I recently thought back to the first Gulf War, of which I was proudly a part of as a Aircraft Handler on board the Amphibious Assault Ship, USS New Orleans, LPH-11. I recalled the excuse used at the time for not removing Saddam Hussein from power, that it would create a leadership vacuum in the middle east paving the way for it to be filled by the likes of the Mullah's from Iran. What began as a reminisce of good times, became a review of our own current leadership vacuum, at the highest levels of the US Government.
Leadership, especially at the level required in the Office of the President, is a very visible thing, especially when it is all but non-existent. America has a long standing history of leaders. Men, and women, who stood head and shoulders above their peers, and lead the way forward. Now, let me be clear here, this is NOT a partisan thing. However, ideology does come into play. You see, it is yet another difference between Capitalist leadership and Marxist/Socialist leadership.
A Capitalist leader understands that someone has to make the call. Someone has to be the one to make the tough decision, and willing to take the lumps that come with being wrong. A Socialist leader believes that decision making is a consensus exercise. A leader from the socialist mold is basically incapable of making a decision without consensus from the collective. These leaders have to surround themselves with like minded individuals in order to ensure that the collective consensus actually occurs. Capitalist leaders understand that a leader is sometimes the loneliest person in the room. Socialist leaders can not even stand being alone in a room.
A socialist leader has to have cover and deniability at all times for any decision made. These leaders never want to have the full responsibility of made decisions on their shoulders. Thus, they rely on the argument that it was a consensus decision and therefore shift the blame for failure to someone else. This is the problem that we currently have in Washington, DC. You see it in almost every decision made or not made, by the current occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
We have been told that President Obama is a leader among leaders. That to question his leadership or his ideology is to be racist and insensitive. We are pounded daily by reports of his "style" of leadership and his erudition. We are treated to professorial lectures whenever We the People do not buy into his collectivist decisions. This is not leadership, on any level. Leadership is not about style and lectures. It is not about speeches and fundraising dinners. It is about standing up and standing out for your ideas and your decisions. Perhaps the questions we should have asked during the 2008 election was what had he ever been a leader of.
We have had the press try to paint Obama as a leader in the mold of Ronald Reagan. However, putting the two side by side shows just how little leadership Obama has shown in comparison. Like many great leaders in History, Reagan stood head and shoulders above those around him. He made his decisions and stood by them. He stood up to fascists and communist dictators alike with stalwart strength and resoluteness. He stood up to Qaddafi in Libya, and struck fear into the heart of the mullahs in Iran.
Now, Obama, in comparison, has failed to even engage the problems of his time. North Korea is more defiant now than two years ago. Qaddafi has defied and continues to defy America while Obama has pushed any decision making and responsibility off to some NATO collective. Iran laughs out loud of the weakness of American leadership, and China and Russia are completely unimpressed or persuaded by the President.
So, if Obama pales in comparison to Reagan, than who can he be compared to...Nero perhaps.
Friday, May 06, 2011
Thursday, May 05, 2011
Enough is Enough
I was willing to give this self serving, self centered, self aggrandizing president the benefit of the doubt. That must be the compassion that my liberal friends say I don't possess. However, after today's obvious political grandstand in NYC, I have to say...ENOUGH IS ENOUGH Barack.
You see sir, We the People are wise to your political shenanigans. That is why so many want to see the picture of OBL dead. It is time for you to get your liberal heads together in DC and get your stories straight. You see Mr. President, a true leader leaves no doubt about his goals, his vision, and what the results of his actions are. We Killed bin Laden, more to the point, the US Navy Seals and CIA Operatives killed bin Laden. Yes sir you get the credit for making the call, and you also have to deal with your base about that same call.
Leadership is saying to your people, your organization that I made this call, it was the right call, and if you don't like it, get off my bus. Don't fudge around trying to find a story that is palatable to your base. If the sycophants that propel you through life don't understand what was done than apparently there is a recently vacated compound in Abbadabad Pakistan for sale....CHEAP.
