Obama and the Democrats have been trying to blame everything on the GOP. I don't mean talks about "Bush's economy" or other "blame Bush" rhetoric we still hear from Democrats, I mean the whole "party of no" and "obstructionists" talk. PresBo stood up in front of the GOP on Friday and scolded them... he said now that the Democrats have lost their super-majority Republicans will actually have to take a stake in governing.
But is there any truth in these claims?
PresBo claims that the Republicans have voted against all the major agenda items, and that proves they're just obstructing Democrats for their own political advantage. Now, I have no idea if some of that DOES cross the minds of GOP Congressmen, but look at the Democrats' agenda items. Their signature issues are a major overhaul of the healthcare system that dramatically increases government involvement and control of our national system, a cap & trade system to limit carbon emissions that will drive up energy costs for the whole country, and over-regulating or just assuming control of banks and auto companies... with more industries maybe on the way.
With this kind of ultra-liberal agenda, they're surprised that people who call themselves conservatives are voting no? There is a lot of room here to oppose these policies on ideological grounds.
Take the stimulus, for example. It is a massive spending program that has proven to have had little or no positive effect on the economy... unless you ask a Democrat. Then it saved this entire world from complete and total economic destruction. The GOP voted against it, as I think they should have, despite the small number of tax breaks tucked inside it. Ideologically speaking, a small-government fiscal conservative could not support that bill.
And the upcoming jobs bill, which is basically stimulus-lite, should draw similar opposition from the GOP... and for the same reasons. It won't work and will waste a lot of money that we'll have to borrow in order to spend.
Remember that our two-party system relies on principled opposition... to have the majority party with absolute control over the White House and both Houses of Congress complain that the powerless minority party isn't cooperating and embracing their agenda... well, it's ridiculous.
When the Democrats were in the minority, they employed many of the same tactics that the GOP is employing today. They obstructed, delayed, and filibustered when they could. That's what the minority party does in order to force the majority party to compromise. Heck, for most of Obama's term the Democrats haven't even had to worry about a filibuster in the Senate... a situation the Democrats didn't have to live with.
The GOP has been essentially powerless to either stop bad legislation or force compromise to make liberal legislation more balanced. Blaming them for doing what a minority party is SUPPOSED to do is stupid.
And the Democrats know it, which makes things worse. Think of how they want the Republicans to act. Do THEY act that way when THEY'RE in the minority?
Obama wants Republicans to "embrace his agenda," but the Democrats don't do that when they're in the minority. They don't vote in favor of bills they think are wrong, and they don't let things sail through unhindered if they can slow or stop them. Republicans are worse... how?
Yes, I understand that the GOP is opposing Obama and the Democrats on almost every issue, but that's understandable for three reasons.
First, the agenda is highly liberal, meaning conservatives are predisposed to oppose it, anyway. Second, the GOP is largely powerless, and that leads them to maintain party unity as much as possible. Third, the Democrats have made the situation worse with their rhetoric and high-handed actions.
Over the past year, we've seen a lot of finger-pointing and heard name-calling from the Democrats, blaming the GOP for this or that. The President has recently increased his tempo, and regularly lectures or scolds them for their actions. When ObamaCare was first being put together, the GOP was told that their ideas wouldn't be considered. "I won," Obama told them. He went on and on about free-market solutions being the "failed policies" that caused our economic troubles. And the final round of health care talks, the ones to produce the House-Senate "compromise" bill, excluded all Republicans... only Democrats were allowed a seat at the table.
Yes, I understand that Republicans have fired back on occasion... but look at the provocation!
With all that, you certainly can't expect Republicans to be eager and willing to cooperate with the very people who have been treating them this way all year long.
You reap what you sow, and the Democrats have gone out of their way to sow discord, strife, and ill-feelings. They're getting it back now in the form of a unified Republican party, and they're trying to USE that situation for their own political benefit.
So no, I don't think that the Democrats' complaints are fair. While there is some truth in their claims, much of it was caused by their own disregard for a minority party that couldn't even put together a filibuster. Instead of blaming Republicans for the situation their own egos created, the Democrats need to relearn the lesson that you can't ignore half the country in order to push a radical ideological agenda.
I don't think this rhetoric will play in Peoria, so to speak. As a method to change their fall election prospects, it's a weak one.
Read the rest...
Sunday, January 31, 2010
Saturday, January 30, 2010
How Liberals Think
I am constantly amazed at how quirky some peoples' reasoning skills, or lack thereof, can be. I'll give you an example.
First, some background. There is a bill that unions want Congress to pass, and it's known as the "card-check" bill. Under current law, employees at a company sign a petition (basically) that calls for a vote to see if they want to vote on whether or not to unionize the workplace. If enough people say yes, then a vote is taken by secret ballot to see if the majority of the workers want to unionize.
So get that, there are two votes. The first one is public (union organizers know who did and didn't vote "yea") and the second one is private (nobody knows who voted for what. It is not uncommon for people to vote "yea" initially, so as not to cause waves with their friends and coworkers, but end up voting "nay" on the secret ballot.
The card-check bill would remove the secret ballot from the equation, thus making it easier for unions to form. It's a controversial bill that even a Congress stacked with Democrats wasn't able to pass.
Now we're getting to the murky thought processes of liberals. The President of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) has stated that two Senators who voted against the card-check bill (Senator Leiberman and Senator Nelson) are terrorists.
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/60570
That's right, United States Senators who oppose a union-backed bill are terrorists.
If you can make any sense out of THAT particular chain of so-called logic, please let me know. Because from here it just looks... well, kinda loopy.
Read the rest...
First, some background. There is a bill that unions want Congress to pass, and it's known as the "card-check" bill. Under current law, employees at a company sign a petition (basically) that calls for a vote to see if they want to vote on whether or not to unionize the workplace. If enough people say yes, then a vote is taken by secret ballot to see if the majority of the workers want to unionize.
So get that, there are two votes. The first one is public (union organizers know who did and didn't vote "yea") and the second one is private (nobody knows who voted for what. It is not uncommon for people to vote "yea" initially, so as not to cause waves with their friends and coworkers, but end up voting "nay" on the secret ballot.
The card-check bill would remove the secret ballot from the equation, thus making it easier for unions to form. It's a controversial bill that even a Congress stacked with Democrats wasn't able to pass.
Now we're getting to the murky thought processes of liberals. The President of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) has stated that two Senators who voted against the card-check bill (Senator Leiberman and Senator Nelson) are terrorists.
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/60570
Andy Stern, president of the Service Employees International Union, took a swipe at Sens. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) and Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) Tuesday, calling the senators “terrorists” for their opposition to the card-check bill, which Democrats call the Employee Free Choice Act.
Under the proposed legislation, if union organizers can get a majority of workers to sign union authorization cards, the union is immediately recognized in the workplace, with no further discussion or debate -- and no secret ballot election.
Opponents claim the legislation would bypass free and fair union elections supervised by the National Labor Relations Board and could be used to intimidate and coerce workers into signing cards that would authorize the formation of a union.
When CNSNews.com contacted SEIU for clarification of Stern's comments, a union spokeswoman responded: “They weren’t the best words for Mr. Stern to use, and he does regret it.”
That's right, United States Senators who oppose a union-backed bill are terrorists.
If you can make any sense out of THAT particular chain of so-called logic, please let me know. Because from here it just looks... well, kinda loopy.
Read the rest...
Friday, January 29, 2010
How Do Businesses React To Tax Increases?
Apparently, Obama believes that we can jump-start economic activity and create new jobs with massive spending programs, tax increases, and a few tax credits so he can claim he's cutting taxes. Indeed, with several tax cuts enacted during the Bush Presidency set to expire, we even have tax increases on the way.
So how do businesses react to this kind of thing? For the answer to that, let's go to the great state of Colorado. They are facing exactly this situation, with the government trying to repeal 13 tax exemptions that are currently law. So, how will businesses react if those tax exemptions are repealed? According to this survey, by delaying expansion, cutting pay, and freezing hiring.
http://denver.bizjournals.com/denver/stories/2010/01/25/daily10.html?ed=2010-01-25&ana=e_du_pap
To those who understand the basics about how a free market operates, this will not be startling news. In fact, one might even call it obvious. And it isn't done out of spite, but out of necessity.
This is basic stuff... possibly too basic for the super-advanced ultra-brains that now occupy the White House?
Tax increases, whether new increases or existing cuts/credits that are cancelled, hurt people and businesses. Period. The more that government takes from us, the less we get to keep and make do with, the worse off we are.
But does the President understand this? No. Do the Democrats understand this? No.
I guess sometimes the simplest lessons are the hardest to learn.
Read the rest...
So how do businesses react to this kind of thing? For the answer to that, let's go to the great state of Colorado. They are facing exactly this situation, with the government trying to repeal 13 tax exemptions that are currently law. So, how will businesses react if those tax exemptions are repealed? According to this survey, by delaying expansion, cutting pay, and freezing hiring.
http://denver.bizjournals.com/denver/stories/2010/01/25/daily10.html?ed=2010-01-25&ana=e_du_pap
Nearly three-quarters of Colorado businesses say they would delay planned expansions and more than half would cut worker pay and freeze hiring if proposed suspensions of 13 tax exemptions are signed into law, according to a survey released Monday by the Colorado Association of Commerce and Industry.
The CACI survey, conducted among the statewide business group’s 112 members, was released just two days before the House Appropriations Committee is scheduled to conduct the first hearings on the budget-balancing proposal.
And it came three days after three other business organizations, including the Denver Metro Chamber of Commerce, sent Gov. Bill Ritter a letter saying that they were concerned that approval of exemption cuts would lead to “job loss and stymied economic growth.”
To those who understand the basics about how a free market operates, this will not be startling news. In fact, one might even call it obvious. And it isn't done out of spite, but out of necessity.
“All tax credits that are eliminated or suspended directly affect our profitability and will affect our ability to employ and provide benefits to our employees and eventually could eliminate our ability to stay in business,” wrote Kim Moravec, co-owner of ABC Die Cutting and Embossing of Denver, in response to the CACI survey.
Marty Terek of Ball Corp. in Broomfield noted in the survey that his company could lose $750,000 a year through the energy exemption suspension and see a decrease in production of soft-drink containers, whose exemption also is on the chopping block. The two hits taken together could severely impact the company, he said.
This is basic stuff... possibly too basic for the super-advanced ultra-brains that now occupy the White House?
Tax increases, whether new increases or existing cuts/credits that are cancelled, hurt people and businesses. Period. The more that government takes from us, the less we get to keep and make do with, the worse off we are.
But does the President understand this? No. Do the Democrats understand this? No.
I guess sometimes the simplest lessons are the hardest to learn.
Read the rest...
President Scolds Republicans
Obama had a meeting with Congressional Republicans earlier today. I can think of lots of ways he could have handled it, but he chose to lecture the GOP and scold them for not "working together in a bipartisan way."
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0110/32225.html
Geeze, I thought this guy was supposed to be smart! I mean, lecturing and scolding isn't the way to convince people you're right. In fact, it comes across as high-handed and arrogant. "Let me tell you where you're wrong," Obama said to the GOP today.
PresBo seems to have little respect for any part of the government that is not in lockstep with his agenda. He blasts Republicans and moderate Democrats, and he even rails angrily against the United States Supreme Court!
I'm beginning to see some similarities between Obama's behavior and that of a bossy eight-year-old. He tells everybody what to do and then pitches a fit when they don't do it.
Entertaining, but hardly Presidential.
Read the rest...
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0110/32225.html
President Barack Obama told House Republicans Friday that Washington can’t break through partisan gridlock “if we can’t move past the politics of no” – then engaged with them in an extraordinary back-and-forth straight out of the House of Commons.
In a remarkable exchange, Obama took Republicans to task for portraying health care reform as a “Bolshevik plot” – even though, he said, many parts of the bill were consistent with Republican principles.
Obama began with a conciliatory tone, telling Republicans that he expects them to challenge his ideas – and that he understands that there are sometimes fundamental policy differences between the parties.
"Having differences of opinion, having a real debate about matters of domestic policy and national security, that's something that's not only good for our country, it's absolutely essential,” he said.
But he also criticized the Republicans for reflexively opposing his policies – even when, he said, they were in line with GOP principles. And the encounter got progressively more raucous from there.
Geeze, I thought this guy was supposed to be smart! I mean, lecturing and scolding isn't the way to convince people you're right. In fact, it comes across as high-handed and arrogant. "Let me tell you where you're wrong," Obama said to the GOP today.
PresBo seems to have little respect for any part of the government that is not in lockstep with his agenda. He blasts Republicans and moderate Democrats, and he even rails angrily against the United States Supreme Court!
I'm beginning to see some similarities between Obama's behavior and that of a bossy eight-year-old. He tells everybody what to do and then pitches a fit when they don't do it.
Entertaining, but hardly Presidential.
Read the rest...
Nobody Believes In Obama's "Spending Freeze"
During his SOTU speech, PresBo touted the "spending freeze" that he had floated a day or two previously. Personally, I think it's far too limited to do any good... defense and entitlement programs are exempted and growth in those areas of the budget will far eclipse the "savings" from the "spending freeze."
But that's MY opinion. What do the American people think? Apparently, 91% agree with me.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/january_2010/9_expect_obama_s_spending_freeze_to_have_big_impact_on_deficit
Just as long as people don't start believing the myth that the President actually did something that would result in a smaller budget next year.
And this plan wouldn't.
Read the rest...
