ford should be in good shape for re-election, and works to help him defeat the increasingly popular Ronald Reagan in the primaries. Reagan, again the conservative choice, arrived at the convention within striking distance of Ford. But, in what I consider his biggest gaffe, he chose Pa. Sen. Richard Schweiker, a liberal, as his running mate. Why? To appease the moderates. Bad move for Reagan. It caused the conservatives, who had brought him this far, to bolt and throw their votes behind a New York senator who had not even run. Republican Party 4, Conservatives 0.
Ford was a likable guy, who filled in nicely. He did nothing to help or hurt himself as president. he did get into some trouble by saying silly things during the presidential debate, namely that Eastern Europe was not under Soviet domination at the time. That pretty much wrapped the election. Jimmy Carter dispatched Ford by being a "Washington outsider." Republicans wandered around scratching their heads and wondering how a peanut farmer from Georgia could oust a sitting president. By 1980, Ronald Reagan knew the answer to that, and put together a strategy to build a coalition that the party could not block. He went into the primaries with such momentum that the moderates, who supported George H.W. Bush, found themselves overwhelmed. While Bush won a few primaries, Reagan swept to the nomination. Carter had basically forfeited the office by being inept and allowing the economy to tank, the Iranians to hold Americans hostage at our embassy, watching interest rates climb to over 20%, and blaming all our ills on...us! Reagan gave him an electoral beating, and suddenly the Republican Party was in love with him.
Reagan gave way to his vice-president after eight successful years that saw him win re-election in 1984, this time putting a whipping on the very liberal Walter Mondale. Everybody knew that Bush was going to be "Reagan Lite", but the party gathered behind him and on he went to win the nomination. This time the conservatives had supported N.Y. Congressman Jack Kemp, who they felt would be closer to Reagan in economic policy than Bush. Bush then faced a political light-weight in Massachusetts Gov. Mike Dukakis, and beats him and the democrats senseless. It looks good for the Republicans, and the party is nearly fearless. They have their moderate president and now they go for the congress.
Bush goes back on a campaign promise not to raise taxes, thus ending any chance he has at a second term. The Establishment is scrambling, because they fear that the democrats will be swept into power. After all, they were the ones who insisted that Bush raise those taxes. They got enough moderates to see things their way, and the conservatives were shut out again. Now comes William Jefferson Clinton, and it really looks bleak. He took Bush to task for breaking the tax pledge and being out of touch with average Americans. Conservatives, for some of the same reasons, rally behind political commentator Patrick Buchanan. A surprise entry by third party candidate Ross Perot shook things up considerably. Perot touched on the disappointment members of both parties felt about the choices they had. He argued that it was time to "clean out the barn" in Washington, and millions of Americans agreed. Clinton squeaked out a win and we all thought we'd heard the end of the Bush's.
The election of 1996 was when I personally decided that the Republican Party was a mess. I have been one to say that the voters should have complete control over who a party nominates. During the '96 election, I heard party leaders start saying that Kansas senator and former vice-presidential nominee Bob Dole "deserved" the nomination, and I nearly screamed. It didn't stop there. More and more of the party leadership got behind Dole, with the phrase "he has earned it" being espoused. I don't care who you are, you have earned nothing unless you have fought for it. Bob Dole was a great guy. But we had a very popular and relatively young Clinton in office, and throwing a 70-year old senator who had a reputation for being boring and crotchety was hardly the best we could do. But the Party says Bob deserves it, and throws it's support behind him. There were several other candidates that began to prove themselves capable money raisers and campaigners, but the decision had been made. Dole, a moderate, chose Jack Kemp as his VP, but to no avail. The two were trounced by Clinton.
But a storm had been brewing in the country. While the party had made a poor choice in pushing Dole on the voters, it had cultivated some strong congressional candidates. Republicans had taken over the House of Representitives for the first time in decades, lead by southern conservatives. Just as Clinton was preparing to take the country to the left, Newt Gingrich and his crew put the brakes on and began challenging the presidents agenda. National health insurance, tax hikes, and a larger federal deficit were all put on hold. Conservatives were pretty sure the 2000 election would be their next chance at holding the White House. They were wrong again.
Well, here we are. After that little trip down memery lane, we're back to something most of us remember pretty well. We watched the Republicans lick their chops and set their sights on power. All that stood in the way was Vice-President Al Gore. There was no shortage of republicans standing in line for the race. Once again there would be the Establishment candidate, and in this case it would be George W. Bush, son of the former president. The party leadership got together and made the decision that this would be the nominee before any votes had been cast. All of the old Bush cabinet came out for him, as did much of the GOP congressional leadership. Conservatives were leary, again, and chose to follow Arizona Sen. John McCain, who was then considered to be more conservative than Bush. The primaries got ugly when Bush ran a push poll in South Carolina indicating that the child McCain adopted from Bangladesh was his own, born out of wedlock. The party looked the other way and Bush successfully slowed the McCain surge that had been building. He went on to win the nomination, and then lost to Gore. Or at least 500,000 more people voted for Gore than Bush, but....oh, nevermind.
Bush would have likely been a quiet and slightly liberal president, if not for the attacks of September 11, 2001. But his response to that day gave him unprecidented popularity, and he soon found himself unable to do any wrong. He began hosting Ted Kennedy to talk about education, and other liberals also found the White House door mysteriously open to them. Bush was busy growing the deficit and fighting a war that became increasingly unpopular, but the party was happy to let him go against nearly everything the conservative wing supported. The "No Child Left Behind" bill was written by Kennedy and Bush gladly signed it, snubbing his "base" in the process. A new Medicare prescription bill was passed without conservative support, and the race to explode the budget deficit was on. And explode it did. Let's see, where does that leave the score?
Republicans 8 Conservatives 2
Bush pulled off an upset by beating back challenger John Kerry in 2004. Not by being conservative, but by being less liberal than Kerry. It may have been the party's last hurrah for some time. Now, in 2009, the Republicans are again scratching their collective heads wondering how the election of 2008 could have happened. The moderate Bush hands off to the moderate McCain in 2008. The party decided that McCain had "earned it" and threw their full support behind him, snubbing conservatives Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee, Ron Paul, Fred Thompson and Duncan Hunter. Liberal candidates Rudy Guliani and Sam Brownback fell off the radar screen after a few primaries. The party got their man the nomination by allowing early primary states to throw open the Republican balloting, thus letting anyone vote in the primary, regardless of party affiliation. Plenty of democrats did just that, and voted for McCain. The republican establishment chuckled and said that the democrats voted for McCain because he was an attractive candidate. The truth was that they were doing whatever they could to have Republicans nominate the weakest candidate possible. And they went ahead and did just that. Obama went on to crush McCain.
So, it really all started on that November day in 1963 when a disgruntled 24 year old punk took history into his own hands. Welcome to the White House, President Obama. The next time you stare at that portrait of JFK, you should thank your lucky stars.
Sunday, June 21, 2009
W's Legacy Finds It's Footing
I've never been a big George W. Bush fan. He always appeared to be a puppet of those who he surrounded himself with. His dad's buddies filled the important positions in government, especially in offices of the State and Defense Departments. He never seemed to have the intellect to undertand the compexities of the geopolitical world. Nice guy. Kind of a good ol' boy who would seem right at home at the neighborhood country bar, drinking a Budweiser and talking about NASCAR.
My bigger problem with him in the early days, was that he seemed eager to go after Saddam Hussein, the thug who apparently had planned an assassination attempt on Bush's father when he visited the Middle East some years before. When he decided we would fight the war on terror on Iraqi soil, I protested that we were chasing the wrong enemy. We knew who was behind the 9/11 attacks, and it wasn't Saddam Hussein. Why were we letting Bin Laden off the hook? I still have questions about this today, and I still feel vengeance had something to do with it.
But today, as I watch the unfolding drama in Iran, I find myself looking back at the Bush agenda in the Middle East. Remove a vicious dictator, and bring freedom and democracy to the people of Iraq. For the most part this has been successful. Although things remain shaky on the ground in Iraq, who can forget the purple fingers jutting in the air as millions of Iraqi's went to the polls? The scene was witnessed by billions of us around the world. As a result, we have seen significant change around the region. In Libya, Ghaddafi has become a legitimate player and brought his nation into the 21st century. Hezbollah is struggling to maintain support in Lebanon, and the Syrians have gone home altogether.
Well, guess who's been watching all this? The Iranian people. And they have decided they want some. It's going to be a tough road for them, but they are on the march. And I find myself looking back and realizing that this is what Bush was looking for when he took after Saddam. A platform. Somewhere for freedom to take wings in this part of the world. Freedom is a concept, not something you can hold in your hand. It's something that grows in your heart, and the Iranians are telling the rest of the world that their hearts are bursting.
My bigger problem with him in the early days, was that he seemed eager to go after Saddam Hussein, the thug who apparently had planned an assassination attempt on Bush's father when he visited the Middle East some years before. When he decided we would fight the war on terror on Iraqi soil, I protested that we were chasing the wrong enemy. We knew who was behind the 9/11 attacks, and it wasn't Saddam Hussein. Why were we letting Bin Laden off the hook? I still have questions about this today, and I still feel vengeance had something to do with it.
But today, as I watch the unfolding drama in Iran, I find myself looking back at the Bush agenda in the Middle East. Remove a vicious dictator, and bring freedom and democracy to the people of Iraq. For the most part this has been successful. Although things remain shaky on the ground in Iraq, who can forget the purple fingers jutting in the air as millions of Iraqi's went to the polls? The scene was witnessed by billions of us around the world. As a result, we have seen significant change around the region. In Libya, Ghaddafi has become a legitimate player and brought his nation into the 21st century. Hezbollah is struggling to maintain support in Lebanon, and the Syrians have gone home altogether.
