Capitalism's woes cheered at World Social Forum
AP – Young people sing during the World Social Forum in Porto Alegre, Brazil, Monday, Jan. 25, 2010. People … .By ALAN CLENDENNING, Associated Press Writer Alan Clendenning, Associated Press Writer – Tue Jan 26, 1:28 am ET
PORTO ALEGRE, Brazil – Leftists are pouring into town to rail against freewheeling capitalism during the World Social Forum, gleefully cheering the humbling of bankers and business titans by the global economic meltdown.
At the opening of the five-day event, some 25,000 activists paraded exuberantly through Porto Alegre on Monday, serenaded by the pounding of drums and salsa blared from sound trucks as they waved communist flags and shouted slogans against corporate greed.
The 10-year-old conference is the left's counter to the World Economic Forum at Davos, a Swiss ski resort where presidents, corporate leaders and others gather annually to discuss international issues. It is also being held this week.
Gustavo de Biase, a 22-year-old Brazilian wearing a shirt proclaiming "Socialism is Liberty," said the world's leftists are convinced they can get presidents from the U.S. to Brazil to embrace policies "of respect and equality aimed at lifting the poor out of misery."
"We want to distribute the riches to people," he said. "We're fighting for a more equal society and we're saying 'Down with hunger' and 'Down with war.'"
Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva planned to address the social forum's masses Tuesday night in a soccer stadium. Media reports said he would focus on how Brazil has managed to lift millions from poverty as the country embraces an unprecedented boom that has given huge benefits to business and foreign investors.
Some participants said they like Silva's personality and respect him for rising to fame as a union leader even though he never graduated from high school. But they argued he did too much for corporations and banks during his terms in office that end this year.
The World Social Forum draws people with a wide range of causes, from demanding total state control of nations' petroleum reserves to seeking environmental preservation and animal rights.
Activists said this year's forum is especially important because governments from the United States to Europe are moving to take on bigger roles in managing the global economy.
The World Economic Forum that begins Wednesday in Davos is expected to see fewer leaders than in years past. U.S. President Barack Obama's plan to clamp down on the size and activity of banks is sure to be on the minds of many of the rich and powerful heading to Switzerland.
"They have driven the capitalist system into chaos," said Sergio Bernardo, a Brazilian human rights activist sporting a bright red shirt emblazoned with the words "Bourgeoisie Stinks!" "We're letting them know we can create a world free of exploitation that will help the poor."
Lingering fallout from the financial crisis is proof that the world economy must be retooled to benefit people, not big companies, said Francisco Whitaker, a Roman Catholic activist who helped found the World Social Forum.
He said that last year's Davos conference was similar to a "wake" and that the lackluster turnout expected this year "gives the impression that capitalism is on the downfall and hitting its limits."
Leftists are increasingly energized by the prospect of persuading governments to tackle corporate excess and spread more wealth to the needy, he said.
"We're in the midst of true enthusiasm," Whitaker said. "We may not change the world completely and all at once, but the change now can come from the bottom and spread. It's surging and getting toward a critical mass."
The World Social Forum serves as a platform for leftists to exchange ideas, though no proposals are formed following days of debate. Instead, participants are expected to take strategies back to their home countries and push for change locally.
While the economic crisis provided a perfect platform for advancing leftist movements, many failed to grasp the opportunity when the slump was at its worst, said Nandita Shah, co-director of India's Akshara Centre, which supports women's rights.
"I think there's a crisis in the left and in our voice," she said. "I hope these five days will bring us out of this visionless tunnel."
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
Monday, January 25, 2010
Obama and his teleprompters.
I just saw a picture of President Obama speaking to gradeschool kids in Falls Church VA last week. The odd thing about this picture is Obama is using teleprompters... while talking to gradeschool kids. I thought this guy was supposed to be a genius? Why does he need teleprompters to talk to kids?
Friday, January 22, 2010
Way too Funny!
Hitler Finds Out the Massachusetts Senate Seat Was Won by a Republican
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E5VLeBhzE3Y&feature=player_embedded
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E5VLeBhzE3Y&feature=player_embedded
Thursday, January 21, 2010
Anatomy of a Failing Presidency
Anatomy of a Failing Presidency
The following is an interesting article. You might ask how long Dr. Hunt can remain at NIH once the White House gets wind of this article.
Dr. Hunt is a social and cultural anthropologist. He has had nearly 30 years experience in planning, conducting, and managing research in the field of youth studies, and drug and alcohol research. Currently Dr. Hunt is a Senior Research Scientist at the Institute for Scientific Analysis and the Principal Investigator on three National Institutes of Health projects. He is also a writer for American Thinker.
An article from American Thinker by Geoffrey P. Hunt
Anatomy of a Failing Presidency
Barack Obama is on track to have the most spectacularly failed presidency since Woodrow Wilson. In the modern era, we've seen several failed presidencies--led by Jimmy Carter and LBJ. Failed presidents have one strong common trait-- they are repudiated, in the vernacular, spat out. Of course, LBJ wisely took the exit ramp early, avoiding a shove into oncoming traffic by his own party. Richard Nixon indeed resigned in disgrace, yet his reputation as a statesman has been partially restored by his triumphant overture to China 20.
But, Barack Obama is failing. Failing big. Failing fast. And failing everywhere: foreign policy, domestic initiatives, and most importantly, in forging connections with the American people. The incomparable Dorothy Rabinowitz in the Wall Street Journal put her finger on it: He is failing because he has no understanding of the American people, and may indeed loathe them. Fred Barnes of the Weekly Standard says he is failing because he has lost control of his message, and is overexposed. Clarice Feldman of American Thinker produced a dispositive commentary showing that Obama is failing because fundamentally he is neither smart nor articulate; his intellectual dishonesty is conspicuous by its audacity and lack of shame.
But, there is something more seriously wrong: How could a new president riding in on a wave of unprecedented promise and goodwill have forfeited his tenure and become a lame duck in six months? His poll ratings are in free fall. In generic balloting, the Republicans have now seized a five point advantage. This truly is unbelievable. What's going on?
No narrative. Obama doesn't have a narrative. No, not a narrative about himself. He has a self-narrative, much of it fabricated, cleverly disguised or written by someone else. But this self-narrative is isolated and doesn't connect with us. He doesn't have an American narrative that draws upon the rest of us. All successful presidents have a narrative about the American character that intersects with their own where they display a command of history and reveal an authenticity at the core of their personality that resonates in a positive endearing way with the majority of Americans. We admire those presidents whose narratives not only touch our own, but who seem stronger, wiser, and smarter than we are. Presidents we admire are aspirational peers, even those whose politics don't align exactly with our own: Teddy Roosevelt, FDR, Harry Truman, Ike, and Reagan.
But not this president. It's not so much that he's a phony, knows nothing about economics, and is historically illiterate and woefully small minded for the size of the task--all contributory of course. It's that he's not one of us. And whatever he is, his profile is fuzzy and devoid of content, like a cardboard cutout made from delaminated corrugated paper. Moreover, he doesn't command our respect and is unable to appeal to our own common sense. His notions of right and wrong are repugnant and how things work just don't add up. They are not existential. His descriptions of the world we live in don't make sense and don't correspond with our experience.
In the meantime, while we've been struggling to take a measurement of this man, he's dissed just about every one of us--financiers, energy producers, banks, insurance executives, police officers, doctors, nurses, hospital administrators, post office workers, and anybody else who has a non-green job. Expect Obama to lament at his last press conference in 2012: "For those of you I offended, I apologize. For those of you who were not offended, you just didn't give me enough time; if only I'd had a second term, I could have offended you too."
Mercifully, the Founders at the Constitutional Convention in 1787 devised a useful remedy for such a desperate state--staggered terms for both houses of the legislature and the executive. An equally abominable Congress can get voted out next year. With a new Congress, there's always hope of legislative gridlock until we vote for president again two short years after that.
Yes, small presidents do fail, Barack Obama among them. The coyotes howl but the wagon train keeps rolling along..
Margaret Thatcher: "The trouble with Socialism is, sooner or later you run out of other people's money."
"When you subsidize poverty and failure, you get more of both." - James Dale Davidson, National Taxpayers Union
"The more corrupt the state, the more it legislates." - Tacitus
"A Liberal is a person who will give away everything he doesn't own." - Unknown
The following is an interesting article. You might ask how long Dr. Hunt can remain at NIH once the White House gets wind of this article.
Dr. Hunt is a social and cultural anthropologist. He has had nearly 30 years experience in planning, conducting, and managing research in the field of youth studies, and drug and alcohol research. Currently Dr. Hunt is a Senior Research Scientist at the Institute for Scientific Analysis and the Principal Investigator on three National Institutes of Health projects. He is also a writer for American Thinker.
An article from American Thinker by Geoffrey P. Hunt
Anatomy of a Failing Presidency
Barack Obama is on track to have the most spectacularly failed presidency since Woodrow Wilson. In the modern era, we've seen several failed presidencies--led by Jimmy Carter and LBJ. Failed presidents have one strong common trait-- they are repudiated, in the vernacular, spat out. Of course, LBJ wisely took the exit ramp early, avoiding a shove into oncoming traffic by his own party. Richard Nixon indeed resigned in disgrace, yet his reputation as a statesman has been partially restored by his triumphant overture to China 20.
But, Barack Obama is failing. Failing big. Failing fast. And failing everywhere: foreign policy, domestic initiatives, and most importantly, in forging connections with the American people. The incomparable Dorothy Rabinowitz in the Wall Street Journal put her finger on it: He is failing because he has no understanding of the American people, and may indeed loathe them. Fred Barnes of the Weekly Standard says he is failing because he has lost control of his message, and is overexposed. Clarice Feldman of American Thinker produced a dispositive commentary showing that Obama is failing because fundamentally he is neither smart nor articulate; his intellectual dishonesty is conspicuous by its audacity and lack of shame.
But, there is something more seriously wrong: How could a new president riding in on a wave of unprecedented promise and goodwill have forfeited his tenure and become a lame duck in six months? His poll ratings are in free fall. In generic balloting, the Republicans have now seized a five point advantage. This truly is unbelievable. What's going on?
No narrative. Obama doesn't have a narrative. No, not a narrative about himself. He has a self-narrative, much of it fabricated, cleverly disguised or written by someone else. But this self-narrative is isolated and doesn't connect with us. He doesn't have an American narrative that draws upon the rest of us. All successful presidents have a narrative about the American character that intersects with their own where they display a command of history and reveal an authenticity at the core of their personality that resonates in a positive endearing way with the majority of Americans. We admire those presidents whose narratives not only touch our own, but who seem stronger, wiser, and smarter than we are. Presidents we admire are aspirational peers, even those whose politics don't align exactly with our own: Teddy Roosevelt, FDR, Harry Truman, Ike, and Reagan.
But not this president. It's not so much that he's a phony, knows nothing about economics, and is historically illiterate and woefully small minded for the size of the task--all contributory of course. It's that he's not one of us. And whatever he is, his profile is fuzzy and devoid of content, like a cardboard cutout made from delaminated corrugated paper. Moreover, he doesn't command our respect and is unable to appeal to our own common sense. His notions of right and wrong are repugnant and how things work just don't add up. They are not existential. His descriptions of the world we live in don't make sense and don't correspond with our experience.
In the meantime, while we've been struggling to take a measurement of this man, he's dissed just about every one of us--financiers, energy producers, banks, insurance executives, police officers, doctors, nurses, hospital administrators, post office workers, and anybody else who has a non-green job. Expect Obama to lament at his last press conference in 2012: "For those of you I offended, I apologize. For those of you who were not offended, you just didn't give me enough time; if only I'd had a second term, I could have offended you too."
Mercifully, the Founders at the Constitutional Convention in 1787 devised a useful remedy for such a desperate state--staggered terms for both houses of the legislature and the executive. An equally abominable Congress can get voted out next year. With a new Congress, there's always hope of legislative gridlock until we vote for president again two short years after that.
Yes, small presidents do fail, Barack Obama among them. The coyotes howl but the wagon train keeps rolling along..
Margaret Thatcher: "The trouble with Socialism is, sooner or later you run out of other people's money."
"When you subsidize poverty and failure, you get more of both." - James Dale Davidson, National Taxpayers Union
"The more corrupt the state, the more it legislates." - Tacitus
"A Liberal is a person who will give away everything he doesn't own." - Unknown
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
NewsBusters.org | Exposing Liberal Media Bias
NewsBusters.org Exposing Liberal Media Bias: "Scott Whitlock's blog25 commentsRead more
Malloy: Rush, Sean, Glenn, and Bill 'Bombed' America on 9/11
By Tim Graham January 20, 2010 - 15:27
Radical-left talk show host Mike Malloy went on a tear again on Tuesday night as election returns poured in from Massachusetts. Malloy was blunt about the voters. To him, they said: 'We want a theocratic madman as our senator.'
But Malloy really started swinging as he noted the headline that Prince Alwaleed bin Talal of Saudi Arabia was having talks with Rupert Murdoch about News Corp investing in his Rotana Media company. That story led to this rant about conservative talkers being the real terrorists on 9/11 (Listen for yourself here):
You crazy sons-of-bitches, you right-wingers. Do you not understand that the people you hold up as heroes bombed your goddamn country? Do you not understand that Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly are as complicit of the September 11, 2001 terror attack as any one of those dumb-ass fifteen who came from Saudi Arabia? Don’t you get that?
I wonder if Rachel Maddow was still loving Malloy for his 'dark thoughts.' Malloy was furious at the election results, but he insisted the political elite was completely, hopelessly 'corporatist.' He insisted there was little to no difference between Scott Brown, Bill Clinton, and Barack Obama:"
Malloy: Rush, Sean, Glenn, and Bill 'Bombed' America on 9/11
By Tim Graham January 20, 2010 - 15:27
Radical-left talk show host Mike Malloy went on a tear again on Tuesday night as election returns poured in from Massachusetts. Malloy was blunt about the voters. To him, they said: 'We want a theocratic madman as our senator.'
But Malloy really started swinging as he noted the headline that Prince Alwaleed bin Talal of Saudi Arabia was having talks with Rupert Murdoch about News Corp investing in his Rotana Media company. That story led to this rant about conservative talkers being the real terrorists on 9/11 (Listen for yourself here):
You crazy sons-of-bitches, you right-wingers. Do you not understand that the people you hold up as heroes bombed your goddamn country? Do you not understand that Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly are as complicit of the September 11, 2001 terror attack as any one of those dumb-ass fifteen who came from Saudi Arabia? Don’t you get that?
I wonder if Rachel Maddow was still loving Malloy for his 'dark thoughts.' Malloy was furious at the election results, but he insisted the political elite was completely, hopelessly 'corporatist.' He insisted there was little to no difference between Scott Brown, Bill Clinton, and Barack Obama:"
Historic!
Historic! Barack Obama, Pelosi and Reid just lost President John F. Kennedy`s Senate seat! That`s Big!
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
From the Wall Street Journal
JANUARY 19, 2010.
The Message of Massachusetts
A crisis is a terrible thing to exploit..
Whether or not Republican Scott Brown wins today in Massachusetts, the special Senate election has already shaken up American politics. The close race to replace Ted Kennedy, liberalism's patron saint, shows that voters are rebelling even in the bluest of states against the last year's unbridled pursuit of partisan liberal governance.
Tomorrow marks the anniversary of President Obama's Inaugural, and it's worth recalling the extraordinary political opportunity he had a year ago. An anxious country was looking for leadership amid a recession, and Democrats had huge majorities and faced a dispirited, unpopular GOP. With monetary policy stimulus already flowing, Democrats were poised to get the political credit for the inevitable economic recovery.
Twelve months later, Mr. Obama's approval rating has fallen further and faster than any recent President's, Congress is despised, the public mood has shifted sharply to the right on the role of government, and a Republican could pick up a Senate seat in a state with no GOP Members of Congress and that Mr. Obama carried by 26 points.
What explains this precipitous political fall? Democrats and their media allies attribute it to GOP obstructionism, though Republicans lack the votes to stop anything by themselves. Or they blame their own Blue Dogs, who haven't stopped or even significantly modified any legislation of consequence.
Or they blame an economic agenda that wasn't populist or liberal enough because it didn't nationalize banks and spend even more on "stimulus." It takes a special kind of delusion to believe, amid a popular revolt against too much government spending and debt, that another $1 trillion would have made all the difference. But that's the latest left-wing theme.
The real message of Massachusetts is that Democrats have committed the classic political mistake of ideological overreach. Mr. Obama won the White House in part on his personal style and cool confidence amid a recession and an unpopular war. Yet liberals in Congress interpreted their victory as a mandate to repeal more or less the entire post-1980 policy era and to fulfill, at last, their dream of turning the U.S. into a cradle-to-grave entitlement state.
We had been encouraged a year ago by Mr. Obama's selection of Illinois Congressman Rahm Emanuel as his chief of staff because we thought he would have learned from the Clinton failure of 1993-1994 and knew enough to stand up to the Congressional left. How wrong we were. Mr. Emanuel and his boss have instead deferred to Congress's liberal barons on every major domestic policy.
View Full Image
All images: Associated Press
Barney Frank; Ed Markey
.These committee chairmen are all creatures of the Great Society and what was called the New Left of the 1960s and 1970s. They have spent their lives in government and know almost nothing about the private sector or how to grow an economy. They view the Reagan era as an historical aberration, and they have stayed in Washington for decades precisely in wait of this moment to realize 40-years of pent-up policy ambition. They believe this is their 1965, or 1933.