But that's MY opinion. What do the American people think? Apparently, 91% agree with me.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/january_2010/9_expect_obama_s_spending_freeze_to_have_big_impact_on_deficit
One of the key new initiatives in President Obama’s State of the Union speech is a three-year freeze on discretionary government spending, but voters overwhelmingly believe the freeze will have little or no impact on the federal deficit.
A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that just nine percent (9%) think the freeze will reduce the deficit a lot.
Eighty-one percent (81%) disagree, including 42% who say it will have no impact. Another 39% say the freeze in nearly all areas except defense, national security, veterans affairs and entitlement programs such as Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security will reduce the deficit a little.
Just as long as people don't start believing the myth that the President actually did something that would result in a smaller budget next year.
And this plan wouldn't.
Read the rest...
Dems Split On ObamaCare
Okay, here's what the current situation looks like on ObamaCare. The leadership wants it to pass and is maintaining a public position that ObamaCare will pass... no matter how they have to accomplish it. Pelosi was crystal clear on that...
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2010/01/28/pelosi_on_passing_health_care_well_parachute_in.html
The words are there, but not the deeds. When the Dems met to plan their priorities after the SOTU speech, health care wasn't even mentioned.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0110/32191.html
The bottom line is that the Democrat leadership is still determined to do something, though they don't have any idea what, exactly. The rest of the Congressional Democrats, however, aren't so taken with the idea.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100129/ap_on_bi_ge/us_health_care_overhaul
What we're seeing is a serious split in the Democrats' party... the leadership wants something that the rank-and-file members view as too politically risky and therefore won't support.
This is good news, but remember that this kind of thing can change over time. They have ONE YEAR from the passage of the Senate bill to reach a deal and get the bill reconciled. If they manage to reach an agreement in that time frame, they can still pass it.
But for now, ObamaCare isn't going anywhere.
Read the rest...
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2010/01/28/pelosi_on_passing_health_care_well_parachute_in.html
“We’ll go through the gate. If the gate’s closed, we’ll go over the fence. If the fence is too high, we’ll pole vault in. If that doesn’t work, we’ll parachute in but we're going to get health care reform passed for the America people."
The words are there, but not the deeds. When the Dems met to plan their priorities after the SOTU speech, health care wasn't even mentioned.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0110/32191.html
But listen more closely, and it’s clear health care is already falling to the back of the legislative line, behind the Democrats’ feverish new focus on jobs and the economy.
Health care reform didn’t even make the cut when New York Sen. Chuck Schumer ticked off the party’s priorities Thursday.
“The president said jobs is the No. 1 issue before us in 2010,” Schumer said at a news conference. “In fact, the three top issues on our agenda this year are jobs, jobs and jobs.”
The bottom line is that the Democrat leadership is still determined to do something, though they don't have any idea what, exactly. The rest of the Congressional Democrats, however, aren't so taken with the idea.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100129/ap_on_bi_ge/us_health_care_overhaul
President Barack Obama's health care appeal failed to break the congressional gridlock Thursday, dimming hopes for millions of uninsured Americans. Democrats stared down a political nightmare — getting clobbered for voting last year for ambitious, politically risky bills, yet having nothing to show for it in November.
The grim reality opened a divide between the rank and file and congressional leaders, who insisted health care would get done, even though last week's special election in Massachusetts denied Democrats the 60-vote majority they need to deliver in the Senate. Many Democrats saw a problem with no clear solution.
"It's very possible that health care is just a stalemate and you can't solve it this year," said Sen. Mark Pryor, D-Ark.
What we're seeing is a serious split in the Democrats' party... the leadership wants something that the rank-and-file members view as too politically risky and therefore won't support.
This is good news, but remember that this kind of thing can change over time. They have ONE YEAR from the passage of the Senate bill to reach a deal and get the bill reconciled. If they manage to reach an agreement in that time frame, they can still pass it.
But for now, ObamaCare isn't going anywhere.
Read the rest...
Thursday, January 28, 2010
Dem's Clueless, Pelosi Says She Can Pass ObamaCare
For months, polls have shown decreasing support for the ObamaCare bills in Congress. The most recent poll results showed a majority of Americans want Congress to scrap the Senate ObamaCare bill and start over. Scott Brown won in Massachusetts by running as the "41st vote to kill ObamaCare." With all of these warning signs flashing, do Democrats even CARE that they are ignoring the very constituents they claim to serve?
Apparently not. Last night Obama called for Congress to "get it done" and pass the ultra-liberal plan they've been working on for a year. And just before PresBo's speech, Nancy Pelosi claimed she can get the votes to pass the Senate bill as it is IF they have a fixer bill ready to go.
http://healthtopic.nationaljournal.com/2010/01/pelosi-says-votes-are-there-fo.php
What would this fixer bill contain?
So they'll continue to pursue this, ignoring the American people in their maniacal drive to enact their liberal dreams. To be honest I'm not surprised, but I did have HOPE that they would CHANGE their minds about ignoring what we do and don't want.
But THAT hope and change didn't work out, either.
Read the rest...
Apparently not. Last night Obama called for Congress to "get it done" and pass the ultra-liberal plan they've been working on for a year. And just before PresBo's speech, Nancy Pelosi claimed she can get the votes to pass the Senate bill as it is IF they have a fixer bill ready to go.
http://healthtopic.nationaljournal.com/2010/01/pelosi-says-votes-are-there-fo.php
Offering Democrats a potential means to revive their top domestic priority, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi flatly predicted Wednesday afternoon that she could muster enough votes to pass the Senate version of health care reform if the upper chamber agreed to adjust the bill through the reconciliation process.
Speaking to columnists just hours before President Obama's first State of the Union Address, Pelosi said that if the Senate used the reconciliation process to revise elements of the legislation unacceptable to her members, the House could approve such a two-track approach. "What I'm saying to you is the Senate bill, stand-alone, I don't see any chance of it [passing the House]," she said. "Reconciliation resolving some of the issues: then we can pass this thing."
What would this fixer bill contain?
Pelosi identified several key changes that she said must be made in the Senate bill through the reconciliation process to win support for the overall package in the House. These included eliminating the favored treatment in the expansion of Medicaid that Sen. Ben Nelson, D-Neb., won for his home state during the final stages of the Senate negotiation; providing greater affordability for people who would be required to purchase insurance under the bills' individual mandate; and structuring the new insurance exchanges, or marketplaces, that would be created under the bill. (The House created a national insurance exchange, while the Senate left the exchanges to the states.)
Pelosi seemed most insistent on adjusting the so-called "Cadillac tax" on high-value insurance plans included in the Senate bill. That measure has been a priority of the White House, which views it as a cornerstone of its efforts to control the long-term growth in health care spending. Just before Brown's victory in Massachusetts, the White House reached an agreement with organized labor to narrow the tax's application, which labor leaders argue would hit too many of their members. Pelosi described that agreement as "a good start" in revisiting the tax, but added "there are those who would like to go further than that." Indeed, at another point in the interview, she declared, "The easiest thing is to just get rid of the whole excise tax."
So they'll continue to pursue this, ignoring the American people in their maniacal drive to enact their liberal dreams. To be honest I'm not surprised, but I did have HOPE that they would CHANGE their minds about ignoring what we do and don't want.
But THAT hope and change didn't work out, either.
Read the rest...
Obama's Job Push To Be Ineffective
Since the loss of their 60-vote super-majority, PresBo has been grasping for something, anything to help revitalize his sagging Presidency. Health care reform isn't it, obviously, and with most people concerned about unemployment and the economy, PresBo has decided to turn his eyes that-a-way.
He is proposing a "jobs bill," which is essentially just a smaller version of the $787 billion stimulus package. He is also proposing a few tax breaks and other gimmicks... but nothing substantive.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0110/32126.html
Some of these provisions are provably ineffective, and others are actually counterproductive. For example, studies have shown that most people find a job near the end of their unemployment benefits... so extending unemployment benefits isn't going to help that jobless rate at all, and may be exacerbating it. I mean, think about it... if you subsidize something, you get more of it.
So, in my opinion, the package outlined by the President to "create jobs" will not accomplish that. But don't take MY word for it... how about listening to some economists who reviewed the plan?
This push is as I described it earlier, a desperate attempt to "reconnect" with a public that he has ignored throughout his first year... and continues to ignore. He doesn't really WANT to create jobs or improve the economy, otherwise he'd be trying something besides debt-financed spending programs.
Read the rest...
He is proposing a "jobs bill," which is essentially just a smaller version of the $787 billion stimulus package. He is also proposing a few tax breaks and other gimmicks... but nothing substantive.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0110/32126.html
Specifically, the president wants to give a tax break to businesses that hire workers, eliminate the capital gains tax on small business investments and use $30 billion in Troubled Asset Relief Program money to encourage community banks to lend to small businesses.
The president’s package also would pump more government money into “green jobs” and infrastructure projects and extend unemployment benefits to those still out of work.
Some of these provisions are provably ineffective, and others are actually counterproductive. For example, studies have shown that most people find a job near the end of their unemployment benefits... so extending unemployment benefits isn't going to help that jobless rate at all, and may be exacerbating it. I mean, think about it... if you subsidize something, you get more of it.
So, in my opinion, the package outlined by the President to "create jobs" will not accomplish that. But don't take MY word for it... how about listening to some economists who reviewed the plan?
“He’s trying to turn his microeconomic policies into some macroeconomic solution. He’s grasping at straws,” said Peter Morici, an economist at the University of Maryland.
"We are just going to have to ride this out over the next six months. If things don’t get better in trade with China, we aren’t getting out of this,” he added.
Gus Faucher, director of macroeconomics at Moody’s Economy.com, is not so negative, but he’s not exuberant either.
“I think the package will make a difference around the edges,” Faucher said. “But, at the end of the day, it will take a strong economic expansion to get job growth going again.”
This push is as I described it earlier, a desperate attempt to "reconnect" with a public that he has ignored throughout his first year... and continues to ignore. He doesn't really WANT to create jobs or improve the economy, otherwise he'd be trying something besides debt-financed spending programs.
Read the rest...
SOTU Speech - My Thoughts
The speech last night was long, almost 70 minutes, which isn’t terribly unusual as SOTU speeches go. He was speaking more like the “orator of old” instead of the wooden talking head he’s been so often recently, but he still wasn’t soaring to the same rhetorical heights he used to. Last night’s speech was more of a “regular guy” speaking to you.
Obama didn’t seem to have a coherent message in his speech, unless it was “I’m in trouble, maybe this section will help.” He rambled all over the political map.
Although health care reform was his signature issue in 2009, Obama didn’t mention it until 30 minutes into the speech. Even then, he only spent seven paragraphs on the subject… that’s about five minutes of a 69-minute speech. He asked Democrats not to “run for the hills” on health care, and to “get it done.” He neglected, however, to provide any guidance on HOW they can get it done. He also re-iterated, yet again, his assertion that the only thing wrong with the plan is that he didn’t speak clearly enough about its benefits… in other words, we’re too stupid to understand his plan, so he’s going to speak slower and use smaller words.
He then issued a fake call for different ideas that would work.
The problem is that many such suggestions have already been made and rejected because they don’t fit his ideological bent… they rely on market-based reforms instead of government-run reforms. And so they are rejected. He doesn’t want new ideas, he wants his plan passed, as is.
Obama claimed to have inherited a $1 trillion deficit, though the actual number was less than $500 billion… he grew that figure over the course of a year to $1.4 trillion. He then talked about his new, populist, “re-connect with the voters” plans. His so-called “spending freeze” that would affect 1 out of every 8 dollars actually spent… just $15 billion out of a $4 trillion budget in 2010, $250 billion out of approximately $40 trillion over the next decade. And with the rest of the budget free to (and likely to) grow, overall spending is still projected to rise.
His newly-found focus on the deficit and fiscal sanity is very perfunctory, and clearly is a response to the Massachusetts victory of Republican candidate Scott Brown. It’s far too little to do any good, and he doesn’t really mean it, anyway. How can he talk about deficit reduction and still keep pushing programs and plans that will increase the deficit?
He also re-iterated support for his new “jobs bill” and pledged to create new jobs. He did this, even though economists don’t think his plan will create any jobs or help the economy.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0110/32126.html
Obama contradicted himself repeatedly throughout the speech. He pushed deficit reduction and increased spending at the same time, he said we had to end partisan infighting and then chided Republicans to stop obstructing his legislation, he said the House and Senate had to work together better and then blasted the Senate for not getting things done, and he said he didn’t want to punish banks right after pushing his punitive “bank tax.”
Oh, and while endorsing increased spending and spending to "create jobs," he had the nerve to say:
It was primarily a domestic-oriented speech, though he did talk a bit about Iraq and Afghanistan.
Overall, I wasn’t impressed. On health care reform and cap & trade, he basically told Americans that he is not listening to us and will push his agenda as hard as he can. He was unapologetic about his ambitious, ultra-liberal agenda, and vowed to keep moving forward.
In other words, the President doesn't get it, and shows no signs that this will change in the near future.
Bad move, PresBo.
Read the rest...
Obama didn’t seem to have a coherent message in his speech, unless it was “I’m in trouble, maybe this section will help.” He rambled all over the political map.
Although health care reform was his signature issue in 2009, Obama didn’t mention it until 30 minutes into the speech. Even then, he only spent seven paragraphs on the subject… that’s about five minutes of a 69-minute speech. He asked Democrats not to “run for the hills” on health care, and to “get it done.” He neglected, however, to provide any guidance on HOW they can get it done. He also re-iterated, yet again, his assertion that the only thing wrong with the plan is that he didn’t speak clearly enough about its benefits… in other words, we’re too stupid to understand his plan, so he’s going to speak slower and use smaller words.