Well, guess who's been watching all this? The Iranian people. And they have decided they want some. It's going to be a tough road for them, but they are on the march. And I find myself looking back and realizing that this is what Bush was looking for when he took after Saddam. A platform. Somewhere for freedom to take wings in this part of the world. Freedom is a concept, not something you can hold in your hand. It's something that grows in your heart, and the Iranians are telling the rest of the world that their hearts are bursting.
Saturday, June 20, 2009
The Wisdom Of Obama's Delay on Iran
There has been alot of posturing on the right regarding President Obama's slow response to the upheaval in Iran. You won't find much support for the president on my pages, but in this case, I find myself being in agreement with him. I think that the administration has acted wisely in this instance.
One goal of our middle east policy must be to allow any nations citizens the right to choose their own government, regardless of it's opinion of the U.S. or it's cooperation with us. We should be seen in the world as a people and government to be emulated, and that is the case with the Iranian people. They may have elected the opposition to the ruling class, and put themselves by danger doing so. What we must do as Americans, is allow them to voice their anger and frustration in the streets without giving the government any reason to crack down on them any harder than they are now. If the U.S. were to throw it's public support behind the protesters, then Khameni and the ayahtollahs can claim external influence on the demonstrations and begin a show of force that they could say was in response to our interference.
Today the president made a statement that allowed him to walk a thin line that is more PR than statesmanship. His comments were directed to the ruling Ayatollahs, requesting that they stop using deadly force in dealing with the protesters, who are legitimately voicing their opposition to an obviously rigged national election. The statement was directed at the governments unbalanced repsonse to what is happening in the streets of Iran. It did not address the election or the will of the rulers, but it allowed the U.S. to let the protesters know we are paying attention.
In addition, I want to say how moved I have been by the reports of ordinary Americans using the social networking system on the internet to keep informed of events on the streets of Tehran. It has been used as well to send support to those who are risking their lives. If you haven't had an opportunity to do so, I am urging everyone to use Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, and MySpace to send a message to the Iranian people that we are watching, and supporting their moment in the sun.
One goal of our middle east policy must be to allow any nations citizens the right to choose their own government, regardless of it's opinion of the U.S. or it's cooperation with us. We should be seen in the world as a people and government to be emulated, and that is the case with the Iranian people. They may have elected the opposition to the ruling class, and put themselves by danger doing so. What we must do as Americans, is allow them to voice their anger and frustration in the streets without giving the government any reason to crack down on them any harder than they are now. If the U.S. were to throw it's public support behind the protesters, then Khameni and the ayahtollahs can claim external influence on the demonstrations and begin a show of force that they could say was in response to our interference.
Today the president made a statement that allowed him to walk a thin line that is more PR than statesmanship. His comments were directed to the ruling Ayatollahs, requesting that they stop using deadly force in dealing with the protesters, who are legitimately voicing their opposition to an obviously rigged national election. The statement was directed at the governments unbalanced repsonse to what is happening in the streets of Iran. It did not address the election or the will of the rulers, but it allowed the U.S. to let the protesters know we are paying attention.
In addition, I want to say how moved I have been by the reports of ordinary Americans using the social networking system on the internet to keep informed of events on the streets of Tehran. It has been used as well to send support to those who are risking their lives. If you haven't had an opportunity to do so, I am urging everyone to use Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, and MySpace to send a message to the Iranian people that we are watching, and supporting their moment in the sun.
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
Sotomayor Giving Pro-Choicers Something to Think About
As Supreme Court Justice nominee Sonia Sotomayor made her initial round of "Hola's" this week, it became clear that she has been pressed hard by Democratic Senators on the abortion issue. After initially falling head over heels in love with her, pro-abortion members became aware of just how few times Sotomayor had actually had opportuities to vote on life issues. This realization put a slight flutter into the hearts of liberals.
But, alas, California Senator Dianne Feinstein got to the bottom of it when she met with the judge. Not that there is any sort of litmus testing going on here, but the subject did come up. As reported in USA Today...
"We had a conversation in general about that,” Feinstein said.
My bet is that it was the first question out of Feinstein's mouth as soon as the door closed behind them. And I bet it's more than 50% of what they discussed. Especially since abortion rights groups had begun feeling squeamish with the little they could find in Sotomayors rulings on abortion issues. The senator then went before the camera's and announced that everything was just fine. This nominee passes the test, she assured them.
"I think she is a woman who is well-steeped in the law and well-steeped in precedent," Feinstein explained. "And I believe that she has a real respect for precedent, and that she was not just saying that. And if that is really true, then I would agree with her. And I believe it is."
Pro-abortion folks are aware that Roe v. Wade was bad law. They know that it could be overturned if enough conservative judges ended up on the Supreme Court. They know that it hangs by a string called "precidence." This is a term that allows judges to use old rulings on similar cases to make decisions on new cases. In other words, it's easy to just say that Roe v. Wade is settled law and we don't want to go back and review it. After all, Sen. Feinstein, a Democrat, knows that if the court looked at the original case and determined that it was poorly written, there would be grounds to overturn it.
"I remember what it was like when abortion was illegal, and the lives of young desperate women were in jeopardy." She said she worries that "Americans no longer appreciate what it would mean if (abortion rights) were taken away."
Don't get me started on the lives of "young desperate women" being in jeopardy. This has nothing to do with that. Abortion remains a choice of convenience. Any young woman who chose to use a coat hanger to end the life of her fetus did so because she didn't want to be a mother, not because her life was in danger.
It will still be interesting to see how hard Sotomayor will be pressed on this in hearings. But for now, pro-choicers should be sleeping with one eye open.
Tuesday, June 2, 2009
Health Insurance: Can We Still Avoid A Single Payer Plan?
Washington is a busy place these days. With a Supreme Court nominee prepping to be grilled, two very ill stalwart Democratic senators (Byrd and Kennedy), the federal government taking over private industry at an alarming rate, and the focus on health care, it's as fast paced as I can remember in my lifetime. These folks have a lot going on.
With the debate on health care and the governments obsession with making sure everyone is insured, I was trying to remember what Medicaid is for. My understanding is that it was to cover the poor who otherwise would have no access to healthcare. Why isn't that program being used to take care of those Americans who aren't covered at work or due to unemployment? I realize that it has been expanded oer the years to include larger and larger groups of poor and disabled citizens, which may be why it's broke today.
Currently, we are spending about $43 billion yearly on uninsured people who go to emergency rooms for colds, flu, and other non-life-threatening illnesses and injuries. That money, added to what we currently spend on Medicaid, could help put these people into a basic health insurance policy paid by Medicaid, but purchased through a private insuror. This keeps the private sector active in coverage and makes sure that the government doesn't get involved in the insurance business. I don't want to see a single payer system in our country, with the federal government making decisions on my healthcare. Medicaid would have to undergo a major transformation, but we've been hearing that it was coming for the last 30 years. It would re-enforce what the program was supposed to do in the first place. Could something like this end up a win-win situation?
With the debate on health care and the governments obsession with making sure everyone is insured, I was trying to remember what Medicaid is for. My understanding is that it was to cover the poor who otherwise would have no access to healthcare. Why isn't that program being used to take care of those Americans who aren't covered at work or due to unemployment? I realize that it has been expanded oer the years to include larger and larger groups of poor and disabled citizens, which may be why it's broke today.
Currently, we are spending about $43 billion yearly on uninsured people who go to emergency rooms for colds, flu, and other non-life-threatening illnesses and injuries. That money, added to what we currently spend on Medicaid, could help put these people into a basic health insurance policy paid by Medicaid, but purchased through a private insuror. This keeps the private sector active in coverage and makes sure that the government doesn't get involved in the insurance business. I don't want to see a single payer system in our country, with the federal government making decisions on my healthcare. Medicaid would have to undergo a major transformation, but we've been hearing that it was coming for the last 30 years. It would re-enforce what the program was supposed to do in the first place. Could something like this end up a win-win situation?
Sunday, May 24, 2009
Obama-Biden in FantasyLand
A couple of quotes that I read this week have sent me over the edge again. These were both in public speeches made by the president and his sidekick, Joe Biden. I really wish I could say something nice about these two, but they won't allow me the chance. I want them to be successful in turning the economy around, but I would rather they fail if the policies are dangerous to the overall health of the country. I can't support what they do if I feel strongly that they are going down the wrong path. I don't know how someone could see that as unpatrioic.
First, Joe Biden. While both quotes are examples of how the Obama administration is ruining our country financially, Biden's is the scariest. It demonstrates how they will continue to "fool" the American people into believing that they are strengthening our nation, when in fact they are destroying it. And a majority of us still feel that's the case. Here's Biden:
"In the first 77 days of the two-year Recovery Act program, 150,000 jobs have been created or saved."
"Created or saved" is the Obama teams way of saying that we're stupid. Saved? There's no way to verify those numbers and they know it. Why 150,000? Why not 250,000? Why not a million? Remember, every time you hear the term "created or saved", they know it can't be denied by anyone. They can make up whatever number they want.
Obama's quote is startling. It is verbage that directly opposes his action. It would be great if he truly believed it, but he clearly doesn't. Be sitting down when you read this:
"We can't keep on just borrowing from China. We have to pay interest on that debt, and that means we are mortgaging our children's future with more and more debt."
What about the estimated $11 trillion debt that you are racking up with your cradle-to-grave programs? Where do you think that money is coming from? China. Saudi Arabia. Wherever he can get it. It's all going to be borrowed money. He wants you to think it is coming from the rich, those who earn over $250,000 a year. He told us he would pay for everything on the backs of the rich by increasing taxes on those folks. But we know that if you took every cent that group earned, it wouldn't touch the level of paying for his programs.