While Mr. Obama campaigned as a young postpartisan Democrat who wanted a new era of comity in Washington, his victory has instead empowered these ancient left-wing warriors. These are the men who have run Washington this past year, and they are Mr. Obama's de facto cabinet. The nearby photos show some of the most powerful, clockwise from the top right:
Associated Press
George Miller; David Obey
.• Ed Markey of Massachusetts, first elected in 1976, helped to ram the cap-and-tax bill through the House and has pushed relentlessly for the EPA to declare carbon a pollutant under the Clean Air Act that didn't mention carbon.
• Wisconsin's David Obey, elected in 1969, is the House Appropriations chairman who steered the $787 billion stimulus to focus on Medicaid expansion and other transfer payments that have done nothing for economic growth.
• Henry Waxman, first elected in the Watergate class of 1974, deposed John Dingell in 2008 as too moderate to run the Energy and Commerce Committee. The Hollywood liberal is co-author of the cap-and-tax vote that will cost numerous Blue Dogs their seats.
Associated Press
Pete Stark; Henry Waxman
.• Pete Stark, class of 1972, runs the health subcommittee on Ways and Means and has written most of the House health reform that has forced moderates to walk the plank on the "public option."
• George Miller, class of 1974 and chief enforcer for Speaker Nancy Pelosi, has pushed to nationalize the college student loan market. Like Mr. Stark, he's from California.
• Barney Frank of Massachusetts, class of 1980 and chief protector of Fannie Mae, wrote the financial reform that would make too-big-to-fail the law for the largest banks. He has also pushed the mortgage foreclosure programs that have extended the housing recession by preventing home prices from finding a bottom.
It is the combination of all of these and other policies that has ignited the political revolt we are now seeing in Massachusetts, and first saw last November in Virginia and New Jersey. Had Democrats modified their agenda to nurture a fragile economy and financial system, they could now claim their policies worked and build on them later.
Instead, their frenetic agenda has frightened voters and businesses about the vast expansion of government power and enormous tax increases to come. The resulting uncertainty and the anticipation of higher costs for labor, taxes and energy have undermined what ought to be a more robust pace of job creation and overall recovery.
The lesson of Mr. Obama's lost first year is that an economic crisis is a terrible thing to exploit. As they have each time in the last 40 years that they have had total control of Washington, Democrats are proving again that America can't be successfully governed from the left. If that is the lesson Mr. Obama learns from Massachusetts, he might still salvage his Presidency.
The Message of Massachusetts
A crisis is a terrible thing to exploit..
Whether or not Republican Scott Brown wins today in Massachusetts, the special Senate election has already shaken up American politics. The close race to replace Ted Kennedy, liberalism's patron saint, shows that voters are rebelling even in the bluest of states against the last year's unbridled pursuit of partisan liberal governance.
Tomorrow marks the anniversary of President Obama's Inaugural, and it's worth recalling the extraordinary political opportunity he had a year ago. An anxious country was looking for leadership amid a recession, and Democrats had huge majorities and faced a dispirited, unpopular GOP. With monetary policy stimulus already flowing, Democrats were poised to get the political credit for the inevitable economic recovery.
Twelve months later, Mr. Obama's approval rating has fallen further and faster than any recent President's, Congress is despised, the public mood has shifted sharply to the right on the role of government, and a Republican could pick up a Senate seat in a state with no GOP Members of Congress and that Mr. Obama carried by 26 points.
What explains this precipitous political fall? Democrats and their media allies attribute it to GOP obstructionism, though Republicans lack the votes to stop anything by themselves. Or they blame their own Blue Dogs, who haven't stopped or even significantly modified any legislation of consequence.
Or they blame an economic agenda that wasn't populist or liberal enough because it didn't nationalize banks and spend even more on "stimulus." It takes a special kind of delusion to believe, amid a popular revolt against too much government spending and debt, that another $1 trillion would have made all the difference. But that's the latest left-wing theme.
The real message of Massachusetts is that Democrats have committed the classic political mistake of ideological overreach. Mr. Obama won the White House in part on his personal style and cool confidence amid a recession and an unpopular war. Yet liberals in Congress interpreted their victory as a mandate to repeal more or less the entire post-1980 policy era and to fulfill, at last, their dream of turning the U.S. into a cradle-to-grave entitlement state.
We had been encouraged a year ago by Mr. Obama's selection of Illinois Congressman Rahm Emanuel as his chief of staff because we thought he would have learned from the Clinton failure of 1993-1994 and knew enough to stand up to the Congressional left. How wrong we were. Mr. Emanuel and his boss have instead deferred to Congress's liberal barons on every major domestic policy.
View Full Image
All images: Associated Press
Barney Frank; Ed Markey
.These committee chairmen are all creatures of the Great Society and what was called the New Left of the 1960s and 1970s. They have spent their lives in government and know almost nothing about the private sector or how to grow an economy. They view the Reagan era as an historical aberration, and they have stayed in Washington for decades precisely in wait of this moment to realize 40-years of pent-up policy ambition. They believe this is their 1965, or 1933.
While Mr. Obama campaigned as a young postpartisan Democrat who wanted a new era of comity in Washington, his victory has instead empowered these ancient left-wing warriors. These are the men who have run Washington this past year, and they are Mr. Obama's de facto cabinet. The nearby photos show some of the most powerful, clockwise from the top right:
Associated Press
George Miller; David Obey
.• Ed Markey of Massachusetts, first elected in 1976, helped to ram the cap-and-tax bill through the House and has pushed relentlessly for the EPA to declare carbon a pollutant under the Clean Air Act that didn't mention carbon.
• Wisconsin's David Obey, elected in 1969, is the House Appropriations chairman who steered the $787 billion stimulus to focus on Medicaid expansion and other transfer payments that have done nothing for economic growth.
• Henry Waxman, first elected in the Watergate class of 1974, deposed John Dingell in 2008 as too moderate to run the Energy and Commerce Committee. The Hollywood liberal is co-author of the cap-and-tax vote that will cost numerous Blue Dogs their seats.
Associated Press
Pete Stark; Henry Waxman
.• Pete Stark, class of 1972, runs the health subcommittee on Ways and Means and has written most of the House health reform that has forced moderates to walk the plank on the "public option."
• George Miller, class of 1974 and chief enforcer for Speaker Nancy Pelosi, has pushed to nationalize the college student loan market. Like Mr. Stark, he's from California.
• Barney Frank of Massachusetts, class of 1980 and chief protector of Fannie Mae, wrote the financial reform that would make too-big-to-fail the law for the largest banks. He has also pushed the mortgage foreclosure programs that have extended the housing recession by preventing home prices from finding a bottom.
It is the combination of all of these and other policies that has ignited the political revolt we are now seeing in Massachusetts, and first saw last November in Virginia and New Jersey. Had Democrats modified their agenda to nurture a fragile economy and financial system, they could now claim their policies worked and build on them later.
Instead, their frenetic agenda has frightened voters and businesses about the vast expansion of government power and enormous tax increases to come. The resulting uncertainty and the anticipation of higher costs for labor, taxes and energy have undermined what ought to be a more robust pace of job creation and overall recovery.
The lesson of Mr. Obama's lost first year is that an economic crisis is a terrible thing to exploit. As they have each time in the last 40 years that they have had total control of Washington, Democrats are proving again that America can't be successfully governed from the left. If that is the lesson Mr. Obama learns from Massachusetts, he might still salvage his Presidency.
As usual, Boortz nails it!
DEMOCRATS CAN'T HANDLE THE FIGHT
By Neal Boortz @ January 19, 2010 8:55 AM Permalink
Comments (21)
TrackBacks (0)
The Democrats are having a rough time handling this. They assumed that Massachusetts was a gimme. It ain't turning out that way. What to do? What to do? Well .. you could get grumpy! John Kerry, for example, is upset that people have come from out-of-state to support Scott Brown. As long as those people don't vote in the election, they have every right to show up to support Scott Brown at a rally. John Kerry can't stand that! He compared Scott Brown's rallies to that of Sarah Palin and the tea parties. He says, "I'm no stranger to hard fought campaigns, but what we've seen in the past few days is way over the line and reminiscent of the dangerous atmosphere of Sarah Palin's 2008 campaign rallies. This is not how democracy works in Massachusetts." Oh really? How DOES democracy work in Massachusetts? I guess for Kerry democracy works in Massachusetts when voters vote for Democrats. If they support Republicans Democracy isn't working. Interesting take.
Oh .. and Palin's 2008 campaign was dangerous? Really? I did a quick search of Google this morning using "Palin" and "dangerous." I came up with stories that both Whoppi Goldberg and Martha Stewart said that Sarah Palin was dangerous. Planned Parenthood said that Palin was dangerous for women. Christopher Hitchens said that Palin's brand of populism was dangerous. But there was not one story detailing any violence at a Palin campaign rally. All we have are the usual stories from the usual suspects - Newsweek and The Washington Post, for instance - talking about the "dangerous atmosphere" at the Palin rallies in 2008. Pretty much a typical leftist tactic. Any rally, any utterance, any posting, any blog, any column in opposition to the liberal big-government agenda is either "hate speech" or "dangerous," or both.
By Neal Boortz @ January 19, 2010 8:55 AM Permalink
Comments (21)
TrackBacks (0)
The Democrats are having a rough time handling this. They assumed that Massachusetts was a gimme. It ain't turning out that way. What to do? What to do? Well .. you could get grumpy! John Kerry, for example, is upset that people have come from out-of-state to support Scott Brown. As long as those people don't vote in the election, they have every right to show up to support Scott Brown at a rally. John Kerry can't stand that! He compared Scott Brown's rallies to that of Sarah Palin and the tea parties. He says, "I'm no stranger to hard fought campaigns, but what we've seen in the past few days is way over the line and reminiscent of the dangerous atmosphere of Sarah Palin's 2008 campaign rallies. This is not how democracy works in Massachusetts." Oh really? How DOES democracy work in Massachusetts? I guess for Kerry democracy works in Massachusetts when voters vote for Democrats. If they support Republicans Democracy isn't working. Interesting take.
Oh .. and Palin's 2008 campaign was dangerous? Really? I did a quick search of Google this morning using "Palin" and "dangerous." I came up with stories that both Whoppi Goldberg and Martha Stewart said that Sarah Palin was dangerous. Planned Parenthood said that Palin was dangerous for women. Christopher Hitchens said that Palin's brand of populism was dangerous. But there was not one story detailing any violence at a Palin campaign rally. All we have are the usual stories from the usual suspects - Newsweek and The Washington Post, for instance - talking about the "dangerous atmosphere" at the Palin rallies in 2008. Pretty much a typical leftist tactic. Any rally, any utterance, any posting, any blog, any column in opposition to the liberal big-government agenda is either "hate speech" or "dangerous," or both.
Bush: 'God bless whoever wins tonight' - TheHill.com
Bush: 'God bless whoever wins tonight' - TheHill.com
We miss you President Bush! Our new leaders reek of marxism.
We miss you President Bush! Our new leaders reek of marxism.
Monday, January 18, 2010
It`s About Control!
OBAMACARE ... THE KEY
By Neal Boortz @ January 18, 2010 8:30 AM Permalink
The main reason this election in Massachusetts is so important is the feeling that it could kill ObamaCare. Why is ObamaCare so important? It's certainly not because it is going to fulfill some great need for health care. The purpose here is control. Nothing more, nothing less.
Since the voter revolution that brought Republican control of the congress in 1994 I've been telling you - over and over - that if the Democrats ever got control of the congress and the White House again they would move immediately to expand entitlement programs, and create new ones, so that they would never again have to face loss of power. I've been proven right. Welfare is being expanded under Obama. The SChip program? Expanded. Food Stamps? Expanded. Name an entitlement program and you'll seen the Democrats trying to expand it. The goal, of course, is to destroy self-reliance and make as many people as possible dependent on government. Government health care is the promised land for Democrats. The goal here is absolute control. Sure, I know - ObamaCare doesn't bring us complete control. The Democrats weren't able to get their "single payer" plan that would have brought that about. They're on the road though. Senator Tom Harkin calls ObamaCare a "starter house." I hope the meaning is clear. ObamaCare is just the foundation and some framing. Democrats won't stop until every American has to go through a government hack to get even the most basic health care service.
What happens then? Easy. Once Americans think they're getting "free" medical care from their government the Democrats will pull the same stunt with healthcare they've been pulling with Social Security. Since 1952 in every single presidential and midterm election Democrats have told voters that they vote for Republicans the Republicans will take away their Social Security. Not just now and then, but every single year. Once ObamaCare is passed it will become a part of every single presidential and mid-term election. Voters will be told that if you vote for Republicans they will take your health care away .. and if you vote for Democrats they will give you even more free health care. Democrats know that if you control someone's health care, you control them. Yank on their health care leash and the people will follow you anywhere ... even into socialist tyranny.
Get with it folks. This is about CONTROL. Nothing else.
There has never been a system devised by man more capable of delivering needed goods and services to the populace than the free marketplace. Never. The Democrats, though, refuse to even try the simplest of free market ideas - such as allowing insurance companies to sell across state lines or eliminating state mandates - were rejected.
ObamaCare is going to destroy health care in the United States. Services and treatments will be denied or rationed. Waiting lines for basic care will be troublesome. Extraordinary care may well become unavailable for many Americans.
Starter house? This one could well turn into a prison.
By Neal Boortz @ January 18, 2010 8:30 AM Permalink
The main reason this election in Massachusetts is so important is the feeling that it could kill ObamaCare. Why is ObamaCare so important? It's certainly not because it is going to fulfill some great need for health care. The purpose here is control. Nothing more, nothing less.
Since the voter revolution that brought Republican control of the congress in 1994 I've been telling you - over and over - that if the Democrats ever got control of the congress and the White House again they would move immediately to expand entitlement programs, and create new ones, so that they would never again have to face loss of power. I've been proven right. Welfare is being expanded under Obama. The SChip program? Expanded. Food Stamps? Expanded. Name an entitlement program and you'll seen the Democrats trying to expand it. The goal, of course, is to destroy self-reliance and make as many people as possible dependent on government. Government health care is the promised land for Democrats. The goal here is absolute control. Sure, I know - ObamaCare doesn't bring us complete control. The Democrats weren't able to get their "single payer" plan that would have brought that about. They're on the road though. Senator Tom Harkin calls ObamaCare a "starter house." I hope the meaning is clear. ObamaCare is just the foundation and some framing. Democrats won't stop until every American has to go through a government hack to get even the most basic health care service.
What happens then? Easy. Once Americans think they're getting "free" medical care from their government the Democrats will pull the same stunt with healthcare they've been pulling with Social Security. Since 1952 in every single presidential and midterm election Democrats have told voters that they vote for Republicans the Republicans will take away their Social Security. Not just now and then, but every single year. Once ObamaCare is passed it will become a part of every single presidential and mid-term election. Voters will be told that if you vote for Republicans they will take your health care away .. and if you vote for Democrats they will give you even more free health care. Democrats know that if you control someone's health care, you control them. Yank on their health care leash and the people will follow you anywhere ... even into socialist tyranny.
Get with it folks. This is about CONTROL. Nothing else.
There has never been a system devised by man more capable of delivering needed goods and services to the populace than the free marketplace. Never. The Democrats, though, refuse to even try the simplest of free market ideas - such as allowing insurance companies to sell across state lines or eliminating state mandates - were rejected.
ObamaCare is going to destroy health care in the United States. Services and treatments will be denied or rationed. Waiting lines for basic care will be troublesome. Extraordinary care may well become unavailable for many Americans.
Starter house? This one could well turn into a prison.
Meeting on Transparency!
Joe Biden recently held a meeting transparency. The meeting was closed to the public...
Obama Heckled at Coakley Rally!
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2010/01/17/obama_heckled_at_coakley_rally.html
Obama has no idea what he is doing.
By ERIC DASH
Published: January 17, 2010
Wall Street’s main lobbying arm has hired a top Supreme Court litigator to study a possible legal battle against a bank tax proposed by the Obama administration, on the theory that it would be unconstitutional, according to three industry officials briefed on the matter.
In an e-mail message sent last week to the heads of Wall Street legal departments, executives of the lobbying group, the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association, wrote that a bank tax might be unconstitutional because it would unfairly single out and penalize big banks, according to these officials, who did not want to be identified to preserve relationships with the group’s members.
The message said the association had hired Carter G. Phillips of Sidley Austin, who has argued dozens of cases before the Supreme Court, to study whether a tax on one industry could be considered arbitrary and punitive, providing the basis for a constitutional challenge, they said.
Administration officials and other legal experts have called those claims dubious.
Indeed, President Obama urged the financial lobby to stand down when he introduced the tax proposal last week: “Instead of sending a phalanx of lobbyists to fight this proposal or employing an army of lawyers and accountants to help evade the fee, I suggest you might want to consider simply meeting your responsibilities.”
A spokesman for the lobbying group, Andrew DeSouza, confirmed on Sunday that Mr. Phillips was working with the group on a series of regulatory and legislative matters, including the tax. But because no formal tax legislation has been proposed by Congress, Mr. DeSouza said it was “premature to speculate on any potential actions beyond opposing the proposal itself as both punitive and counterproductive to increasing lending.”
A court challenge would open a new front in the banking industry’s assault on additional financial regulation. It might also further splinter the powerful financial lobby. The issue has already pitted smaller banks, which would be exempt from the tax, against their less popular Wall Street peers, and it has even stirred debate within the large banks over whether such an aggressive legal strategy would be politically wise.
Privately, executives at several large banks said they believed a legal battle was doomed to fail in Washington and risked escalating public rage over the bailouts of the banks. These executives say the industry may be better off pushing for a watered-down version of the tax. Most banks are just beginning to consider how, or whether, they would oppose it.