“Still, this is a complex issue, and the longer it was debated, the more skeptical people became. I take my share of the blame for not explaining it more clearly to the American people.”
He then issued a fake call for different ideas that would work.
“But if anyone from either party has a better approach that will bring down premiums, bring down the deficit, cover the uninsured, strengthen Medicare for seniors and stop insurance company abuses, let me know.”
The problem is that many such suggestions have already been made and rejected because they don’t fit his ideological bent… they rely on market-based reforms instead of government-run reforms. And so they are rejected. He doesn’t want new ideas, he wants his plan passed, as is.
Obama claimed to have inherited a $1 trillion deficit, though the actual number was less than $500 billion… he grew that figure over the course of a year to $1.4 trillion. He then talked about his new, populist, “re-connect with the voters” plans. His so-called “spending freeze” that would affect 1 out of every 8 dollars actually spent… just $15 billion out of a $4 trillion budget in 2010, $250 billion out of approximately $40 trillion over the next decade. And with the rest of the budget free to (and likely to) grow, overall spending is still projected to rise.
His newly-found focus on the deficit and fiscal sanity is very perfunctory, and clearly is a response to the Massachusetts victory of Republican candidate Scott Brown. It’s far too little to do any good, and he doesn’t really mean it, anyway. How can he talk about deficit reduction and still keep pushing programs and plans that will increase the deficit?
He also re-iterated support for his new “jobs bill” and pledged to create new jobs. He did this, even though economists don’t think his plan will create any jobs or help the economy.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0110/32126.html
President Barack Obama’s job-creation program could produce a short-term political boost, but it’s unlikely to significantly stem job losses and reduce the unemployment rate anytime soon, according to economists.
Obama contradicted himself repeatedly throughout the speech. He pushed deficit reduction and increased spending at the same time, he said we had to end partisan infighting and then chided Republicans to stop obstructing his legislation, he said the House and Senate had to work together better and then blasted the Senate for not getting things done, and he said he didn’t want to punish banks right after pushing his punitive “bank tax.”
Oh, and while endorsing increased spending and spending to "create jobs," he had the nerve to say:
“families across the country are tightening their belts and making tough decisions. The federal government should do the same.”
It was primarily a domestic-oriented speech, though he did talk a bit about Iraq and Afghanistan.
Overall, I wasn’t impressed. On health care reform and cap & trade, he basically told Americans that he is not listening to us and will push his agenda as hard as he can. He was unapologetic about his ambitious, ultra-liberal agenda, and vowed to keep moving forward.
In other words, the President doesn't get it, and shows no signs that this will change in the near future.
Bad move, PresBo.
Read the rest...
SOTU Speech
Here's your one-stop shop for the SOTU speech. I've got videos and transcripts for the speech and the rebuttal. I'll be posting my own thoughts on the speech later today.
Obama's SOTU speech
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35083829/vp/35109810#35109810
GOP Rebuttal
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35083829/vp/35114761#35114761
SOTU speech transcript
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/01/27/obama_transcript_first_state_of_the_union_2009_100077.html
SOTU rebuttal transcript
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/01/27/republican_response_transcript_2009_obama_state_of_the_union_100078.html
If you missed the speech, now's your chance to catch up on what really happened. Read the rest...
Obama's SOTU speech
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35083829/vp/35109810#35109810
GOP Rebuttal
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35083829/vp/35114761#35114761
SOTU speech transcript
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/01/27/obama_transcript_first_state_of_the_union_2009_100077.html
SOTU rebuttal transcript
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/01/27/republican_response_transcript_2009_obama_state_of_the_union_100078.html
If you missed the speech, now's your chance to catch up on what really happened. Read the rest...
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
The Speech I'd Like To Hear
Well, Obama gives his State of the Union speech tonight, and I’m not expecting any surprises. He'll talk about fighting for what he believes in, though I doubt he'll pledge to ram ObamaCare through as quickly as he can. He will bring up his populist-pandering of recent days, and talk about his renewed dedication to fiscal restraint and balancing the budget. (As if $250 billion out of $40 TRILLION over ten years amounts to much... some spending freeze.) Little will be of any surprise, and all will be signs of a President doing his best to blame others and resurrect his Presidency.
Here is some of what I’d LIKE to hear him say, but I don’t expect it to happen. I’m not going to try and write a speech that will take, as Obama’s likely will, three years to deliver, but I will try and cover some of the things I’d like to hear.
My fellow Americans.
A lot has occurred over the past year, but America is strong and remains strong. It is strong, not because of government, but because of the people who live and work here each day. It is strong because of our commitment to making it strong, and in keeping it strong.
We’ve had a wild ride on the economy, with conditions getting worse and worse as time went on. Unemployment has risen to 10% nationally, and has peaked, in areas, to over 40%. This must stop. We tried to stimulate the economy with massive government expenditures to create jobs, and this did not work. Right now we have 7 million fewer jobs than we did one year ago. This must stop.
Since government spending did not work, I intend to try different methods. I am not married to an ideology, especially if the exercise of that ideology proves harmful to our nation. Therefore, I will spearhead efforts to lower taxes and reduce the regulatory burden on businesses and individuals, trusting to the growth potential such actions have in a free market. I will also abandon immediately any new programs or laws that involve massive amounts of spending. Finally, I will be announcing shortly a series of spending cuts to equal not less than $100 billion a year to be implemented by Congress over the remainder of their current session.
These are bold steps, it is true, but they are precisely what is needed to help this country recover from its economic trials and tribulations.
Over the past year we invested a lot of time advancing a government-centric overhaul of our health care system. It has become clear in recent months that the American people do not want this bill to become law, so I am asking Congress to stop work on it immediately. Instead, we will shortly be producing a series of smaller bills, each one tailored to solve a single, well-defined problem with, if possible, a free-market solution.
From a terrorism standpoint, we have had better years. With one successful terrorist attack on American soil, one semi-successful airplane bombing, and several other failed terrorism attempts, it is clear that Islamic terrorists have not abandoned their hateful, destructive ways. I will be moving to have all future terrorist suspects in military courts, where those suspects can receive a fair and quick trial. I urge the military judicial system to move swiftly in this, however, and their progress in these regards will be reviewed closely.
I will also be ordering the CIA to cease monitoring of icebergs for signs of global warming, instead focusing on finding those terrorists so that our military can capture or kill them.
America is a great nation, and will remain a great nation regardless of whoever currently occupies the Oval Office. America’s reputation has suffered in recent months, and we will also be working to correct that. This is the greatest country on the earth, and we will work together to see that it remains so.
God bless you all, and good night.
Read the rest...
Here is some of what I’d LIKE to hear him say, but I don’t expect it to happen. I’m not going to try and write a speech that will take, as Obama’s likely will, three years to deliver, but I will try and cover some of the things I’d like to hear.
My fellow Americans.
A lot has occurred over the past year, but America is strong and remains strong. It is strong, not because of government, but because of the people who live and work here each day. It is strong because of our commitment to making it strong, and in keeping it strong.
We’ve had a wild ride on the economy, with conditions getting worse and worse as time went on. Unemployment has risen to 10% nationally, and has peaked, in areas, to over 40%. This must stop. We tried to stimulate the economy with massive government expenditures to create jobs, and this did not work. Right now we have 7 million fewer jobs than we did one year ago. This must stop.
Since government spending did not work, I intend to try different methods. I am not married to an ideology, especially if the exercise of that ideology proves harmful to our nation. Therefore, I will spearhead efforts to lower taxes and reduce the regulatory burden on businesses and individuals, trusting to the growth potential such actions have in a free market. I will also abandon immediately any new programs or laws that involve massive amounts of spending. Finally, I will be announcing shortly a series of spending cuts to equal not less than $100 billion a year to be implemented by Congress over the remainder of their current session.
These are bold steps, it is true, but they are precisely what is needed to help this country recover from its economic trials and tribulations.
Over the past year we invested a lot of time advancing a government-centric overhaul of our health care system. It has become clear in recent months that the American people do not want this bill to become law, so I am asking Congress to stop work on it immediately. Instead, we will shortly be producing a series of smaller bills, each one tailored to solve a single, well-defined problem with, if possible, a free-market solution.
From a terrorism standpoint, we have had better years. With one successful terrorist attack on American soil, one semi-successful airplane bombing, and several other failed terrorism attempts, it is clear that Islamic terrorists have not abandoned their hateful, destructive ways. I will be moving to have all future terrorist suspects in military courts, where those suspects can receive a fair and quick trial. I urge the military judicial system to move swiftly in this, however, and their progress in these regards will be reviewed closely.
I will also be ordering the CIA to cease monitoring of icebergs for signs of global warming, instead focusing on finding those terrorists so that our military can capture or kill them.
America is a great nation, and will remain a great nation regardless of whoever currently occupies the Oval Office. America’s reputation has suffered in recent months, and we will also be working to correct that. This is the greatest country on the earth, and we will work together to see that it remains so.
God bless you all, and good night.
Read the rest...
Senate Says "NO!" To Deficit Reduction
It seems the Senate held a little vote yesterday and decided against Obama's suggestion of forming a deficit reduction panel.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35077901/ns/politics/
The anti-taxers didn't like the possibility of tax increases and the Democrats didn't want their entitlement programs limited... so together they killed the panel.
Here are my thoughts. We've had tax cuts in the past... Obama is about to let a bunch expire, in fact. What we have NOT tried is spending cuts... at least, not seriously. So we need a mechanism, SOME mechanism, for implementing serious cuts in spending.
Democrats... I'm not sorry to say that any serious spending cuts WILL include your precious entitlement programs. It's unavoidable, because they are such a large part of the Federal budget.
Let's see some spending cuts, SOME commitment to reducing our vastly over-inflated mess of a budget, and we can decide LATER if we also need any tax increases. But let's get that spending down, let's get that borrowing down... and THEN we can talk.
We need to cut approximately $1.5 trillion in spending... so let's get BUSY, Congress!
Read the rest...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35077901/ns/politics/
The Senate on Tuesday rejected a plan backed by President Barack Obama to create a bipartisan task force to tackle the federal deficit this year, despite glaring new figures showing the enormity of the red-ink threat.
The special deficit panel would have attempted to produce a plan combining tax cuts and spending curbs to be voted on after the November elections. The measure went down because anti-tax Republicans joined in opposition with Democrats wary of being railroaded into cutting Social Security and Medicare.
The vote to kill the deficit task force came hours after the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office predicted a $1.35 trillion deficit for this year as the economy continues to slowly recover from the recession.
The anti-taxers didn't like the possibility of tax increases and the Democrats didn't want their entitlement programs limited... so together they killed the panel.
Here are my thoughts. We've had tax cuts in the past... Obama is about to let a bunch expire, in fact. What we have NOT tried is spending cuts... at least, not seriously. So we need a mechanism, SOME mechanism, for implementing serious cuts in spending.
Democrats... I'm not sorry to say that any serious spending cuts WILL include your precious entitlement programs. It's unavoidable, because they are such a large part of the Federal budget.
Let's see some spending cuts, SOME commitment to reducing our vastly over-inflated mess of a budget, and we can decide LATER if we also need any tax increases. But let's get that spending down, let's get that borrowing down... and THEN we can talk.
We need to cut approximately $1.5 trillion in spending... so let's get BUSY, Congress!
Read the rest...
Dems Admit ObamaCare Likely Dead
They tried, they really did, but Democrats are now faced with the reality that they won't be able to push ObamaCare through Congress at this time. Pelosi doesn't have the votes in the House to pass the Senate bill, and even the 51-vote threshold for passing a budget reconciliation bill in the Senate is in doubt... they may or may not have those votes.
Faced with these realities, Democrats are "taking it slow" on health care reform. Which means unless there is a major change in the political landscape, this version of ObamaCare is dead.
Here are some articles on this subject for you to read.
So, it doesn't look like they have a viable option for pushing this monstrosity through, but it also doesn't look like they'll be giving up on it any time soon.
In other words, they STILL aren't listening to the American people, and they're still operating from a position of overbearing arrogance.
UPDATE: And here's another.
Read the rest...
Faced with these realities, Democrats are "taking it slow" on health care reform. Which means unless there is a major change in the political landscape, this version of ObamaCare is dead.
Here are some articles on this subject for you to read.
Congressional leaders are taking health care legislation off the fast track as rank-and-file Democrats, wary of unhappy midterm election voters, look to President Barack Obama for guidance in his State of the Union address.
House and Senate leaders said Tuesday they need time to determine the best way forward on health care in the wake of last week's special election loss in Massachusetts, which cost Democrats their filibuster-proof Senate majority.
The option attracting the most attention is for the House to pass the Senate bill with changes. Rep. Jim Clyburn of South Carolina, the No. 3 Democrat, told reporters Tuesday he thinks the House could do so if lawmakers get rid of provisions like special Medicaid deals for Louisiana and Nebraska and dial back a tax on high-cost insurance plans opposed by labor unions.
But two centrist senators threw up a roadblock to the approach, because it would require using a special budget-related procedure to go around Republican opponents in the Senate, a calculated risk sure to inflame critics on the political right. Sens. Evan Bayh, D-Ind., and Blanche Lincoln, D-Ark., who both face re-election this year in Republican-leaning states, said they would oppose taking that step.
