Saturday, July 31, 2010

It begins again . . . :)

As promised, I'm up and at it again. It's going to take some time for me to get this all on track as I have been away from it for quite awhile and there is SO much to blog.

Most people who know or are acquainted with me know I lean to the conservative side of the political spectrum. I believe in the Constitution http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html and support it 100%. I don't think our Founding Fathers created it by accident or without much prayer and consideration. I have no tolerance for those who choose to ignore it and treat it as just an historical document.

I believe in the Declaration of Independence http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/freedom/doi/text.html and that all citizens are created equal and have the inalienable rights to to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

There are a few key words in what I just wrote. First of all, we are all CREATED equal. That says NOTHING about us being entitled to what another may have. We are created with the same options, choices. What we do with those options or choices is up to each of us, individually.

We have the rights to life, liberty and the "pursuit" of happiness. Nowhere does it say that our government is to provide such. Being born and raised in America,or becoming a citizen through the citizenship process, aka legally, offers endless opportunities to anyone who cares to work hard, get an education and be willing to fall a few times. NO ONE is ENTITLED to take from one person who might be successful because of his/her hard work and ingenuity because the other person is too lazy to earn success for him/herself.

There are varying degrees of success, too. Money and possessions do not always constitute success. Doing what one loves, whether on the executive level or on the home front, makes one successful. Many things contribute to one's success. A government who takes from one to give to another is not one of those things.

The past 19 months have changed our country in such a way as to make our Founding Fathers cringe and "roll over in their graves". Our sovereignty is crumbing. Our position as the leader of the free world is in jeopardy. Our worldwide respect is now a joke. Leaders of some of our most trusted allies are shaking their heads while those of our enemies are
laughing at our impending peril. Our backbone is now collapsing -- we apologize for our country while appeasing our enemies; turn our backs on our allies while bowing down to those who seek to destroy us.

I've heard some folks call themselves "fiscally conservative and socially liberal". I struggle to understand that description. It seems to be contradictory. Social liberalism, to me, would tend to wipe out the fiscal conservatism, would it not?

To be fiscally conservative, again in my opinion or understanding, would mean cutting spending, cutting out many "social" programs, trimming the fat so to speak and cutting taxes to bring about fiscal responsibility.

Being "socially liberal" seems to me to mean creating more entitlement programs, therefore, creating more spending, more and higher taxes, digging the deficit hole deeper and deeper. A country cannot tax itself into prosperity. It does not work! History and common sense tells us that!

I consider myself a compassionate person. I believe that there are folks who truly do need help getting back on their feet, feeding their families, etc. I have no problem with helping folks -- none. However, our government makes it nearly impossible for these folks to help themselves. They hold them in bondage to the system. Therefore, we now have have a society of
freeloaders. Why should they try to help themselves when the government gives them everything . . . except pride and dignity?

Our open-border policy has now become a problem as well. It has added thousands to our entitlement programs, and unfortunately, many are illegally getting these "benefits", adding to the financial burden of our citizenry, who themselves are struggling to provide for their own families!

I TOTALLY understand people wanting to come to our great country for "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness"; to partake of the liberties and freedoms they do not have in their home countries. I really, really do. However, there is a process in place in which to do things right. Yes, it's a lengthy process with much room for improvement, but if one truly wants to become part of this country, they should be willing to do it right. If they scoff at and mock the laws of legal citizenship, many other laws will be ignored as well.

America is a country of laws, not created to oppress but to protect! We have the Constitution in place for a reason. It is to protect us from what is going on right now in this country. One by one, inch by inch, we are losing the liberties that our Constitution was created to protect. Slowly, but with increasing speed, our government is becoming "by the government, for the government", forgetting "for the people, by the people". The government believes it knows what's best for the citizenry, destroying individuality, creativity and initiative. WE, THE PEOPLE, are supposed to be the government, not those elected to REPRESENT us. Somehow, we've let that tenet slip through our fingers. We are being seduced by the charms and personalities of our leadership, all the while giving up what this country was based on.