Somebody want to came help me see what I'm missing here?
First, Joe Biden. While both quotes are examples of how the Obama administration is ruining our country financially, Biden's is the scariest. It demonstrates how they will continue to "fool" the American people into believing that they are strengthening our nation, when in fact they are destroying it. And a majority of us still feel that's the case. Here's Biden:
"In the first 77 days of the two-year Recovery Act program, 150,000 jobs have been created or saved."
"Created or saved" is the Obama teams way of saying that we're stupid. Saved? There's no way to verify those numbers and they know it. Why 150,000? Why not 250,000? Why not a million? Remember, every time you hear the term "created or saved", they know it can't be denied by anyone. They can make up whatever number they want.
Obama's quote is startling. It is verbage that directly opposes his action. It would be great if he truly believed it, but he clearly doesn't. Be sitting down when you read this:
"We can't keep on just borrowing from China. We have to pay interest on that debt, and that means we are mortgaging our children's future with more and more debt."
What about the estimated $11 trillion debt that you are racking up with your cradle-to-grave programs? Where do you think that money is coming from? China. Saudi Arabia. Wherever he can get it. It's all going to be borrowed money. He wants you to think it is coming from the rich, those who earn over $250,000 a year. He told us he would pay for everything on the backs of the rich by increasing taxes on those folks. But we know that if you took every cent that group earned, it wouldn't touch the level of paying for his programs.
Somebody want to came help me see what I'm missing here?
Friday, May 22, 2009
Obama Takes America Down California Road
California's budget crisis has been in the news this week. It would be interesting to see Governor Schwartenegger on his knees begging for cash to bail his state out, but if it happens at all it will be behind closed doors. He's lucky he has a place to go for help. Barack Obama may well be doing the same kind of begging in the near future, but begging from whom? Who will he go to when the American people do what the residents of California did this week when they rejected five of the six ballot propositions that the governor supported? One would have exended a huge tax increase that was set to end. Another borrowed more money for education when the state already spends way more than any other state per student. The others had to do with borrowing money from childrens programs and programs for mental health, and borrowing from state lottery increases that have not happened yet. Obama seems determined to take us down the same kind of road. Borrow money that doesn't exist.
California is trying to blame everybody and everything for it's current budget deficit. The recession, the stock market, tax reciepts, you name it. But in reality, the state is addicted to spending. I know it seems cliche, but when a family spends more than it takes in, it has to find somewhere to cut spending or they find themselves in debt to the credit card company beyond what they are able to pay. It's very common, and most families find a way to cut back and get themselves under control. Not California.
It has always been a rule of thumb in state budgeting that increases should not exceed the rate of growth plus inflation. Republican governor Pete Wilson came closest to this, when the growth rate plus inflation was 3.72%, Wilson allowed the budget to grow 4.88%. But since Wilson, the trend has been to grow the budget considerably faster. In the past 18 years, the budget has grown 5.91% while population plus inflation has only grown 4.38%.
During the '90's, California was riding the "dot com" wave and brought in revenues that produced surpluses as far as he eye could see. But instead of saving for a rainy day, or paying down debt, they spent every cent of it. And then some. That seems to be the Obama Way. But he's spending money we don't have. And alot of it.
California already has high taxes. The sales tax there is an enormous 9.75% and they rank in the top 15 states in total taxes. That's only because voters put a lid on how much property tax the state could charge (remember Prop 15 in 1978?). Otherwise, I believe they would easily be number one. Lots of Democrats in the state Legislature want you to believe that's the reason for the deficit. They can't raise enough money to fund the states basic programs due to their inability to raise taxes. But the problem is not going away even if they do raise taxes. And it's not going away if the federal government bails them out, which is probably going to happen. the problem doesn't go away until the state realizes that it can't spend every dime they take in and then borrow to spend some more.
Some examples of the problem in California are, first, their state employee pension fund. Did you know that the state continues to pay employees 70% of their final pay after they retire? Nice perk! But totally unaffordable, as they are now finding out. Public employee unions across the country held this up as the model for all states, but they were wisely ignored. Another example is one that is glowingly obvious to most, but not all, Californians. It is the fact that they spend around $5 billion a year on illegal aliens, the education of their children and healthcare taking the bulk of that. Interestingly, in this time of budget crisis, the democrats in the legislature just recently decided to oppose a law that would require welfare recipients who fail to complete drug treatment program to be drug tested randomly. You'd think it would be sensible to pare down the rolls when your law states that you have to be clean to receive benefits.
So, President Obama, will you learn from the California experience? As we know, taxing citizens at higher and higher rates doesn't work unless there are spending cuts to go along with them. And BIG cuts are what we are talking about here. Yes, there will be some pain involved, and there isn't much you can do about that. But you and your liberals in congress have decided that we can spend our way out of this mess. You've watched that approach fail time and time again, but you seem determined to make it work now. No detail, of course. Just somehow.
Congress has decided to follow the Obama Way. More spending. More taxing. More takeovers of private enterprise. During the campaign, Obama railed against this very type of governing. He called for fiscal policies that made sense, and would balance the budget. Now, as president, he has decided that it was all wrong to talk like that. Silly him. The truth is, that Obama doesn't want to tell the American people the truth. He doesn't want us to know that he is spending us into a hole that we will never be able to climb out of. He continues to deficit spend throughout the eight years he assumes we will give him by borrowing huge sums from the Chinese and Saudi Arabia. This is destructive to our country. He has set the clock ticking on a time bomb.
California, here we come.
California is trying to blame everybody and everything for it's current budget deficit. The recession, the stock market, tax reciepts, you name it. But in reality, the state is addicted to spending. I know it seems cliche, but when a family spends more than it takes in, it has to find somewhere to cut spending or they find themselves in debt to the credit card company beyond what they are able to pay. It's very common, and most families find a way to cut back and get themselves under control. Not California.
It has always been a rule of thumb in state budgeting that increases should not exceed the rate of growth plus inflation. Republican governor Pete Wilson came closest to this, when the growth rate plus inflation was 3.72%, Wilson allowed the budget to grow 4.88%. But since Wilson, the trend has been to grow the budget considerably faster. In the past 18 years, the budget has grown 5.91% while population plus inflation has only grown 4.38%.
During the '90's, California was riding the "dot com" wave and brought in revenues that produced surpluses as far as he eye could see. But instead of saving for a rainy day, or paying down debt, they spent every cent of it. And then some. That seems to be the Obama Way. But he's spending money we don't have. And alot of it.
California already has high taxes. The sales tax there is an enormous 9.75% and they rank in the top 15 states in total taxes. That's only because voters put a lid on how much property tax the state could charge (remember Prop 15 in 1978?). Otherwise, I believe they would easily be number one. Lots of Democrats in the state Legislature want you to believe that's the reason for the deficit. They can't raise enough money to fund the states basic programs due to their inability to raise taxes. But the problem is not going away even if they do raise taxes. And it's not going away if the federal government bails them out, which is probably going to happen. the problem doesn't go away until the state realizes that it can't spend every dime they take in and then borrow to spend some more.
Some examples of the problem in California are, first, their state employee pension fund. Did you know that the state continues to pay employees 70% of their final pay after they retire? Nice perk! But totally unaffordable, as they are now finding out. Public employee unions across the country held this up as the model for all states, but they were wisely ignored. Another example is one that is glowingly obvious to most, but not all, Californians. It is the fact that they spend around $5 billion a year on illegal aliens, the education of their children and healthcare taking the bulk of that. Interestingly, in this time of budget crisis, the democrats in the legislature just recently decided to oppose a law that would require welfare recipients who fail to complete drug treatment program to be drug tested randomly. You'd think it would be sensible to pare down the rolls when your law states that you have to be clean to receive benefits.
So, President Obama, will you learn from the California experience? As we know, taxing citizens at higher and higher rates doesn't work unless there are spending cuts to go along with them. And BIG cuts are what we are talking about here. Yes, there will be some pain involved, and there isn't much you can do about that. But you and your liberals in congress have decided that we can spend our way out of this mess. You've watched that approach fail time and time again, but you seem determined to make it work now. No detail, of course. Just somehow.
Congress has decided to follow the Obama Way. More spending. More taxing. More takeovers of private enterprise. During the campaign, Obama railed against this very type of governing. He called for fiscal policies that made sense, and would balance the budget. Now, as president, he has decided that it was all wrong to talk like that. Silly him. The truth is, that Obama doesn't want to tell the American people the truth. He doesn't want us to know that he is spending us into a hole that we will never be able to climb out of. He continues to deficit spend throughout the eight years he assumes we will give him by borrowing huge sums from the Chinese and Saudi Arabia. This is destructive to our country. He has set the clock ticking on a time bomb.
California, here we come.
Sunday, May 10, 2009
Politics Aside--A Personal Note.
There is a part of all of us that is always seeking to know the answer to everything. I want to know why I'm here. I want to know where I'm going after I breathe my last breath. I want to know why there is suffering in the world, and why infants starve to death and children die of cancer. I don't know the answers, and I may never find them. But I've gone looking.
I'm leaving behind all the warnings of my parents and Sunday school teachers who said that I would find nothing but lies if I searched beyond what they taught me from the Bible. They taught me not to question, just to believe. If I asked too many questions about God or the reality of Jesus, Satan himself would fill my head with all sorts of dangerous heresies and I would lose my salvation and go to hell.