At some point Mr. Obama, people will begin to tire of the facade. People will begin to see through the veneer that you have so carefully applied in order to be president. In fact, a large portion of the people that helped get you elected have seen through the lies and deception and are leaving you in droves, and no amount of terrorist killings or military success will change that. Sir your lack of real leadership has this country smoldering in a prolonged recession with housing prices lower now than in 2008, wages are stagnate while prices for food and gas are at all time highs, and unemployment once again headed in the wrong direction. These are direct results of your leftist social justice policies and inability to understand even basic economics.
Lastly sir, your foreign policy, wherever you have applied your own brand, is an absolute shambles. You have provided no clear message or leadership in Egypt, Syria, Yemen, Iraq, Iran, or North Korea. America is supposed to be the beacon of freedom and liberty, and your policies have shown her to be a weak and flickering flame of despair. The only real successes you have had in the foreign policy arena are when you applied the tried and true method of peace through strength, as with the surge in Afghanistan and the death of Osama bin Laden.
Sir, We the People are wise to you. We know all to well the road your policies are taking us, and we do not like the direction. I look forward to the fields of debate in this next election cycle and truly hope that a candidate arises who will not fail to challenge you on the basis of your ideology and lack of leadership.
You see sir, We the People are wise to your political shenanigans. That is why so many want to see the picture of OBL dead. It is time for you to get your liberal heads together in DC and get your stories straight. You see Mr. President, a true leader leaves no doubt about his goals, his vision, and what the results of his actions are. We Killed bin Laden, more to the point, the US Navy Seals and CIA Operatives killed bin Laden. Yes sir you get the credit for making the call, and you also have to deal with your base about that same call.
Leadership is saying to your people, your organization that I made this call, it was the right call, and if you don't like it, get off my bus. Don't fudge around trying to find a story that is palatable to your base. If the sycophants that propel you through life don't understand what was done than apparently there is a recently vacated compound in Abbadabad Pakistan for sale....CHEAP.
At some point Mr. Obama, people will begin to tire of the facade. People will begin to see through the veneer that you have so carefully applied in order to be president. In fact, a large portion of the people that helped get you elected have seen through the lies and deception and are leaving you in droves, and no amount of terrorist killings or military success will change that. Sir your lack of real leadership has this country smoldering in a prolonged recession with housing prices lower now than in 2008, wages are stagnate while prices for food and gas are at all time highs, and unemployment once again headed in the wrong direction. These are direct results of your leftist social justice policies and inability to understand even basic economics.
Lastly sir, your foreign policy, wherever you have applied your own brand, is an absolute shambles. You have provided no clear message or leadership in Egypt, Syria, Yemen, Iraq, Iran, or North Korea. America is supposed to be the beacon of freedom and liberty, and your policies have shown her to be a weak and flickering flame of despair. The only real successes you have had in the foreign policy arena are when you applied the tried and true method of peace through strength, as with the surge in Afghanistan and the death of Osama bin Laden.
Sir, We the People are wise to you. We know all to well the road your policies are taking us, and we do not like the direction. I look forward to the fields of debate in this next election cycle and truly hope that a candidate arises who will not fail to challenge you on the basis of your ideology and lack of leadership.
Monday, May 02, 2011
The King is Dead...Long live the King
That king of course, is the king of Al Qaeda. Thanks to the bravery and consummate professionalism of our elite operators, Usama bin Laden has reportedly been eliminated from the terrorist equation, at least as a living entity. Kudos to the President and his advisers on selecting a course of action that would reduce the opportunity for questions and conspiracies about bin Laden's death.
Today is a day for tempered celebration and retrospection. I myself was not jumping up and down for joy at the news. I was pleased, and extremely proud of the operators who took this action and rid us of this mass murderer. I don't subscribe to the partisan rhetoric from some in both ideological spectrum's for any reason. The President was presented with options for taking action based on creditable and actionable intelligence on the ground. This was something that needed to be done, and the President chose the appropriate response to the intelligence available.
In keeping with the professionalism of our special forces operators, OBL was provided with the opportunity to submit to arrest/capture and he refused. Exactly what followed will likely remain classified for a number of years, but OBL was removed from this earth by a bullet in the malignant brain bore responsibility for the deaths of so many people around the world.