This political tug of war is centered on Wall Street bonuses, which have already returned to precrisis levels. The banks have tried to head off criticism by starting new charitable programs and by structuring executive bonuses in line with principles set by the federal pay adviser, like paying bonuses mostly in stock instead of cash and deferring the payout of some bonus money in case business declines again.
Administration officials hoped their proposed bank tax would serve much the same purpose. Democratic leaders in Congress have welcomed the plan, which could raise up to $117 billion to recoup projected losses from the bank bailout program.
Republicans have remained unusually silent on the tax, hoping to avoid a choice between supporting a tax increase and defending big bankers. Meanwhile, some liberal Democrats have gone further than the administration has, proposing a heavy tax on bank bonuses. Political analysts expect the bank tax to pass easily in the House but face resistance in the Senate.
There may be room for compromise. Administration officials hope to keep the proposed tax limited to major financial institutions with more than $50 billion in assets but consider that a difficult line to draw. For example, the proposed tax would not apply to large hedge funds; the mortgage finance giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac; or the carmakers Chrysler and General Motors.
“We believe the lines we have drawn are sound and sensible,” said Gene B. Sperling, a senior Treasury Department official. “We understand these are the type of things we will need to keep an open mind on in negotiations with Congress.”
The financial lobby has insisted that it is unfair for banks to cover the cost of losses tied to nonbank bailout recipients like the automakers and the American International Group, the giant insurer that is now majority-owned by the government. In an appearance on CNBC on Thursday, Representative Barney Frank, chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, called the argument over including the automakers legitimate.
At the lobbying group, the selection of Mr. Phillips of Sidley Austin raised eyebrows because it suggests that Wall Street may be spoiling for a fight. Davis Polk & Wardwell, another white-shoe law firm, has been advising the same lobbying group on legal matters tied to new financial regulation.
Mr. Phillips, who was an appellate lawyer in the Justice Department during the Reagan administration, brought his first case in front of the Supreme Court when he was just 29 years old. Since then, he has appeared before the court more than 60 times. Mr. Phillips declined to comment about his work for the industry, referring all questions to the lobbying group.
Published: January 17, 2010
Wall Street’s main lobbying arm has hired a top Supreme Court litigator to study a possible legal battle against a bank tax proposed by the Obama administration, on the theory that it would be unconstitutional, according to three industry officials briefed on the matter.
In an e-mail message sent last week to the heads of Wall Street legal departments, executives of the lobbying group, the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association, wrote that a bank tax might be unconstitutional because it would unfairly single out and penalize big banks, according to these officials, who did not want to be identified to preserve relationships with the group’s members.
The message said the association had hired Carter G. Phillips of Sidley Austin, who has argued dozens of cases before the Supreme Court, to study whether a tax on one industry could be considered arbitrary and punitive, providing the basis for a constitutional challenge, they said.
Administration officials and other legal experts have called those claims dubious.
Indeed, President Obama urged the financial lobby to stand down when he introduced the tax proposal last week: “Instead of sending a phalanx of lobbyists to fight this proposal or employing an army of lawyers and accountants to help evade the fee, I suggest you might want to consider simply meeting your responsibilities.”
A spokesman for the lobbying group, Andrew DeSouza, confirmed on Sunday that Mr. Phillips was working with the group on a series of regulatory and legislative matters, including the tax. But because no formal tax legislation has been proposed by Congress, Mr. DeSouza said it was “premature to speculate on any potential actions beyond opposing the proposal itself as both punitive and counterproductive to increasing lending.”
A court challenge would open a new front in the banking industry’s assault on additional financial regulation. It might also further splinter the powerful financial lobby. The issue has already pitted smaller banks, which would be exempt from the tax, against their less popular Wall Street peers, and it has even stirred debate within the large banks over whether such an aggressive legal strategy would be politically wise.
Privately, executives at several large banks said they believed a legal battle was doomed to fail in Washington and risked escalating public rage over the bailouts of the banks. These executives say the industry may be better off pushing for a watered-down version of the tax. Most banks are just beginning to consider how, or whether, they would oppose it.
This political tug of war is centered on Wall Street bonuses, which have already returned to precrisis levels. The banks have tried to head off criticism by starting new charitable programs and by structuring executive bonuses in line with principles set by the federal pay adviser, like paying bonuses mostly in stock instead of cash and deferring the payout of some bonus money in case business declines again.
Administration officials hoped their proposed bank tax would serve much the same purpose. Democratic leaders in Congress have welcomed the plan, which could raise up to $117 billion to recoup projected losses from the bank bailout program.
Republicans have remained unusually silent on the tax, hoping to avoid a choice between supporting a tax increase and defending big bankers. Meanwhile, some liberal Democrats have gone further than the administration has, proposing a heavy tax on bank bonuses. Political analysts expect the bank tax to pass easily in the House but face resistance in the Senate.
There may be room for compromise. Administration officials hope to keep the proposed tax limited to major financial institutions with more than $50 billion in assets but consider that a difficult line to draw. For example, the proposed tax would not apply to large hedge funds; the mortgage finance giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac; or the carmakers Chrysler and General Motors.
“We believe the lines we have drawn are sound and sensible,” said Gene B. Sperling, a senior Treasury Department official. “We understand these are the type of things we will need to keep an open mind on in negotiations with Congress.”
The financial lobby has insisted that it is unfair for banks to cover the cost of losses tied to nonbank bailout recipients like the automakers and the American International Group, the giant insurer that is now majority-owned by the government. In an appearance on CNBC on Thursday, Representative Barney Frank, chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, called the argument over including the automakers legitimate.
At the lobbying group, the selection of Mr. Phillips of Sidley Austin raised eyebrows because it suggests that Wall Street may be spoiling for a fight. Davis Polk & Wardwell, another white-shoe law firm, has been advising the same lobbying group on legal matters tied to new financial regulation.
Mr. Phillips, who was an appellate lawyer in the Justice Department during the Reagan administration, brought his first case in front of the Supreme Court when he was just 29 years old. Since then, he has appeared before the court more than 60 times. Mr. Phillips declined to comment about his work for the industry, referring all questions to the lobbying group.
Too Funny, Still Blaming Bush!
After Obama Rally, Dems Pin Blame On Bush
January 17, 2010 6:16 PM
Permalink
Comments (958)
Share This
By Felicia Sonmez
As audience members streamed out of Pres. Obama's rally on behalf of AG Martha Coakley (D) here tonight, the consensus was that the fault for Coakley's now-floundering MA SEN bid lies with one person -- George W. Bush.
"People are upset because there's so many problems," Rosemary Kverek, 70, a retired Charleston schoolteacher said as tonight's rally wrapped up. "But the problems came from the previous administration. So we're blaming poor Obama, who's working 36 hours a day ... to solve these problems that he inherited."
Rep. Patrick Kennedy (D-RI), speaking with a gaggle of reporters after the event, said that while state Sen. Scott Brown (R) offers voters a quick fix, in reality, the problems created by "George Bush and his cronies" are not so easily solved.
"If you think there's magic out there and things can be turned around overnight, then you would vote for someone who could promise you that, like Scott Brown," Kennedy said. "If you don't, if you know that it takes eight years for George Bush and his cronies to put our country into this hole ... then you know we have a lot of digging to do, but some work needs to be done and this president's in the process of doing it and we need to get Marcia Coakley to help him to do that."
(Curiously, Kennedy mentioned Coakley repeatedly during his remarks to reporters, each time referring to her as "Marcia," not "Martha.")
More Kennedy: "One thing the Democrats have done wrong? We haven't kept the focus on this disaster on the Republicans who brought it upon us. We've tried too hard to do that right thing, and that's to fix it, as opposed to spend more of our time and energy pointing the finger at who got us [here] in the first place."
Blaming their problems on Bush does carry a risk for Dems, however -- with their sights so firmly focused on the past, Brown's campaign has managed to wrest the "change" mantle from them.
Meanwhile, even as Kennedy took on both Bush and Brown head-on, some attendees were more muted in their criticism of Brown.
"I mean, he is handsome," Christine DiPitro, 61, of Malden, said of Brown.
"He does appeal to the regular guy with his truck, but that's about all."
January 17, 2010 6:16 PM
Permalink
Comments (958)
Share This
By Felicia Sonmez
As audience members streamed out of Pres. Obama's rally on behalf of AG Martha Coakley (D) here tonight, the consensus was that the fault for Coakley's now-floundering MA SEN bid lies with one person -- George W. Bush.
"People are upset because there's so many problems," Rosemary Kverek, 70, a retired Charleston schoolteacher said as tonight's rally wrapped up. "But the problems came from the previous administration. So we're blaming poor Obama, who's working 36 hours a day ... to solve these problems that he inherited."
Rep. Patrick Kennedy (D-RI), speaking with a gaggle of reporters after the event, said that while state Sen. Scott Brown (R) offers voters a quick fix, in reality, the problems created by "George Bush and his cronies" are not so easily solved.
"If you think there's magic out there and things can be turned around overnight, then you would vote for someone who could promise you that, like Scott Brown," Kennedy said. "If you don't, if you know that it takes eight years for George Bush and his cronies to put our country into this hole ... then you know we have a lot of digging to do, but some work needs to be done and this president's in the process of doing it and we need to get Marcia Coakley to help him to do that."
(Curiously, Kennedy mentioned Coakley repeatedly during his remarks to reporters, each time referring to her as "Marcia," not "Martha.")
More Kennedy: "One thing the Democrats have done wrong? We haven't kept the focus on this disaster on the Republicans who brought it upon us. We've tried too hard to do that right thing, and that's to fix it, as opposed to spend more of our time and energy pointing the finger at who got us [here] in the first place."
Blaming their problems on Bush does carry a risk for Dems, however -- with their sights so firmly focused on the past, Brown's campaign has managed to wrest the "change" mantle from them.
Meanwhile, even as Kennedy took on both Bush and Brown head-on, some attendees were more muted in their criticism of Brown.
"I mean, he is handsome," Christine DiPitro, 61, of Malden, said of Brown.
"He does appeal to the regular guy with his truck, but that's about all."
Sunday, January 17, 2010
New Element Discovered
NEW ELEMENT DISCOVERED!
Lawrence Livermore Laboratories has discovered the heaviest element yet known to science. The new element, Governmentium (Gv), has one neutron, 25 assistant neutrons, 88 deputy neutrons, and 198 assistant deputy neutrons, giving it an atomic mass of 312.
These 312 particles are held together by forces called morons, which are surrounded by vast quantities of lepton-like particles called peons.
Since Governmentium has no electrons, it is inert; however, it can be detected, because it impedes every reaction with which it comes into contact. A tiny amount of Governmentium can cause a reaction that would normally take less than a second, to take from 4 days to 4 years to complete. Governmentium has a normal half-life of 2- 6 years.
It does not decay, but instead undergoes a reorganization in which a portion of the assistant neutrons and deputy neutrons exchange places.
In fact, Governmentium's mass will actually increase over time, since each reorganization will cause more morons to become neutrons, forming isodopes. This characteristic of morons promotion leads some scientist to believe that Governmentium is formed whenever morons reach a critical concentration. This hypothetical quantity is referred to as critical
morass.
When catalyzed with money, Governmentium becomes Administratium, an element that radiates just as much energy as Governmentium since it has half as many peons but twice as many morons.
Lawrence Livermore Laboratories has discovered the heaviest element yet known to science. The new element, Governmentium (Gv), has one neutron, 25 assistant neutrons, 88 deputy neutrons, and 198 assistant deputy neutrons, giving it an atomic mass of 312.
These 312 particles are held together by forces called morons, which are surrounded by vast quantities of lepton-like particles called peons.
Since Governmentium has no electrons, it is inert; however, it can be detected, because it impedes every reaction with which it comes into contact. A tiny amount of Governmentium can cause a reaction that would normally take less than a second, to take from 4 days to 4 years to complete. Governmentium has a normal half-life of 2- 6 years.
It does not decay, but instead undergoes a reorganization in which a portion of the assistant neutrons and deputy neutrons exchange places.
In fact, Governmentium's mass will actually increase over time, since each reorganization will cause more morons to become neutrons, forming isodopes. This characteristic of morons promotion leads some scientist to believe that Governmentium is formed whenever morons reach a critical concentration. This hypothetical quantity is referred to as critical
morass.
When catalyzed with money, Governmentium becomes Administratium, an element that radiates just as much energy as Governmentium since it has half as many peons but twice as many morons.
'Atlas Shrugged': From Fiction to Fact in 52 Years
By STEPHEN MOORE
Some years ago when I worked at the libertarian Cato Institute, we used to label any new hire who had not yet read "Atlas Shrugged" a "virgin." Being conversant in Ayn Rand's classic novel about the economic carnage caused by big government run amok was practically a job requirement. If only "Atlas" were required reading for every member of Congress and political appointee in the Obama administration. I'm confident that we'd get out of the current financial mess a lot faster.
.Many of us who know Rand's work have noticed that with each passing week, and with each successive bailout plan and economic-stimulus scheme out of Washington, our current politicians are committing the very acts of economic lunacy that "Atlas Shrugged" parodied in 1957, when this 1,000-page novel was first published and became an instant hit.
Rand, who had come to America from Soviet Russia with striking insights into totalitarianism and the destructiveness of socialism, was already a celebrity. The left, naturally, hated her. But as recently as 1991, a survey by the Library of Congress and the Book of the Month Club found that readers rated "Atlas" as the second-most influential book in their lives, behind only the Bible.
For the uninitiated, the moral of the story is simply this: Politicians invariably respond to crises -- that in most cases they themselves created -- by spawning new government programs, laws and regulations. These, in turn, generate more havoc and poverty, which inspires the politicians to create more programs . . . and the downward spiral repeats itself until the productive sectors of the economy collapse under the collective weight of taxes and other burdens imposed in the name of fairness, equality and do-goodism.
In the book, these relentless wealth redistributionists and their programs are disparaged as "the looters and their laws." Every new act of government futility and stupidity carries with it a benevolent-sounding title. These include the "Anti-Greed Act" to redistribute income (sounds like Charlie Rangel's promises soak-the-rich tax bill) and the "Equalization of Opportunity Act" to prevent people from starting more than one business (to give other people a chance). My personal favorite, the "Anti Dog-Eat-Dog Act," aims to restrict cut-throat competition between firms and thus slow the wave of business bankruptcies. Why didn't Hank Paulson think of that?
These acts and edicts sound farcical, yes, but no more so than the actual events in Washington, circa 2008. We already have been served up the $700 billion "Emergency Economic Stabilization Act" and the "Auto Industry Financing and Restructuring Act." Now that Barack Obama is in town, he will soon sign into law with great urgency the "American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan." This latest Hail Mary pass will increase the federal budget (which has already expanded by $1.5 trillion in eight years under George Bush) by an additional $1 trillion -- in roughly his first 100 days in office.
The current economic strategy is right out of "Atlas Shrugged": The more incompetent you are in business, the more handouts the politicians will bestow on you. That's the justification for the $2 trillion of subsidies doled out already to keep afloat distressed insurance companies, banks, Wall Street investment houses, and auto companies -- while standing next in line for their share of the booty are real-estate developers, the steel industry, chemical companies, airlines, ethanol producers, construction firms and even catfish farmers. With each successive bailout to "calm the markets," another trillion of national wealth is subsequently lost. Yet, as "Atlas" grimly foretold, we now treat the incompetent who wreck their companies as victims, while those resourceful business owners who manage to make a profit are portrayed as recipients of illegitimate "windfalls."
When Rand was writing in the 1950s, one of the pillars of American industrial might was the railroads. In her novel the railroad owner, Dagny Taggart, an enterprising industrialist, has a FedEx-like vision for expansion and first-rate service by rail. But she is continuously badgered, cajoled, taxed, ruled and regulated -- always in the public interest -- into bankruptcy. Sound far-fetched? On the day I sat down to write this ode to "Atlas," a Wall Street Journal headline blared: "Rail Shippers Ask Congress to Regulate Freight Prices."
In one chapter of the book, an entrepreneur invents a new miracle metal -- stronger but lighter than steel. The government immediately appropriates the invention in "the public good." The politicians demand that the metal inventor come to Washington and sign over ownership of his invention or lose everything.
The scene is eerily similar to an event late last year when six bank presidents were summoned by Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson to Washington, and then shuttled into a conference room and told, in effect, that they could not leave until they collectively signed a document handing over percentages of their future profits to the government. The Treasury folks insisted that this shakedown, too, was all in "the public interest."
Ultimately, "Atlas Shrugged" is a celebration of the entrepreneur, the risk taker and the cultivator of wealth through human intellect. Critics dismissed the novel as simple-minded, and even some of Rand's political admirers complained that she lacked compassion. Yet one pertinent warning resounds throughout the book: When profits and wealth and creativity are denigrated in society, they start to disappear -- leaving everyone the poorer.
One memorable moment in "Atlas" occurs near the very end, when the economy has been rendered comatose by all the great economic minds in Washington. Finally, and out of desperation, the politicians come to the heroic businessman John Galt (who has resisted their assault on capitalism) and beg him to help them get the economy back on track. The discussion sounds much like what would happen today:
Galt: "You want me to be Economic Dictator?"
Mr. Thompson: "Yes!"
"And you'll obey any order I give?"
"Implicitly!"
"Then start by abolishing all income taxes."
"Oh no!" screamed Mr. Thompson, leaping to his feet. "We couldn't do that . . . How would we pay government employees?"
"Fire your government employees."
"Oh, no!"
Abolishing the income tax. Now that really would be a genuine economic stimulus. But Mr. Obama and the Democrats in Washington want to do the opposite: to raise the income tax "for purposes of fairness" as Barack Obama puts it.