I don't believe that anymore. And right now I don't know what I do believe. So I'm going on a spiritual quest to see what I can find out about the historical Jesus, and learn about other religions as well. I'm going to examine the scriptures (as instructed in them), find what other faiths believe, look for truth where I can find it. I don't know how this will come out, and I don't know how long it will take.
Since my wife died in 2003, I have been pretty much directionless. My faith took a beating during the 8 months that she battled cancer. Prayers went unanswered, pain increased, questions begged an answer, and a wonderful woman was taken. I walked away from that an angry man. The silence that I experienced at the time has continued. I have prayed for direction and peace hundreds of times since then, asking for help in numerous situations that I couldn't seem to get out of. There has never been an answer. No "still, small voice," no miracle phone call with the answer, no sermon, no Bible passage, no friend who "had been thinking of me." It's like the window is closed and I'm not being heard or considered. I have beat myself up trying to figure out what I have done wrong, what I've done to anger God so badly that he will not hear me. Maybe I had already "lost" my salvation. I continued praying, but it grew hard to keep a facade that I expected to hear from God. Prayers became infrequent, and church attendance stopped completely.
One day recently, I was flipping through the channels and came across TBN, The Trinity Broadcasting Network. I have always been leary of the station, especially since seeing the founders wife, Jan Crouch, telling the faithful that Jesus Christ had stopped by her bedroom one night to encourage her during a particularly difficult time in the networks early days. Jesus. In the flesh. On this particular day, a "minister" named Benny Hinn was on. Dressed in black and wearing a priests collar, Hinn was broadcasting from Jerusalem. His message seemed rather urgent, as he was flailing his arms about like he was expecting to be raptured and wanted to help with liftoff. Benny is usually pretty laid back, so I listened to see what was of such importance.
At the top of his voice, Benny was letting us all know that there was a way to get out of debt with God's new "miracle of debt cancellation." It seems that there is some obscure Old Testament scripture where God wiped out the nation of Israel's debt to other nations. Benny and the Lord had seemingly managed to come up with a way to finance Benny's ministry and wipe out all Christian's debt! It just requires you to send Benny a check for at least $100, wrapped in his special "miracle debt cancelling hankerchief". Next thing you know, God will either send you the money to pay off your debts, or your going to get a really nice letter from your lender that says you don't have to pay your bills after all! Either way, God will cancel your debts!!
I spent an hour pondering the fact that thousands of people were, at that very moment, writing a check to Benny and wrapping it in the miracle handkerchief. But I wondered what would happen when no miracle occured. What would these folks do when they found out that they still had overwheming debt and no windfall from above to pay for it. No happy phone call from VISA, no Publisher's Clearinghouse knock on the door, no forgiveness from the IRS. What then? Do these people just wait for the next TBN hoax? Do they wait for Benny to tell them they didn't have enough faith to move the hand of God? Sorry? How many people will be devestated today?
All this led me to question why intellegent people would fall for such a story. Is it because they, like me, were told to never question? Just believe. Then I began to wonder if we aren't all following a story, the story of God and his son Jesus. Is it mythological, or is it just like I've been taught? Is the Bible God's word, or are we taking to heart the innocent stories of those seeking their own answers to how we got here? I need to know. Like Ulysses, my goal is "to strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield." I want to find the truth. I'm not going to get into all of the things I've learned so far, this journey is only a few days old as I write this. But I will say that I hope those of you who know me will be patient, and be supportive and not judgemental toward me as I go. This can only make me stronger.
Peace.
I'm leaving behind all the warnings of my parents and Sunday school teachers who said that I would find nothing but lies if I searched beyond what they taught me from the Bible. They taught me not to question, just to believe. If I asked too many questions about God or the reality of Jesus, Satan himself would fill my head with all sorts of dangerous heresies and I would lose my salvation and go to hell.
I don't believe that anymore. And right now I don't know what I do believe. So I'm going on a spiritual quest to see what I can find out about the historical Jesus, and learn about other religions as well. I'm going to examine the scriptures (as instructed in them), find what other faiths believe, look for truth where I can find it. I don't know how this will come out, and I don't know how long it will take.
Since my wife died in 2003, I have been pretty much directionless. My faith took a beating during the 8 months that she battled cancer. Prayers went unanswered, pain increased, questions begged an answer, and a wonderful woman was taken. I walked away from that an angry man. The silence that I experienced at the time has continued. I have prayed for direction and peace hundreds of times since then, asking for help in numerous situations that I couldn't seem to get out of. There has never been an answer. No "still, small voice," no miracle phone call with the answer, no sermon, no Bible passage, no friend who "had been thinking of me." It's like the window is closed and I'm not being heard or considered. I have beat myself up trying to figure out what I have done wrong, what I've done to anger God so badly that he will not hear me. Maybe I had already "lost" my salvation. I continued praying, but it grew hard to keep a facade that I expected to hear from God. Prayers became infrequent, and church attendance stopped completely.
One day recently, I was flipping through the channels and came across TBN, The Trinity Broadcasting Network. I have always been leary of the station, especially since seeing the founders wife, Jan Crouch, telling the faithful that Jesus Christ had stopped by her bedroom one night to encourage her during a particularly difficult time in the networks early days. Jesus. In the flesh. On this particular day, a "minister" named Benny Hinn was on. Dressed in black and wearing a priests collar, Hinn was broadcasting from Jerusalem. His message seemed rather urgent, as he was flailing his arms about like he was expecting to be raptured and wanted to help with liftoff. Benny is usually pretty laid back, so I listened to see what was of such importance.
At the top of his voice, Benny was letting us all know that there was a way to get out of debt with God's new "miracle of debt cancellation." It seems that there is some obscure Old Testament scripture where God wiped out the nation of Israel's debt to other nations. Benny and the Lord had seemingly managed to come up with a way to finance Benny's ministry and wipe out all Christian's debt! It just requires you to send Benny a check for at least $100, wrapped in his special "miracle debt cancelling hankerchief". Next thing you know, God will either send you the money to pay off your debts, or your going to get a really nice letter from your lender that says you don't have to pay your bills after all! Either way, God will cancel your debts!!
I spent an hour pondering the fact that thousands of people were, at that very moment, writing a check to Benny and wrapping it in the miracle handkerchief. But I wondered what would happen when no miracle occured. What would these folks do when they found out that they still had overwheming debt and no windfall from above to pay for it. No happy phone call from VISA, no Publisher's Clearinghouse knock on the door, no forgiveness from the IRS. What then? Do these people just wait for the next TBN hoax? Do they wait for Benny to tell them they didn't have enough faith to move the hand of God? Sorry? How many people will be devestated today?
All this led me to question why intellegent people would fall for such a story. Is it because they, like me, were told to never question? Just believe. Then I began to wonder if we aren't all following a story, the story of God and his son Jesus. Is it mythological, or is it just like I've been taught? Is the Bible God's word, or are we taking to heart the innocent stories of those seeking their own answers to how we got here? I need to know. Like Ulysses, my goal is "to strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield." I want to find the truth. I'm not going to get into all of the things I've learned so far, this journey is only a few days old as I write this. But I will say that I hope those of you who know me will be patient, and be supportive and not judgemental toward me as I go. This can only make me stronger.
Peace.
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Arlen, We Hardly Knew Ye
So, Arlen Specter has finally made the jump. He left the Republican Party this morning by announcing he would run for re-election as a Democrat. He has voted with the Democrats fairly consistantly since Obama was elected and the Dems have taken over the entire federal government. But the thing that bothers me the most is what he said about this possible switch just weeks ago. He knew full well that if he made this move it would mean that Obama and the liberals would be able to effectively ram through any legislation they wanted. And now he has shown his true colors. Here's what he said:
“I am staying a Republican because I think I have an important role — a more important role — to play there. I think the United States desparately needs a two party system. It is the basis of politics in America. I think each of the 41 Republican Senators, in a sense, and I don’t want to overstate this, is a national asset, because if one was gone you would only have 40. The Democrats would have 60 and they would control all of the mechanisms of government.”
This was just over a month ago in an interview with "The Hill" newspaper. He seemed genuinely worried about this takeover. Didn't seem to want it to happen. Then, suddenly, he forced it on us. Truth be told, Specter realized that he was going to lose to former Rep. Pat Toomey in the Republican primary next year. Toomey is a popular conservative who had been heading up The Club for Growth, which is an economic think tank. So now they can go head to head in a general election. I wonder if there is an outside chance that there are Pennsylvania democrats that would consider taking him out in a primary.
Specter has nobody to blame but himself. He put himself in the position of being challenged on the right when he sided with two other Republican senators, Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins, in voting for Obama's budget plan. There is some talk here in the Keystone State about recalling him. But, alas, it is not constitutional here. He would have to be impeached, and that's just not going to happen.
“I am staying a Republican because I think I have an important role — a more important role — to play there. I think the United States desparately needs a two party system. It is the basis of politics in America. I think each of the 41 Republican Senators, in a sense, and I don’t want to overstate this, is a national asset, because if one was gone you would only have 40. The Democrats would have 60 and they would control all of the mechanisms of government.”
This was just over a month ago in an interview with "The Hill" newspaper. He seemed genuinely worried about this takeover. Didn't seem to want it to happen. Then, suddenly, he forced it on us. Truth be told, Specter realized that he was going to lose to former Rep. Pat Toomey in the Republican primary next year. Toomey is a popular conservative who had been heading up The Club for Growth, which is an economic think tank. So now they can go head to head in a general election. I wonder if there is an outside chance that there are Pennsylvania democrats that would consider taking him out in a primary.
Specter has nobody to blame but himself. He put himself in the position of being challenged on the right when he sided with two other Republican senators, Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins, in voting for Obama's budget plan. There is some talk here in the Keystone State about recalling him. But, alas, it is not constitutional here. He would have to be impeached, and that's just not going to happen.