In keeping with the highest traditions of the United States and the Navy, every precaution was taking to make sure that the disposal of OBL's body was done in accordance with Islamic law and precepts. We had no obligation to do this, we could have just dumped his body overboard in a standard at sea burial procedure. However, as Americans so often do, we respected his right to burial at sea based on his own religious beliefs. America once again, by acting in this manner, shows to the world that unlike those who are constantly trying to kill us, we respect their religious beliefs.
Make no mistake, Al Qaeda is not dead with OBL. In fact, we may see a dramatic surge in terrorist activity against America and its allies. The charismatic figure that was bin Laden, however, is gone. In the long run this will likely lead to division and disarray within the organization as it tries to replace a leader.
To Al Qaeda, the message has been delivered. You can run, you can try to hide, you can attempt to carry out your plans to kill innocent people, including your own. However, we will nor rest, we will not become complacent, we will not stop searching and removing those who seek to harm America and her interests. It took us almost 10 years, but your leader is dead, killed by an American Soldier with an American bullet. Should you choose to continue your course of action, should you decide to continue to make war against America and her interests around the world, we will hunt you, we will find you, and we will remove you from this planet.
God bless America, Semper Fi, Fair Winds and Following Seas. HooRah to our CIA and Special Operators on their success in this mission. Praise be to god that we suffered no loss of American lives in the process.
Today is a day for tempered celebration and retrospection. I myself was not jumping up and down for joy at the news. I was pleased, and extremely proud of the operators who took this action and rid us of this mass murderer. I don't subscribe to the partisan rhetoric from some in both ideological spectrum's for any reason. The President was presented with options for taking action based on creditable and actionable intelligence on the ground. This was something that needed to be done, and the President chose the appropriate response to the intelligence available.
In keeping with the professionalism of our special forces operators, OBL was provided with the opportunity to submit to arrest/capture and he refused. Exactly what followed will likely remain classified for a number of years, but OBL was removed from this earth by a bullet in the malignant brain bore responsibility for the deaths of so many people around the world.
In keeping with the highest traditions of the United States and the Navy, every precaution was taking to make sure that the disposal of OBL's body was done in accordance with Islamic law and precepts. We had no obligation to do this, we could have just dumped his body overboard in a standard at sea burial procedure. However, as Americans so often do, we respected his right to burial at sea based on his own religious beliefs. America once again, by acting in this manner, shows to the world that unlike those who are constantly trying to kill us, we respect their religious beliefs.
Make no mistake, Al Qaeda is not dead with OBL. In fact, we may see a dramatic surge in terrorist activity against America and its allies. The charismatic figure that was bin Laden, however, is gone. In the long run this will likely lead to division and disarray within the organization as it tries to replace a leader.
To Al Qaeda, the message has been delivered. You can run, you can try to hide, you can attempt to carry out your plans to kill innocent people, including your own. However, we will nor rest, we will not become complacent, we will not stop searching and removing those who seek to harm America and her interests. It took us almost 10 years, but your leader is dead, killed by an American Soldier with an American bullet. Should you choose to continue your course of action, should you decide to continue to make war against America and her interests around the world, we will hunt you, we will find you, and we will remove you from this planet.
God bless America, Semper Fi, Fair Winds and Following Seas. HooRah to our CIA and Special Operators on their success in this mission. Praise be to god that we suffered no loss of American lives in the process.
Sunday, April 17, 2011
The Federal Budget Battle
The hottest debate in town is over how best to encourage growth and economic prosperity through the vehicle of the Federal Budget. There are two sides to this debate, the pseudo Keynesians on the left and the more Free Market oriented ones on the right. The real debate is over which direction our country should take to restore full employment (approximately 5%) keep inflation in check, and create the opportunity for a greater creation of wealth. The Free Market has the answers to this problem, and it is diametrically opposed to the vision from the White House and the Democrats in the US Senate, which tend to take a more Keynesian view of economic issues.
First, let us look at the Federal Budget from the Free Market side. Currently, Representative Paul Ryan, R WI has introduced a budget, the “Path to Prosperity” as a roadmap for strong economic growth (Rep. Paul Ryan) . What makes this such an important issue? The simple answer is that the path to prosperity attempts to reign in a Federal Government that is expanding at an exponential rate, and spending money far in excess of what it receives in revenues. To quote Speaker of the House John Boehner, R OH, “Washington does not have a revenue problem, it has a spending problem”. This out of control deficit spending is having a deleterious effect on economic growth, unemployment, and even inflation. Rep. Ryan argues that if we do not begin to get a handle on this deficit spending now, its long-term effect on growth and prosperity will be economically devastating.