David Kelley, the president of the Atlas Society, which is dedicated to promoting Rand's ideas, explains that "the older the book gets, the more timely its message." He tells me that there are plans to make "Atlas Shrugged" into a major motion picture -- it is the only classic novel of recent decades that was never made into a movie. "We don't need to make a movie out of the book," Mr. Kelley jokes. "We are living it right now."
Mr. Moore is senior economics writer for The Wall Street Journal editorial page.
Some years ago when I worked at the libertarian Cato Institute, we used to label any new hire who had not yet read "Atlas Shrugged" a "virgin." Being conversant in Ayn Rand's classic novel about the economic carnage caused by big government run amok was practically a job requirement. If only "Atlas" were required reading for every member of Congress and political appointee in the Obama administration. I'm confident that we'd get out of the current financial mess a lot faster.
.Many of us who know Rand's work have noticed that with each passing week, and with each successive bailout plan and economic-stimulus scheme out of Washington, our current politicians are committing the very acts of economic lunacy that "Atlas Shrugged" parodied in 1957, when this 1,000-page novel was first published and became an instant hit.
Rand, who had come to America from Soviet Russia with striking insights into totalitarianism and the destructiveness of socialism, was already a celebrity. The left, naturally, hated her. But as recently as 1991, a survey by the Library of Congress and the Book of the Month Club found that readers rated "Atlas" as the second-most influential book in their lives, behind only the Bible.
For the uninitiated, the moral of the story is simply this: Politicians invariably respond to crises -- that in most cases they themselves created -- by spawning new government programs, laws and regulations. These, in turn, generate more havoc and poverty, which inspires the politicians to create more programs . . . and the downward spiral repeats itself until the productive sectors of the economy collapse under the collective weight of taxes and other burdens imposed in the name of fairness, equality and do-goodism.
In the book, these relentless wealth redistributionists and their programs are disparaged as "the looters and their laws." Every new act of government futility and stupidity carries with it a benevolent-sounding title. These include the "Anti-Greed Act" to redistribute income (sounds like Charlie Rangel's promises soak-the-rich tax bill) and the "Equalization of Opportunity Act" to prevent people from starting more than one business (to give other people a chance). My personal favorite, the "Anti Dog-Eat-Dog Act," aims to restrict cut-throat competition between firms and thus slow the wave of business bankruptcies. Why didn't Hank Paulson think of that?
These acts and edicts sound farcical, yes, but no more so than the actual events in Washington, circa 2008. We already have been served up the $700 billion "Emergency Economic Stabilization Act" and the "Auto Industry Financing and Restructuring Act." Now that Barack Obama is in town, he will soon sign into law with great urgency the "American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan." This latest Hail Mary pass will increase the federal budget (which has already expanded by $1.5 trillion in eight years under George Bush) by an additional $1 trillion -- in roughly his first 100 days in office.
The current economic strategy is right out of "Atlas Shrugged": The more incompetent you are in business, the more handouts the politicians will bestow on you. That's the justification for the $2 trillion of subsidies doled out already to keep afloat distressed insurance companies, banks, Wall Street investment houses, and auto companies -- while standing next in line for their share of the booty are real-estate developers, the steel industry, chemical companies, airlines, ethanol producers, construction firms and even catfish farmers. With each successive bailout to "calm the markets," another trillion of national wealth is subsequently lost. Yet, as "Atlas" grimly foretold, we now treat the incompetent who wreck their companies as victims, while those resourceful business owners who manage to make a profit are portrayed as recipients of illegitimate "windfalls."
When Rand was writing in the 1950s, one of the pillars of American industrial might was the railroads. In her novel the railroad owner, Dagny Taggart, an enterprising industrialist, has a FedEx-like vision for expansion and first-rate service by rail. But she is continuously badgered, cajoled, taxed, ruled and regulated -- always in the public interest -- into bankruptcy. Sound far-fetched? On the day I sat down to write this ode to "Atlas," a Wall Street Journal headline blared: "Rail Shippers Ask Congress to Regulate Freight Prices."
In one chapter of the book, an entrepreneur invents a new miracle metal -- stronger but lighter than steel. The government immediately appropriates the invention in "the public good." The politicians demand that the metal inventor come to Washington and sign over ownership of his invention or lose everything.
The scene is eerily similar to an event late last year when six bank presidents were summoned by Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson to Washington, and then shuttled into a conference room and told, in effect, that they could not leave until they collectively signed a document handing over percentages of their future profits to the government. The Treasury folks insisted that this shakedown, too, was all in "the public interest."
Ultimately, "Atlas Shrugged" is a celebration of the entrepreneur, the risk taker and the cultivator of wealth through human intellect. Critics dismissed the novel as simple-minded, and even some of Rand's political admirers complained that she lacked compassion. Yet one pertinent warning resounds throughout the book: When profits and wealth and creativity are denigrated in society, they start to disappear -- leaving everyone the poorer.
One memorable moment in "Atlas" occurs near the very end, when the economy has been rendered comatose by all the great economic minds in Washington. Finally, and out of desperation, the politicians come to the heroic businessman John Galt (who has resisted their assault on capitalism) and beg him to help them get the economy back on track. The discussion sounds much like what would happen today:
Galt: "You want me to be Economic Dictator?"
Mr. Thompson: "Yes!"
"And you'll obey any order I give?"
"Implicitly!"
"Then start by abolishing all income taxes."
"Oh no!" screamed Mr. Thompson, leaping to his feet. "We couldn't do that . . . How would we pay government employees?"
"Fire your government employees."
"Oh, no!"
Abolishing the income tax. Now that really would be a genuine economic stimulus. But Mr. Obama and the Democrats in Washington want to do the opposite: to raise the income tax "for purposes of fairness" as Barack Obama puts it.
David Kelley, the president of the Atlas Society, which is dedicated to promoting Rand's ideas, explains that "the older the book gets, the more timely its message." He tells me that there are plans to make "Atlas Shrugged" into a major motion picture -- it is the only classic novel of recent decades that was never made into a movie. "We don't need to make a movie out of the book," Mr. Kelley jokes. "We are living it right now."
Mr. Moore is senior economics writer for The Wall Street Journal editorial page.
The Truth About the Health Care Bill
The Truth About the Health Care Bills - Michael Connelly, Ret. Constitutional Attorney
Well, I have done it! I have read the entire text of proposed House Bill 3200: The Affordable Health Care Choices Act of 2009. I studied it with particular emphasis from my area of expertise, constitutional law. I was frankly concerned that parts of the proposed law that were being discussed might be unconstitutional. What I found was far worse than what I had heard or expected.
To begin with, much of what has been said about the law and its implications is in fact true, despite what the Democrats and the media are saying. The law does provide for rationing of health care, particularly where senior citizens and other classes of citizens are involved, free health care for illegal immigrants, free abortion services, and probably forced participation in abortions by members of the medical profession.
The Bill will also eventually force private insurance companies out of business, and put everyone into a government run system. All decisions about personal health care will ultimately be made by federal bureaucrats, and most of them will not be health care professionals. Hospital admissions, payments to physicians, and allocations of necessary medical devices will be strictly controlled by the government.
However, as scary as all of that is, it just scratches the surface. In fact, I have concluded that this legislation really has no intention of providing affordable health care choices. Instead it is a convenient cover for the most massive transfer of power to the Executive Branch of government that has ever occurred, or even been contemplated. If this law or a similar one is adopted, major portions of the Constitution of the United States will effectively have been destroyed.
The first thing to go will be the masterfully crafted balance of power between the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches of the U.S. Government. The Congress will be transferring to the Obama Administration authority in a number of different areas over the lives of the American people, and the businesses they own.
The irony is that the Congress doesn't have any authority to legislate in most of those areas to begin with! I defy anyone to read the text of the U.S. Constitution and find any authority granted to the members of Congress to regulate health care.
This legislation also provides for access, by the appointees of the Obama administration, of all of your personal healthcare information, your personal financial information, and the information of your employer, physician, and hospital. All of this is a direct violation of the specific provisions of the 4th Amendment to the Constitution protecting against unreasonable searches and seizures. You can also forget about the right to privacy. That will have been legislated into oblivion regardless of what the 3rd and 4th Amendments may provide.
If you decide not to have healthcare insurance, or if you have private insurance that is not deemed acceptable to the Health Choices Administrator appointed by Obama, there will be a tax imposed on you. It is called a tax instead of a fine because of the intent to avoid application of the due process clause of the 5th Amendment. However, that doesn't work because since there is nothing in the law that allows you to contest or appeal the imposition of the tax, it is definitely depriving someone of property without the due process of law.
So, there are three of those pesky amendments that the far left hate so much, out the original ten in the Bill of Rights, that are effectively nullified by this law. It doesn't stop there though.
The 9th Amendment that provides: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people;
The 10th Amendment states: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are preserved to the States respectively, or to the people. Under the provisions of this piece of Congressional handiwork neither the people nor the states are going to have any rights or powers at all in many areas that once were theirs to control.
I could write many more pages about this legislation, but I think you get the idea. This is not about health care; it is about seizing power and limiting rights. Article 6 of the Constitution requires the members of both houses of Congress to "be bound by oath or affirmation to support the Constitution." If I was a member of Congress I would not be able to vote for this legislation or anything like it, without feeling I was violating that sacred oath or affirmation. If I voted for it anyway, I would hope the American people would hold me accountable.
For those who might doubt the nature of this threat, I suggest they consult the source, the US Constitution, and Bill of Rights. There you can see exactly what we are about to have taken from us.
Michael Connelly
Retired attorney,
Constitutional Law Instructor
Carrollton , Texas
Well, I have done it! I have read the entire text of proposed House Bill 3200: The Affordable Health Care Choices Act of 2009. I studied it with particular emphasis from my area of expertise, constitutional law. I was frankly concerned that parts of the proposed law that were being discussed might be unconstitutional. What I found was far worse than what I had heard or expected.
To begin with, much of what has been said about the law and its implications is in fact true, despite what the Democrats and the media are saying. The law does provide for rationing of health care, particularly where senior citizens and other classes of citizens are involved, free health care for illegal immigrants, free abortion services, and probably forced participation in abortions by members of the medical profession.
The Bill will also eventually force private insurance companies out of business, and put everyone into a government run system. All decisions about personal health care will ultimately be made by federal bureaucrats, and most of them will not be health care professionals. Hospital admissions, payments to physicians, and allocations of necessary medical devices will be strictly controlled by the government.
However, as scary as all of that is, it just scratches the surface. In fact, I have concluded that this legislation really has no intention of providing affordable health care choices. Instead it is a convenient cover for the most massive transfer of power to the Executive Branch of government that has ever occurred, or even been contemplated. If this law or a similar one is adopted, major portions of the Constitution of the United States will effectively have been destroyed.
The first thing to go will be the masterfully crafted balance of power between the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches of the U.S. Government. The Congress will be transferring to the Obama Administration authority in a number of different areas over the lives of the American people, and the businesses they own.
The irony is that the Congress doesn't have any authority to legislate in most of those areas to begin with! I defy anyone to read the text of the U.S. Constitution and find any authority granted to the members of Congress to regulate health care.
This legislation also provides for access, by the appointees of the Obama administration, of all of your personal healthcare information, your personal financial information, and the information of your employer, physician, and hospital. All of this is a direct violation of the specific provisions of the 4th Amendment to the Constitution protecting against unreasonable searches and seizures. You can also forget about the right to privacy. That will have been legislated into oblivion regardless of what the 3rd and 4th Amendments may provide.
If you decide not to have healthcare insurance, or if you have private insurance that is not deemed acceptable to the Health Choices Administrator appointed by Obama, there will be a tax imposed on you. It is called a tax instead of a fine because of the intent to avoid application of the due process clause of the 5th Amendment. However, that doesn't work because since there is nothing in the law that allows you to contest or appeal the imposition of the tax, it is definitely depriving someone of property without the due process of law.
So, there are three of those pesky amendments that the far left hate so much, out the original ten in the Bill of Rights, that are effectively nullified by this law. It doesn't stop there though.
The 9th Amendment that provides: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people;
The 10th Amendment states: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are preserved to the States respectively, or to the people. Under the provisions of this piece of Congressional handiwork neither the people nor the states are going to have any rights or powers at all in many areas that once were theirs to control.
I could write many more pages about this legislation, but I think you get the idea. This is not about health care; it is about seizing power and limiting rights. Article 6 of the Constitution requires the members of both houses of Congress to "be bound by oath or affirmation to support the Constitution." If I was a member of Congress I would not be able to vote for this legislation or anything like it, without feeling I was violating that sacred oath or affirmation. If I voted for it anyway, I would hope the American people would hold me accountable.
For those who might doubt the nature of this threat, I suggest they consult the source, the US Constitution, and Bill of Rights. There you can see exactly what we are about to have taken from us.
Michael Connelly
Retired attorney,
Constitutional Law Instructor
Carrollton , Texas
A little about me...
My name is Scott Trent. I live in Cumming GA. I am very passionate about Politics and my Country. If I offend you, well, thats too bad. You will not be the first. I speak my mind and I believe in Freedom of Speech. That`s MY right. I believe the direction our Country is going in is completely wrong. We are moving to a European Socialist State, reguardless of what Obama and his minions would have you to believe. The current Health Care Bill is horrible. It`s filled with corruption like Bribes to States for votes and concessions to Unions. What about the other 87 million non - Union working Americans? Why do we have to pay a higher tax while Obama`s supporters get a break? This is wrong. What this corrupt Senate did with Ben Nelson to buy his vote was completely wrong and immoral. Should be against the Law. Bribery is against the Law for the rest of us.
I still have not had anyone answer this simplest of questions, why do people think they have a 'right' to my property simply because they have a need? "When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they create for themselves in the course of time a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that justifies it." Frederic Bastiat. No one has a right to mine or your property simply because they have a need. This health care bill is a prime examply. How many of the 31 million Americans that Obama is going to give a handout to are illegals? How many people chose not to work or chose not to buy a health care plan? How many have big flat screen tvs, new cars and cell phones and no health care plan through their own choosing? Now I know there are cases where pre existing conditions can exempt people from buying a plan, But, to take by force from one group to give to another is wrong in my opinion. We have thousands of charitable organizations in the US, I give to charity. But, there is a very big difference in my choosing to give and my property being taken by force. Big Difference. There is things we could do to make health care in America a little better without a takeove by the government. Open up State lines and allow insurance companies compete across state lines. Tort reform would be a tremendous help.
I feel like I am living in the movie Red Dawn only it`s not the Russian who have invaded the US, it`s the an attack from within. I believe we have Communists among us who have no idea that they are really Communists. I blame public schools for this. Government indoctrination has been going on for decades and it has dumbed down America`s citizens. Obama is ignoring the Constitution. The U.S. Constitution is a limitation on the government, not on private individuals ... it does not prescribe the conduct of private individuals, only the conduct of the government ... it is not a charter for government power, but a charter of the citizen's protection against the government. I truely believe Obama and the Democrats (Socialists-Communists) want to destroy our Constitution and start over with a new one. One where Government controls everything like the banks, automakers and health care or any every business around. We heard some Obama supporters last year during the election screaming that "we don`t want to just put a new set of batteries in an old system, we want o whole new system". Or the lady who said on the Nightly News that she is going to support Obama because if she helps him out, Obama will help her out. She said she would not have to worry about paying her mortgage or worry about buy gas for her car. Obama will pay her way. Disgusting.
Anyway, the football playoffs are coming on and I think I`ll watch. But I will be watching the news online and for now... football.
Scott
I still have not had anyone answer this simplest of questions, why do people think they have a 'right' to my property simply because they have a need? "When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they create for themselves in the course of time a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that justifies it." Frederic Bastiat. No one has a right to mine or your property simply because they have a need. This health care bill is a prime examply. How many of the 31 million Americans that Obama is going to give a handout to are illegals? How many people chose not to work or chose not to buy a health care plan? How many have big flat screen tvs, new cars and cell phones and no health care plan through their own choosing? Now I know there are cases where pre existing conditions can exempt people from buying a plan, But, to take by force from one group to give to another is wrong in my opinion. We have thousands of charitable organizations in the US, I give to charity. But, there is a very big difference in my choosing to give and my property being taken by force. Big Difference. There is things we could do to make health care in America a little better without a takeove by the government. Open up State lines and allow insurance companies compete across state lines. Tort reform would be a tremendous help.
I feel like I am living in the movie Red Dawn only it`s not the Russian who have invaded the US, it`s the an attack from within. I believe we have Communists among us who have no idea that they are really Communists. I blame public schools for this. Government indoctrination has been going on for decades and it has dumbed down America`s citizens. Obama is ignoring the Constitution. The U.S. Constitution is a limitation on the government, not on private individuals ... it does not prescribe the conduct of private individuals, only the conduct of the government ... it is not a charter for government power, but a charter of the citizen's protection against the government. I truely believe Obama and the Democrats (Socialists-Communists) want to destroy our Constitution and start over with a new one. One where Government controls everything like the banks, automakers and health care or any every business around. We heard some Obama supporters last year during the election screaming that "we don`t want to just put a new set of batteries in an old system, we want o whole new system". Or the lady who said on the Nightly News that she is going to support Obama because if she helps him out, Obama will help her out. She said she would not have to worry about paying her mortgage or worry about buy gas for her car. Obama will pay her way. Disgusting.
Anyway, the football playoffs are coming on and I think I`ll watch. But I will be watching the news online and for now... football.