I truly believe we are in trouble. Our economy has not improved in 19 months, despite the words coming out of Washington DC. Unemployment is holding at near 10%. Our national security is weakened to the point where we could be wiped out by the push of a finger or by the parking of a minivan. Our schools are over-crowded and not educating; public officials are crooks and scammers; partisan politics is running amok; Washington is out of control and needs a good enema; our defense is weak and costs continue to be cut, while entitlement spending is at an all time high with no end in sight. Big corporations are being blamed for the countries failures while those who set policy get a free pass, except G.W. Bush, of course (though he's not without fault). Religious freedom is under attack. Parental rights almost no longer exist. Citizens rights are being replaced by rights for the law-breakers and hardened criminals. Everything is bass-ackwards and just wrong.

It is my opinion that we'd best get a hold of ourselves and shake the shinola out of our heads. We'd best make some drastic changes or the America we grew up with will be unrecognizable in the not-so-distant future.

Remember November, folks. DO YOUR HOMEWORK. KNOW YOUR CANDIDATES!!! We've got to get "the most transparent and ethical administration" out of Washington DC while we still have a chance!

Thursday, October 22, 2009

Let's unite!

Can this man be any more divisive? The great uniter. Yeah. Uh-huh. He's an arrogant, narcissistic, dishonest, campaigner. He campaigns because he has no clue as to how to lead. We are in deep trouble and he can't find his rear end in a dark room. But, hey. He can spend time attacking a cable news outlet and "the other side". Never mind we have men and women dying everyday in a war; never mind that our economy is in the ditch; never mind that our borders are unsecured; never mind that we grow ever closer to a nuclear disaster every day. Let's denigrate, name-call, stick our tongue out and pretend we're the playground bully. Maybe all that will get the job done. The man's a phony, a liar, and a legend in his own mind.

Tuesday, October 20, 2009

Cry Babies

Been awhile since I've posted, but I just had to put this up. This is the whiniest bunch of snot nosed brats I've experienced in the White House since I've been alive. I thought Nixon was bad, but this administration is beyond belief. If they're so upstanding, above board, honest and doing the right thing, where's the PROMISED transparency and why are they bothered by ONE cable news channel? Good grief. As Jack Kemp used to say, "The flak is heaviest when you're over the target". Hmmmm, could it be? I'd have to say so.

White House Cites Opinion Shows as Basis for Fox News Complaints

White House Cites Opinion Shows as Basis for Fox News Complaints
White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs refers to "Beck" and "Hannity" as the reasons why the Obama administration is criticizing Fox News.

White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs on Tuesday pointed to two top-rated opinion shows on Fox News as the reason why the Obama administration has castigated the network as an illegitimate news organization.

Gibbs weighed in on the controversy after several top White House advisers have gone on other channels to criticize Fox News' coverage of the administration, dismiss the network as the mouthpiece of the Republican Party and urge other news organizations not to treat Fox News as a legitimate news station.

Gibbs said White House officials "render (that) opinion based on some their coverage and the fairness of that coverage."

But asked how Fox News was different from other news organizations, Gibbs mentioned the channel's 5 p.m. and 9 p.m. shows, in an explicit reference to "Beck" and "Hannity" -- even though those two shows represent opinion programming.

Informed that those hours are for opinion programming, Gibbs said: "That is our opinion."

The White House also appeared to stand by its effort to urge other networks to isolate and alienate the channel. Gibbs said Tuesday that it's up to the White House Correspondents Association to decide whether Fox News should continue to be part of the White House pool which covers President Obama.

"I'm not going to delineate for the White House Correspondents Association how the pool is conducted. That's not my job," he said.

The pool, the rotation through which the networks share the costs and duties of White House coverage, represents the most significant interaction among the news channels. Despite the Obama administration's guidance to other channels to disregard Fox News, there are no indications so far from the other networks that the pool relationship will change.

Obama senior adviser David Axelrod on Sunday called on media outlets to join the administration in declaring that Fox News is "not a news organization."

"Other news organizations like yours ought not to treat them that way," Axelrod counseled ABC's George Stephanopoulos. "We're not going to treat them that way."

White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel told CNN on Sunday that Obama does not want "the CNNs and the others in the world (to) basically be led in following Fox."

Tuesday, September 29, 2009

Disturbing

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,556722,00.html?test=latestnews

This is so much more than disturbing. Does Facebook not monitor what is put on their network? There are some truly sick minds out there. Whoever put this up is one of them. I do hope they find the person who posted this poll.