The key components in the path to prosperity include as follows: massive restructuring to Medicare and Medicaid in an attempt to provide care for those currently in the system, reduce the costs to the taxpayer, and providing a path for future generations to have better care and lower costs in the future. Next, Solving the Social Security problem, that threatens to default on its obligation to seniors in the very near future. The plan also calls for eliminating duplications and overlap in government agencies and programs, reducing both personal and corporate tax rates, and eliminating the loopholes that equate to little more than corporate welfare. The potential cost savings in the plan are in the neighborhood of 6 Trillion dollars (that is a six followed by 12 zeroes) over a 10-year span.
This is an important aspect of Rep. Ryan’s plan as the current budget deficit stands at over one trillion dollars, and the countries debt stands in excess of 14.2 Trillion dollars (Clock) . Now for any household or business, this level of debt would be crushing, and, in fact, it is crushing on the federal level as well, forcing the government to borrow $700 million weekly just to meet the debt service. It should not be too difficult see how this debt can stifle economic growth and prosperity. The vision of the “Path to Prosperity is to bring that burden more in line with what the country needs to rise from the ashes of this recession and begin again to be the economic powerhouse that our founders envisioned.
Additional parts of the “Path to Prosperity” are the tax provisions included therein. Rep. Ryan has called for an overall reduction in both personal and corporate tax rates and a removal of many of the loopholes allow individuals and companies to avoid paying taxes on profit and income. Currently, the U.S. has the highest corporate tax rates among 20 industrialized nations of 40% (Edwards) . The “Path to Prosperity” posits that by reducing those tax rates to levels more representative of the rest of the industrialized world, and removing many of the loopholes corporations use to avoid paying those taxes, revenues to the federal treasury would increase, causing the budget deficit to close at a greater rate.
Rep. Ryan’s vision is in direct contravention to the plan proposed by the White House and latched on to by the Congressional Democrat Caucus (Obama) . This plan calls for no real reduction in spending, and in fact, by some accounts, once you remove the accounting gimmicks, actually increases the deficit spending over ten years to levels that are even more unsustainable. In an attempt to offset that level of spending, this opposition plan calls for massive tax increases on the so called “wealthy”. This includes rate increases on individuals earning more than $250,000 as well as an additional increase in the corporate tax rates.
Of course, the argument from the President is that in order to bring debt as a percentage of GDP in line, the wealthy need to suffer a little more. However, as we have learned throughout this class, and as history has shown, raising tax rates, even on the so-called “wealthy”, actually reduces net revenue as those same “wealthy” reduce either their own income, or find ways to shield that wealth from ever-increasing tax rates. This is where the Keynesians in the White House diverge from traditional Keynesian economics, which call for a reduction in taxes while increasing spending to bring about full employment and lower inflation.
The crux of this argument will shape America for the next 10 years. The policy outcome of this budget debate will determine if America returns, at least in part, to the principles espoused by our founders, or, we will become a socialist democracy such as those which are failing economically throughout the world. The Free Market principles promoted by Rep. Ryan could in fact bring us back to a path of Prosperity.
Works Cited
Clock, US Debt. US National Debt CLock: Real Time. April 2011. April 2011 .
Edwards, Chris. "U.S. Corporate Tax Rates the Highest." 15 December 2010. Cato @ Liberty. 16 April 2011 .
Obama, Barack. The Presidents Budget for 2012. April 2011. April 2011 .
Rep. Paul Ryan, R, WI. The Path to Prosperity: Restoring America's Promise. March 2011. April 2011 .
Tuesday, January 25, 2011
The Fallacy of Minimum Wage
While it sounds good on the surface, an artificial floor, established by government, at the point of a gun, flies directly in the face of the free market and the intent of our founders.