Scott
Kindle Wireless Reading Devise
Kindle Wireless Reading Device (6" Display, Global Wireless, Latest Generation)
http://www.amazon.com/Kindle-Wireless-Reading-Display-Generation/dp/B0015T963C/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=digital-text&qid=1263748803&sr=8-1
I recieved a Kindle from Amazon for Christmas and I really like the features. You can buy new books for below market costs, usually $9.99 or less for new books that can cost $15 to $20 or more. Your book will be delivered wirelessly within 60 second. Reading on a Kindle is great. It`s lighter than holding a book and you can order your favorite newspapers, magazines and blogs wirelessly to your Kindle. Its great. Its kind of like when I got my hands ona GPS for the first time, I didn`t know what I was missing until I got one. Now I cannot live without it or my Kindle.
Scott
http://www.amazon.com/Kindle-Wireless-Reading-Display-Generation/dp/B0015T963C/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=digital-text&qid=1263748803&sr=8-1
I recieved a Kindle from Amazon for Christmas and I really like the features. You can buy new books for below market costs, usually $9.99 or less for new books that can cost $15 to $20 or more. Your book will be delivered wirelessly within 60 second. Reading on a Kindle is great. It`s lighter than holding a book and you can order your favorite newspapers, magazines and blogs wirelessly to your Kindle. Its great. Its kind of like when I got my hands ona GPS for the first time, I didn`t know what I was missing until I got one. Now I cannot live without it or my Kindle.
Scott
Why We Don`t Want ObamaCare!
Why We The People Don't Want Obamacare...
Health Care by TWG
Why we don't want the Government takeover of our Healthcare System here in The United States of America:
I usually answer this question with the very simple "Our Constitution does not require that We, The People provide healthcare." In fact, our Founding Fathers specifically made sure of that fact in order to protect We, The People.
I’ve been saying for ages that the reason Obama and his socialist agenda are winning the day is because people under a certain age don’t really even know what socilialism is!!! We need to make sure people know the truth!
Here's a quote from Dr. Adrian Rogers:
“You cannot legislate the poor into freedom by legislating the wealthy out of freedom. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that my dear friend, is about the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it.”
I recall a conversation I had with a young Friend in the latter weeks of Obama’s campaign for president. Joe the plumber had just exposed the redistributionist bent of the candidate, and I expressed my assessment of Mr. Obama as a not-so-closeted socialist. My Friend then quite earnestly asked, “What’s so wrong with socialism?”
I initially assumed he must be joking, although his face gave no indication. I stared at him dumbfounded, only later realizing I must have looked like a palsied old woman — my mouth working wordlessly, the incomprehension as evident on my face as the sincerity on his. It eventually dawned on me that he really didn’t know what was wrong with socialism. I began reciting the litany of horrors: the crimes of the Holocaust, the purges of the Soviets, the thuggery and inhuman brutality of the statist regimes of the last century. The Nazis, for crissake! How could he not know about the evil of the Nazis? He listened to all of this, nodding his understanding as he recognized some of the events I described, but I could still see a question behind his eyes. While he had been taught of the existence of these atrocities, he had not been clued into the one commonality they shared. They were all perpetrated by the adherents of various forms of socialism. Indeed, such crimes were the only outcome possible.
How do you attain total commitment to a goal from a free people? Well, you don’t. Some percentage will always disagree, even if only for the sake of being contrary or out of a desire to be left alone. When considering a program as comprehensive as a government-planned economy, there are undoubtedly countless points of contention, such as how we will choose the planners, how we will order our priorities when assigning them importance within the plan, how we will allocate resources when competing interests have legitimate claims, who will make these decisions, and perhaps more pertinent to this, how those decisions will be enforced. A rift forming on even one of these issues is enough to bring the gears of this progressive endeavor grinding to a halt. This fatal flaw in the collectivist design cannot be reengineered. It is an error so critical that the entire ideology must be scrapped.
So this is the challenge we face. My young friend had no frame of reference by which to judge the events unfolding around him. He had been presented with only the intentions of socialism, not the inevitable results. He had been given the whitewashed fantasy of the Left, who never saw a failure that couldn’t be rationalized — or better yet, blamed on others. Our job, then, is to teach the lessons of history to those who fail to see the danger. We have to provide that all-important perspective to a generation that has been denied it. We have to do this one at a time, conversation by conversation. Tell your friends the truth; don’t assume they know it. Become the person your friends and family consult when the subject turns to politics.
We can’t wait until the tree bears fruit to determine its worth. Fruit bears seeds, and seeds scatter. Better to tear it out as a single sapling now than to hew down an entire forest of diseased wood after it has poisoned the ground.
The Left will not willingly lay claim to the true legacy of socialism, so we will have to hang it around their necks. They have grown accustomed to shedding responsibility for the damage they have done, and are adept at shifting the blame. Traditional means of holding them to account are failing. The academy and media will not challenge even their most egregious lies, so howling about bias will gain us nothing.
If you doubt the effectiveness of the Left’s methods, ask any ten people under the age of forty whether Hitler and the Nazis were a product of left-wing or right-wing ideology. The obstacle we face will become painfully clear. It is not enough that you know the truth. You alone are not likely to singlehandedly shape the outcome of an election. Everyone has to know the truth. We have to reclaim our younger generations from the wolf in sheep’s clothing, or it won’t be long before the wolf no longer needs the disguise.
When President Barack Obama entered office in January, the greatest problem America faced was neither the war in Afghanistan nor the recession. It was the imminent crisis of the welfare state.
Not only has Obama failed to deal with this crisis, he is pursuing policies that will bankrupt America.
First, he signed a $787-billion stimulus law. Obama repeatedly claimed this law – that not one member of Congress read in its entirety – was urgently needed to create jobs. In fact, most of the new spending it authorized was for longer-term projects, including creating a national system of electronic health records for every person in America in anticipation of Obama’s plan to nationalize the health care system.
The Government Accountability Office reported last month that at the end of fiscal 2009, 78 percent of the stimulus money remained unspent. But don’t worry: Obama will spend it eventually.
Then, Obama offered his first federal budget. In 2008, President Bush’s last year in office, the federal government spent $2.983 trillion. Under Obama’s plan, according to the Congressional Budget Office, annual federal spending will climb to $4.982 trillion by 2019. In 2008, the federal deficit was a record $459 billion. Over the next decade, Obama’s plan would increase the national debt by a total of $7.137 trillion, running annual deficits averaging $713.7 billion per year.
CBO’s estimate of Obama’s new federal debt was based on optimistic assumptions. It assumed low inflation rates, low interest rates and a national economy that grows for 10 straight years after this year without dipping into another recession. It also assumed that the Bush tax cuts would expire as planned after 2010 and income tax rates would rise for middle-class Americans.
The CBO estimate of Obama’s borrowing and spending was also made before Congress finalized drafts of the health care reform legislation Obama has pushed as his signature policy proposal.
Obama has said he would not sign a health care bill that increases the national debt, and when the CBO released its analysis of the Senate health care bill last month it concluded that the bill would actually decrease federal deficits by $130 billion over 10 years.
But that was an illusion.
The key elements of the bill (including federal subsidies to buy health insurance for people making less than 400 percent of the poverty level) do not take effect until 2014 — after Obama runs for re-election in 2012. As a result, the bill’s full cost is not exposed during the initial 10-year time frame that the CBO analyzes when making its official cost estimates.
In fact, according to CBO and the Joint Committee on Taxation, the new entitlements in the bill will cost $0 in 2010 (when Congress is up for re-election), $1 billion in 2011, $4 billion in 2012 (when Obama and Congress are both up for re-election) and $4 billion in 2013. The cost will then balloon to $48 billion in 2014, before rising steadily to $196 billion per year by 2019.
Yet it doesn’t end there. The cost of the new health care entitlements will be “growing at about 8 percent per year toward the end of the 10-year budget window,” reported CBO. “As a rough approximation, CBO assumes continued growth at about that rate during the following decade.”
Do the math: If the bill follows the spending trajectory predicted by the CBO, it will cost $423.13 billion in 2029 and its total 10-year cost from 2020 through 2029 will be $3.07 trillion. Obamacare will cost more in its second decade than the entire federal government cost the year Obama was elected.
At that price tag, it does not even accomplish the goal of universal health care. “By 2019, CBO and JCT estimate, the number of nonelderly people who are uninsured would be reduced by about 31 million, leaving about 24 million nonelderly residents uninsured (about one-third of whom would be unauthorized immigrants),” say the CBO report.
But if Obama succeeds in enacting his health care reform, he will move on to his plan for a “comprehensive immigration reform” that will put illegal aliens on a “pathway to citizenship” — making them eligible for the federal health care entitlement.
If Obama succeeds, get ready for the crash. It is coming.
There isn't a single government agency or division that runs efficiently; do we really want an organization that developed the U.S. Tax Code handling something as complex as health care? Quick, try to think of one government office that runs efficiently. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac? The Department of Transportation? Social Security Administration? Department of Education? There isn't a single government office that squeezes efficiency out of every dollar the way the private sector can. We've all heard stories of government waste such as million-dollar cow flatulence studies or the Pentagon's 14 billion dollar Bradley design project that resulted in a transport vehicle which when struck by a mortar produced a gas that killed every man inside. How about the U.S. income tax system? When originally implemented, it collected 1 percent from the highest income citizens. Look at it today. A few years back to government published a "Tax Simplification Guide", and the guide itself was over 1,000 pages long! This is what happens when politicians mess with something that should be simple. Think about the Department of Motor Vehicles. This isn't rocket science--they have to keep track of licenses and basic database information for state residents. However, the costs to support the department are enormous, and when was the last time you went to the DMV and didn't have to stand in line? If it can't handle things this simple, how can we expect the government to handle all the complex nuances of the medical system? If any private business failed year after year to achieve its objectives and satisfy its customers, it would go out of business or be passed up by competitors.
"Free" health care isn't really free since we must pay for it with taxes; expenses for health care would have to be paid for with higher taxes or spending cuts in other areas such as defense, education, etc. There's an entitlement mentality in this country that believes the government should give us a number of benefits such as "free" health care. But the government must pay for this somehow. What good would it do to wipe out a few hundred dollars of monthly health insurance premiums if our taxes go up by that much or more? If we have to cut AIDS research or education spending, is it worth it?
Profit motives, competition, and individual ingenuity have always led to greater cost control and effectiveness. Government workers have fewer incentives to do well. They have a set hourly schedule, cost-of-living raises, and few promotion opportunities. Compare this to private sector workers who can receive large raises, earn promotions, and work overtime. Government workers have iron-clad job security; private sector workers must always worry about keeping their jobs, and private businesses must always worry about cutting costs enough to survive.
Government-controlled health care would lead to a decrease in patient flexibility. At first glance, it would appear universal health care would increase flexibility. After all, if government paid for everything under one plan, you could in theory go to any doctor. However, some controls are going to have to be put in to keep costs from exploding. For example, would "elective" surgeries such as breast implants, wart removal, hair restoration, and lasik eye surgery be covered? Then you may say, that's easy, make patients pay for elective surgery. Although some procedures are obviously not needed, who decides what is elective and what is required? What about a breast reduction for back problems? What about a hysterectomy for fibroid problems? What about a nose job to fix a septum problem caused in an accident? Whenever you have government control of something, you have one item added to the equation that will most definitely screw things up--politics. Suddenly, every medical procedure and situation is going to come down to a political battle. The compromises that result will put in controls that limit patient options. The universal system in Canada forces patients to wait over 6 months for a routine pap smear. Canada residents will often go to the U.S. or offer additional money to get their health care needs taken care of.
Patients aren't likely to curb their drug costs and doctor visits if health care is free; thus, total costs will be several times what they are now. Co-pays and deductibles were put in place because there are medical problems that are more minor annoyances than anything else. Sure, it would be nice if we had the medical staff and resources to treat every ache and pain experienced by an American, but we don't. For example, what if a patient is having trouble sleeping? What if a patient has a minor cold, flu, or headache? There are scores of problems that we wouldn't go to a doctor to solve if we had to pay for it; however, if everything is free, why not go? The result is that doctors must spend more time on non-critical care, and the patients that really need immediate help must wait. In fact, for a number of problems, it's better if no medical care is given whatsoever. The body's immune system is designed to fight off infections and other illnesses. It becomes stronger when it can fight things off on its own. Treating the symptoms can prolong the underlying problem, in addition to the societal side effects such as the growing antibiotic resistance of certain infections.
Just because Americans are uninsured doesn't mean they can't receive health care; nonprofits and government-run hospitals provide services to those who don't have insurance, and it is illegal to refuse emergency medical service because of a lack of insurance. While uninsured Americans are a problem in regards to total system cost, it doesn't mean health care isn't available. This issue shouldn't be as emotional since there are plenty of government and private medical practices designed to help the uninsured. It is illegal to refuse emergency treatment, even if the patient is an illegal immigrant.
Government-mandated procedures will likely reduce doctor flexibility and lead to poor patient care. When government controls things, politics always seep into the decision-making. Steps will have to be taken to keep costs under control. Rules will be put in place as to when doctors can perform certain expensive tests or when drugs can be given. Insurance companies are already tying the hands of doctors somewhat. Government influence will only make things worse, leading to decreased doctor flexibility and poor patient care.
Healthy people who take care of themselves will have to pay for the burden of those who smoke, are obese, etc. Universal health care means the costs will be spread to all Americans, regardless of your health or your need for medical care, which is fundamentally unfair. Your health is greatly determined by your lifestyle. Those who exercise, eat right, don't smoke, don't drink, etc. have far fewer health problems than the smoking couch potatoes. Some healthy people don't even feel the need for health insurance since they never go to the doctor. Why should we punish those that live a healthy lifestyle and reward the ones who don't?
A long, painful transition will have to take place involving lost insurance industry jobs, business closures, and new patient record creation. A universal health plan means the entire health insurance industry would be unnecessary. All companies in that area would have to go out of business, meaning all people employed in the industry would be out of work. A number of hospital record clerks that dealt with insurance would also be out of work. A number of these unemployed would be able to get jobs in the new government bureaucracy, but it would still be a long, painful transition. We'd also have to once again go through a whole new round of patient record creation and database construction, which would cost huge amounts of both time and money.
Loss of private practice options and possible reduced pay may dissuade many would-be doctors from pursuing the profession. Government jobs currently have statute-mandated salaries and civil service tests required for getting hired. There isn't a lot of flexibility built in to reward the best performing workers. Imagine how this would limit the options of medical professionals. Doctors who attract scores of patients and do the best work would likely be paid the same as those that perform poorly and drive patients away. The private practice options and flexibility of specialties is one of things that attracts students to the profession. If you take that away, you may discourage would-be students from putting themselves through the torture of medical school and residency.
Malpractice lawsuit costs, which are already sky-high, could further explode since universal care may expose the government to legal liability, and the possibility to sue someone with deep pockets usually invites more lawsuits. When you're dealing with any business, for example a privately-funded hospital, if an employee negligently causes an injury, the employer is ultimately liable in a lawsuit. If government funds all health care, that would mean the U.S. government, an organization with enormous amounts of cash at its disposal, would be ultimately responsible for the mistakes of health care workers. Whether or not a doctor has made a mistake, he or she is always a target for frivolous lawsuits by money-hungry lawyers & clients that smell deep pockets. Even if the health care quality is the same as in a government-funded system, the level of lawsuits is likely to increase simply because attorneys know the government has the money to make settlements and massive payouts. Try to imagine potential punitive damages alone. When the government has the ability to spend several trillion dollars per year, how much will a jury be willing to give a wronged individual who is feeble, disfigured, or dying?
Government is more likely to pass additional restrictions or increase taxes on smoking, fast food, etc., leading to a further loss of personal freedoms. With government-paid health care, any risky or unhealthy lifestyle will raise the dollar cost to society. Thus, politicians will be in a strong position to pass more "sin" taxes on things like alcohol, high-fat food, smoking, etc. They could ban trans fat, limit msg, eliminate high-fructose corn syrup, and so on. For some health nuts, this may sound like a good thing. But pretty soon, people will find they no longer have the option to enjoy their favorite foods, even in moderation, or alternatively, the cost of the items will be sky high. Also, it just gives the government yet another method of controlling our lives, further eroding the very definition of America, Land of the Free.
Patient confidentiality is likely to be compromised since centralized health information will likely be maintained by the government. While a centralized computer health information system may reduce some costs of record keeping, protecting the privacy of patients will likely become very difficult. The government would have yet another way to access information about citizens that should be private. Any doctor or other health professional would be able to access your entire health history. What if hackers get into the data?
Health care equipment, drugs, and services may end up being rationed by the government. In other words, politics, lifestyle of patients, and philosophical differences of those in power, could determine who gets what. Any time you have politicians making health care decisions instead of medical or economics professions, you open a whole group of potential rationing issues. As costs inevitably get out of control and have to be curtailed, some ways will be needed to cut costs. Care will have to be rationed. How do you determine what to do with limited resources? How much of "experimental" treatments will have to be eliminated? If you're over 80, will the government pay for the same services as people under 30? Would you be able to get something as expensive as a pacemaker or an organ transplant if you're old? Would your political party affiliation or group membership determine if you received certain treatments? What if you acquire AIDS through drug use or homosexual activity, would you still receive medical services? What if you get liver disease through alcoholism, or diabetes from being overweight, or lung cancer from smoking--will the government still help you? You may or may not trust the current president & Congress to make reasonable decisions, but what about future presidents and congressional members?
Patients may be subjected to extremely long waits for treatment. Stories constantly come out of universal health care programs in Britain and Canada about patients forced to wait months or years for treatments that we can currently receive immediately in America. With limited financial and human resources, the government will have to make tough choices about who can have treatment first, and who must wait. Patients will like be forced to suffer longer or possibly die waiting for treatment.