Thursday, April 23, 2009
Addendum
While on the subject of Secretary Napolitano, I should have mentioned the she needs to bone up on the law. Earlier this week she was interviewed by CNN"s John King, and while discussing law enforcement issues regarding the Mexican border, she said "...when we find illegal workers, yes, appropriate action, some of which is criminal, most of that is civil, because crossing the border is not criminal per se. It is civil. But anyway, going after those as well."
Here is the law: Title 8, Section 1325 of the U.S. Code states, “Any alien who enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers . . . shall, for the first commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both.”
First offense is a misdemeanor, any subsequent charges are felonies.
Oh.....and GO CAVS!
Here is the law: Title 8, Section 1325 of the U.S. Code states, “Any alien who enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers . . . shall, for the first commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both.”
First offense is a misdemeanor, any subsequent charges are felonies.
Oh.....and GO CAVS!
Obama Administration Decides Racial Profiling Is Ok After All
It seems that Janet Napolitano, the new Secretary of Homeland Security, has given a spirited defense of the recently released "threat assessment" that her department released on April 7. The report is supposed to give the DHS a heads up about who they need to be watching as possible domestic terrorists. It included veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan, due to them "facing significant challenges reintegrating into their communities...", whatever that means. Those who do face these "challenges" are said to be potential members of terrorist groups or lone wolves out to attack the government. Veteran's groups, such as the American Legion, are upset with the secretary, and a meeting has been requested.
The really interesting thing about this report is it's sweeping assumptions. Guess who is among those that the report includes as suspect? Me! And you may also be considered a potential threat to the United States. Here is the quote right from the report itself:
"Rightwing extremism in the United States can be broadly divided into those groups, movements, and adherents that are primarily hate-oriented (based on hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups), and those that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely. It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration..."
So, being pro-life and one who would like to see a large part of government shifted from the federal level back to the state and local level, I am potentially dangerous to my country. An amazing stance for this particular administration to take. How many times have we been told by the Democrats that racial profiling is against the law? It's a horrible injustice wherever it occurs. You can't just make someone suspect based on an observation that you make about the person. Until now.
If you have a "pro-life" or anti-illegal immigration bumper sticker on your car, a VFW license plate holder, or a "Jesus Loves You" tee shirt, Big Brother may be watching you. Profiling? You better believe it!
The really interesting thing about this report is it's sweeping assumptions. Guess who is among those that the report includes as suspect? Me! And you may also be considered a potential threat to the United States. Here is the quote right from the report itself:
"Rightwing extremism in the United States can be broadly divided into those groups, movements, and adherents that are primarily hate-oriented (based on hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups), and those that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely. It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration..."
So, being pro-life and one who would like to see a large part of government shifted from the federal level back to the state and local level, I am potentially dangerous to my country. An amazing stance for this particular administration to take. How many times have we been told by the Democrats that racial profiling is against the law? It's a horrible injustice wherever it occurs. You can't just make someone suspect based on an observation that you make about the person. Until now.
If you have a "pro-life" or anti-illegal immigration bumper sticker on your car, a VFW license plate holder, or a "Jesus Loves You" tee shirt, Big Brother may be watching you. Profiling? You better believe it!
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
Why The Left Hates Tea Parties
By now, we've all heard the crude and tasteless ways that CNN and MSNBC referred to the hundreds of thousands of Americans who attended last weeks Tax Day Tea Party's. At CNN, it was Anderson Cooper who allowed a guest to refer to them as "teabaggers". I'm pretty sure Cooper knew that this had sexually tainted overtures. And over at MSNBC, Rachel Maddow chuckled her way through a story about the Tea Parties, again using the same nasty terminology as Coopers guest. And both networks are just scratching their heads trying to figure out why their ratings are in free fall.
Here's a clue. While left leaning cable news and newpapers are calling the participants everything but thinking Americans, Fox News covered the events like they were newsworthy. For the day, Fox drew more viewers that CNN, MSNBC, and CNN Headline News....combined! Why? It might just be that ordinary citizens are paying more attention than the liberals thought. Maybe we're not all drowning in the Obama Lovefest that most news outlets are perpetuating. And it could be that we see through the nonsense that the President is serving up. Here's one of my reasons for attending.
Federal spending in the Obama budget just passed, will create $9.3 trillion in deficits over ten years. It increases spending by $1 trillion over those ten years, and then doubles the publicly held national debt to over $12 trillion. As angry as I got at the irresponsible budgeting of George W. Bush, this is nearly treasonous. And they want us to believe that we don't have anything to worry about because Obama is gonna make the nasty rich pay for it all! So the rest of us can just sit back and enjoy the ride, right? Um, whoops.....
According to Obama's own numbers, this ain't gonna work. According to Brian S. Wesbury and Robert Stein, both economists with First Trust Advisors of Wheaton, illinois, if you raised the top tax rate from 35% to 100%, you still don't have enough to cover Obama's spending. And these are the people that he says will pay for his huge stimulus package, the bank bailout, and all the new spending he plans to do. So there is no way that taxing the rich is going to cover his needs. So, guess what? If you think for a minute that your taxes aren't going up, think again.
During his first address to Congress in February, the president said that "if your family earns less than $250,000 a year, you will not see your taxes increased a single dime. I repeat, not a single dime." Before the warm fuzzy feeling left us, the president had signed a bill that would increase federal taxes on tobacco by 62 cents. There was no exemption for low income smokers, who make up the vast majority of smokers. He is putting into place a huge "cap and trade" tax on energy companies, and you can be sure that will be passed on to the consumer. So here is a tax that is charged to you on your energy bill. Again, no exemption for lower income families. Their taxes go up.....a lot!
Well, what about all the budget cuts the administration is going to be making? Are you kidding? They have already insulted us enough with the president asking his cabinet to cut $100 million out of their budgets. This is a budget cut of .0023%. It's like me saying that I need to cut back on my annual spending, so I won't buy a Snickers Bar this week. Ridiculous waste of press coverage.Obama says not to worry, there will be lots of "savings" in his budget. Here are some examples of Obama's savings assumptions:
1. The "temporary" stimulus spending will be allowed to expire. this includes all the spending on education and health care in the stimulus. How many times have you heard of a government program ending? Me neither.
2. Discretionary spending will be held to 2% annually after 2012, compared to 8% now. Words cannot express how big of a lie that is. Never has happened, never will.
3. The $632 billion "down payment" on universal health care will not be expanded. Stop. Please.
So, I believe that all of this is why we gathered to protest. We see what is coming. We see what our children are going to spend their lives paying for. We see that we have been sheep far too long. We know that the only way to stop it is to remove from office those that insist on taking us down this road against our will. And those who continue to bow at the altar of Obama because he isn't George Bush, are really going to have a hard time explaining to their children how they could have wished this horrible future on them.
Here's a clue. While left leaning cable news and newpapers are calling the participants everything but thinking Americans, Fox News covered the events like they were newsworthy. For the day, Fox drew more viewers that CNN, MSNBC, and CNN Headline News....combined! Why? It might just be that ordinary citizens are paying more attention than the liberals thought. Maybe we're not all drowning in the Obama Lovefest that most news outlets are perpetuating. And it could be that we see through the nonsense that the President is serving up. Here's one of my reasons for attending.
Federal spending in the Obama budget just passed, will create $9.3 trillion in deficits over ten years. It increases spending by $1 trillion over those ten years, and then doubles the publicly held national debt to over $12 trillion. As angry as I got at the irresponsible budgeting of George W. Bush, this is nearly treasonous. And they want us to believe that we don't have anything to worry about because Obama is gonna make the nasty rich pay for it all! So the rest of us can just sit back and enjoy the ride, right? Um, whoops.....
According to Obama's own numbers, this ain't gonna work. According to Brian S. Wesbury and Robert Stein, both economists with First Trust Advisors of Wheaton, illinois, if you raised the top tax rate from 35% to 100%, you still don't have enough to cover Obama's spending. And these are the people that he says will pay for his huge stimulus package, the bank bailout, and all the new spending he plans to do. So there is no way that taxing the rich is going to cover his needs. So, guess what? If you think for a minute that your taxes aren't going up, think again.
During his first address to Congress in February, the president said that "if your family earns less than $250,000 a year, you will not see your taxes increased a single dime. I repeat, not a single dime." Before the warm fuzzy feeling left us, the president had signed a bill that would increase federal taxes on tobacco by 62 cents. There was no exemption for low income smokers, who make up the vast majority of smokers. He is putting into place a huge "cap and trade" tax on energy companies, and you can be sure that will be passed on to the consumer. So here is a tax that is charged to you on your energy bill. Again, no exemption for lower income families. Their taxes go up.....a lot!
Well, what about all the budget cuts the administration is going to be making? Are you kidding? They have already insulted us enough with the president asking his cabinet to cut $100 million out of their budgets. This is a budget cut of .0023%. It's like me saying that I need to cut back on my annual spending, so I won't buy a Snickers Bar this week. Ridiculous waste of press coverage.Obama says not to worry, there will be lots of "savings" in his budget. Here are some examples of Obama's savings assumptions:
1. The "temporary" stimulus spending will be allowed to expire. this includes all the spending on education and health care in the stimulus. How many times have you heard of a government program ending? Me neither.
2. Discretionary spending will be held to 2% annually after 2012, compared to 8% now. Words cannot express how big of a lie that is. Never has happened, never will.