The argument used by our politicians to justify their meddling is that wages paid are too low for the working poor. The intellectual dishonesty arrives when those same individuals are the ones who establish economically what "Working Poor" actually means. Therein lies the fallacy alluded to in my subject title. Economically, over the long term, the net effect of our ever rising minimum wage is a staggering unemployment rate among our youth and an even more incomprehensible rate among our young racial minorities.
If the net economic effect of a political policy was to reduce poverty and provide more jobs at higher wages, on all counts it has failed and failed spectacularly. The federal minimum wage is a gleaming example of what Dr. Thomas Sowell calls a failure to "Think Beyond Stage One." Simply wishing that government meddling will make improvements, even in the short term, does not necessarily make it so. With unemployment amongst 16-24 year olds
eclipsing 24% and that of African American minorities in the same age group above 30%, perhaps it's time to ask if this policy has had its intended effect.
The economic fallout of minimum wage increases is significant. Some employers simply stop hiring entry level capital because it is no longer cost effective. Some have decided that the opportunity cost of adding automation is now less than the opportunity cost of hiring entry level workers and so they automate rather than hire. Some, especially small businesses, find
themselves in positions that make it virtually impossible to continue or expand operations, due to the increased wage burden placed on their marginally profitable businesses by government edict.
In short, increasing minimum wage, especially in an already volatile and unstable labor market, would likely prove devastating to entry level jobs. If we think beyond stage one and look at the long term negative effects provided by Minimum Wage laws, it should not be much of a step to argue for their abolishment altogether.
To quote one of my favorite economists, "Whatever reduces opportunities for gainful employment for people with little or no experience, has the effect of costing both them and the society far more than the lost jobs which have been dismissed as "meial" or as paying only "chump change." Thomas Sowell, Applied Economics, pp 40
The argument used by our politicians to justify their meddling is that wages paid are too low for the working poor. The intellectual dishonesty arrives when those same individuals are the ones who establish economically what "Working Poor" actually means. Therein lies the fallacy alluded to in my subject title. Economically, over the long term, the net effect of our ever rising minimum wage is a staggering unemployment rate among our youth and an even more incomprehensible rate among our young racial minorities.
If the net economic effect of a political policy was to reduce poverty and provide more jobs at higher wages, on all counts it has failed and failed spectacularly. The federal minimum wage is a gleaming example of what Dr. Thomas Sowell calls a failure to "Think Beyond Stage One." Simply wishing that government meddling will make improvements, even in the short term, does not necessarily make it so. With unemployment amongst 16-24 year olds
eclipsing 24% and that of African American minorities in the same age group above 30%, perhaps it's time to ask if this policy has had its intended effect.
The economic fallout of minimum wage increases is significant. Some employers simply stop hiring entry level capital because it is no longer cost effective. Some have decided that the opportunity cost of adding automation is now less than the opportunity cost of hiring entry level workers and so they automate rather than hire. Some, especially small businesses, find
themselves in positions that make it virtually impossible to continue or expand operations, due to the increased wage burden placed on their marginally profitable businesses by government edict.
In short, increasing minimum wage, especially in an already volatile and unstable labor market, would likely prove devastating to entry level jobs. If we think beyond stage one and look at the long term negative effects provided by Minimum Wage laws, it should not be much of a step to argue for their abolishment altogether.
To quote one of my favorite economists, "Whatever reduces opportunities for gainful employment for people with little or no experience, has the effect of costing both them and the society far more than the lost jobs which have been dismissed as "meial" or as paying only "chump change." Thomas Sowell, Applied Economics, pp 40
Monday, January 17, 2011
A True American Patriot
On this day, we pause and pay homage to a great American. A man who had the vision, and the foresight to understand the meaning of the Constitution and its true application to all citizens. The Dr. saw that the most effective way of effecting change was to use the right to peaceably assemble. This great American saw that the petty things that were strangling us could be easily fixed. Hi speeches showed the way to freedom and liberty for EVERY American.
And yet, he was unable to foresee the generations of hangers on, of poor imitations, of charlatans and con men, and downright crooks who would move forward to claim his mantle. Dr. King was beset daily by threats to his family and his life by those for whom the system at the time was beneficial. Yet, he never wavered in his idea that ALL Americans should be free to live the life of their choice. Ultimately, Dr. King gave his life for this fundamental principle. What happened...