The strategy requires only 51 votes to advance, but Senate leaders may not be able to round up the support. Even if they do, final action could stretch into late next month or beyond. And a number of Democrats sounded Tuesday like health care was the last thing they wanted to be dealing with.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_health_care_overhaul;_ylt=AsSbTtib0ujF.1UWR8w1.AVh24cA;_ylu=X3oDMTNjbG84azV2BGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMTAwMTI3L3VzX2hlYWx0aF9jYXJlX292ZXJoYXVsBGNjb2RlA21vc3Rwb3B1bGFyBGNwb3MDMQRwb3MDMQRzZWMDeW5fdG9wX3N0b3JpZXMEc2xrA2RlbW9jcmF0c3B1bA--
Speaker Pelosi has said House Democrats will not simply vote to approve the health care bill adopted by the Senate on Dec. 24, and send it directly to Mr. Obama for his signature.
Representative Charles B. Rangel, Democrat of New York and chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, said, “We are not passing the Senate bill period.”
Asked if there was a way forward, a Congressional aide who worked closely on the bill replied, “If you find it, let me know.”
But a plan to win over House members by making changes to the Senate bill in the budget reconciliation process ran into substantial resistance on Tuesday.
Mrs. Lincoln, who faces one of the toughest re-election bids among Democrats, said, “I am opposed to and will fight against any attempts to push through changes to the Senate health insurance reform legislation by using budget reconciliation tactics that would allow the Senate to pass a package of changes to our original bill with 51 votes.”
Mr. Bayh said, “It would destroy the opportunity, if there is one, for any bipartisan cooperation the rest of this year on anything else.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/27/health/policy/27health.html
Two centrist senators Tuesday threw up a roadblock to salvaging President Barack Obama's health care overhaul, as Democrats agonized over whether to push forward or shift to idle until political resistance subsides.
Sens. Evan Bayh, D-Ind., and Blanche Lincoln, D-Ark. — both face re-election this year in Republican-leaning states — said they would oppose the strategy Democratic leaders are considering to reconcile the House and Senate bills and put comprehensive legislation on Obama's desk.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/news/ap/politics/2010/Jan/26/democrats_place_new_roadblock_to_health_care_bill.html
So, it doesn't look like they have a viable option for pushing this monstrosity through, but it also doesn't look like they'll be giving up on it any time soon.
In other words, they STILL aren't listening to the American people, and they're still operating from a position of overbearing arrogance.
UPDATE: And here's another.
Democrats searching for a way to resuscitate health reform ran into a wall of opposition from party moderates Tuesday — throwing into doubt whether congressional leadership can salvage the sweeping reform plan that once was President Barack Obama’s top domestic priority.
Signs were everywhere that Democrats were quickly shifting their focus from health reform that dominated 2009 to a jobs-and-economy agenda they believe must dominate this midterm election year, with congressional leaders saying they doubted Obama will gave any clear guidance on how to proceed during Wednesday’s State of the Union address.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0110/32056.html
Read the rest...
Repealing The First Amendment
Did you know that dihydrogen monoxide is a dangerous chemical that kills thousands of people each year? (Bear with me, this is relevant.) It's true. The substance DHMO kills many people and causes many problems. (Read here for details on this dangerous chemical.) Many people have read information like this and then come out in support of banning this chemical. Imagine their chagrin when they discover that dihydrogen monoxide is... water.
Today, we have something else in the same vein. Mark Dice created a video of him trying to get people to sign a petition urging the repeal of the first amendment... ostensibly to stop hate speech. AND PEOPLE SIGNED THE DANG THING!
If the video won't play, you can view it here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tznR4wPeS4M&feature=player_embedded
Far too many people fell for this garbage, and Dice's point is well made. It is disturbing how many people will willingly throw away their rights if it gets them something they want.
Scary. Read the rest...
Today, we have something else in the same vein. Mark Dice created a video of him trying to get people to sign a petition urging the repeal of the first amendment... ostensibly to stop hate speech. AND PEOPLE SIGNED THE DANG THING!
If the video won't play, you can view it here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tznR4wPeS4M&feature=player_embedded
Far too many people fell for this garbage, and Dice's point is well made. It is disturbing how many people will willingly throw away their rights if it gets them something they want.
Scary. Read the rest...
Why Are Jobs Good?
This morning, let's explore how fundamentally removed from normal life politicians actually are. Though today's example focuses on a Democrat, I have heard similar idiocies spouted by Republicans in the past, as well.
What is good about jobs and lower unemployment? Any normal person (i.e. non-politician) would say there are many benefits. Benefits start with the newly employed person bringing home money to support his (or her) family, and extends to the business which will benefit from the employee's contribution... not to mention society at large when the economy grows because of the additional economic activity.
That's a normal point of view. But how does a politician see things? If you have a job, then you can pay taxes, and government revenue improves. And no, I'm not kidding. Here is what House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md) said:
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/60444
So that's is the most important thing about us annoyingly necessary little ignorant slobs of non-politicians, eh? We must be in a position to pay taxes so Steyer and his ilk can spend that money on whatever pork project seizes their crazed imaginations.
Nice to know that the politicians think so highly of us, isn't it? When they look at us, they see dollar figures. And when they see unemployment, they IMMEDIATELY think of declining tax revenue. Wonderful. Just wonderful.
I remember a news article from eight or nine years ago that dealt with a small Alabama town getting their first Wal-Mart store. The news article didn't deal with the new jobs in town, the new shopping opportunities, or even local businesses that would go bankrupt because of the competition. No, the news article dealt primarily with how much revenue the store would generate for local governments and what they were planning to do with the extra money.
Listen people, jobs are NOT good because of the taxes they generate, jobs are good FOR PEOPLE. Remember us? We're the ones you pander to every election cycle but otherwise do your best to ignore.
Ain't politicians wonderful? Remember this next time they want to pass legislation that is "for our own good."
Read the rest...
What is good about jobs and lower unemployment? Any normal person (i.e. non-politician) would say there are many benefits. Benefits start with the newly employed person bringing home money to support his (or her) family, and extends to the business which will benefit from the employee's contribution... not to mention society at large when the economy grows because of the additional economic activity.
That's a normal point of view. But how does a politician see things? If you have a job, then you can pay taxes, and government revenue improves. And no, I'm not kidding. Here is what House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md) said:
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/60444
“We also had some good news for the first time in approximately two years. The projection of revenues has stabilized, not decreased. That is a very good sign because it is a sign that people are in fact making money and will be in a position, because they’re making money, to pay a portion of that in revenues to the federal government.”
So that's is the most important thing about us annoyingly necessary little ignorant slobs of non-politicians, eh? We must be in a position to pay taxes so Steyer and his ilk can spend that money on whatever pork project seizes their crazed imaginations.
Nice to know that the politicians think so highly of us, isn't it? When they look at us, they see dollar figures. And when they see unemployment, they IMMEDIATELY think of declining tax revenue. Wonderful. Just wonderful.
I remember a news article from eight or nine years ago that dealt with a small Alabama town getting their first Wal-Mart store. The news article didn't deal with the new jobs in town, the new shopping opportunities, or even local businesses that would go bankrupt because of the competition. No, the news article dealt primarily with how much revenue the store would generate for local governments and what they were planning to do with the extra money.
Listen people, jobs are NOT good because of the taxes they generate, jobs are good FOR PEOPLE. Remember us? We're the ones you pander to every election cycle but otherwise do your best to ignore.
Ain't politicians wonderful? Remember this next time they want to pass legislation that is "for our own good."
Read the rest...
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
Introducing Ellie Light
Ellie Light is a supporter of Obama, and believes in writing letters to the editors of her local papers. She has had an amazing amount of success at getting published in her home town. In fact, in ALL of her home towns. She has been published in a total of 68 publications in 31 states, and in each case claimed a different address local to the paper in question.
You can find a complete list of her publications here:
http://patterico.com/2010/01/23/ellie-lights-obama-letters/
And yes, her letter was published in the Huntsville Times, and her home town was identified as Huntsville, Alabama. Even though she lives somewhere in southern California.
A woman claiming to be THE Ellie Light called in to a talk radio show, and you can listen to this interview below.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2010/01/26/ellie_light_reveals_herself_on_michael_smerconish_show.html
It is, of course, dishonest to misrepresent yourself in a situation such as this, and it was wrong of her to do so. Had she not been discovered, her letters may have contributed to a mis-perception of reality, namely that Obama is more popular than he in fact really is. Every one of those local venues believed the writer was local.
I have to be honest, though, I'm not that upset about her. She has the right to do precisely what she did... how is it different from us writing to Congressmen who don't represent us and asking them to vote this way or that? The only difference is that she lied about her address, and that's not a huge deal to me.
I mean, compare it with what our politicians do every day, and we just look the other way... no comparison at all.
And if you're interested in the letter she wrote, you can read a lot of it here:
http://www.cleveland.com/open/index.ssf/2010/01/letter_writer_claims_diverse_r.html
Read the rest...
You can find a complete list of her publications here:
http://patterico.com/2010/01/23/ellie-lights-obama-letters/
And yes, her letter was published in the Huntsville Times, and her home town was identified as Huntsville, Alabama. Even though she lives somewhere in southern California.
A woman claiming to be THE Ellie Light called in to a talk radio show, and you can listen to this interview below.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2010/01/26/ellie_light_reveals_herself_on_michael_smerconish_show.html
It is, of course, dishonest to misrepresent yourself in a situation such as this, and it was wrong of her to do so. Had she not been discovered, her letters may have contributed to a mis-perception of reality, namely that Obama is more popular than he in fact really is. Every one of those local venues believed the writer was local.
I have to be honest, though, I'm not that upset about her. She has the right to do precisely what she did... how is it different from us writing to Congressmen who don't represent us and asking them to vote this way or that? The only difference is that she lied about her address, and that's not a huge deal to me.
I mean, compare it with what our politicians do every day, and we just look the other way... no comparison at all.
And if you're interested in the letter she wrote, you can read a lot of it here:
http://www.cleveland.com/open/index.ssf/2010/01/letter_writer_claims_diverse_r.html
Read the rest...
Obama Proposes 3-Year Spending Freeze... Sort Of
It seems that Obama lives in a world of sort-of's, where "acting in the middle" is really taking a bold stance on the issues... at least where budgetary matters are concerned. He wants very badly to be seen as a budget hawk concerned with trimming out-of-control deficits, but he also wants to spend everything he can on his pet projects.
To that end, PresBo plans to announce soon his plan to freeze Federal spending for the next three years. Sort of. Again, this is maybe-man we're talking about. The "spending freeze" wouldn't affect defense or foreign aid or spending on intelligence, homeland security or veterans. It also wouldn't affect entitlement programs such as medicare, medicaid, and social security. In other words, it would affect a midget-sized 17% chunk of the Federal budget.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0110/31989.html
Okay, there are two aspects of this I want to look at.
This is like those commercials that make fuzzy claims like "50% more power" without bothering to say 50% more than WHAT. In this case, it's projected to "save" $250 billion... from what? President Bush's last budget ran a deficit of $400 billion or so... at the time, the largest deficit on record. Freezing at THAT level would be bad enough, but PresBo more than TRIPLED that deficit in a single year. So if he's seriously proposing that we freeze spending at $1.6 trillion deficits... well, hadn't he projected deficits that high, anyway? So where is the big benefit?
Does he really expect people to BUY this malarky?
And look at what little he wants to freeze... just 17% of the Federal budget. The rest is free to grow as it sees fit. And grow it is expected to do.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703808904575024772877067744.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_MIDDLENexttoWhatsNewsSecond
Notice that discretionary spending is expected to rise more than this modest "spending freeze" can compensate for.
PresBo is the only person I know of who can plan for larger budgets while calling it a "spending freeze" and billing it as a spending cut. Of course, he's also the man who claims his policies single-handedly created 2 million jobs at a time when we've lost more than 6 million jobs in the last year. How can we cut spending and increase spending at the same time? I guess the same way we can create jobs and lose jobs at the same time.
Any serious attempt at reigning in spending will HAVE to involve entitlement programs, because they make up such a large portion of the Federal budget. This one not only exempts them from the freeze, but cavalierly acknowledges they're likely to grow.
In my opinion, this is nothing more than another attempt to distract us from his failing ObamaCare agenda and hopefully make himself look like a budget-friendly, fiscally-responsible President. Notice that he doesn't care enough to actually BE that kind of President, just so long as he can logically CLAIM that he is.
He's looking for a way out, a way to ram ObamaCare through and still salvage this year's election cycle. I submit that it can't be done, that we're not THAT stupid.
Only time will tell.
Read the rest...
To that end, PresBo plans to announce soon his plan to freeze Federal spending for the next three years. Sort of. Again, this is maybe-man we're talking about. The "spending freeze" wouldn't affect defense or foreign aid or spending on intelligence, homeland security or veterans. It also wouldn't affect entitlement programs such as medicare, medicaid, and social security. In other words, it would affect a midget-sized 17% chunk of the Federal budget.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0110/31989.html
President Obama plans to announce a three-year freeze on discretionary, “non-security” spending in the lead-up to Wednesday's State of the Union address, Hill Democratic sources familiar with the plan tell POLITICO.
The move, intended to blunt the populist backlash against Obama's $787 billion stimulus and an era of trillion-dollar deficits — and to quell Democratic anxiety over last Tuesday's Massachusetts Senate election — is projected to save $250 billion, the Democrats said.
Okay, there are two aspects of this I want to look at.