Like social security, any government benefit eventually is taken as a "right" by the public, meaning that it's politically near impossible to remove or curtail it later on when costs get out of control. Social security was originally put in place to help seniors live the last few years of their lives; however, the retirement age of 65 was set when average life spans were dramatically shorter. Now that people are regular living into their 90s or longer, costs are skyrocketing out of control, making the program unsustainable. Despite the fact that all politicians know the system is heading for bankruptcy in a couple decades, no one is rushing to fix it. When President Bush tried to re-structure it with private accounts, the Democrats ran a scare campaign about Bush's intention to "take away your social security". Even though he promised no change in benefits, the fact that he was proposing change at all was enough to kill the effort, despite the fact that Democrats offered zero alternative plan to fix it. Despite Republican control of the presidency and both houses, Bush was not even close to having the political support to fix something that has to be fixed ASAP; politicians simply didn't want to risk their re-elections. The same pattern is true with virtually all government spending programs. Do you think politicians will ever be able to cut education spending or unemployment insurance?...Only if they have a political death wish. In time, the same would be true of universal health care spending. As costs skyrocket because of government inefficiency and an aging population, politicians will never be able to re-structure the system, remove benefits, or put private practice options back in the system....that is, unless they want to give up hope of re-election. With record debt levels already in place, we can't afford to put in another "untouchable" spending program, especially one with the capacity to easily pass defense and social security in cost.
There's millions of reasons why we do NOT want this socialized system. To quote Winston Churchill; “Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy, its inherent value is the equal sharing of misery.” Sometimes the advocates of socialized medicine claim that health care is too important to be left to the market. That’s why some politicians are calling for us to adopt health care systems such as those in Canada, the United Kingdom and other European nations. But the suggestion that we’d be better served with more government control doesn’t even pass a simple smell test.
Do we want the government employees who run the troubled Walter Reed Army Medical Center to be in charge of our entire health care system? Or, would you like the people who deliver our mail to also deliver health care services? How would you like the people who run the motor vehicles department, the government education system, foreign intelligence and other government agencies to also run our health care system? After all, they are not motivated by the quest for profits, and that might mean they’re truly wonderful, selfless, caring people.
As for me, I’d choose profit-driven people to provide my health care services, people with motives like those who deliver goods to my supermarket, deliver my overnight mail, produce my computer and software programs, assemble my car and produce a host of other goods and services that I use.
There’s absolutely no mystery why our greatest complaints are in the arena of government-delivered services and the fewest in market-delivered services. In the market, there are the ruthless forces of profit, loss and bankruptcy that make producers accountable to us. In the arena of government-delivered services, there’s no such accountability. For example, government schools can go for decades delivering low-quality services, and what’s the result? The people who manage it earn higher pay. It’s nearly impossible to fire the incompetents. And, taxpayers, who support the service, are given higher tax bills.
Our health care system is hampered by government intervention, and the solution is not more government intervention but less. The tax treatment of health insurance, where premiums are deducted from employees’ pre-tax income, explains why so many of us rely on our employers to select and pay for health insurance. Since there is a third-party payer, we have little incentive to shop around and wisely use health services.
There are “guaranteed issue” laws that require insurance companies to sell health insurance to any person seeking it. So why not wait until you’re sick before purchasing insurance? Guaranteed issue laws make about as much sense as if you left your house uninsured until you had a fire, and then purchased insurance to cover the damage. Guaranteed issue laws raise insurance premiums for all. Then there are government price controls, such as the reimbursement schemes for Medicaid. As a result, an increasing number of doctors are unwilling to treat Medicaid patients.
Before we buy into single-payer health care systems like Canada’s and the United Kingdom’s, we might want to do a bit of research. The Vancouver, British Columbia-based Fraser Institute annually publishes “Waiting Your Turn.” Its 2006 edition gives waiting times, by treatments, from a person’s referral by a general practitioner to treatment by a specialist. The shortest waiting time was for oncology (4.9 weeks). The longest waiting time was for orthopedic surgery (40.3 weeks), followed by plastic surgery (35.4 weeks) and neurosurgery (31.7 weeks).
As reported in the June 28 National Center for Policy Analysis’ “Daily Policy Digest,” Britain’s Department of Health recently acknowledged that one in eight patients waits more than a year for surgery. France’s failed health care system resulted in the deaths of 13,000 people, mostly of dehydration, during the heat spell of 2003. Hospitals stopped answering the phones, and ambulance attendants told people to fend for themselves.
The Debate on Health Care is over. At least that is what the hard-left Democrats and the Media tell us. This was a surprise to me, since I never saw the debate, heard it, or read it. I have a television. I watch the news all day and night. I am on the Internet. Man, am I ever on the Internet! No debate there! When was it? Where was the debate? Who debated on each side of the debate?
To the proponents of Obamacare I plead, if you want to live out a Kafka story in your doctor’s office, please, just move to Canada and have at it. Leave my doctor’s office alone!
We do, after all, know the history of what happens when countries replace a free market in health care with a government run insurer. Private insurers cannot afford to continue and drop out of the business. Employers throw employees on the public system. There is a two-tiered medical system. Rich people and government employees get top-notch care. Everybody else goes to the public Clinic. Doctors quit the profession. They emigrate if they can. Doctors who stay in business cut their hours drastically. Pharmaceutical companies do not do any research on new drugs. Even if they did, it wouldn’t help because government bureaucrats do not approve payments for new drugs to treat anything.
Government rations health care, and decides whether people are allowed to receive treatment or will just be given painkillers while they die, or perhaps are directed to an assisted suicide center. Death is cheaper than living, after all, to unaccountable government bureaucrats. At least, as long as it’s your death we’re talking about instead of theirs. The cost of health insurance doubles when it is collected through the tax system, approximately, and government health insurance service in comparison makes the DMV look like the service desks at Wal-Mart, where you can return anything that any Wal-Mart sells even without a price tag on it, let alone a receipt. That is the height of luxury compared to the Kafkaesque nightmare suffered by those in the bowels of the government run health care system.
Before voting in Obamacare to ruin our health care forever, fix Medicaid first. It’s much smaller than Obamacare and it is already broken by the same things that will break Obamacare. If someone can find a way to repair Medicaid, other than imposing a much larger version of Medicaid doomed to fail even more cataclysmicly than Medicaid and Medicare, they will have the credibility to tackle health care for the portion of the nation that still pays its own bills. While at it, tackle Medicare as well as the VA system.
Also, insurance needs to be decoupled from employment by letting other organizations that are made of freely associating members, such as civic organizations, clubs, private gyms, and other such organizations, obtain 100% tax deductible group insurance plans, from any insurer in any state, for members and their families. The availability of health insurance that doesn’t go away when you lose your job would immediately increase entrepreneurship, spur job creation, and lower the cost of insurance and health care since people would have to pay the whole bill out of their own pocket.
How about those far left “progressive” Democrat ideologues stop destroying the economy before we let them have a whack at health care with their unworkable, many times failed socialist schemes?
The American people trusted Democrats more with the economy than they trusted Republicans. I don’t think they’ll make that mistake again, not for a long time. George W. Bush and his Congress spent like drunkards, but once Congress got turned over to the Democrats in 2007 everything went to perdition. Housing collapse followed by banking collapse followed by automaker collapse followed by bloodthirsty takeovers of business after business by the federal government in a panic driven charge toward total command-economy fascism. Is that what Hope and Change meant to voters, or did they have a more benign idea about what it meant? I don’t think the voters expected this!
When the government takes over business roles from the private sector it is a great danger to the economy. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and the abusive government policies that aggravated their flaws brought down the world economy last year. From what I have seen the far-left Democrats want to take more money from the pockets of the people and give it to slow-moving government bureaucrats. That doesn’t help anybody’s health. I want to make health insurance work for consumers and providers, and not particularly for insurance, employers, the far-left unions and their pet Democrats, or the leviathan of government. Consumers and medical providers are doing God’s work. The rest of them are just collecting protection money out of the pockets of the people. The best way to help consumers and providers is to stop government meddling.
I have posted several items about gov’t healthcare and why it would be bad for America. Reading this actually makes me sick to my stomach! When will people wake up and see where gov’t healthcare will take us?? It’s a terrible system and we MUST not let Obama do this to our country!!! We need to fight this big time or one day we will be standing in lines to see a limited number of doctors, put on waiting lists for surgery, limited in what medicines we can take based on cost, allowed to die because they have to ration care, and the quality of care will be awful!! Please read this, be aware, AND make others aware of how bad this would be for the US. Not only for us, but for people from other countries who come here because they see us as their last best medical hope!! Why would that be the case? Because their own country’s GOV’T HEALTHCARE is not taking care of them!!!
Besides..... THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA IS NOT A COMMUNIST NATION, AND WE, THE PEOPLE DO NOT WANT IT TO TURN OUT THAT WAY.
Health Care by TWG
Why we don't want the Government takeover of our Healthcare System here in The United States of America:
I usually answer this question with the very simple "Our Constitution does not require that We, The People provide healthcare." In fact, our Founding Fathers specifically made sure of that fact in order to protect We, The People.
I’ve been saying for ages that the reason Obama and his socialist agenda are winning the day is because people under a certain age don’t really even know what socilialism is!!! We need to make sure people know the truth!
Here's a quote from Dr. Adrian Rogers:
“You cannot legislate the poor into freedom by legislating the wealthy out of freedom. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that my dear friend, is about the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it.”
I recall a conversation I had with a young Friend in the latter weeks of Obama’s campaign for president. Joe the plumber had just exposed the redistributionist bent of the candidate, and I expressed my assessment of Mr. Obama as a not-so-closeted socialist. My Friend then quite earnestly asked, “What’s so wrong with socialism?”
I initially assumed he must be joking, although his face gave no indication. I stared at him dumbfounded, only later realizing I must have looked like a palsied old woman — my mouth working wordlessly, the incomprehension as evident on my face as the sincerity on his. It eventually dawned on me that he really didn’t know what was wrong with socialism. I began reciting the litany of horrors: the crimes of the Holocaust, the purges of the Soviets, the thuggery and inhuman brutality of the statist regimes of the last century. The Nazis, for crissake! How could he not know about the evil of the Nazis? He listened to all of this, nodding his understanding as he recognized some of the events I described, but I could still see a question behind his eyes. While he had been taught of the existence of these atrocities, he had not been clued into the one commonality they shared. They were all perpetrated by the adherents of various forms of socialism. Indeed, such crimes were the only outcome possible.
How do you attain total commitment to a goal from a free people? Well, you don’t. Some percentage will always disagree, even if only for the sake of being contrary or out of a desire to be left alone. When considering a program as comprehensive as a government-planned economy, there are undoubtedly countless points of contention, such as how we will choose the planners, how we will order our priorities when assigning them importance within the plan, how we will allocate resources when competing interests have legitimate claims, who will make these decisions, and perhaps more pertinent to this, how those decisions will be enforced. A rift forming on even one of these issues is enough to bring the gears of this progressive endeavor grinding to a halt. This fatal flaw in the collectivist design cannot be reengineered. It is an error so critical that the entire ideology must be scrapped.
So this is the challenge we face. My young friend had no frame of reference by which to judge the events unfolding around him. He had been presented with only the intentions of socialism, not the inevitable results. He had been given the whitewashed fantasy of the Left, who never saw a failure that couldn’t be rationalized — or better yet, blamed on others. Our job, then, is to teach the lessons of history to those who fail to see the danger. We have to provide that all-important perspective to a generation that has been denied it. We have to do this one at a time, conversation by conversation. Tell your friends the truth; don’t assume they know it. Become the person your friends and family consult when the subject turns to politics.
We can’t wait until the tree bears fruit to determine its worth. Fruit bears seeds, and seeds scatter. Better to tear it out as a single sapling now than to hew down an entire forest of diseased wood after it has poisoned the ground.
The Left will not willingly lay claim to the true legacy of socialism, so we will have to hang it around their necks. They have grown accustomed to shedding responsibility for the damage they have done, and are adept at shifting the blame. Traditional means of holding them to account are failing. The academy and media will not challenge even their most egregious lies, so howling about bias will gain us nothing.
If you doubt the effectiveness of the Left’s methods, ask any ten people under the age of forty whether Hitler and the Nazis were a product of left-wing or right-wing ideology. The obstacle we face will become painfully clear. It is not enough that you know the truth. You alone are not likely to singlehandedly shape the outcome of an election. Everyone has to know the truth. We have to reclaim our younger generations from the wolf in sheep’s clothing, or it won’t be long before the wolf no longer needs the disguise.
When President Barack Obama entered office in January, the greatest problem America faced was neither the war in Afghanistan nor the recession. It was the imminent crisis of the welfare state.
Not only has Obama failed to deal with this crisis, he is pursuing policies that will bankrupt America.
First, he signed a $787-billion stimulus law. Obama repeatedly claimed this law – that not one member of Congress read in its entirety – was urgently needed to create jobs. In fact, most of the new spending it authorized was for longer-term projects, including creating a national system of electronic health records for every person in America in anticipation of Obama’s plan to nationalize the health care system.
The Government Accountability Office reported last month that at the end of fiscal 2009, 78 percent of the stimulus money remained unspent. But don’t worry: Obama will spend it eventually.
Then, Obama offered his first federal budget. In 2008, President Bush’s last year in office, the federal government spent $2.983 trillion. Under Obama’s plan, according to the Congressional Budget Office, annual federal spending will climb to $4.982 trillion by 2019. In 2008, the federal deficit was a record $459 billion. Over the next decade, Obama’s plan would increase the national debt by a total of $7.137 trillion, running annual deficits averaging $713.7 billion per year.
CBO’s estimate of Obama’s new federal debt was based on optimistic assumptions. It assumed low inflation rates, low interest rates and a national economy that grows for 10 straight years after this year without dipping into another recession. It also assumed that the Bush tax cuts would expire as planned after 2010 and income tax rates would rise for middle-class Americans.
The CBO estimate of Obama’s borrowing and spending was also made before Congress finalized drafts of the health care reform legislation Obama has pushed as his signature policy proposal.
Obama has said he would not sign a health care bill that increases the national debt, and when the CBO released its analysis of the Senate health care bill last month it concluded that the bill would actually decrease federal deficits by $130 billion over 10 years.
But that was an illusion.
The key elements of the bill (including federal subsidies to buy health insurance for people making less than 400 percent of the poverty level) do not take effect until 2014 — after Obama runs for re-election in 2012. As a result, the bill’s full cost is not exposed during the initial 10-year time frame that the CBO analyzes when making its official cost estimates.
In fact, according to CBO and the Joint Committee on Taxation, the new entitlements in the bill will cost $0 in 2010 (when Congress is up for re-election), $1 billion in 2011, $4 billion in 2012 (when Obama and Congress are both up for re-election) and $4 billion in 2013. The cost will then balloon to $48 billion in 2014, before rising steadily to $196 billion per year by 2019.
Yet it doesn’t end there. The cost of the new health care entitlements will be “growing at about 8 percent per year toward the end of the 10-year budget window,” reported CBO. “As a rough approximation, CBO assumes continued growth at about that rate during the following decade.”
Do the math: If the bill follows the spending trajectory predicted by the CBO, it will cost $423.13 billion in 2029 and its total 10-year cost from 2020 through 2029 will be $3.07 trillion. Obamacare will cost more in its second decade than the entire federal government cost the year Obama was elected.
At that price tag, it does not even accomplish the goal of universal health care. “By 2019, CBO and JCT estimate, the number of nonelderly people who are uninsured would be reduced by about 31 million, leaving about 24 million nonelderly residents uninsured (about one-third of whom would be unauthorized immigrants),” say the CBO report.
But if Obama succeeds in enacting his health care reform, he will move on to his plan for a “comprehensive immigration reform” that will put illegal aliens on a “pathway to citizenship” — making them eligible for the federal health care entitlement.
If Obama succeeds, get ready for the crash. It is coming.
There isn't a single government agency or division that runs efficiently; do we really want an organization that developed the U.S. Tax Code handling something as complex as health care? Quick, try to think of one government office that runs efficiently. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac? The Department of Transportation? Social Security Administration? Department of Education? There isn't a single government office that squeezes efficiency out of every dollar the way the private sector can. We've all heard stories of government waste such as million-dollar cow flatulence studies or the Pentagon's 14 billion dollar Bradley design project that resulted in a transport vehicle which when struck by a mortar produced a gas that killed every man inside. How about the U.S. income tax system? When originally implemented, it collected 1 percent from the highest income citizens. Look at it today. A few years back to government published a "Tax Simplification Guide", and the guide itself was over 1,000 pages long! This is what happens when politicians mess with something that should be simple. Think about the Department of Motor Vehicles. This isn't rocket science--they have to keep track of licenses and basic database information for state residents. However, the costs to support the department are enormous, and when was the last time you went to the DMV and didn't have to stand in line? If it can't handle things this simple, how can we expect the government to handle all the complex nuances of the medical system? If any private business failed year after year to achieve its objectives and satisfy its customers, it would go out of business or be passed up by competitors.
"Free" health care isn't really free since we must pay for it with taxes; expenses for health care would have to be paid for with higher taxes or spending cuts in other areas such as defense, education, etc. There's an entitlement mentality in this country that believes the government should give us a number of benefits such as "free" health care. But the government must pay for this somehow. What good would it do to wipe out a few hundred dollars of monthly health insurance premiums if our taxes go up by that much or more? If we have to cut AIDS research or education spending, is it worth it?
Profit motives, competition, and individual ingenuity have always led to greater cost control and effectiveness. Government workers have fewer incentives to do well. They have a set hourly schedule, cost-of-living raises, and few promotion opportunities. Compare this to private sector workers who can receive large raises, earn promotions, and work overtime. Government workers have iron-clad job security; private sector workers must always worry about keeping their jobs, and private businesses must always worry about cutting costs enough to survive.