Money happened. Now don't get me wrong. Dr. King did not become a wealthy man from his speeches. His marches did not surround his family in opulence and luxury. The long term effects of his ideas however, should have been great for the disadvantaged in our country, it was not. It is a sad legacy for Dr. King that his message, of political, economic, and personal freedom has been hijacked by a bunch of opportunistic crooks, many of whom claim to be ministers, all of whom claim a moral right to speak for Dr. King.
Dr. King was a great American, a Patriot, and a believer that freedom of all is the ideal regardless of something as trivial as nationality, skin color, age...For Dr. King it was never about the money. Heck, he just wanted to be a minister, he was a public figure reluctantly. Perhaps it was that very reluctance that created the persona that We celebrate today, his birthday.
And yet, he was unable to foresee the generations of hangers on, of poor imitations, of charlatans and con men, and downright crooks who would move forward to claim his mantle. Dr. King was beset daily by threats to his family and his life by those for whom the system at the time was beneficial. Yet, he never wavered in his idea that ALL Americans should be free to live the life of their choice. Ultimately, Dr. King gave his life for this fundamental principle. What happened...
Money happened. Now don't get me wrong. Dr. King did not become a wealthy man from his speeches. His marches did not surround his family in opulence and luxury. The long term effects of his ideas however, should have been great for the disadvantaged in our country, it was not. It is a sad legacy for Dr. King that his message, of political, economic, and personal freedom has been hijacked by a bunch of opportunistic crooks, many of whom claim to be ministers, all of whom claim a moral right to speak for Dr. King.
Dr. King was a great American, a Patriot, and a believer that freedom of all is the ideal regardless of something as trivial as nationality, skin color, age...For Dr. King it was never about the money. Heck, he just wanted to be a minister, he was a public figure reluctantly. Perhaps it was that very reluctance that created the persona that We celebrate today, his birthday.
Monday, January 10, 2011
Tea Party Shooter...Really
Yesterday, in Tucson, Arizona, a very disturbed and apparently dangerous individual took it upon himself to take the lives of several people, and severely wound an injure several more including Democrat Congresswoman Gifford's. Within moments, the leftists in the media and in the halls of government were out spinning this senseless tragedy as a byproduct of the conservative movement and the Tea Party. Seriously, this was an old argument a year ago.
The reality of this young man is far different from what those in the left leaning media would have you believe. Mr. Loughner has apparently been linked to documents such as Mien Kampf, and the Communist Manifesto. It has been reported that he names some of his heroes to be people such as Hugo Chavez, newly minted Dictator in Venezuela, Che Guevara, Terrorist and mass murderer, Saul Alinsky, the Weather Underground Bomber and author of the lefts bible, "Rules for Radicals", and even President Barack Obama. Now, I know a lot of conservatives and tea party members. One thing we all have in common is that those are not people we would ever consider as heroes or even relevant. So it begs the question, what was Mr. Loughner's point?
If one follows the logic of his action, from his rants to his peers testimonies as to his character, one has to believe that in reality, Mr. Loughner was NOT a person pressured by so called "right wing" hate, but was in fact a believer in the very principles that the left biased media espouses. As is so often the case with these types, when push comes to shove...they begin eating their own.
As a Conservative, a capitalist, and a believer in the sanctity and validity of the US Constitution, it would never even enter my mind to act is such a manner as did Mr. Loughner. Regardless of my deep and abiding disagreement with Liberal Socialist Policies, I want to have the debate and let the people make up their minds. Violence, towards anyone, is unacceptable and reprehensible. Mr. Loughner had no right to take away the lives of those who fell yesterday. There is and should never be an out for people such as Loughner. At the end of the day, it will serve us well to remember a couple of things. The firearm was not responsible for this tragedy. The Tea Party and it's new found idea of people discourse is not responsible for this young mans idiocy. The left is not responsible for what this man did. Jared Loughner bears the full responsibility for his actions on that fateful day. He must be held accountable for the injuries and death and destruction that he caused. At no time, should we be trying to pin his actions on political rivals or use his actions to further stifle dissent in our political speech. And yet, this is exactly what the left means to do...more to follow.