Monday, September 28, 2009

Olympics, Iran, Afghanistan, economy -- where's the priority?

http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local-beat/Obama-Heading-to-Copenhagen-62317937.html

Gosh, with the war in Afghanistan, the tense situation in Iran, the economic crisis here at home, I sure am glad that The Won is focused on what's really important -- bidding on the Olympics for Chicago. Now there's a president we can all believe in. I feel real secure, don't you?

Is it any wonder I do not trust this man?

You Mislead!
Fact-checking Obama.

By Michael F. Cannon and Ramesh Ponnuru

It is a good thing that other congressmen did not follow Rep. Joe Wilson’s lead. If they yelled out every time President Obama said something untrue about health care, they would quickly find themselves growing hoarse.

By our count, the president made more than 20 inaccurate claims in his speech to Congress. We have excluded several comments that are deeply misleading but not outright false. (For example: Obama pledged not to tap the Medicare trust fund to pay for reform. But there is no money in that “trust fund,” anyway, so the pledge is meaningless.) Even so, we may have missed one or more false statements by the president. Our failure to include one of his comments in the following list should not be taken to constitute an endorsement of its accuracy, let alone wisdom.

1. “Buying insurance on your own costs you three times as much as the coverage you get from your employer.” The Congressional Budget Office writes, “Premiums for policies purchased in the individual insurance market are, on average, much lower — about one-third lower for single coverage and one-half lower for family policies.” It is true that individual insurance policies are generally 30 percent less comprehensive than employer-provided insurance, and comparable individual policies are about twice as expensive. But much of the extra cost is a function of the tax penalty on purchasing such insurance and the stunted market that penalty has yielded.

2. “There are now more than 30 million American citizens who cannot get coverage.”An outright falsehood, whether you use the president’s noncitizen-free estimate or the standard, questionable estimate of 46 million uninsured residents.

A study prepared for the federal government estimates that 9 million people counted as “uninsured” in the standard estimate are in fact enrolled in Medicaid. The left-leaning Urban Institute estimates that 12 million are eligible but not enrolled, meaning they could get coverage at any time. Health economists Mark Pauly of the University of Pennsylvania and Kate Bundorf of Stanford estimate that one quarter to three quarters of the uninsured can afford to purchase coverage, but choose not to do so.

3.“And every day, 14,000 Americans lose their coverage.” The paper that generated this estimate assumed that two months of severe job losses would continue forever. Applying that paper’s methodology to a broader period of rising unemployment (January 2008 through August 2009) produces a figure below 9,000.

It also assumes those coverage losses are permanent. Like many of the 46 million Americans we label “uninsured,” many of those 9,000 will regain coverage after a number of months. (David Freddoso illustrates the absurdity of assuming that all coverage losses are permanent.)

4. “One man from Illinois lost his coverage in the middle of chemotherapy. . . . They delayed his treatment, and he died because of it.” He didn’t die because of it. The originator of this false claim, a writer for Slate named Timothy Noah, has admitted he got it wrong.

5. “Another woman from Texas was about to get a double mastectomy when her insurance company canceled her policy because she forgot to declare a case of acne.” Scott Harrington supplied more facts in the Wall Street Journal: “The woman’s testimony at the June 16 hearing confirms that her surgery was delayed several months. It also suggests that the dermatologist’s chart may have described her skin condition as precancerous, that the insurer also took issue with an apparent failure to disclose an earlier problem with an irregular heartbeat, and that she knowingly underreported her weight on the application.” The woman deserves sympathy, but Obama has stretched the truth here.

6. Rising costs are “why so many employers . . . are forcing their employees to pay more for insurance.” Perhaps no other issue generates as much of a consensus among health-care economists as this one: The “employer’s share” of employees’ health-care costs comes out of those employees’ wages, not out of profits. In this comment and in five others in his speech, Obama contradicts that basic truth. Employers aren’t forcing their employees to pick up a larger share of the bill because they can’t. Workers are already paying the entire bill.

7. Rising costs are “why American business that compete internationally . . . are at a huge disadvantage.” False. The rising cost of health benefits does not increase employers’ labor costs because, again, wages adjust downward to compensate. The Congressional Budget Office, under the leadership of Obama’s OMB director, Peter Orszag, confirmed that health-care costs do not hinder competitiveness. Obama economic aide Christina Romer has called this competitiveness argument “schlocky.”