Government-controlled health care would lead to a decrease in patient flexibility. At first glance, it would appear universal health care would increase flexibility. After all, if government paid for everything under one plan, you could in theory go to any doctor. However, some controls are going to have to be put in to keep costs from exploding. For example, would "elective" surgeries such as breast implants, wart removal, hair restoration, and lasik eye surgery be covered? Then you may say, that's easy, make patients pay for elective surgery. Although some procedures are obviously not needed, who decides what is elective and what is required? What about a breast reduction for back problems? What about a hysterectomy for fibroid problems? What about a nose job to fix a septum problem caused in an accident? Whenever you have government control of something, you have one item added to the equation that will most definitely screw things up--politics. Suddenly, every medical procedure and situation is going to come down to a political battle. The compromises that result will put in controls that limit patient options. The universal system in Canada forces patients to wait over 6 months for a routine pap smear. Canada residents will often go to the U.S. or offer additional money to get their health care needs taken care of.
Patients aren't likely to curb their drug costs and doctor visits if health care is free; thus, total costs will be several times what they are now. Co-pays and deductibles were put in place because there are medical problems that are more minor annoyances than anything else. Sure, it would be nice if we had the medical staff and resources to treat every ache and pain experienced by an American, but we don't. For example, what if a patient is having trouble sleeping? What if a patient has a minor cold, flu, or headache? There are scores of problems that we wouldn't go to a doctor to solve if we had to pay for it; however, if everything is free, why not go? The result is that doctors must spend more time on non-critical care, and the patients that really need immediate help must wait. In fact, for a number of problems, it's better if no medical care is given whatsoever. The body's immune system is designed to fight off infections and other illnesses. It becomes stronger when it can fight things off on its own. Treating the symptoms can prolong the underlying problem, in addition to the societal side effects such as the growing antibiotic resistance of certain infections.
Just because Americans are uninsured doesn't mean they can't receive health care; nonprofits and government-run hospitals provide services to those who don't have insurance, and it is illegal to refuse emergency medical service because of a lack of insurance. While uninsured Americans are a problem in regards to total system cost, it doesn't mean health care isn't available. This issue shouldn't be as emotional since there are plenty of government and private medical practices designed to help the uninsured. It is illegal to refuse emergency treatment, even if the patient is an illegal immigrant.
Government-mandated procedures will likely reduce doctor flexibility and lead to poor patient care. When government controls things, politics always seep into the decision-making. Steps will have to be taken to keep costs under control. Rules will be put in place as to when doctors can perform certain expensive tests or when drugs can be given. Insurance companies are already tying the hands of doctors somewhat. Government influence will only make things worse, leading to decreased doctor flexibility and poor patient care.
Healthy people who take care of themselves will have to pay for the burden of those who smoke, are obese, etc. Universal health care means the costs will be spread to all Americans, regardless of your health or your need for medical care, which is fundamentally unfair. Your health is greatly determined by your lifestyle. Those who exercise, eat right, don't smoke, don't drink, etc. have far fewer health problems than the smoking couch potatoes. Some healthy people don't even feel the need for health insurance since they never go to the doctor. Why should we punish those that live a healthy lifestyle and reward the ones who don't?
A long, painful transition will have to take place involving lost insurance industry jobs, business closures, and new patient record creation. A universal health plan means the entire health insurance industry would be unnecessary. All companies in that area would have to go out of business, meaning all people employed in the industry would be out of work. A number of hospital record clerks that dealt with insurance would also be out of work. A number of these unemployed would be able to get jobs in the new government bureaucracy, but it would still be a long, painful transition. We'd also have to once again go through a whole new round of patient record creation and database construction, which would cost huge amounts of both time and money.
Loss of private practice options and possible reduced pay may dissuade many would-be doctors from pursuing the profession. Government jobs currently have statute-mandated salaries and civil service tests required for getting hired. There isn't a lot of flexibility built in to reward the best performing workers. Imagine how this would limit the options of medical professionals. Doctors who attract scores of patients and do the best work would likely be paid the same as those that perform poorly and drive patients away. The private practice options and flexibility of specialties is one of things that attracts students to the profession. If you take that away, you may discourage would-be students from putting themselves through the torture of medical school and residency.
Malpractice lawsuit costs, which are already sky-high, could further explode since universal care may expose the government to legal liability, and the possibility to sue someone with deep pockets usually invites more lawsuits. When you're dealing with any business, for example a privately-funded hospital, if an employee negligently causes an injury, the employer is ultimately liable in a lawsuit. If government funds all health care, that would mean the U.S. government, an organization with enormous amounts of cash at its disposal, would be ultimately responsible for the mistakes of health care workers. Whether or not a doctor has made a mistake, he or she is always a target for frivolous lawsuits by money-hungry lawyers & clients that smell deep pockets. Even if the health care quality is the same as in a government-funded system, the level of lawsuits is likely to increase simply because attorneys know the government has the money to make settlements and massive payouts. Try to imagine potential punitive damages alone. When the government has the ability to spend several trillion dollars per year, how much will a jury be willing to give a wronged individual who is feeble, disfigured, or dying?
Government is more likely to pass additional restrictions or increase taxes on smoking, fast food, etc., leading to a further loss of personal freedoms. With government-paid health care, any risky or unhealthy lifestyle will raise the dollar cost to society. Thus, politicians will be in a strong position to pass more "sin" taxes on things like alcohol, high-fat food, smoking, etc. They could ban trans fat, limit msg, eliminate high-fructose corn syrup, and so on. For some health nuts, this may sound like a good thing. But pretty soon, people will find they no longer have the option to enjoy their favorite foods, even in moderation, or alternatively, the cost of the items will be sky high. Also, it just gives the government yet another method of controlling our lives, further eroding the very definition of America, Land of the Free.
Patient confidentiality is likely to be compromised since centralized health information will likely be maintained by the government. While a centralized computer health information system may reduce some costs of record keeping, protecting the privacy of patients will likely become very difficult. The government would have yet another way to access information about citizens that should be private. Any doctor or other health professional would be able to access your entire health history. What if hackers get into the data?
Health care equipment, drugs, and services may end up being rationed by the government. In other words, politics, lifestyle of patients, and philosophical differences of those in power, could determine who gets what. Any time you have politicians making health care decisions instead of medical or economics professions, you open a whole group of potential rationing issues. As costs inevitably get out of control and have to be curtailed, some ways will be needed to cut costs. Care will have to be rationed. How do you determine what to do with limited resources? How much of "experimental" treatments will have to be eliminated? If you're over 80, will the government pay for the same services as people under 30? Would you be able to get something as expensive as a pacemaker or an organ transplant if you're old? Would your political party affiliation or group membership determine if you received certain treatments? What if you acquire AIDS through drug use or homosexual activity, would you still receive medical services? What if you get liver disease through alcoholism, or diabetes from being overweight, or lung cancer from smoking--will the government still help you? You may or may not trust the current president & Congress to make reasonable decisions, but what about future presidents and congressional members?
Patients may be subjected to extremely long waits for treatment. Stories constantly come out of universal health care programs in Britain and Canada about patients forced to wait months or years for treatments that we can currently receive immediately in America. With limited financial and human resources, the government will have to make tough choices about who can have treatment first, and who must wait. Patients will like be forced to suffer longer or possibly die waiting for treatment.
Like social security, any government benefit eventually is taken as a "right" by the public, meaning that it's politically near impossible to remove or curtail it later on when costs get out of control. Social security was originally put in place to help seniors live the last few years of their lives; however, the retirement age of 65 was set when average life spans were dramatically shorter. Now that people are regular living into their 90s or longer, costs are skyrocketing out of control, making the program unsustainable. Despite the fact that all politicians know the system is heading for bankruptcy in a couple decades, no one is rushing to fix it. When President Bush tried to re-structure it with private accounts, the Democrats ran a scare campaign about Bush's intention to "take away your social security". Even though he promised no change in benefits, the fact that he was proposing change at all was enough to kill the effort, despite the fact that Democrats offered zero alternative plan to fix it. Despite Republican control of the presidency and both houses, Bush was not even close to having the political support to fix something that has to be fixed ASAP; politicians simply didn't want to risk their re-elections. The same pattern is true with virtually all government spending programs. Do you think politicians will ever be able to cut education spending or unemployment insurance?...Only if they have a political death wish. In time, the same would be true of universal health care spending. As costs skyrocket because of government inefficiency and an aging population, politicians will never be able to re-structure the system, remove benefits, or put private practice options back in the system....that is, unless they want to give up hope of re-election. With record debt levels already in place, we can't afford to put in another "untouchable" spending program, especially one with the capacity to easily pass defense and social security in cost.
There's millions of reasons why we do NOT want this socialized system. To quote Winston Churchill; “Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy, its inherent value is the equal sharing of misery.” Sometimes the advocates of socialized medicine claim that health care is too important to be left to the market. That’s why some politicians are calling for us to adopt health care systems such as those in Canada, the United Kingdom and other European nations. But the suggestion that we’d be better served with more government control doesn’t even pass a simple smell test.
Do we want the government employees who run the troubled Walter Reed Army Medical Center to be in charge of our entire health care system? Or, would you like the people who deliver our mail to also deliver health care services? How would you like the people who run the motor vehicles department, the government education system, foreign intelligence and other government agencies to also run our health care system? After all, they are not motivated by the quest for profits, and that might mean they’re truly wonderful, selfless, caring people.
As for me, I’d choose profit-driven people to provide my health care services, people with motives like those who deliver goods to my supermarket, deliver my overnight mail, produce my computer and software programs, assemble my car and produce a host of other goods and services that I use.
There’s absolutely no mystery why our greatest complaints are in the arena of government-delivered services and the fewest in market-delivered services. In the market, there are the ruthless forces of profit, loss and bankruptcy that make producers accountable to us. In the arena of government-delivered services, there’s no such accountability. For example, government schools can go for decades delivering low-quality services, and what’s the result? The people who manage it earn higher pay. It’s nearly impossible to fire the incompetents. And, taxpayers, who support the service, are given higher tax bills.
Our health care system is hampered by government intervention, and the solution is not more government intervention but less. The tax treatment of health insurance, where premiums are deducted from employees’ pre-tax income, explains why so many of us rely on our employers to select and pay for health insurance. Since there is a third-party payer, we have little incentive to shop around and wisely use health services.
There are “guaranteed issue” laws that require insurance companies to sell health insurance to any person seeking it. So why not wait until you’re sick before purchasing insurance? Guaranteed issue laws make about as much sense as if you left your house uninsured until you had a fire, and then purchased insurance to cover the damage. Guaranteed issue laws raise insurance premiums for all. Then there are government price controls, such as the reimbursement schemes for Medicaid. As a result, an increasing number of doctors are unwilling to treat Medicaid patients.
Before we buy into single-payer health care systems like Canada’s and the United Kingdom’s, we might want to do a bit of research. The Vancouver, British Columbia-based Fraser Institute annually publishes “Waiting Your Turn.” Its 2006 edition gives waiting times, by treatments, from a person’s referral by a general practitioner to treatment by a specialist. The shortest waiting time was for oncology (4.9 weeks). The longest waiting time was for orthopedic surgery (40.3 weeks), followed by plastic surgery (35.4 weeks) and neurosurgery (31.7 weeks).
As reported in the June 28 National Center for Policy Analysis’ “Daily Policy Digest,” Britain’s Department of Health recently acknowledged that one in eight patients waits more than a year for surgery. France’s failed health care system resulted in the deaths of 13,000 people, mostly of dehydration, during the heat spell of 2003. Hospitals stopped answering the phones, and ambulance attendants told people to fend for themselves.
The Debate on Health Care is over. At least that is what the hard-left Democrats and the Media tell us. This was a surprise to me, since I never saw the debate, heard it, or read it. I have a television. I watch the news all day and night. I am on the Internet. Man, am I ever on the Internet! No debate there! When was it? Where was the debate? Who debated on each side of the debate?
To the proponents of Obamacare I plead, if you want to live out a Kafka story in your doctor’s office, please, just move to Canada and have at it. Leave my doctor’s office alone!
We do, after all, know the history of what happens when countries replace a free market in health care with a government run insurer. Private insurers cannot afford to continue and drop out of the business. Employers throw employees on the public system. There is a two-tiered medical system. Rich people and government employees get top-notch care. Everybody else goes to the public Clinic. Doctors quit the profession. They emigrate if they can. Doctors who stay in business cut their hours drastically. Pharmaceutical companies do not do any research on new drugs. Even if they did, it wouldn’t help because government bureaucrats do not approve payments for new drugs to treat anything.
Government rations health care, and decides whether people are allowed to receive treatment or will just be given painkillers while they die, or perhaps are directed to an assisted suicide center. Death is cheaper than living, after all, to unaccountable government bureaucrats. At least, as long as it’s your death we’re talking about instead of theirs. The cost of health insurance doubles when it is collected through the tax system, approximately, and government health insurance service in comparison makes the DMV look like the service desks at Wal-Mart, where you can return anything that any Wal-Mart sells even without a price tag on it, let alone a receipt. That is the height of luxury compared to the Kafkaesque nightmare suffered by those in the bowels of the government run health care system.
Before voting in Obamacare to ruin our health care forever, fix Medicaid first. It’s much smaller than Obamacare and it is already broken by the same things that will break Obamacare. If someone can find a way to repair Medicaid, other than imposing a much larger version of Medicaid doomed to fail even more cataclysmicly than Medicaid and Medicare, they will have the credibility to tackle health care for the portion of the nation that still pays its own bills. While at it, tackle Medicare as well as the VA system.
Also, insurance needs to be decoupled from employment by letting other organizations that are made of freely associating members, such as civic organizations, clubs, private gyms, and other such organizations, obtain 100% tax deductible group insurance plans, from any insurer in any state, for members and their families. The availability of health insurance that doesn’t go away when you lose your job would immediately increase entrepreneurship, spur job creation, and lower the cost of insurance and health care since people would have to pay the whole bill out of their own pocket.
How about those far left “progressive” Democrat ideologues stop destroying the economy before we let them have a whack at health care with their unworkable, many times failed socialist schemes?
The American people trusted Democrats more with the economy than they trusted Republicans. I don’t think they’ll make that mistake again, not for a long time. George W. Bush and his Congress spent like drunkards, but once Congress got turned over to the Democrats in 2007 everything went to perdition. Housing collapse followed by banking collapse followed by automaker collapse followed by bloodthirsty takeovers of business after business by the federal government in a panic driven charge toward total command-economy fascism. Is that what Hope and Change meant to voters, or did they have a more benign idea about what it meant? I don’t think the voters expected this!
When the government takes over business roles from the private sector it is a great danger to the economy. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and the abusive government policies that aggravated their flaws brought down the world economy last year. From what I have seen the far-left Democrats want to take more money from the pockets of the people and give it to slow-moving government bureaucrats. That doesn’t help anybody’s health. I want to make health insurance work for consumers and providers, and not particularly for insurance, employers, the far-left unions and their pet Democrats, or the leviathan of government. Consumers and medical providers are doing God’s work. The rest of them are just collecting protection money out of the pockets of the people. The best way to help consumers and providers is to stop government meddling.
I have posted several items about gov’t healthcare and why it would be bad for America. Reading this actually makes me sick to my stomach! When will people wake up and see where gov’t healthcare will take us?? It’s a terrible system and we MUST not let Obama do this to our country!!! We need to fight this big time or one day we will be standing in lines to see a limited number of doctors, put on waiting lists for surgery, limited in what medicines we can take based on cost, allowed to die because they have to ration care, and the quality of care will be awful!! Please read this, be aware, AND make others aware of how bad this would be for the US. Not only for us, but for people from other countries who come here because they see us as their last best medical hope!! Why would that be the case? Because their own country’s GOV’T HEALTHCARE is not taking care of them!!!
Besides..... THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA IS NOT A COMMUNIST NATION, AND WE, THE PEOPLE DO NOT WANT IT TO TURN OUT THAT WAY.
Where are the Jobs?
After Attacking Bush During Periods Of Job Growth, And Pledging Their Stimulus Would Create Millions Of Jobs, Where’s The Dems’ Outrage?
RNC CHAIRMAN MICHAEL STEELE: “For close to a full year the American people have been forced to watch and in many cases bear the burden of our ever increasing national unemployment rate which unfortunately remained in the double digits throughout the month of December. More than 85,000 Americans lost their jobs in the month of December, meaning more than 2.8 million Americans have lost their jobs since the stimulus passed, and the national unemployment rate remains at 10 percent. The American economy is a powerful and amazingly resilient system that will always naturally return to balance because of the determination and unique ingenuity of the American worker. But President Obama’s singular focus on enacting his government-run liberal policies are single-handedly preventing this return. It’s time for President Obama to heed the recent words of Democrat Senator Ben Nelson and finally do what he should have been doing over the past year – put his full and undivided attention on fixing our economy.”