3. The $632 billion "down payment" on universal health care will not be expanded. Stop. Please.
So, I believe that all of this is why we gathered to protest. We see what is coming. We see what our children are going to spend their lives paying for. We see that we have been sheep far too long. We know that the only way to stop it is to remove from office those that insist on taking us down this road against our will. And those who continue to bow at the altar of Obama because he isn't George Bush, are really going to have a hard time explaining to their children how they could have wished this horrible future on them.
Thursday, April 16, 2009
Executive Hypocracy and the Talking Heads That Love It.
It's almost unbelievable, the crap that is coming out the Executive Branch. I am furious (as usual) about the boundless arrogance of the Obama Administration. It would be funny if not so dangerous. These people are absolutely out fo control with the "mandate" nonsense. The only mandate they have is coming from those who pull the puppet strings in Washington, in this case, the National Education Association. Obama and all Democrats in Congress continue to bow before the almighty dollars that come from these idiots, who claim to care about the education of our children. Nonsense....they couldn't care less about them, it's all about what power they can derive from the White House and Congress. That's all it's ever been about. Money.
The fine folks at the Department of Education have been supporting a program that enables disadvantaged inner city kids in the District of Columbia to attend private schools. The program is called the D.C. Opportunity Scholoarship Program. Created by Congress and the Bush administration in 2004, the program has been praised in every evaluation it has been put through. Students have seen growth in all areas that are examined by the Department of Education and several independant reviewers. Parents love it and are defending it as a lifesaver for the children enrolled. It was supposed to run through 2012. But guess what?
Democrats in congress tucked a provision into the Omnibus spending bill that effectively kills the program. Why? It works. It is giving the 1,900 kids who have been offered the scholarships a shot at getting out of the crime ridden public school and some hope for their future. Again, this is a successful education program that is making progress at moving at-risk, mostly minority, inner city kids a chance to get caught up and work at grade level after spending time in the D.C. school system where they have been educationally stifled. And it's the Democrats that want it killed. Sen. Dick Dubrin (D-Ill), had the funding for the program removed from the budget. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan agrees....the program has got to go. D.C. Delagate to Congress, Eleanor Holmes Norton, went as far as calling the students in the program "victim's" of political games. She vowed to have the program ended, saying that this Democratic Congress would not continue it.
Now, why in the world do you think this is happening? Could it be because the National Education Association hates all voucher programs? I'm barely able to keep this blog free of nasty words when I think of the idiots in Washington who claim that the children are all they care about...when it's the next election and who paid for what in the last election is clearly all they care about. The NEA gives campaign cash almost exclusively to Democrats, and who is about to trash this voucher program that works? Anything the boss wants. Even parents have been begging Norton and the Democrats to keep the program alive, but to no avail. They cannot turn their backs on the cash cow called the NEA. Doesn't matter that the kids are doing well. Doesn't matter that they will be sending these kids from integrated, clean, safe schools back into segregated rat holes that most adults would be afraid to enter. Screw the kids, I need my campaign coffers filled.
Barack Obama should be ashamed of himself. All this talk about how important public schools are, and he elects to send his daughters to private schools. And it's not about their safety. Obama and members of congress make damn sure their kids don't have to attend the local public schools, but they insist that you and I do. I understand that Secretary Duncan didn't send his kids to the public schools that he was superintendant of ! Hypocrites! All of them!
The fine folks at the Department of Education have been supporting a program that enables disadvantaged inner city kids in the District of Columbia to attend private schools. The program is called the D.C. Opportunity Scholoarship Program. Created by Congress and the Bush administration in 2004, the program has been praised in every evaluation it has been put through. Students have seen growth in all areas that are examined by the Department of Education and several independant reviewers. Parents love it and are defending it as a lifesaver for the children enrolled. It was supposed to run through 2012. But guess what?
Democrats in congress tucked a provision into the Omnibus spending bill that effectively kills the program. Why? It works. It is giving the 1,900 kids who have been offered the scholarships a shot at getting out of the crime ridden public school and some hope for their future. Again, this is a successful education program that is making progress at moving at-risk, mostly minority, inner city kids a chance to get caught up and work at grade level after spending time in the D.C. school system where they have been educationally stifled. And it's the Democrats that want it killed. Sen. Dick Dubrin (D-Ill), had the funding for the program removed from the budget. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan agrees....the program has got to go. D.C. Delagate to Congress, Eleanor Holmes Norton, went as far as calling the students in the program "victim's" of political games. She vowed to have the program ended, saying that this Democratic Congress would not continue it.
Now, why in the world do you think this is happening? Could it be because the National Education Association hates all voucher programs? I'm barely able to keep this blog free of nasty words when I think of the idiots in Washington who claim that the children are all they care about...when it's the next election and who paid for what in the last election is clearly all they care about. The NEA gives campaign cash almost exclusively to Democrats, and who is about to trash this voucher program that works? Anything the boss wants. Even parents have been begging Norton and the Democrats to keep the program alive, but to no avail. They cannot turn their backs on the cash cow called the NEA. Doesn't matter that the kids are doing well. Doesn't matter that they will be sending these kids from integrated, clean, safe schools back into segregated rat holes that most adults would be afraid to enter. Screw the kids, I need my campaign coffers filled.
Barack Obama should be ashamed of himself. All this talk about how important public schools are, and he elects to send his daughters to private schools. And it's not about their safety. Obama and members of congress make damn sure their kids don't have to attend the local public schools, but they insist that you and I do. I understand that Secretary Duncan didn't send his kids to the public schools that he was superintendant of ! Hypocrites! All of them!
Monday, April 13, 2009
Abstinence Education vs Reality?
As expected, the arrival of the Obama administration has brought with it the long festering battle between pro-choice and pro-life forces (or as they would refer to each other, the pro-abortion and anti-choice forces). Both sides went at it again, but without much fanfare during debate on the democrats budget that passed recently. This time, it had to do with the concept of "abstinence education". This program got started in the late '90's, but was pushed hard by the Bush administration and conservatives in congress. Basically, it was a teaching tool that stressed to teenagers that it was in their best interest to wait to have sex until they were married. There were lots of other messages that were built into the course, including how to develop healthy relationships, personal responsibility, and decision making skills. What could go wrong?
Well, according to democrats in congress and liberal leaders in and out of government, the program is a miserable failure. I'm not sure how they reached this conclusion when most experts are saying it's too early to tell about success or failure on a large scale. There have been few studies that have made conclusions, and the Heritage Foundation has looked at the results. I'll talk about that first.
According to the report that was published by Christine C. Kim, a policy analyst, and Robert Rector, Senior Research Fellow, there were positive outcomes in 11 of the 15 cases that were studied. This means that there was a delay in the onset of sexual activity, reduced levels of early sexual activity, and fewer sexual partners among adolescents who participated in abstinence programs. There were an additional 5 cases where there was no significant impact.
These programs focused on various types of interactions with the students. Most of the classroom programs dealt with topics like the negative impact of teen preganacy, peer pressure, consequences of teen pregancy, and abstinence. The report stated that, "abstinent teens report, on average, better psychological well-being and higher academic achievement than those who are sexually active."
I understand that these results are based on what is reported by the teens themselves and are not always going to be 100% accurate. But it seems to me that there are only good lessons to be learned here by the studenst that are in absinence education. I don't necessarily believe in teaching "abstinence only", because that is closing your eyes to what is already happening in the real world that our kids live in. There should be a discussion of what to do if you do make the decision to have sex outside of marriage, the ways to keep yourself as safe as you possibly can. But it should be emphasized that there is only one sure way to avoid unwanted pregnancies, and that is abstinence.
However, the left is in a tizzy about abstinence programs. They believe that abstinence programs have no place in the classroom. Not even as part of sex education. NARAL Pro-Choice America's President, Nancy Keenan, recently praised congressional democrats for their work to totally defund abstinence-only programs from the appropriations bill for fiscal year 2010. I would expect nothing less from a pro-abortion organization, but what Keenan goes on to say really causes me to wonder if she lives anywhere near reality.
Keenan, in a press release praising the congressional action to make large cuts in abstinence education, said "Our teens need accurate information to stay healthy and protect themselves from unintended pregnancy and disease - and under the Bush era 'abstinence only' policy, they just didn't get it." What?!
Abstinence is the only proven way to protect yourself from "unintended" pregnancy. So to say that teens aren't getting accurate information is just ridiculous. They're getting information on the only 100% sure way to avoid disease and pregnancy. So much for the concern about the health of the child, they couldn't care less. Let's cut to the chase. The number of abortions performed in this country began dropping around 1990, from 25 per 1,000 women to 19.4 per 1,000 in 2005, the last year there are records for. That is the same time frame that saw an increase in the number of abstinence programs. It may have nothing to do with the numbers, or maybe it does. But NARAL and their supporters can't say that abstinence education has no value. That would be totally irresponsible. Kinda like the Obama administration backing the cuts.
Well, according to democrats in congress and liberal leaders in and out of government, the program is a miserable failure. I'm not sure how they reached this conclusion when most experts are saying it's too early to tell about success or failure on a large scale. There have been few studies that have made conclusions, and the Heritage Foundation has looked at the results. I'll talk about that first.
According to the report that was published by Christine C. Kim, a policy analyst, and Robert Rector, Senior Research Fellow, there were positive outcomes in 11 of the 15 cases that were studied. This means that there was a delay in the onset of sexual activity, reduced levels of early sexual activity, and fewer sexual partners among adolescents who participated in abstinence programs. There were an additional 5 cases where there was no significant impact.
These programs focused on various types of interactions with the students. Most of the classroom programs dealt with topics like the negative impact of teen preganacy, peer pressure, consequences of teen pregancy, and abstinence. The report stated that, "abstinent teens report, on average, better psychological well-being and higher academic achievement than those who are sexually active."