8. “Those of us with health insurance are also paying a hidden and growing tax for those without it — about $1,000 per year that pays for somebody else’s emergency room and charitable care.” That number comes from a left-wing advocacy group. A Kaiser Family Foundation study debunked the group’s analysis, reaching an estimate closer to $200 per year for a family. The CBO report mentioned above reached the same conclusion.

9. At this point, Obama said, “These are the facts. Nobody disputes them.” This comment continues Obama’s already long tradition of trying to curtail debate by denying that anyone disagrees with him.

10. “[Reform] will slow the growth of health-care costs for our families, our businesses, and our government.” In July, CBO director Douglas Elmendorf said, “In the legislation that has been reported we do not see the sort of fundamental changes that would be necessary to reduce the trajectory of federal health spending by a significant amount. And on the contrary, the legislation significantly expands the federal responsibility for health-care costs.” The CBO projects that the legislation that Sen. Max Baucus (D., Mont.) has since introduced “would reduce the federal budgetary commitment to health care, relative to that under current law, during the decade following the 10-year budget window,” but hints that the 40 percent cut in Medicare’s reimbursement rates, which helps Baucus achieve that feat, is politically unrealistic. (More on that below.) Health economist Victor Fuchs writes that the proposals before Congress “aim at cost shifting rather than cost reduction.” Obama and his allies have yet to demonstrate anything to the contrary.

11. “Nothing in this plan will require you or your employer to change the coverage or the doctor you have. Let me repeat this: Nothing in our plan requires you to change what you have.” Obama’s wording is lawyerly: While not denying that his plan would cause people to lose existing coverage with which they are satisfied, he leads us to believe that he is denying it. But even on its own terms, Obama’s claim is false. The CBO estimates that slashing payments to Medicare Advantage, as Obama advocates, “would reduce the extra benefits that would be made available to beneficiaries through Medicare Advantage plans.” It would also cause some people to lose their coverage.

12. Requiring insurers to cover preventive care “saves money.” Nope. According to a review in the New England Journal of Medicine, “Although some preventive measures do save money, the vast majority reviewed in the health economics literature do not.”

13. “The [bogus] claim . . . that we plan to set up panels of bureaucrats with the power to kill off senior citizens . . . is a lie, plain and simple.” Sarah Palin claimed that Obama’s “death panels” would deny people medical care, not actively kill them. If Palin believes her claim, it is not “a lie, plain and simple.” Most important, the substance of Palin’s claim is, in fact, true. Obama himself proposed a new Independent Medicare Advisory Council with the authority to deny life-extending care to the elderly and disabled.

14. “There are also those who claim that our reform efforts would insure illegal immigrants. This, too, is false. The reforms I’m proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally.” For better or worse, the president’s plan would, in his words, insure illegal immigrants. Various federal agencies, immigration critics, and the media all acknowledge that a small number of undocumented aliens obtain Medicaid benefits despite being ineligible. The president seeks to expand Medicaid, which would create greater opportunities for ineligible aliens to enroll.

The House Democrats’ health-insurance exchange, which Obama supports, would “apply to” undocumented aliens. The CRS writes that the House legislation “does not contain any restrictions on noncitizens participating in the Exchange — whether the noncitizens are legally or illegally present.” Nor does it require that the legal status of people receiving subsidies be verified.

Finally, Obama supports granting legal status to millions of illegal immigrants, which would make them eligible for government benefits under his health plan.

15. “Under our plan, no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions.” Unless Obama refers to some draft legislation inside his head, this claim is false. The House bill allows the “government option” to pay for abortions directly from the U.S. Treasury. Both the House and Baucus bills would subsidize private insurance that cover abortions. (See Douglas Johnson’s comment on this article.)

16. Critics of the public option would “be right if taxpayers were subsidizing this public insurance option. But they won’t be. I’ve insisted that like any private insurance company, the public insurance option would have to be self-sufficient and rely on the premiums it collects.” How quickly we forget the example of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Like those institutions, the public option would benefit from an implicit subsidy: Everyone would know that Washington would not allow the program to fail, and financial institutions would therefore offer it better rates. (During the Clinton administration, Obama adviser Larry Summers reported that a similar implicit guarantee was worth $6 billion per year to Fannie and Freddie.) The public option would thus be able to undercut its less-subsidized competitors.