This is like those commercials that make fuzzy claims like "50% more power" without bothering to say 50% more than WHAT. In this case, it's projected to "save" $250 billion... from what? President Bush's last budget ran a deficit of $400 billion or so... at the time, the largest deficit on record. Freezing at THAT level would be bad enough, but PresBo more than TRIPLED that deficit in a single year. So if he's seriously proposing that we freeze spending at $1.6 trillion deficits... well, hadn't he projected deficits that high, anyway? So where is the big benefit?
Does he really expect people to BUY this malarky?
And look at what little he wants to freeze... just 17% of the Federal budget. The rest is free to grow as it sees fit. And grow it is expected to do.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703808904575024772877067744.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_MIDDLENexttoWhatsNewsSecond
The freeze would affect $447 billion in spending, or 17% of the total federal budget, and would likely be overtaken by growth in the untouched areas of discretionary spending. It's designed to save $250 billion over the coming decade, compared with what would have been spent had this area been allowed to rise along with inflation.
Notice that discretionary spending is expected to rise more than this modest "spending freeze" can compensate for.
PresBo is the only person I know of who can plan for larger budgets while calling it a "spending freeze" and billing it as a spending cut. Of course, he's also the man who claims his policies single-handedly created 2 million jobs at a time when we've lost more than 6 million jobs in the last year. How can we cut spending and increase spending at the same time? I guess the same way we can create jobs and lose jobs at the same time.
Any serious attempt at reigning in spending will HAVE to involve entitlement programs, because they make up such a large portion of the Federal budget. This one not only exempts them from the freeze, but cavalierly acknowledges they're likely to grow.
In my opinion, this is nothing more than another attempt to distract us from his failing ObamaCare agenda and hopefully make himself look like a budget-friendly, fiscally-responsible President. Notice that he doesn't care enough to actually BE that kind of President, just so long as he can logically CLAIM that he is.
He's looking for a way out, a way to ram ObamaCare through and still salvage this year's election cycle. I submit that it can't be done, that we're not THAT stupid.
Only time will tell.
Read the rest...
Dem Leadership Has Health Care Plan
It appears as if the Democrat leadership has more or less decided how to move their ObamaCare plan forward: Pass the Senate bill as-is and then move a "fixer" bill through the legislative process of budget reconciliation. They will be presenting the plan to Democrats in Congress this week, and we'll find out shortly whether or not they have the votes to do this.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/news/ap/politics/2010/Jan/25/dem_leaders_coalesce_on_health_care_strategy.html
Basically, they have decided that they've put too much into the current bill to abandon it now... they see that as an admission of failure, and they are unwilling to admit failure. So they've decided to push forward with their original plan.
This is a very risky move. Basically they're going to "give it the gas" and just roll over anybody who disagrees... which, at this point, is more than half the country. With growing opposition to the Democrat's ObamaCare bills in Congress, ignoring voter sentiment to push it through runs a high risk of generating voter backlash.
The major problem with this plan, of course, is that the House would have to vote for the Senate bill as it stands, and that's something that even Pelosi admits they don't want to do. Will the "fixer bill" concept be enough to encourage Democrats to bite the bullet, considering that IT'S passage isn't guaranteed? Good question.
Another problem arising is that budget reconciliation won't allow everything to be changed about the bill. Topics such as abortion coverage would be tough to fit in the fixer bill.
Enough House Democrats have said they'd vote against it without the Stupak amendment that if they DON'T buy into the "fixer bill" idea, then the plan dies.
But let's assume they do buy into it and decide it may be worth passing the Senate bill as-is and then hoping the fixer bill sails through, complete with the entire Stupak amendment. Will that satisfy anti-abortion groups who support those pro-life Democrats? Probably not, no.
So the leadership has decided what course they want to follow. Now they'll have to try and sell it to skeptical Democrats and see if they can push it forward.
Let's see what they can manage to do. Personally, I think that shoving through a clearly unpopular ObamaCare bill, even after they got the Massachusetts warning, will backfire heavily on Democrats. But they don't care what I think... or you, for that matter. If you don't have power in Washington DC, they won't listen to you.
Read the rest...
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/news/ap/politics/2010/Jan/25/dem_leaders_coalesce_on_health_care_strategy.html
Democratic congressional leaders are coalescing around their last, best hope for salvaging President Barack Obama's sweeping health care overhaul. Their plan is to pass the Senate bill with some changes to accommodate House Democrats, senior Democratic aides said Monday. Leaders will present the idea to the rank and file this week, but it's unclear whether they have enough votes to carry it out.
Basically, they have decided that they've put too much into the current bill to abandon it now... they see that as an admission of failure, and they are unwilling to admit failure. So they've decided to push forward with their original plan.
This is a very risky move. Basically they're going to "give it the gas" and just roll over anybody who disagrees... which, at this point, is more than half the country. With growing opposition to the Democrat's ObamaCare bills in Congress, ignoring voter sentiment to push it through runs a high risk of generating voter backlash.
The major problem with this plan, of course, is that the House would have to vote for the Senate bill as it stands, and that's something that even Pelosi admits they don't want to do. Will the "fixer bill" concept be enough to encourage Democrats to bite the bullet, considering that IT'S passage isn't guaranteed? Good question.
Another problem arising is that budget reconciliation won't allow everything to be changed about the bill. Topics such as abortion coverage would be tough to fit in the fixer bill.
It's unclear that other major disputes — for example, how to restrict taxpayer funding for abortions — could be settled similarly. On abortion, the House bill is more restrictive than the Senate version.
"Provisions that have no budgetary effect would clearly run afoul," said James R. Horney, a former Senate Democratic budget aide now with the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.
That means Democrats might be able to resolve differences between the House and Senate on economic issues: taxing high-cost insurance plans, closing the coverage gap in the Medicare prescription benefit, and providing subsidies to help middle-income households pay insurance premiums. Yet they still could be left with a bill that cannot pass both the House and Senate.
Enough House Democrats have said they'd vote against it without the Stupak amendment that if they DON'T buy into the "fixer bill" idea, then the plan dies.
But let's assume they do buy into it and decide it may be worth passing the Senate bill as-is and then hoping the fixer bill sails through, complete with the entire Stupak amendment. Will that satisfy anti-abortion groups who support those pro-life Democrats? Probably not, no.
Abortion opponents say they will count any House vote for the current Senate bill as favoring new government subsidies for abortion. "I suggest they do it the other way around, fix it first and then pass it," said Douglas Johnson, legislative director for National Right to Life. "Members will be held accountable for what they actually vote for. It really doesn't do to say, `I voted for something, but I was against it.'"
So the leadership has decided what course they want to follow. Now they'll have to try and sell it to skeptical Democrats and see if they can push it forward.
Let's see what they can manage to do. Personally, I think that shoving through a clearly unpopular ObamaCare bill, even after they got the Massachusetts warning, will backfire heavily on Democrats. But they don't care what I think... or you, for that matter. If you don't have power in Washington DC, they won't listen to you.
Read the rest...
Obama Claims To Get It
Do you remember PresBo's NUMEROUS promises to increase transparency, to make government more open to public scrutiny? And do you remember how LITTLE openness we've seen, especially during this liberal push to enact ObamaCare?
For MONTHS we've been shouting at politicians that backroom deals don't cut it, that we're TIRED of that kind of game-playing. Only AFTER they lose a supposedly secure Senate seat and are looking for something to replace health care reform as a central message, do they finally pretend to get it.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0110/31990.html
Nancy Pelosi has said repeatedly that this is the most transparent process America has ever seen. Now Obama admitted that the process was NOT transparent.
Some statements of his, however, need to be focused on.
He must not have been paying attention. LOOKS like a bunch of back room deals? Maybe that's because there WERE a bunch of back room deals. Democrats would go into a room with disagreements and come out with new proposals and agreement. That's pretty much a dictionary definition of a back room deal. Whether it was the Cornhusker kickback or the union's deal on "cadillac insurance plans," the entire ObamaCare effort has been driven by the "what-deals-must-we-make-to-pass-this-bill" mentality.
On the contrary, the process ran EXACTLY like he wanted it to. Now that their effort is at best stalled, and Democrats face a growing backlash, it's time to pretend differently, but if he'd have wanted to run it differently there was nothing stopping him. In fact, MANY people were in fact BEGGING him to run the process differently. Sorry, Mr. President, but the process DID run the way you wanted it to, and the voters don't like it.
Don't blame me, it's not my fault. Simple message, and one that he's been using since he took office. He's been blaming Bush for everything... even for Scott Brown's victory in Massachusetts. Now he's blaming Congress. No surprise, really.
Oh, and his "I didn't make any deals" statement is completely false. Remember the deal the White House struck with pharmaceutical companies?
In my personal opinion, this is just CYA time... damage control. PresBo did what he thought would work, what he thought we'd put up with... but not only did it fail, it also generated a voter backlash that threatens his Party's current status. So, now's the time to trot out some platitudes and utter meaningless phrases that might reassure a doubtful public.
But even as he's saying the process didn't work and wasn't transparent enough, he's being careful to make sure the blame for it doesn't attach to him.
And that will probably be the trademark of the Obama Presidency: "It's not my fault, blame them."
Read the rest...
For MONTHS we've been shouting at politicians that backroom deals don't cut it, that we're TIRED of that kind of game-playing. Only AFTER they lose a supposedly secure Senate seat and are looking for something to replace health care reform as a central message, do they finally pretend to get it.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0110/31990.html
After weeks of denials from the White House that the health care reform effort failed to exhibit the transparency President Barack Obama promised on the campaign trail, Obama is conceding that locking the public out of key discussions was a “mistake.”
“We had to make so many decisions quickly in a very difficult set of circumstances that after awhile, we started worrying more about getting the policy right than getting the process right,” Obama told ABC’s Diane Sawyer Monday. “But I had campaigned on process—part of what I had campaigned on was changing how Washington works, opening up, transparency. ...The health care debate as it unfolded legitimately raised concerns not just among my opponents, but also amongst supporters that we just don't know what's going on. And it's an ugly process and it looks like there are a bunch of back room deals.”
Nancy Pelosi has said repeatedly that this is the most transparent process America has ever seen. Now Obama admitted that the process was NOT transparent.
Some statements of his, however, need to be focused on.
"And it's an ugly process and it looks like there are a bunch of back room deals."
He must not have been paying attention. LOOKS like a bunch of back room deals? Maybe that's because there WERE a bunch of back room deals. Democrats would go into a room with disagreements and come out with new proposals and agreement. That's pretty much a dictionary definition of a back room deal. Whether it was the Cornhusker kickback or the union's deal on "cadillac insurance plans," the entire ObamaCare effort has been driven by the "what-deals-must-we-make-to-pass-this-bill" mentality.
“The process didn't run the way I ideally would like it to and that we have to move forward in a way that recaptures that sense of opening things up more,” Obama said.
On the contrary, the process ran EXACTLY like he wanted it to. Now that their effort is at best stalled, and Democrats face a growing backlash, it's time to pretend differently, but if he'd have wanted to run it differently there was nothing stopping him. In fact, MANY people were in fact BEGGING him to run the process differently. Sorry, Mr. President, but the process DID run the way you wanted it to, and the voters don't like it.
“Let's just clarify. I didn't make a bunch of deals,” Obama told ABC. “There is a legislative process that is taking place in Congress and I am happy to own up to the fact that I have not changed Congress and how it operates the way I would have liked.”
Don't blame me, it's not my fault. Simple message, and one that he's been using since he took office. He's been blaming Bush for everything... even for Scott Brown's victory in Massachusetts. Now he's blaming Congress. No surprise, really.
Oh, and his "I didn't make any deals" statement is completely false. Remember the deal the White House struck with pharmaceutical companies?
As the process unfolded last year, critics complained not just about closed Congressional negotiations on health care, but about deals the White House worked out behind closed doors with pharmaceutical companies, insurance companies, hospitals and unions.
In my personal opinion, this is just CYA time... damage control. PresBo did what he thought would work, what he thought we'd put up with... but not only did it fail, it also generated a voter backlash that threatens his Party's current status. So, now's the time to trot out some platitudes and utter meaningless phrases that might reassure a doubtful public.
But even as he's saying the process didn't work and wasn't transparent enough, he's being careful to make sure the blame for it doesn't attach to him.
However, Obama insisted Monday that the White House has delivered on the transparency he had direct control over. “I think it is important to know that the promises we made about increased transparency, we've executed here in 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue,” Obama said. “I mean, this is the first White House in history where you know anybody who has walked into my office, anybody who has walked into the White House, you actually have a record of who comes in. We have put more stuff on the Internet than ever.”
And that will probably be the trademark of the Obama Presidency: "It's not my fault, blame them."
Read the rest...
A Good Message
This is a good message to be sending to Democrats right now, and it's also a well done video. Enjoy this "Open Letter to Democrats."
If the video won't run, try this link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=662R2awSwPQ&feature=player_embedded
Read the rest...
If the video won't run, try this link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=662R2awSwPQ&feature=player_embedded
Read the rest...
Monday, January 25, 2010
Some Polling Data To Digest
People like to say that the only things certain are death and taxes. To that rather short list I'd like to add one more thing that is seemingly a certainty: Somewhere right now, SOMEBODY is conducting a political poll.
And of course, once the poll is completed we will all be informed of the new, breathtaking bit of wisdom that is bequeathed to us.
Well, for what it is worth, here's the latest polling data.