I understand that these results are based on what is reported by the teens themselves and are not always going to be 100% accurate. But it seems to me that there are only good lessons to be learned here by the studenst that are in absinence education. I don't necessarily believe in teaching "abstinence only", because that is closing your eyes to what is already happening in the real world that our kids live in. There should be a discussion of what to do if you do make the decision to have sex outside of marriage, the ways to keep yourself as safe as you possibly can. But it should be emphasized that there is only one sure way to avoid unwanted pregnancies, and that is abstinence.
However, the left is in a tizzy about abstinence programs. They believe that abstinence programs have no place in the classroom. Not even as part of sex education. NARAL Pro-Choice America's President, Nancy Keenan, recently praised congressional democrats for their work to totally defund abstinence-only programs from the appropriations bill for fiscal year 2010. I would expect nothing less from a pro-abortion organization, but what Keenan goes on to say really causes me to wonder if she lives anywhere near reality.
Keenan, in a press release praising the congressional action to make large cuts in abstinence education, said "Our teens need accurate information to stay healthy and protect themselves from unintended pregnancy and disease - and under the Bush era 'abstinence only' policy, they just didn't get it." What?!
Abstinence is the only proven way to protect yourself from "unintended" pregnancy. So to say that teens aren't getting accurate information is just ridiculous. They're getting information on the only 100% sure way to avoid disease and pregnancy. So much for the concern about the health of the child, they couldn't care less. Let's cut to the chase. The number of abortions performed in this country began dropping around 1990, from 25 per 1,000 women to 19.4 per 1,000 in 2005, the last year there are records for. That is the same time frame that saw an increase in the number of abstinence programs. It may have nothing to do with the numbers, or maybe it does. But NARAL and their supporters can't say that abstinence education has no value. That would be totally irresponsible. Kinda like the Obama administration backing the cuts.
Friday, April 10, 2009
Physician's Conscience Clause
Over the last few weeks I have been following the discussions around the Obama Administrations efforts to disallow conscience clauses for physicians. The controversy is over a law in some states that allows a doctor to refuse to perform abortions due to religion or conscience. There has been a huge push from conservative organizations and others to flood the Department of Health and Human Services with protest letters during the time when they allow public comment on upcoming legislation that involves their department. My understanding is that they were bombarded with comments opposing any federal interference in the current laws on the states books. But democrats don't seem to care. They want a physician to be forced against his ethics and morals to perform abortions on demand for any reason.
Pro-abortion organizations are fighting the battle as well. Planned Parenthood has been apoplectic about the idea that some doctors may find it immoral to perform an abortion. They, along with NARAL, believe that all doctors have the "professional duty" to perform the procedure, regardless of their beliefs.
Historically, all doctors swear by the Hippocratic Oath upon their graduation from medical school. Although it isn't as uniform today as it was in the past, the oath says alot about the ethics of the physician, according to Hippocrates, the ancient physician and author of the oath. In the original, the rookie doctors, in part, swore that:
"I will prescribe regimens for the good of my patients according to my ability and my judgment and never do harm to anyone."
"I will not give a lethal drug to anyone if I am asked, nor will I advise such a plan; and similarly I will not give a woman a plessary (similar to a diaphram) to cause an abortion."
When a doctor treats a pregnant woman, he generally recognizes that he is now treating mother and child. I have to ask, how much more harm could they do then to stop the beating heart of either one of them?
Pro-abortion organizations are fighting the battle as well. Planned Parenthood has been apoplectic about the idea that some doctors may find it immoral to perform an abortion. They, along with NARAL, believe that all doctors have the "professional duty" to perform the procedure, regardless of their beliefs.
Historically, all doctors swear by the Hippocratic Oath upon their graduation from medical school. Although it isn't as uniform today as it was in the past, the oath says alot about the ethics of the physician, according to Hippocrates, the ancient physician and author of the oath. In the original, the rookie doctors, in part, swore that:
"I will prescribe regimens for the good of my patients according to my ability and my judgment and never do harm to anyone."
"I will not give a lethal drug to anyone if I am asked, nor will I advise such a plan; and similarly I will not give a woman a plessary (similar to a diaphram) to cause an abortion."
When a doctor treats a pregnant woman, he generally recognizes that he is now treating mother and child. I have to ask, how much more harm could they do then to stop the beating heart of either one of them?
Mr. President, I Hope This Isn't True....
The Wall Street Journal is reporting that the Obama Administration is refusing to accept the repayment of about $340 million from four different banks that are located in California, Indiana, Louisiana, and New York. This is the TARP money that they recieved from the Bush/Obama administrations over the last six months. Here is the confusing part for me. These were called "loans" when they were handed out. The purpose of calling something a loan is to indicate that it is to be paid back, sometimes with interest. These banks have decided that they can live without the bailout cash and want to pay it back.
Stuart Varney, of the Fox Business Channel, tells of a true story that was reported by his Fox News co-worker, Andrew Napolitano. According to him, the four banks mentioned above were smaller banks. But a large, prominent, and profitable bank was forced to take the bailout money from the Bush Administration. the government then bought a minority stake in the bank. Today, the CEO of that bank is ready to write a check to repay the loan. The Obama team says, "no", and they have threatened the bank with "adverse" consequences if the bank continues to try to repay. Why?
Obama is now making it clear that the idea here is not to get the money back, but to make sure that the government continues to have leverage and ability to make decisions on how the banks will be run. It's the same thing they are doing with GM and Chrysler. As long as they are in debt to the government, they can be controlled by the government. That's the game plan. Now they have extended loans to life insurance companies. Things are becoming a bit clearer. And I, for one, am getting nervous.
Stuart Varney, of the Fox Business Channel, tells of a true story that was reported by his Fox News co-worker, Andrew Napolitano. According to him, the four banks mentioned above were smaller banks. But a large, prominent, and profitable bank was forced to take the bailout money from the Bush Administration. the government then bought a minority stake in the bank. Today, the CEO of that bank is ready to write a check to repay the loan. The Obama team says, "no", and they have threatened the bank with "adverse" consequences if the bank continues to try to repay. Why?
Obama is now making it clear that the idea here is not to get the money back, but to make sure that the government continues to have leverage and ability to make decisions on how the banks will be run. It's the same thing they are doing with GM and Chrysler. As long as they are in debt to the government, they can be controlled by the government. That's the game plan. Now they have extended loans to life insurance companies. Things are becoming a bit clearer. And I, for one, am getting nervous.
Wednesday, April 8, 2009
Do You Love Taxes, Too?
While reading the Heritage Foundation's website today, I came across this gem. It actually made me stop breathing....just before I laughed my lungs out! This is, without question, the boldest stroke of stupid I have ever seen regarding taxes. This comes from the, "Alliance for a Better Minnesota".
Too often, we forget that the taxes we pay go towards our roads and buses, funds breakthrough research at our colleges and universities, keeps our parks clean, and pays for our police, firefighters, and our teachers.
Taxes help pay for the services we need most--and it's time we said thanks.
While our tax dollars provide us with a lot, there is a widening gap between what the wealthiest Minnesotans pay and what average Minnesotans pay in taxes. We need to create a fair tax structure to make sure everyone is contributing their fair share.
Denise Cardinal, the Executive Director here at Alliance for a Better Minnesota, sent out the email below this morning asking Minnesotans to take a second to say thank you to all the government services that are paid for by our taxes.
Friend--
There's no such thing as a free lunch.
But the fact is, teachers, roads, and police officers don't grow on trees.
Taxes pay for the things we use and love -- like parks -- and things we need, like police. It's time we say thank you.
http://allianceminnesota.org/ThankYou
Join us to say thank you to all the government services that are paid for by our taxes. Sign our "Thank You" card to taxes, which we will share with state leaders as they address the state budget deficit in the next few weeks.
http://allianceminnesota.org/ThankYou
Safe neighborhoods, good public schools, and inspected bridges are just the start.
Take a moment to share with us why you appreciate all the government services you use every day.
Legislators need to hear that average citizens are willing to invest in these things -- the very things that help make our state great. A balanced approach to the state budget, which does not make drastic cuts to our most important basic services, like health care, education, and food stamps for low-income families, is essential to put our state back on the right track toward economic recovery and growth.
Please sign our thank you card and invite your friends to do the same.
Thanks for all you do,
Denise CardinalAlliance for A Better Minnesota
Alright, that's enough. Settle down and let's continue. Here are some other things we can thank taxes for...right out of the president's budget....
1.Thank you, taxes, for The Compton California Dance Theatre Foundation....$483,000 to keep "at risk" kids in the seats at the hip-hop dance theatre.
2. Thank you, taxes, for the Raphael Lemkin Center for Genocide Prevention...$452,000 to "educate world government leaders on genocide, genocide prevention, and response mechanisms." Good luck with that.
3. Thank you, taxes, for a program in Florida called, "A Child is Missing". These folks don't have any law enforcement capacity, but claim that they have worked "7,095 cases" of missing persons and have been "credited by Florida law enforcement agencies with 64 successful recoveries". Dang, that's almost 1%....open the vault! Well, we're kinda stingy here....only $500,000.
4. Thank you, taxes, for the hundreds of millions of dollars that I have read about in the time that I have spent reading through several congressional web pages. We are spending a huge sum of money on earmarks for at-risk youth, unemployed youth, underserved youth, under-educated youth, unsupervised youth, poor youth, hungry youth, homeless youth, socially disadvantaged youth, unhappy youth, bored youth, horny youth, youth without Playstation, youth without kites.....it goes on and on.