17. “And I will make sure that no government bureaucrat or insurance company bureaucrat gets between you and the care that you need.” Unless the president proposes to abolish insurance, or abolish all care management, there will always be tension between patients, doctors, and public/private insurers over what patients “need.” Such tensions are sure to arise under the president’s IMAC proposal.

But even if a new program would be “administered by the government, just like Medicaid or Medicare,” it would interfere in those decisions. As an administrative-law judge wrote to one of us after Obama’s address: “I am a government bureaucrat . . . and I just happen to be reviewing [six] cases, albeit involving Medicare and Medicaid, where the government has inserted itself between the patient and the care prescribed by the physician.”

18. “I will not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficits — either now or in the future.” “The plan will not add to our deficit.” None of the bills before Congress can credibly claim to keep the deficit from rising. The one that comes closest, the Baucus bill, does so by making the wildly implausible assumption that Congress will allow 40 percent cuts in physician payments under Medicare to take place in 2012. Congress has routinely refused to support much smaller cuts.

19. “Now, add it all up, and the plan I’m proposing will cost around $900 billion over ten years.” Even the supposedly parsimonious Baucus bill would cost closer to $2 trillion than $1 trillion once we “add it all up.” The CBO says that bill would spend a mere $774 billion over ten years, in part because the spending begins late in that ten-year window. Republican staffers on the Senate Budget Committee estimate that the Baucus bill would cost $1.7 trillion over the first ten years of full implementation.

Moreover, the preliminary CBO score does not measure the full cost of the bill because it does not include the mandates Baucus would impose on states (about $37 billion) and the private sector (not yet estimated, but 60 percent of total costs in Massachusetts). The other bills would cost even more.

20. “The middle class will realize greater security, not higher taxes.” Obama would make health insurance compulsory for the middle class (and everyone else). If he thinks that isn’t a tax, he should listen to his economic adviser Larry Summers, or his nominee for assistant secretary for planning and evaluation at HHS, Sherry Glied. Both liken the “individual mandate” to a tax, as do other prominent health economists like Uwe Reinhardt (Princeton) and Jonathan Gruber (MIT). The CBO affirms that the penalties for non-compliance “would be equivalent to a tax or fine.”

If Obama thinks the middle class wouldn’t pay the taxes he wants to impose on the “drug and insurance companies,” he should read this CBO report or talk to the junior senator from West Virginia, who accurately describes those levies as a “big, big tax” on middle-class coalminers.

21. “I won’t stand by while the special interests use the same old tactics to keep things exactly the way they are.” Who are these special interests? In case Obama hadn’t noticed, everyone from the drug-makers to the unions to the insurance companies he demonizes are spending millions to build momentum for his version of reform — in no small part because Obama has promised to buy them off with middle-class tax dollars.

When President Obama makes a factual claim about health-care policy, he does not deserve the benefit of the doubt about its accuracy. We do not know whether he has been badly misinformed or is deliberately trying to mislead. Either way, he cannot be trusted to reform American health care.

— Michael F. Cannon is director of health-policy studies at the Cato Institute. Ramesh Ponnuru is a senior editor at National Review.

Sunday, September 27, 2009

Forehead or hand, where would you like your mark ?

September 25, 2009
Categories: Senate
Ensign receives handwritten confirmation

This doesn't happen often enough.

Sen. John Ensign (R-Nev.) received a handwritten note Thursday from Joint Committee on Taxation Chief of Staff Tom Barthold confirming the penalty for failing to pay the up to $1,900 fee for not buying health insurance.

Violators could be charged with a misdemeanor and could face up to a year in jail or a $25,000 penalty, Barthold wrote on JCT letterhead. He signed it "Sincerely, Thomas A. Barthold."

The note was a follow-up to Ensign's questioning at the markup.

By Carrie Budoff Brown 11:40 AM

Put me in jail because the government isn't going to dictate the terms of my existence.

Let's see how the Obamaites "spin" this. Do not pass Go, do not collect $200, go directly to jail! And the president is looking out for us?

This admin is out of control. To FORCE ME to buy health insurance in their program, when I don't want it, and if I refuse, they will put me in JAIL?!?!?! What country is this, Iran? Russia? China? What happened to freedom of choice, I thought that was the liberal battle cry!

Sounds like a nasty staff infection in the Administration and Congress. Someone call a doctor, quick!!