The reality of this young man is far different from what those in the left leaning media would have you believe. Mr. Loughner has apparently been linked to documents such as Mien Kampf, and the Communist Manifesto. It has been reported that he names some of his heroes to be people such as Hugo Chavez, newly minted Dictator in Venezuela, Che Guevara, Terrorist and mass murderer, Saul Alinsky, the Weather Underground Bomber and author of the lefts bible, "Rules for Radicals", and even President Barack Obama. Now, I know a lot of conservatives and tea party members. One thing we all have in common is that those are not people we would ever consider as heroes or even relevant. So it begs the question, what was Mr. Loughner's point?
If one follows the logic of his action, from his rants to his peers testimonies as to his character, one has to believe that in reality, Mr. Loughner was NOT a person pressured by so called "right wing" hate, but was in fact a believer in the very principles that the left biased media espouses. As is so often the case with these types, when push comes to shove...they begin eating their own.
As a Conservative, a capitalist, and a believer in the sanctity and validity of the US Constitution, it would never even enter my mind to act is such a manner as did Mr. Loughner. Regardless of my deep and abiding disagreement with Liberal Socialist Policies, I want to have the debate and let the people make up their minds. Violence, towards anyone, is unacceptable and reprehensible. Mr. Loughner had no right to take away the lives of those who fell yesterday. There is and should never be an out for people such as Loughner. At the end of the day, it will serve us well to remember a couple of things. The firearm was not responsible for this tragedy. The Tea Party and it's new found idea of people discourse is not responsible for this young mans idiocy. The left is not responsible for what this man did. Jared Loughner bears the full responsibility for his actions on that fateful day. He must be held accountable for the injuries and death and destruction that he caused. At no time, should we be trying to pin his actions on political rivals or use his actions to further stifle dissent in our political speech. And yet, this is exactly what the left means to do...more to follow.
Monday, January 03, 2011
New Years Resolutions for America
It seems only fitting that, as we begin a new year, we should look forward the those things that can be done to restore America to it's former greatness. Yes I did say restore and former in the same breath as America. There is no question that this great country is but a shadow of it's former self economically. To be fair, the process has taken some time and not all the blame can be laid at the feet of the Democrat Party or President Obama. However, contrary to popular opinion, the pace of decline accelerated when the Democrats took control of congress in 2006, and then again in 2008 after the Obama administration took office and started implementing their Eurocentric agenda. To reverse this trend, Americans need to insist at least these three resolutions from our new congress.
1.) Re-Value our Currency: The argument commonly used by Liberals and Conservatives alike is that a weak dollar reduces the cost of exports. The hole in that argument, however, is an admission that the American labor force has become to costly to openly compete in the global marketplace. If the cost of production in the US is so high, it should not be hidden by reducing the value and strength of our currency.
2.) STOP THE SPENDING: I can hear some of you now, saying, "this should be our number one resolution!". In most cases I would actually agree with you. However, strengtheing the Dollar would alleviate some of the pressure that our mounting debt is causing. Having said that, the reality is that our Federal Government can not continue to spend money like they have it. The bottom line is that the coming presure from our debt service could and likely will put too much pressure on an already fragile economy.
3.) Reduce Regulatory Excess: American Business is some of the most heavily regulated in the free world. Compliance with these repressive regulations cost American businesses and taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars each year. The cost of administering these regulations puts a sever drag on our federal budget. These dollars could be better spent on growing companies, which in turn create employment and greater personal wealth.
Holding true to these resolutions would go a long way towards recuving the crushing pressure on our economy, allowing it to catch it's breath and flex it's muscles. Sure, there are other issues, tac reform, repealment of Obamacare, reducing entitlement spending, and eliminating or reducing unfunded mandates. However, if we can perform these three resolutions, we will find the rest of these things will come much easier, and we will see the most dynamic economy in earths history come roaring back.
1.) Re-Value our Currency: The argument commonly used by Liberals and Conservatives alike is that a weak dollar reduces the cost of exports. The hole in that argument, however, is an admission that the American labor force has become to costly to openly compete in the global marketplace. If the cost of production in the US is so high, it should not be hidden by reducing the value and strength of our currency.