Obama most polarized President in history
Although PresBo ran on the claim he would be a bipartisan President, a man who could unite the left and right, it turns out that the exact opposite is true. Obama is the most polarizing President on record.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/125345/Obama-Approval-Polarized-First-Year-President.aspx
56% oppose the original stimulus program
The majority of Americans now think the stimulus package was a bad idea.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/01/24/cnn-poll-56-percent-oppose-stimulus-program/
Majority agrees with SCOTUS ruling on campaign finance
Specifically, 57% believe that donating money to a political candidate is a protected form of free speech. Also, 55% believe that the same rules should control individual and corporate political expenditures.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/125333/Public-Agrees-Court-Campaign-Money-Free-Speech.aspx
Gallup poll shows Obama approval rating at new low
Gallup has PresBo sitting at 48% approval and 47% disapproval. He is getting VERY close to negative approval levels.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/113980/Gallup-Daily-Obama-Job-Approval.aspx
61% say it's time to drop health care reform
Only 30% disagree and think Congress should push ahead with it.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/january_2010/61_say_it_s_time_for_congress_to_drop_health_care
Read the rest...
And of course, once the poll is completed we will all be informed of the new, breathtaking bit of wisdom that is bequeathed to us.
Well, for what it is worth, here's the latest polling data.
Obama most polarized President in history
Although PresBo ran on the claim he would be a bipartisan President, a man who could unite the left and right, it turns out that the exact opposite is true. Obama is the most polarizing President on record.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/125345/Obama-Approval-Polarized-First-Year-President.aspx
56% oppose the original stimulus program
The majority of Americans now think the stimulus package was a bad idea.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/01/24/cnn-poll-56-percent-oppose-stimulus-program/
Majority agrees with SCOTUS ruling on campaign finance
Specifically, 57% believe that donating money to a political candidate is a protected form of free speech. Also, 55% believe that the same rules should control individual and corporate political expenditures.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/125333/Public-Agrees-Court-Campaign-Money-Free-Speech.aspx
Gallup poll shows Obama approval rating at new low
Gallup has PresBo sitting at 48% approval and 47% disapproval. He is getting VERY close to negative approval levels.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/113980/Gallup-Daily-Obama-Job-Approval.aspx
61% say it's time to drop health care reform
Only 30% disagree and think Congress should push ahead with it.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/january_2010/61_say_it_s_time_for_congress_to_drop_health_care
Read the rest...
Sunday, January 24, 2010
Alabama Unemployment 11% In December
Alabama's unemployment figures for December reached a 26-year high level as they rose to 11%.
http://www.montgomeryadvertiser.com/article/20100123/NEWS02/1230303/1009/archives?GID=YMiC1zCX5YzIoaJa2lE6vEC9MKbMjnSSShvmiDXucVo%3D
This comes amidst a backdrop of rising national unemployment... unofficial data in previous weeks show unemployment rates rising since December. And though the Montgomery area still hovers under 10%, others are being hit far worse. Wilcox county, for example, stands at 24%... the highest unemployment rate in the state.
Expect these numbers to get slightly worse at the next report... January isn't going to be kind to us, in a jobs sense. Our economic woes simply aren't over, and big-spending programs like the national $787 billion stimulus bill, the proposed smaller "jobs creation bill," or Alabama's proposed $1 billion road construction effort are not going to create jobs.
I repeat what I have said countless times, government cannot spend our way into prosperity. Economic and job growth HAS TO come from the private sector, and massive government spending doesn't grow the private sector.
When will our government wise up and understand they can't control everything by throwing money at it?
Read the rest...
http://www.montgomeryadvertiser.com/article/20100123/NEWS02/1230303/1009/archives?GID=YMiC1zCX5YzIoaJa2lE6vEC9MKbMjnSSShvmiDXucVo%3D
Alabama's jobless rate climbed to 11 percent in December, a 26-year high that was up dramatically from the 6.5 percent rate of a year earlier.
The increase also decreased optimism concerning the state's economic recovery -- optimism fueled when last month the state had the first decrease in unemployment in two years.
This comes amidst a backdrop of rising national unemployment... unofficial data in previous weeks show unemployment rates rising since December. And though the Montgomery area still hovers under 10%, others are being hit far worse. Wilcox county, for example, stands at 24%... the highest unemployment rate in the state.
Expect these numbers to get slightly worse at the next report... January isn't going to be kind to us, in a jobs sense. Our economic woes simply aren't over, and big-spending programs like the national $787 billion stimulus bill, the proposed smaller "jobs creation bill," or Alabama's proposed $1 billion road construction effort are not going to create jobs.
I repeat what I have said countless times, government cannot spend our way into prosperity. Economic and job growth HAS TO come from the private sector, and massive government spending doesn't grow the private sector.
When will our government wise up and understand they can't control everything by throwing money at it?
Read the rest...
Saturday, January 23, 2010
Democrats In Disarray, Need To Regroup
It's been three days since we woke up to the news that Scott Brown had scored a major upset victory and won a Senate seat in ultra-liberal Massachusetts. Since then we've heard all kinds of plans, commitments, declarations, and statements from Democrats... many of which are contradictory. The inevitable conclusion is that the Democrats are in disarray, total confusion, and have no idea what to do next.
On the one hand, PresBo vows to "continue the fight" on ObamaCare. On the other hand, Senator Dodd says that they should "take a break from health care" for a month or so. On the other hand, Rep Nadler says we need to pass the Senate bill and amend it with a reconciliation bill. On the other hand, Rep Ryan says the Democrats are crafting new bills to be passed under budget reconciliation rules.
We've long since run out of hands, but all of this boils down to two basic options. They can either ignore the mood of the country and push ahead with an ObamaCare agenda that was rejected in ultra-liberal Massachusetts, or they can LISTEN to the people and start over with less ambitious and more moderate proposals. So far, most Democrats are looking at ways to do the first... the second option isn't seriously being considered by many Democrats at all.
And all this is happening amidst a backdrop of voter angst and anger, in which the public is rapidly turning against the liberal Democrats' agenda. For example, 77% of investors view Obama as anti-business, 55% say that Congress should suspend work and consider alternatives, and 72% think the Massachusetts results were about ObamaCare and should be listened to.
Now we have to ask ourselves WHY are the Democrats so intent on ignoring what the people of this country want? Is it genuine concern for the country, or partisan interests? Unfortunately, it looks like it's mainly Democrat concern for the welfare of the party... to heck with the country, long live the party!
New York Daily News article
I think you get the point. A major part of the rationale they are using to encourage Democrat Congressmen to push forward with the bill is that a failure to enact such a pivotal agenda item would hurt them badly in the upcoming November elections.
In other words, it doesn't matter what the people of this country want or even what is really good or bad for the country, at this point it's all about what is good for the Democrats.
I have news for you, Democrats, you can't be a success if you govern IN SPITE of the people. If you ignore us, belittle us, and continue to ram things we don't want down our throats, you WILL face a voter backlash.
We are the people you are supposed to represent, so stop denigrating and ignoring us. We are the people. Respect us.
Read the rest...
On the one hand, PresBo vows to "continue the fight" on ObamaCare. On the other hand, Senator Dodd says that they should "take a break from health care" for a month or so. On the other hand, Rep Nadler says we need to pass the Senate bill and amend it with a reconciliation bill. On the other hand, Rep Ryan says the Democrats are crafting new bills to be passed under budget reconciliation rules.
We've long since run out of hands, but all of this boils down to two basic options. They can either ignore the mood of the country and push ahead with an ObamaCare agenda that was rejected in ultra-liberal Massachusetts, or they can LISTEN to the people and start over with less ambitious and more moderate proposals. So far, most Democrats are looking at ways to do the first... the second option isn't seriously being considered by many Democrats at all.
And all this is happening amidst a backdrop of voter angst and anger, in which the public is rapidly turning against the liberal Democrats' agenda. For example, 77% of investors view Obama as anti-business, 55% say that Congress should suspend work and consider alternatives, and 72% think the Massachusetts results were about ObamaCare and should be listened to.
Now we have to ask ourselves WHY are the Democrats so intent on ignoring what the people of this country want? Is it genuine concern for the country, or partisan interests? Unfortunately, it looks like it's mainly Democrat concern for the welfare of the party... to heck with the country, long live the party!
""We have to get a bill passed," said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., because her party would have no excuse for failing to revamp health care when it controls Congress and the White House."Newsmax article.
Passage of reform is even more important for the future of the Democrats as a political party. Right now, Democrats see an electorate that is unsupportive of the current health care bill and is angry at Washington. The natural and immediate impulse is not surprisingly to ease up, particularly with midterm elections less than 10 months away. The fallout would be catastrophic and could represent an existential threat to Democrats as a political party.
New York Daily News article
I think you get the point. A major part of the rationale they are using to encourage Democrat Congressmen to push forward with the bill is that a failure to enact such a pivotal agenda item would hurt them badly in the upcoming November elections.
In other words, it doesn't matter what the people of this country want or even what is really good or bad for the country, at this point it's all about what is good for the Democrats.
I have news for you, Democrats, you can't be a success if you govern IN SPITE of the people. If you ignore us, belittle us, and continue to ram things we don't want down our throats, you WILL face a voter backlash.
We are the people you are supposed to represent, so stop denigrating and ignoring us. We are the people. Respect us.
Read the rest...
Poll: Anti-ObamaCare Sentiment Drove Massachusetts Upset
According to a new poll released by the Washington Post, the Democrats' ObamaCare bill and other big-government programs absolutely were the driving force behind Scott Brown's victory.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35019673/ns/politics-washington_post
For those liberals who are still in denial and think ObamaCare and other Democrat big-government programs had nothing to do with Coakley's loss, you might want to look at what the voters themselves say. They think government is already too big.
So, before you push ahead with your agenda on the theory that you can convince us idiots they're really a good idea after all, you might want to consider this: If 47% of voters in ultra-liberal Massachusetts think that government is doing far too much under PresBo, then maybe that percentage is far higher in less-liberal areas of the country.
Just a thought. But one you should consider.
Read the rest...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35019673/ns/politics-washington_post
Sixty-three percent of Massachusetts special-election voters say the country is seriously off track, and Brown captured two-thirds of these voters in his victory over Democrat Martha Coakley. In November 2008, Obama scored a decisive win among the more than eight in 10 Massachusetts voters seeing the country as off course.
Nearly two-thirds of Brown's voters say their vote was intended at least in part to express opposition to the Democratic agenda in Washington, but few say the senator-elect should simply work to stop it. Three-quarters of those who voted for Brown say they would like him to work with Democrats to get Republican ideas into legislation in general; nearly half say so specifically about health-care legislation.
For those liberals who are still in denial and think ObamaCare and other Democrat big-government programs had nothing to do with Coakley's loss, you might want to look at what the voters themselves say. They think government is already too big.
When Obama was elected, 63 percent of Massachusetts voters said government should do more to solve problems, according to exit polling then. In the new poll, that number slipped to 50 percent, with about as many, 47 percent, saying that government is doing too many things better left to businesses and individuals.
So, before you push ahead with your agenda on the theory that you can convince us idiots they're really a good idea after all, you might want to consider this: If 47% of voters in ultra-liberal Massachusetts think that government is doing far too much under PresBo, then maybe that percentage is far higher in less-liberal areas of the country.
Just a thought. But one you should consider.
Read the rest...
Democrats Are Grieving Over ObamaCare
As I read all the news stories last night on how Democrats were STILL reacting to the victory of Senator-Elect Scott Brown from Massachusetts, it dawned on me what we are seeing. Democrats are grieving, and we are witnessing the four stages of grief.
The definition of grief: "The emotional depiction of great loss accompanied by a sense of hopelessness, anguish, denial, anger and confusion."
This seems to fit, from what I'm seeing. Liberal Democrats were very excited that they were finally going to get their lifelong dream chance to pass many of the sweeping changes to our culture that they have longed to all of their adult lives. With the victory of Scott Brown, it appears as if this might have been taken from them at the last minute.
They are experiencing grief. Let's look at their actions as they are progressing through the four stages of grief.
Stage 1: Denial. Most people are still in stage 1. They are denying that the Brown victory changes anything, and urging the House to ignore everything and just pass the Senate bill. Passing the legislation will restore the world to it's "rightful" condition... with liberals on top and everybody singing kumbayah. Most liberals are still in this stage, though not all.
Stage 2: Depression. In this stage, typical reactions are to believe the world is over. The sun has stopped shining. Remember people telling us that ObamaCare was dead? Many people in the blogosphere wrote about how they were disgusted with the Democrats for blowing the only chance at health care reform that we will see in our lifetimes. Several said they were tempted to quit political blogging entirely. Quite a few liberals are still in THIS stage.
Stage 3: Anger. Oh, boy, are we seeing this stage in abundance. A lot of finger-pointing, recriminations, and blame. House: "We could have passed this if the Senate hadn't wasted so much time!" Senate: "We can still pass this if you guys in the House would just sign the danged bill!" Both Houses: "The President didn't do enough to shape the ObamaCare debate." The President: "It's George Bush's fault." And always, ALWAYS, almost incoherent anger directed at those blasted Republicans and those rotten Tea Party groups!
Most liberals are in stage 3, and I believe we won't see anybody moving beyond it for quite a while. Even those Democrats trying to figure out the "next step" are trying to decide how they can pass the ultra-liberal version of ObamaCare... they still haven't accepted that the public has turned against them on this.
Personally, I think it will be quite some time before liberals actually move on the stage 4: Acceptance. If they ever manage it, that is... which I doubt all will ever do.
Democrats are grieving, and we are watching this process on a national political level as it unfolds. The political landscape isn't what they thought it was, and they are dealing with it in a predictable way.