LEADING DEMS ATTACKED BUSH WHEN MILLIONS OF JOBS WERE BEING CREATED …
In 2003, Over 87,000 Jobs Were Created. (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, www.bls.gov, Accessed 1/6/10)
But House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) Criticized 2003 Job Creation As “Far From Enough.” “The slight increase in jobs last month is wonderful news for 57,000 Americans. But the 2.1 million Americans who have been actively looking for work for more than two years … know that it is far from enough …” (Rep. Nancy Pelosi, “Pelosi: ‘Slight Jobs Increase Far From Enough -- We Must Do More to Create Jobs and Growth,’” Press Release, 10/3/03)
In 2004, Over 2 Million Jobs Were Created. (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, www.bls.gov, Accessed 1/6/10)
But In 2004, Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) Claimed Bush “Created A Climate … Where The Number of Jobs Is Not Growing.” “This President has created a climate in this country where the number of jobs is not growing. It did not have to be that way.” (Sen. Dick Durbin, Congressional Record, 10/08/04, p. S10764)
In 2005, Over 2.5 Million Jobs Were Created. (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, www.bls.gov, Accessed 1/6/10)
But Pelosi Called 2005 Job Creation Numbers “Anemic.” “Today’s anemic jobs numbers confirm that President Bush has still failed to create a single new private-sector job since he became President.” (Rep. Nancy Pelosi, “Pelosi: ‘Today’s Anemic Jobs Numbers Confirm the Administration Has Failed to Create a Single New Private-Sector Job,’” Press Release, 6/3/05)
In 2006, Over 2.1 Million Jobs Were Created. (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, www.bls.gov, Accessed 1/6/10)
But Pelosi Claimed Bush Policies “Favored The Privileged Few At The Expense Of America’s Working Families.” (Rep. Nancy Pelosi, “Democrats Will Restore the Economic Security of America’s Working Families,” Press Release, 9/22/06)
By 2007, 5.7 Million Jobs Had Been Created Under Bush. (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, www.bls.gov, Accessed 1/6/10)
But Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) Claimed Bush Had “Shameful History Of Losing American Jobs.” (Sen. Harry Reid, “Reid: As Unemployment Reaches Two-year High, American Jobs Are The Latest Casualty Of Bush’s Failed Economic Policies,” Press Release, 1/4/08)
THEN PROMISED THEIR $787 BILLION STIMULUS WOULD CREATE MILLIONS OF JOBS
In February, Obama Signed $787 Billion Stimulus Bill, Claiming It Would “Fix The Economy.” “President Obama on Tuesday signed the $787 billion stimulus package ... ‘We have begun the essential work of keeping the American dream alive in our time,’ Obama said, calling the legislation ‘the beginning of the end’ of what needed to be done to fix the economy.” (Michael A. Fletcher, “Obama Leaves D.C. To Sign Stimulus Bill,” The Washington Post, 2/18/09)
And Obama Pledged That Stimulus Would Create 3.5 Million Jobs By End Of 2010. “[W]hat makes this recovery plan so important is not just that it will create or save 3.5 million jobs over the next two years ...” (President Barack Obama, Remarks At The Signing Of The American Recovery And Reinvestment Act, Denver, CO, 2/17/09)
SO DEMS NEED TO CREATE 6.3 MILLION JOBS IN 2010 TO MEET THEIR OWN STANDARD, A LEVEL OF JOB GROWTH THAT HAS NEVER BEEN ACHIEVED
2.8 MILLION Jobs Lost Since Obama’s Signed His $787 Billion Stimulus In February 2009. (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, www.bls.gov, Accessed 12/10/09)
Including 85,000 More Jobs Lost Last Month. (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, www.bls.gov, Accessed 1/8/09)
In Addition To 3.5 MILLION Jobs Obama Promised Would Be Created By His $787 Billion Stimulus By December 2010. (President Barack Obama, Remarks At The Signing Of The American Recovery And Reinvestment Act, Denver, CO, 2/17/09)
That Equals 6.3 MILLION Jobs Dems Need To Create This Year Alone To Declare Economic Success, A Level Of Job Growth That Has Never Been Achieved in American History. (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, www.bls.gov, Accessed 1/6/10)
Because In 1946, 4.3 MILLION Jobs Were Created, Largest Job In A Single Calendar Year In American History. (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, www.bls.gov, Accessed 1/6/10)
KNOWING AMERICANS WILL JUDGE THEM ON JOB CREATION, AT LEAST ONE DEM IS OUTRAGED OVER SQUANDERED 2009
Obama Says “The Yardstick Should Be … Am I Creating These Jobs?” (Sam Stein, “Obama: Judge Me On The Jobs I Create,” The Huffington Post, 12/15/08)
Pelosi: “Jobs, Jobs, Jobs … We Will Measure Our Success In That Way; And Hopefully The American People Will, Too, In The Next Election.” (Greg Sargent, “Pelosi: Judge Dems’ Success On Whether We Create ‘Jobs, Jobs, Jobs,’” “The Plum Line” Blog, 12/3/09)
DGA Chairman, Gov. Jack Markell (D-DE), Says “Burden Of Proof” On Dems To Show That They’re Creating Jobs. “When you've got as many people unemployed in the country as you do, it's understandable that folks will be looking to their leaders to do everything possible to create jobs. As Democrats, there's a burden of proof here.” (Peter Wallsten and Naftali Bendavid, “Departures Shake Democrats,” The Wall Street Journal, 1/7/09)
But Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE) Says Obama Made A Mistake In Pushing Health Care, And Should Have Focused On Jobs. “I think it was a mistake to take health care on as opposed to continuing to spend the time on the economy… I would have preferred not to be dealing with health care in the midst of everything else, and I think working on the economy would have been a wiser move …” (Chris Zavadil, “Nelson: We Should Have Waited On Health Care,” The Fremont Tribune, 1/6/10)
And Obama’s Liberal Agenda Preventing Small Businesses From Creating Jobs, “Could Impede An Economic Recovery.” “But a health-care overhaul grinding through Congress could bring unknown new obligations to insure employees. Bush-era tax cuts are set to end next year, and their fate is unclear. Legislation aimed at tackling climate change might raise businesses’ energy costs. … Many companies say they have responded by freezing hiring, cutting benefits and delaying expansion plans. With at least 60% of job growth historically coming out of the small-business sector, according to the government’s Small Business Administration, that kind of inertia could impede an economic recovery.” (Gary Fields, “Political Uncertainty Puts Freeze on Small Businesses,” The Wall Street Journal, 10/28/09)
RNC CHAIRMAN MICHAEL STEELE: “For close to a full year the American people have been forced to watch and in many cases bear the burden of our ever increasing national unemployment rate which unfortunately remained in the double digits throughout the month of December. More than 85,000 Americans lost their jobs in the month of December, meaning more than 2.8 million Americans have lost their jobs since the stimulus passed, and the national unemployment rate remains at 10 percent. The American economy is a powerful and amazingly resilient system that will always naturally return to balance because of the determination and unique ingenuity of the American worker. But President Obama’s singular focus on enacting his government-run liberal policies are single-handedly preventing this return. It’s time for President Obama to heed the recent words of Democrat Senator Ben Nelson and finally do what he should have been doing over the past year – put his full and undivided attention on fixing our economy.”
LEADING DEMS ATTACKED BUSH WHEN MILLIONS OF JOBS WERE BEING CREATED …
In 2003, Over 87,000 Jobs Were Created. (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, www.bls.gov, Accessed 1/6/10)
But House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) Criticized 2003 Job Creation As “Far From Enough.” “The slight increase in jobs last month is wonderful news for 57,000 Americans. But the 2.1 million Americans who have been actively looking for work for more than two years … know that it is far from enough …” (Rep. Nancy Pelosi, “Pelosi: ‘Slight Jobs Increase Far From Enough -- We Must Do More to Create Jobs and Growth,’” Press Release, 10/3/03)
In 2004, Over 2 Million Jobs Were Created. (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, www.bls.gov, Accessed 1/6/10)
But In 2004, Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) Claimed Bush “Created A Climate … Where The Number of Jobs Is Not Growing.” “This President has created a climate in this country where the number of jobs is not growing. It did not have to be that way.” (Sen. Dick Durbin, Congressional Record, 10/08/04, p. S10764)
In 2005, Over 2.5 Million Jobs Were Created. (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, www.bls.gov, Accessed 1/6/10)
But Pelosi Called 2005 Job Creation Numbers “Anemic.” “Today’s anemic jobs numbers confirm that President Bush has still failed to create a single new private-sector job since he became President.” (Rep. Nancy Pelosi, “Pelosi: ‘Today’s Anemic Jobs Numbers Confirm the Administration Has Failed to Create a Single New Private-Sector Job,’” Press Release, 6/3/05)
In 2006, Over 2.1 Million Jobs Were Created. (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, www.bls.gov, Accessed 1/6/10)
But Pelosi Claimed Bush Policies “Favored The Privileged Few At The Expense Of America’s Working Families.” (Rep. Nancy Pelosi, “Democrats Will Restore the Economic Security of America’s Working Families,” Press Release, 9/22/06)
By 2007, 5.7 Million Jobs Had Been Created Under Bush. (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, www.bls.gov, Accessed 1/6/10)
But Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) Claimed Bush Had “Shameful History Of Losing American Jobs.” (Sen. Harry Reid, “Reid: As Unemployment Reaches Two-year High, American Jobs Are The Latest Casualty Of Bush’s Failed Economic Policies,” Press Release, 1/4/08)
THEN PROMISED THEIR $787 BILLION STIMULUS WOULD CREATE MILLIONS OF JOBS
In February, Obama Signed $787 Billion Stimulus Bill, Claiming It Would “Fix The Economy.” “President Obama on Tuesday signed the $787 billion stimulus package ... ‘We have begun the essential work of keeping the American dream alive in our time,’ Obama said, calling the legislation ‘the beginning of the end’ of what needed to be done to fix the economy.” (Michael A. Fletcher, “Obama Leaves D.C. To Sign Stimulus Bill,” The Washington Post, 2/18/09)
And Obama Pledged That Stimulus Would Create 3.5 Million Jobs By End Of 2010. “[W]hat makes this recovery plan so important is not just that it will create or save 3.5 million jobs over the next two years ...” (President Barack Obama, Remarks At The Signing Of The American Recovery And Reinvestment Act, Denver, CO, 2/17/09)
SO DEMS NEED TO CREATE 6.3 MILLION JOBS IN 2010 TO MEET THEIR OWN STANDARD, A LEVEL OF JOB GROWTH THAT HAS NEVER BEEN ACHIEVED
2.8 MILLION Jobs Lost Since Obama’s Signed His $787 Billion Stimulus In February 2009. (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, www.bls.gov, Accessed 12/10/09)
Including 85,000 More Jobs Lost Last Month. (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, www.bls.gov, Accessed 1/8/09)
In Addition To 3.5 MILLION Jobs Obama Promised Would Be Created By His $787 Billion Stimulus By December 2010. (President Barack Obama, Remarks At The Signing Of The American Recovery And Reinvestment Act, Denver, CO, 2/17/09)
That Equals 6.3 MILLION Jobs Dems Need To Create This Year Alone To Declare Economic Success, A Level Of Job Growth That Has Never Been Achieved in American History. (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, www.bls.gov, Accessed 1/6/10)
Because In 1946, 4.3 MILLION Jobs Were Created, Largest Job In A Single Calendar Year In American History. (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, www.bls.gov, Accessed 1/6/10)
KNOWING AMERICANS WILL JUDGE THEM ON JOB CREATION, AT LEAST ONE DEM IS OUTRAGED OVER SQUANDERED 2009
Obama Says “The Yardstick Should Be … Am I Creating These Jobs?” (Sam Stein, “Obama: Judge Me On The Jobs I Create,” The Huffington Post, 12/15/08)
Pelosi: “Jobs, Jobs, Jobs … We Will Measure Our Success In That Way; And Hopefully The American People Will, Too, In The Next Election.” (Greg Sargent, “Pelosi: Judge Dems’ Success On Whether We Create ‘Jobs, Jobs, Jobs,’” “The Plum Line” Blog, 12/3/09)
DGA Chairman, Gov. Jack Markell (D-DE), Says “Burden Of Proof” On Dems To Show That They’re Creating Jobs. “When you've got as many people unemployed in the country as you do, it's understandable that folks will be looking to their leaders to do everything possible to create jobs. As Democrats, there's a burden of proof here.” (Peter Wallsten and Naftali Bendavid, “Departures Shake Democrats,” The Wall Street Journal, 1/7/09)
But Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE) Says Obama Made A Mistake In Pushing Health Care, And Should Have Focused On Jobs. “I think it was a mistake to take health care on as opposed to continuing to spend the time on the economy… I would have preferred not to be dealing with health care in the midst of everything else, and I think working on the economy would have been a wiser move …” (Chris Zavadil, “Nelson: We Should Have Waited On Health Care,” The Fremont Tribune, 1/6/10)
And Obama’s Liberal Agenda Preventing Small Businesses From Creating Jobs, “Could Impede An Economic Recovery.” “But a health-care overhaul grinding through Congress could bring unknown new obligations to insure employees. Bush-era tax cuts are set to end next year, and their fate is unclear. Legislation aimed at tackling climate change might raise businesses’ energy costs. … Many companies say they have responded by freezing hiring, cutting benefits and delaying expansion plans. With at least 60% of job growth historically coming out of the small-business sector, according to the government’s Small Business Administration, that kind of inertia could impede an economic recovery.” (Gary Fields, “Political Uncertainty Puts Freeze on Small Businesses,” The Wall Street Journal, 10/28/09)
Tea Party Patriots Mission Statement and Core Values.
Tea Party Patriots
Mission Statement and Core Values
Mission Statement
The impetus for the Tea Party movement is excessive government spending and taxation. Our mission is to attract, educate, organize, and mobilize our fellow citizens to secure public policy consistent with our three core values of Fiscal Responsibility, Constitutionally Limited Government and Free Markets.
Core Values
• Fiscal Responsibility
• Constitutionally Limited Government
• Free Markets
Fiscal Responsibility: Fiscal Responsibility by government honors and respects the freedom of the individual to spend the money that is the fruit of their own labor. A constitutionally limited government, designed to protect the blessings of liberty, must be fiscally responsible or it must subject it's citizenry to high levels of taxation that unjustly restrict the liberty our Constitution was designed to protect. Such runaway deficit spending as we now see in Washington D.C. compels us to take action as the increasing national debt is a grave threat to our national sovereignty and the personal and economic liberty of future generations.
Constitutionally Limited Government: We, the members of The Tea Party Patriots, are inspired by our founding documents and regard the Constitution of the United States to be the supreme law of the land. We believe that it is possible to know the original intent of the government our founders set forth, and stand in support of that intent. Like the founders, we support states' rights for those powers not expressly stated in the Constitution. As the government is of the people, by the people and for the people, in all other matters we support the personal liberty of the individual, within the rule of law.
Free Markets: A free market is the economic consequence of personal liberty. The founders believed that personal and economic freedom were indivisible, as do we. Our current government's interference distorts the free market and inhibits the pursuit of individual and economic liberty. Therefore, we support a return to the free market principles on which this nation was founded and oppose government intervention into the operations of private business.
Our Philosophy
Tea Party Patriots as an organization believes in the Fiscal Responsibility, Constitutionally Limited Government, and Free Markets. Tea Party Patriots, Inc. is a non-partisan grassroots organization of individuals united by our core values derived from the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution of the United States of America, the Bill Of Rights as explained in the Federalist Papers. We recognize and support the strength of grassroots organization powered by activism and civic responsibility at a local level. We hold that the United States is a republic conceived by its architects as a nation whose people were granted "unalienable rights" by our Creator. Chiefly among these are the rights to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." The Tea Party Patriots stand with our founders, as heirs to the republic, to claim our rights and duties which preserve their legacy and our own. We hold, as did the founders, that there exists an inherent benefit to our country when private property and prosperity are secured by natural law and the rights of the individual.
Mission Statement and Core Values
Mission Statement
The impetus for the Tea Party movement is excessive government spending and taxation. Our mission is to attract, educate, organize, and mobilize our fellow citizens to secure public policy consistent with our three core values of Fiscal Responsibility, Constitutionally Limited Government and Free Markets.
Core Values
• Fiscal Responsibility
• Constitutionally Limited Government
• Free Markets
Fiscal Responsibility: Fiscal Responsibility by government honors and respects the freedom of the individual to spend the money that is the fruit of their own labor. A constitutionally limited government, designed to protect the blessings of liberty, must be fiscally responsible or it must subject it's citizenry to high levels of taxation that unjustly restrict the liberty our Constitution was designed to protect. Such runaway deficit spending as we now see in Washington D.C. compels us to take action as the increasing national debt is a grave threat to our national sovereignty and the personal and economic liberty of future generations.
Constitutionally Limited Government: We, the members of The Tea Party Patriots, are inspired by our founding documents and regard the Constitution of the United States to be the supreme law of the land. We believe that it is possible to know the original intent of the government our founders set forth, and stand in support of that intent. Like the founders, we support states' rights for those powers not expressly stated in the Constitution. As the government is of the people, by the people and for the people, in all other matters we support the personal liberty of the individual, within the rule of law.
Free Markets: A free market is the economic consequence of personal liberty. The founders believed that personal and economic freedom were indivisible, as do we. Our current government's interference distorts the free market and inhibits the pursuit of individual and economic liberty. Therefore, we support a return to the free market principles on which this nation was founded and oppose government intervention into the operations of private business.
Our Philosophy
Tea Party Patriots as an organization believes in the Fiscal Responsibility, Constitutionally Limited Government, and Free Markets. Tea Party Patriots, Inc. is a non-partisan grassroots organization of individuals united by our core values derived from the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution of the United States of America, the Bill Of Rights as explained in the Federalist Papers. We recognize and support the strength of grassroots organization powered by activism and civic responsibility at a local level. We hold that the United States is a republic conceived by its architects as a nation whose people were granted "unalienable rights" by our Creator. Chiefly among these are the rights to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." The Tea Party Patriots stand with our founders, as heirs to the republic, to claim our rights and duties which preserve their legacy and our own. We hold, as did the founders, that there exists an inherent benefit to our country when private property and prosperity are secured by natural law and the rights of the individual.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)