Every member of Congress is required by law to post on their website all of their requests for funding earmarks. As I said in a previous post, most of them have done that. But I noticed several have put them in programs that require you to download some reading software from the web. They know most people won't mess with it. Slick.
I am going to be posting the bills sponsored by the most conservative and liberal members starting tomorrow.
Too often, we forget that the taxes we pay go towards our roads and buses, funds breakthrough research at our colleges and universities, keeps our parks clean, and pays for our police, firefighters, and our teachers.
Taxes help pay for the services we need most--and it's time we said thanks.
While our tax dollars provide us with a lot, there is a widening gap between what the wealthiest Minnesotans pay and what average Minnesotans pay in taxes. We need to create a fair tax structure to make sure everyone is contributing their fair share.
Denise Cardinal, the Executive Director here at Alliance for a Better Minnesota, sent out the email below this morning asking Minnesotans to take a second to say thank you to all the government services that are paid for by our taxes.
Friend--
There's no such thing as a free lunch.
But the fact is, teachers, roads, and police officers don't grow on trees.
Taxes pay for the things we use and love -- like parks -- and things we need, like police. It's time we say thank you.
http://allianceminnesota.org/ThankYou
Join us to say thank you to all the government services that are paid for by our taxes. Sign our "Thank You" card to taxes, which we will share with state leaders as they address the state budget deficit in the next few weeks.
http://allianceminnesota.org/ThankYou
Safe neighborhoods, good public schools, and inspected bridges are just the start.
Take a moment to share with us why you appreciate all the government services you use every day.
Legislators need to hear that average citizens are willing to invest in these things -- the very things that help make our state great. A balanced approach to the state budget, which does not make drastic cuts to our most important basic services, like health care, education, and food stamps for low-income families, is essential to put our state back on the right track toward economic recovery and growth.
Please sign our thank you card and invite your friends to do the same.
Thanks for all you do,
Denise CardinalAlliance for A Better Minnesota
Alright, that's enough. Settle down and let's continue. Here are some other things we can thank taxes for...right out of the president's budget....
1.Thank you, taxes, for The Compton California Dance Theatre Foundation....$483,000 to keep "at risk" kids in the seats at the hip-hop dance theatre.
2. Thank you, taxes, for the Raphael Lemkin Center for Genocide Prevention...$452,000 to "educate world government leaders on genocide, genocide prevention, and response mechanisms." Good luck with that.
3. Thank you, taxes, for a program in Florida called, "A Child is Missing". These folks don't have any law enforcement capacity, but claim that they have worked "7,095 cases" of missing persons and have been "credited by Florida law enforcement agencies with 64 successful recoveries". Dang, that's almost 1%....open the vault! Well, we're kinda stingy here....only $500,000.
4. Thank you, taxes, for the hundreds of millions of dollars that I have read about in the time that I have spent reading through several congressional web pages. We are spending a huge sum of money on earmarks for at-risk youth, unemployed youth, underserved youth, under-educated youth, unsupervised youth, poor youth, hungry youth, homeless youth, socially disadvantaged youth, unhappy youth, bored youth, horny youth, youth without Playstation, youth without kites.....it goes on and on.
Every member of Congress is required by law to post on their website all of their requests for funding earmarks. As I said in a previous post, most of them have done that. But I noticed several have put them in programs that require you to download some reading software from the web. They know most people won't mess with it. Slick.
I am going to be posting the bills sponsored by the most conservative and liberal members starting tomorrow.
What's Wrong With This Picture?
I heard alot of buzz about this picture, but I thought it was probably just the fringe kooks trying to say that the president had "bowed in submission" to the Saudi King. But then I saw this picture. And then I saw the video. And then I heard the president's press secretary, Robert Gibbs, try to expain it away.This is the President of the United States bowing to the King of Saudi Arabia! In the Middle East this is seen as an acknowledgement that one is superior to the other. The president didn't do this for Queen Elizabeth II earlier in the week, nor did he bow to any other foreign leader he met with. Only the Saudi King. And that's not a nod of the head, either. That's a full blown bow of submission. Unbelievable.
I wouldn't be this upset if they just acknowledged it from the White House Press room. But no, Gibbs had to dance around it when asked by reporters. He clearly had no explanation. Did the president see something shiny on the floor? Was there a child peeking out from under the kings robe? No. Here is the official expanation from Gibbs...
"The president did not bow to the king. He was just doing a double handshake to a smaller guy."
Now that pisses me off.
Tuesday, April 7, 2009
New Feature!
I'm introducing a new feature for "The View From Here". I've been looking for a way to compare and contrast the direction that the Republicans and Democrats want to take our country. I have taken information from the website, GovTrack.us, and have compiled a list of the top 20 most liberal and conservative members of both the House and Senate. I am going to begin reporting here all of the bills that they write and introduce to their respective chambers. It will give us all an opportunity to see what it is that they stand for.
If you're interested in how the rankings were determined, go to GovTrack.us/congress/. I will be posting the bills as often as I can, and will continue blogging on current events as well. Write to me if you want to know whether your congressperson made any of the lists.
If you're interested in how the rankings were determined, go to GovTrack.us/congress/. I will be posting the bills as often as I can, and will continue blogging on current events as well. Write to me if you want to know whether your congressperson made any of the lists.
Monday, April 6, 2009
Get Ready to Say "Yes!" to National Service.
Congress is at it yet again. If there is a way for them to involve the government in our private lives, they'll find it. This time it's through H.R. 1444, the "Congressional Commission on Civic Service Act". This bill was introduced by Democratic congressman Jim McDermott (WA), and is working it's way through the House Committee on Education and Labor. It was sponsored by McDermott, Patrick Kennedy (D-RI), Dutch Ruppersberger (D-MD), Christopher Van Hollen (D-MD), and James Moran (D-VA). If any of these are your congressmen, they should be spanked and sent to bed with no supper.
The whole idea for this commission came from President Obama. He spoke openly about it in the campaign. Now, admittedly, this is only authorizing the establishment of a commission. But it has the backing of Obama and the Democrats in Congress, so it may be on a slippery slope to becoming a reality. The commissions powers are limited to gathering and analyzing information and making recommendations to congress. This is where things get a little ugly.
The bill requires the commission to report on several specific things, most dealing with problems that currently exist in volunteerism. But, there are three of these specifics that caught my eye as I read the bill. The commission will report on:
5) The effect on the Nation, on those who serve, and on the families of those who serve, if all individuals in the United States were expected to perform national service or were required to perform a certain amount of national service.
6) Whether a workable, fair, and reasonable mandatory service requirement for all able young people could be developed, and how such a requirement could be implemented in a manner that would strengthen the social fabric of the Nation and overcome civic challenges by bringing together people from diverse economic, ethnic, and educational backgrounds.
(9) The effectiveness of establishing a training program on college campuses to recruit and educate college students for national service.
Do you think that the commission, authorized by a Democrat controlled Congress, is going to come back and say that "mandatory national service" is a bad thing? Neither do I. And I'm not sure what they plan to do with the 13th Amendment to the Constitution. You know, the one that prohibits involuntary servitude. Yeah, I believe that would apply to the U.S. government too. But at any rate, Congress is preparing to tell us what we have to do in our spare time. You don't have any spare time? Uncle Sam says, uh, yes you do. Or you better find some.
I was watching protesters a few weeks ago as another state legislature was debating same sex marriage. One of the women was holding a sign that said, "Keep the government out of my bedroom!" She probably has no problem with them telling her what kind of car to drive, or how much of her paycheck she can actually take home with her. Nor does she care that her nieces and nephews are being burdened with so much debt that their standard of living will be less than their parents. Now they are preparing to tell her what she has to to fullfil some "national service" requirement. Stay out of my bedroom?
How about, "Stay outta my yard!"
The whole idea for this commission came from President Obama. He spoke openly about it in the campaign. Now, admittedly, this is only authorizing the establishment of a commission. But it has the backing of Obama and the Democrats in Congress, so it may be on a slippery slope to becoming a reality. The commissions powers are limited to gathering and analyzing information and making recommendations to congress. This is where things get a little ugly.
The bill requires the commission to report on several specific things, most dealing with problems that currently exist in volunteerism. But, there are three of these specifics that caught my eye as I read the bill. The commission will report on:
5) The effect on the Nation, on those who serve, and on the families of those who serve, if all individuals in the United States were expected to perform national service or were required to perform a certain amount of national service.
6) Whether a workable, fair, and reasonable mandatory service requirement for all able young people could be developed, and how such a requirement could be implemented in a manner that would strengthen the social fabric of the Nation and overcome civic challenges by bringing together people from diverse economic, ethnic, and educational backgrounds.
(9) The effectiveness of establishing a training program on college campuses to recruit and educate college students for national service.
Do you think that the commission, authorized by a Democrat controlled Congress, is going to come back and say that "mandatory national service" is a bad thing? Neither do I. And I'm not sure what they plan to do with the 13th Amendment to the Constitution. You know, the one that prohibits involuntary servitude. Yeah, I believe that would apply to the U.S. government too. But at any rate, Congress is preparing to tell us what we have to do in our spare time. You don't have any spare time? Uncle Sam says, uh, yes you do. Or you better find some.
I was watching protesters a few weeks ago as another state legislature was debating same sex marriage. One of the women was holding a sign that said, "Keep the government out of my bedroom!" She probably has no problem with them telling her what kind of car to drive, or how much of her paycheck she can actually take home with her. Nor does she care that her nieces and nephews are being burdened with so much debt that their standard of living will be less than their parents. Now they are preparing to tell her what she has to to fullfil some "national service" requirement. Stay out of my bedroom?
How about, "Stay outta my yard!"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)