But I must say, it's awfully entertaining to watch.
Read the rest...
The definition of grief: "The emotional depiction of great loss accompanied by a sense of hopelessness, anguish, denial, anger and confusion."
This seems to fit, from what I'm seeing. Liberal Democrats were very excited that they were finally going to get their lifelong dream chance to pass many of the sweeping changes to our culture that they have longed to all of their adult lives. With the victory of Scott Brown, it appears as if this might have been taken from them at the last minute.
They are experiencing grief. Let's look at their actions as they are progressing through the four stages of grief.
Stage 1: Denial. Most people are still in stage 1. They are denying that the Brown victory changes anything, and urging the House to ignore everything and just pass the Senate bill. Passing the legislation will restore the world to it's "rightful" condition... with liberals on top and everybody singing kumbayah. Most liberals are still in this stage, though not all.
Stage 2: Depression. In this stage, typical reactions are to believe the world is over. The sun has stopped shining. Remember people telling us that ObamaCare was dead? Many people in the blogosphere wrote about how they were disgusted with the Democrats for blowing the only chance at health care reform that we will see in our lifetimes. Several said they were tempted to quit political blogging entirely. Quite a few liberals are still in THIS stage.
Stage 3: Anger. Oh, boy, are we seeing this stage in abundance. A lot of finger-pointing, recriminations, and blame. House: "We could have passed this if the Senate hadn't wasted so much time!" Senate: "We can still pass this if you guys in the House would just sign the danged bill!" Both Houses: "The President didn't do enough to shape the ObamaCare debate." The President: "It's George Bush's fault." And always, ALWAYS, almost incoherent anger directed at those blasted Republicans and those rotten Tea Party groups!
Most liberals are in stage 3, and I believe we won't see anybody moving beyond it for quite a while. Even those Democrats trying to figure out the "next step" are trying to decide how they can pass the ultra-liberal version of ObamaCare... they still haven't accepted that the public has turned against them on this.
Personally, I think it will be quite some time before liberals actually move on the stage 4: Acceptance. If they ever manage it, that is... which I doubt all will ever do.
Democrats are grieving, and we are watching this process on a national political level as it unfolds. The political landscape isn't what they thought it was, and they are dealing with it in a predictable way.
But I must say, it's awfully entertaining to watch.
Read the rest...
Friday, January 22, 2010
Breaking: Dems To Try Reconciliation
Following the loss of their super-majority in the Senate, the Democrats had three major options. They could have simply had the House approve the Senate bill, but Pelosi discovered she didn't have the votes to do that. They could abandon the bill and start over with small, targeted solutions to specific problems, but they aren't ready to go that way yet. Their final major option is to try and ram as much through using reconciliation as they can.
And it appears they are laying plans now and over the weekend to do precisely that.
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YTIxZmJiOGUwMTViYjYxODVjOGYzNGUxOTkzNDcyYWU=
So we're not done yet, and Democrats appear to be doubling-down on their liberal agenda... despite the Massachusetts results that should certainly tell them that isn't what this country wants.
How else can you read it? Are we to believe that voters in liberal Massachusetts elected a conservative so that... he would advance Obama's liberal agenda? Yeah, doesn't make sense to me, either.
They're not done yet, so we have to keep our eyes on the ball.
Read the rest...
And it appears they are laying plans now and over the weekend to do precisely that.
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YTIxZmJiOGUwMTViYjYxODVjOGYzNGUxOTkzNDcyYWU=
Rep. Paul Ryan (R., Wis.), the ranking member of the House Budget Committee, tells National Review Online that House Democrats are planning to use the budget-reconciliation process in order to pass Obamacare. “They’re meeting with each other this weekend to pursue it,” says Ryan. “I’ve spoken with many Democrats and the message is this: They’re not ready to give up. They’ve waited their entire adult lives for this moment, and they aren’t ready to let 100,000 pesky votes in Massachusetts get in the way of fulfilling their destiny. They’ll look at every option and spend the next four or five days figuring it out.”
So we're not done yet, and Democrats appear to be doubling-down on their liberal agenda... despite the Massachusetts results that should certainly tell them that isn't what this country wants.
How else can you read it? Are we to believe that voters in liberal Massachusetts elected a conservative so that... he would advance Obama's liberal agenda? Yeah, doesn't make sense to me, either.
To start the process, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D., Calif.) would need to bring a new health-care bill to the House Budget Committee with reconciliation instructions, with the Senate doing the same. “They’d have to go back to the beginning of the process,” says Ryan. “They’d need to affix reconciliation instructions to a new bill.” Doing so, he says, wouldn’t be too hard.
They're not done yet, so we have to keep our eyes on the ball.
Read the rest...
Dems Learned Nothing From Massachusetts
It appears as if the Democrats have learned nothing from their stunning loss in Massachusetts earlier this week. Forget ObamaCare for a moment... it's understandable that it'll take them some time to figure out what to do on that. But let's look elsewhere. In fact, let's look at the #1 issue on most people's minds: the economy and unemployment.
The Democrats have gotten together and are determining what to do on unemployment.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0110/31766.html
Do YOU see what's missing from this? Well, let's see. Maybe the... Republicans? In determining what legislative action to take, Democrats are sifting through hundreds of ideas submitted by DEMOCRATS. How much of this legislation will be drafted by Republicans? None, apparently.
So once again Democrats are saying that their party is more important than this country.
Read the rest...
The Democrats have gotten together and are determining what to do on unemployment.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0110/31766.html
Whip Dick Durbin of Illinois and Sen. Byron Dorgan of North Dakota have been working on jobs legislation since at least September. They’ve spent the past month or so sifting through more than 200 proposals they gathered during a series of meetings this fall with the entire Democratic Caucus and are now in the process of winnowing that down to a group that will make up the final bill.
Do YOU see what's missing from this? Well, let's see. Maybe the... Republicans? In determining what legislative action to take, Democrats are sifting through hundreds of ideas submitted by DEMOCRATS. How much of this legislation will be drafted by Republicans? None, apparently.
So once again Democrats are saying that their party is more important than this country.
Read the rest...
TSA Plants Fake Drugs In Baggage... SURPRISE!
Government, as I've said before, is made up of people. Some of those people are wonderful, some are evil, and some are just plain, well... I have no words.
When 22-year-old Rebecca Solomon was confronted with a TSA agent pulling a plastic bag filled with a fine white powder from her carry-on bag at an airport checkpoint, she had no idea what was happening.
"Where did you get this?" he asked her, a forbidding expression on his face and the incriminating bag held up for all to see.
Rebecca had no idea how the baggie had gotten there, because it wasn't hers. She didn't know who it belonged to, and she was scared to death.
That's when the TSA screener smiled. "Just joking," she was told, "and you can go through, now."
http://www.philly.com/philly/news/local/20100121_Daniel_Rubin__It_was_no_joke_at_security_gate.html
This is a perfect example of my "government is people" point. What in the name of all that is holy possessed this man to TORTURE a passenger in this fashion? Planting evidence in a passenger's baggage... as a joke?
Now, what happened to the screener? Initially, nothing. Rebecca complained and was told he was training other agents on detecting contraband, but the screener remained on the floor. Only later, after this blew up, was action taken. He was, eventually, fired for the "joke."
But this illustrates my point: when we grant power to government it WILL BE ABUSED. Why? Because government is not some man-created God with altruistic motives.
Government is people.
Read the rest...
When 22-year-old Rebecca Solomon was confronted with a TSA agent pulling a plastic bag filled with a fine white powder from her carry-on bag at an airport checkpoint, she had no idea what was happening.
"Where did you get this?" he asked her, a forbidding expression on his face and the incriminating bag held up for all to see.
Rebecca had no idea how the baggie had gotten there, because it wasn't hers. She didn't know who it belonged to, and she was scared to death.
That's when the TSA screener smiled. "Just joking," she was told, "and you can go through, now."
http://www.philly.com/philly/news/local/20100121_Daniel_Rubin__It_was_no_joke_at_security_gate.html
This is a perfect example of my "government is people" point. What in the name of all that is holy possessed this man to TORTURE a passenger in this fashion? Planting evidence in a passenger's baggage... as a joke?
Now, what happened to the screener? Initially, nothing. Rebecca complained and was told he was training other agents on detecting contraband, but the screener remained on the floor. Only later, after this blew up, was action taken. He was, eventually, fired for the "joke."
But this illustrates my point: when we grant power to government it WILL BE ABUSED. Why? Because government is not some man-created God with altruistic motives.
Government is people.
Read the rest...
Government Is People
Whenever we see a proposal for this new regulation, that new government agency, or that other brilliant new law, I always look at it from a slightly different point of view than most. Many people, especially those of a liberal bent, will tell you that government must protect us from many things, such as poverty, sickness, and even each other. Personally, I don’t believe that our governments do so great a job on that score, but (the argument goes) to do that they need power.
Why don’t I trust government with power? Because a government is not a solid entity that is supernaturally imbued with an altruistic concern for my welfare. Government is composed of people. That’s right, government is made up of people not so different from you or I. They love, they laugh, they hate, and they cause harm… just like ordinary people everywhere.
When we grant a new power to government, for example, the power to supply us with health care (I’m referring here to a single-payer, or government-run health care system), we are giving that power over our lives to other people. “Take care of me” we are saying to them. And usually, those people in government are all too glad to comply… though not always as we had imagined they would.
You see, being in government, either as an elected official or as a government employee, gives them power they wouldn’t otherwise have. And when I say power, I mean the only kind of power that matters to some people… power over the lives of other people. When we give power to government, we are actually giving that power to the people who are working there.
Power abhors a vacuum, and the very people most drawn to power are those most likely to abuse it. So the more power we give to government, to the people employed therein or elected to office, the more likely that power will be abused. And by abused, I mean used in a manner not originally intended to either further the interests of the individual(s) involved or to harm other (usually non-governmental) people.
When we grant government the power, for example, to use machines to peek under our clothing, we are in fact granting that power to the individuals hired to work security in airports. Some will abuse that power and, no matter what the rhetoric you hear today, some TSA worker somewhere will post those pictures on the internet. It will happen, for the simple reason that those involved are ordinary people with all the foibles and imperfections that implies. Many or most may be honest, but all will not be.
The “government is good” concept requires us to believe that COLLECTIVELY all those people will “first do no harm,” even though we know that people make mistakes and people aren’t always good. I know this is so, and I know that simply becoming part of “government” doesn’t transform somebody into a good person who won’t abuse his authority. Whether it’s IRS workers looking at celebrity tax records they weren’t supposed to, airport screeners forcing mothers to drink their own breast milk to prove it wasn’t explosives, or the FBI lying about emergency terrorism cases to illegally obtain phone records, power given to government will eventually be misused… to our sorrow.
Therefore, it is essential that we are careful and cautious about WHAT powers we give to our government. And if they don’t legally have a power that they exercise anyway, it is our responsibility to fight that usurpation of power.
When government asks for a new power, we should ALWAYS investigate their claims of how “necessary” that power is. I have contended from the start that the Patriot Act made it easier to search homes, phone records, and the like… and that the power wasn’t necessary. That it might make some jobs easier wasn’t an issue, but it certainly wasn’t NECESSARY to fight terrorism… though the government (naturally) claimed that it was. And nobody can honestly argue that the power has NOT been abused… see the link above about the FBI doing precisely that.
I do not blindly trust complete strangers, and so I do not blindly trust in the benign nature of government. Why? Because government isn't just government, it's people.
Read the rest...
Why don’t I trust government with power? Because a government is not a solid entity that is supernaturally imbued with an altruistic concern for my welfare. Government is composed of people. That’s right, government is made up of people not so different from you or I. They love, they laugh, they hate, and they cause harm… just like ordinary people everywhere.
When we grant a new power to government, for example, the power to supply us with health care (I’m referring here to a single-payer, or government-run health care system), we are giving that power over our lives to other people. “Take care of me” we are saying to them. And usually, those people in government are all too glad to comply… though not always as we had imagined they would.
You see, being in government, either as an elected official or as a government employee, gives them power they wouldn’t otherwise have. And when I say power, I mean the only kind of power that matters to some people… power over the lives of other people. When we give power to government, we are actually giving that power to the people who are working there.
Power abhors a vacuum, and the very people most drawn to power are those most likely to abuse it. So the more power we give to government, to the people employed therein or elected to office, the more likely that power will be abused. And by abused, I mean used in a manner not originally intended to either further the interests of the individual(s) involved or to harm other (usually non-governmental) people.
When we grant government the power, for example, to use machines to peek under our clothing, we are in fact granting that power to the individuals hired to work security in airports. Some will abuse that power and, no matter what the rhetoric you hear today, some TSA worker somewhere will post those pictures on the internet. It will happen, for the simple reason that those involved are ordinary people with all the foibles and imperfections that implies. Many or most may be honest, but all will not be.
The “government is good” concept requires us to believe that COLLECTIVELY all those people will “first do no harm,” even though we know that people make mistakes and people aren’t always good. I know this is so, and I know that simply becoming part of “government” doesn’t transform somebody into a good person who won’t abuse his authority. Whether it’s IRS workers looking at celebrity tax records they weren’t supposed to, airport screeners forcing mothers to drink their own breast milk to prove it wasn’t explosives, or the FBI lying about emergency terrorism cases to illegally obtain phone records, power given to government will eventually be misused… to our sorrow.
Therefore, it is essential that we are careful and cautious about WHAT powers we give to our government. And if they don’t legally have a power that they exercise anyway, it is our responsibility to fight that usurpation of power.
When government asks for a new power, we should ALWAYS investigate their claims of how “necessary” that power is. I have contended from the start that the Patriot Act made it easier to search homes, phone records, and the like… and that the power wasn’t necessary. That it might make some jobs easier wasn’t an issue, but it certainly wasn’t NECESSARY to fight terrorism… though the government (naturally) claimed that it was. And nobody can honestly argue that the power has NOT been abused… see the link above about the FBI doing precisely that.
I do not blindly trust complete strangers, and so I do not blindly trust in the benign nature of government. Why? Because government isn't just government, it's people.
Read the rest...
Obama: Deficit Reduction = Tax Increases
Despite more than tripling the federal deficit in one year, the Obama administration is talking about fiscal restraint and deficit reduction. To that end, they have proposed a "bipartisan deficit reduction panel" to explore methods of reducing the deficit.
There are two problems with this panel. The first is that its recommendations can be ignored by Congress. The second, as pointed out by Rep Pence, is that the panel doesn't have authority to recommend reductions in discretionary spending.
If the video won't play, you can watch it here.
Here is a transept of what Rep Pence says (emphasis added):
What a surprise, eh? After proposing massive spending this year and in the future that promises to double our national debt, PresBo's attempts at "deficit reduction" will do nothing to curtail discretionary (that means optional) spending.
Color me surprised.
Read the rest...
There are two problems with this panel. The first is that its recommendations can be ignored by Congress. The second, as pointed out by Rep Pence, is that the panel doesn't have authority to recommend reductions in discretionary spending.
If the video won't play, you can watch it here.
Here is a transept of what Rep Pence says (emphasis added):
Well, if you are concerned about runaway federal spending and a rising national debt, you won’t find a lot of comfort in today’s headlines. After passing a government takeover of health care costing over a trillion dollars and budget that will triple the national debt in the next ten years, Democrat leaders are now talking about actually bringing legislation that will raise our debt limit by $1.9 trillion. But we are told by the same Democratic leadership that they are going to get serious in 2010 about fiscal discipline. I guess along those lines, President Obama is expected to announce a bipartisan commission that will look for ways to reduce deficits in the future. Sounds like an appealing idea, but the devil’s always in the details in Washington, D.C.
The president’s commission, on close examination, actually looks like a guard dog with no bite. Looks like fiscal discipline but it could easily be ignored by Congress. Remarkably, the president’s proposal, as I have heard about it, is prohibited from recommending cuts in any discretionary spending. That will be about $1.4 trillion, and the ‘Bridge to Nowhere’ that’s completely off limits. And as many of us know, with the partisan bias and the structure of it, as reported, it’s likely this commission would just be an excuse to raise taxes.
The American people don’t want more government, more taxes and more political posturing about spending. They want this Congress to show the character and the strength to make the hard choices to put our fiscal house in order.”
What a surprise, eh? After proposing massive spending this year and in the future that promises to double our national debt, PresBo's attempts at "deficit reduction" will do nothing to curtail discretionary (that means optional) spending.
Color me surprised.
Read the rest...
Start Over On Health Care Reform, And Start Small
Now that Obama has lost his 60th vote in the Senate and Nancy Pelosi has admitted that she doesn’t have the votes to rubber-stamp the Senate’s bill through the House, what should they do next?
I admit they could try some shenanigans involving reconciliation, but the truth is simple: this is how the system works. If you can’t get the required number of votes to support your bill, that bill doesn’t get passed. They can’t get the votes, so they shouldn’t try to trick their way through this thing.
Here is what I would like to see them do. First and foremost, abandon the current bill. Many bills pass both Houses and then perish because the House and Senate can’t reconcile them. Let that happen here. Then start picking targeted solutions to specific problems and introduce SMALL bills to cover them. No huge monstrosities, no buried pork or sweetheart deals, simply good solutions to problems. Oh, and no major rush on ANYTHING or closed-door negotiations. Let’s do everything openly and above-board, and take the time to get it RIGHT.
Here are the bills I would like to see introduced, because I think these would work to make health insurance less expensive and more available.
Tort reform: loser pays. One of the reasons for high health care costs is the fact that people can sue doctors at the drop of a hat… many lawyers will take the case at no cost, so it’s a free ride. They don’t risk anything. If we implement a loser pays system, the person suing would have to pay the defendant’s legal fees IF the defendant prevails at trial. Simple. Now the individual suing has something to lose by filing a frivolous suit, and will hesitate to do so. Implementing a “loser pays” system will reduce the number of frivolous lawsuits against doctors.
Allow insurance across state lines. Right now, federal law prohibits a person in Alabama from buying health insurance from a company in Florida… this is at the heart of why liberals say there isn’t any real competition in the health insurance industry. Change that, and allow us to buy insurance across state lines. The added competition will drive down costs.
Make individual insurance deductible. If your company purchases health insurance for you, your premium is tax-free. If you purchase your own insurance, you have to pay income tax on that insurance premium. Change the law to allow health insurance premiums to be deductible if purchased by an individual. This removes the tax bias favoring companies providing insurance, and will help those who currently purchase their own.
Remove insurance mandates. Right now, policies sold by health insurance companies in various areas are required to provide minimal levels of coverage, some of them not so minimal. Some of them require maternity coverage for females, others require coverage of even more esoteric things… whether the purchaser wants or needs them, or not. Remove those requirements and allow insurance companies to offer lower-cost policies that exactly match the customer’s requirements.
Now, these suggestions certainly won’t fix every single problem that exists with our health care system today, but in combination, they will make health insurance less expensive and more available... and isn't that the main goal, anyway?
Let’s start there, see how those work, and determine what else is needed later.
Read the rest...
I admit they could try some shenanigans involving reconciliation, but the truth is simple: this is how the system works. If you can’t get the required number of votes to support your bill, that bill doesn’t get passed. They can’t get the votes, so they shouldn’t try to trick their way through this thing.
Here is what I would like to see them do. First and foremost, abandon the current bill. Many bills pass both Houses and then perish because the House and Senate can’t reconcile them. Let that happen here. Then start picking targeted solutions to specific problems and introduce SMALL bills to cover them. No huge monstrosities, no buried pork or sweetheart deals, simply good solutions to problems. Oh, and no major rush on ANYTHING or closed-door negotiations. Let’s do everything openly and above-board, and take the time to get it RIGHT.
Here are the bills I would like to see introduced, because I think these would work to make health insurance less expensive and more available.
Tort reform: loser pays. One of the reasons for high health care costs is the fact that people can sue doctors at the drop of a hat… many lawyers will take the case at no cost, so it’s a free ride. They don’t risk anything. If we implement a loser pays system, the person suing would have to pay the defendant’s legal fees IF the defendant prevails at trial. Simple. Now the individual suing has something to lose by filing a frivolous suit, and will hesitate to do so. Implementing a “loser pays” system will reduce the number of frivolous lawsuits against doctors.
Allow insurance across state lines. Right now, federal law prohibits a person in Alabama from buying health insurance from a company in Florida… this is at the heart of why liberals say there isn’t any real competition in the health insurance industry. Change that, and allow us to buy insurance across state lines. The added competition will drive down costs.
Make individual insurance deductible. If your company purchases health insurance for you, your premium is tax-free. If you purchase your own insurance, you have to pay income tax on that insurance premium. Change the law to allow health insurance premiums to be deductible if purchased by an individual. This removes the tax bias favoring companies providing insurance, and will help those who currently purchase their own.
Remove insurance mandates. Right now, policies sold by health insurance companies in various areas are required to provide minimal levels of coverage, some of them not so minimal. Some of them require maternity coverage for females, others require coverage of even more esoteric things… whether the purchaser wants or needs them, or not. Remove those requirements and allow insurance companies to offer lower-cost policies that exactly match the customer’s requirements.
Now, these suggestions certainly won’t fix every single problem that exists with our health care system today, but in combination, they will make health insurance less expensive and more available... and isn't that the main goal, anyway?
Let’s start there, see how those work, and determine what else is needed later.
Read the rest...
Thursday, January 21, 2010
Breaking: Pelosi Lacks Votes To Pass Senate Bill
Well, this is good news. Nancy Pelosi says that she lacks the votes in the House to rubber-stamp the Senate ObamaCare bill.
http://newsmax.com/InsideCover/pelosi-healthcare-bill-votes/2010/01/21/id/347584?s=al&promo_code=95E6-1
That's the best news I've had all day today.
Having the House pass the Senate bill unchanged was the best chance the Democrats had to quickly and easily pass ObamaCare. I didn't think they'd have the votes to do that, but you can never be sure. It's nice to know I was right, and nice to know that yet another "move forward" method has been nixed.
So, what's left? They can either let the House modify it and try to use reconciliation in the Senate, but I don't think that will work, either... not all of the bill can legally fit under reconciliation. They CAN abandon the bills and start from scratch with smaller bills offering targeted solutions to specific problems. But that isn't incredibly likely either.
They could ALSO continue the process, send it back to the Senate, and try to scrounge up another vote to replace Brown.
At this moment in time, I don't see a clear path to passage for the Democrats. They tried too hard to make the bill as liberal as they could get away with, and it all seems to be falling apart now that they've lost that 60th vote. Even the wishy-washer Senators like Olympia Snowe don't seem eager to play ball, especially after having been burned once by them. That's one drawback to the methods the Democrats have been using over the past year.
If there's a way to get their ObamaCare passed, I don't see it right now. Let's keep watching and see what they do.
Read the rest...
http://newsmax.com/InsideCover/pelosi-healthcare-bill-votes/2010/01/21/id/347584?s=al&promo_code=95E6-1
Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Thursday that she lacks the votes to quickly move the Senate's sweeping health overhaul bill through the House, a potentially devastating blow to President Barack Obama's signature issue.
Her concession meant there was little hope for a White House-backed plan to quickly push the Senate-approved health bill through the House, followed by a separate measure making changes sought by House members, such as easing the Senate's tax on higher-cost health plans. Such an approach would be "problematic," she said.
"In its present form without any changes I don't think it's possible to pass the Senate bill in the House," Pelosi said, adding, "I don't see the votes for it at this time."
Pelosi's remarks signaled that advancing health legislation through Congress will likely be a lengthy process — despite Democrats' desire for a quick election-year pivot to address jobs and the economy, which polls show are the public's top concern.
That's the best news I've had all day today.
Having the House pass the Senate bill unchanged was the best chance the Democrats had to quickly and easily pass ObamaCare. I didn't think they'd have the votes to do that, but you can never be sure. It's nice to know I was right, and nice to know that yet another "move forward" method has been nixed.
So, what's left? They can either let the House modify it and try to use reconciliation in the Senate, but I don't think that will work, either... not all of the bill can legally fit under reconciliation. They CAN abandon the bills and start from scratch with smaller bills offering targeted solutions to specific problems. But that isn't incredibly likely either.
They could ALSO continue the process, send it back to the Senate, and try to scrounge up another vote to replace Brown.
At this moment in time, I don't see a clear path to passage for the Democrats. They tried too hard to make the bill as liberal as they could get away with, and it all seems to be falling apart now that they've lost that 60th vote. Even the wishy-washer Senators like Olympia Snowe don't seem eager to play ball, especially after having been burned once by them. That's one drawback to the methods the Democrats have been using over the past year.
If there's a way to get their ObamaCare passed, I don't see it right now. Let's keep watching and see what they do.
Read the rest...
Breaking: SCOTUS Overturns Campaign Finance Laws
In a surprise and early ruling, the United States Supreme Court overturned key portions of campaign finance reform laws. This decision will increase the participation of corporations in candidate elections.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/22/us/politics/22scotus.html?hp
So that portion of McCain-Feingold has been overturned, though the decision was not unanimous... it was split pretty much along ideological lines.
With an election just ten months away, this means that we'll be seeing a lot more corporate advertisements for and against candidates in the upcoming election cycle. It promises to be very interesting.
Democrats are coming out against the ruling, calling it a "terrible mistake," and most Republicans are calling it a "victory for the first amendment" (John McCain, co-author of the bill, has not yet spoken on this SC ruling).
Personally, I think this is generally a good thing. We need MORE freedom in elections, not less, and the Constitution does not allow this kind of muzzling.
Read the rest...
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/22/us/politics/22scotus.html?hp
Sweeping aside a century-old understanding and overruling two important precedents, a bitterly divided Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that the government may not ban political spending by corporations in candidate elections. The 5-to-4 decision was a doctrinal earthquake but also a political and practical one. Specialists in campaign finance law said they expected the decision, which also applies to labor unions and other organizations, to reshape the way elections are conducted.
“If the First Amendment has any force,” Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote for the majority, which included the four members of its conservative wing, “it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech.”
So that portion of McCain-Feingold has been overturned, though the decision was not unanimous... it was split pretty much along ideological lines.
On its central point, Justice Kennedy’s majority opinion was joined by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Antonin Scalia, Samuel A. Alito Jr., and Clarence Thomas. Justice Stevens’s dissent was joined by Justices Stephen G. Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor.
With an election just ten months away, this means that we'll be seeing a lot more corporate advertisements for and against candidates in the upcoming election cycle. It promises to be very interesting.
Democrats are coming out against the ruling, calling it a "terrible mistake," and most Republicans are calling it a "victory for the first amendment" (John McCain, co-author of the bill, has not yet spoken on this SC ruling).
Personally, I think this is generally a good thing. We need MORE freedom in elections, not less, and the Constitution does not allow this kind of muzzling.
Read the rest...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)