2.) STOP THE SPENDING: I can hear some of you now, saying, "this should be our number one resolution!". In most cases I would actually agree with you. However, strengtheing the Dollar would alleviate some of the pressure that our mounting debt is causing. Having said that, the reality is that our Federal Government can not continue to spend money like they have it. The bottom line is that the coming presure from our debt service could and likely will put too much pressure on an already fragile economy.
3.) Reduce Regulatory Excess: American Business is some of the most heavily regulated in the free world. Compliance with these repressive regulations cost American businesses and taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars each year. The cost of administering these regulations puts a sever drag on our federal budget. These dollars could be better spent on growing companies, which in turn create employment and greater personal wealth.
Holding true to these resolutions would go a long way towards recuving the crushing pressure on our economy, allowing it to catch it's breath and flex it's muscles. Sure, there are other issues, tac reform, repealment of Obamacare, reducing entitlement spending, and eliminating or reducing unfunded mandates. However, if we can perform these three resolutions, we will find the rest of these things will come much easier, and we will see the most dynamic economy in earths history come roaring back.
Monday, November 15, 2010
Obama/Pelosi/Reid's Employee Free Choice Act Farce
In January, 2011, there is a new sheriff in town in the House of Representatives, and the Reid/Pelosi juggernaut has to realize that if they want to get their biggest union payoff through, it will have to happen in the Lame Duck session of congress that begins today. Unfortunately, as seems to be the case with much of the legislation out of congress, the "Employee Free Choice Act" (EFCA) (H.R.1409/S. 560) is neither about free choice nor the employees.
By changing the basic representation approval structure, the EFCA would eliminate and employees right to a secret ballot election. It would put in its place, a process which is in favor of automatic recognition based on signatures collected on cards during a union's organization phase, hence it's nick name, "Card Check". The EFCA would require the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) To automatically recognize and notify the employer of the need to begin collective bargaining based solely on a simple majority of card check signatures collected. Now, it's not hard to see that the ONLY beneficiary or this is the Union. It allows unions to avoid an election which, all to often lately, they have been losing. The net benefit to the unions is financial, by avoiding a vote and using signatures only , unions could increase their membership without opposition and consequently, increase the dollars paid in dues. In an environment with ever shrinking Union Membership, the Unions need a way to rig the game in their favor, and the Employee Free Choice Act does just that.
The EFCA on the other hand is extensively negative towards employers and employees. Of the (4) parts of the bill, none of them provide any net benefit to either employees and employers. For the employer, the net effect is that, at least initially, a union could be forced on them without the employer having the opportunity to respond to the unions charges of misconduct. Employees would lose their anonymity and would accordingly open themselves up to intimidation but not only employers but Union Organizers and potentially fellow employees. The remainder of the bill is a way to further deny a company due process as well as stifle their right to free speech. The EFCA gets this done primarily via a massive increase in fines and an addition of penalties for violations of NLRB regulations. Interestingly enough, there is no increase in fines, or additional penalties added to violations of these same regulations by Labor Unions.
Perhaps on of the "Unintended" consequences of this law, if passed, would be to weaken the publics confidence in a free, fare, and anonymous election process. It is, on its face, a potential violation of an American employee's right to privacy. While this right is not specifically enumerated in the constitution, the US Supreme Court has recognized that it exists and as such, the EFCA is a massive attempt to subvert the constitution and the rights of employees and employers.
By changing the basic representation approval structure, the EFCA would eliminate and employees right to a secret ballot election. It would put in its place, a process which is in favor of automatic recognition based on signatures collected on cards during a union's organization phase, hence it's nick name, "Card Check". The EFCA would require the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) To automatically recognize and notify the employer of the need to begin collective bargaining based solely on a simple majority of card check signatures collected. Now, it's not hard to see that the ONLY beneficiary or this is the Union. It allows unions to avoid an election which, all to often lately, they have been losing. The net benefit to the unions is financial, by avoiding a vote and using signatures only , unions could increase their membership without opposition and consequently, increase the dollars paid in dues. In an environment with ever shrinking Union Membership, the Unions need a way to rig the game in their favor, and the Employee Free Choice Act does just that.
The EFCA on the other hand is extensively negative towards employers and employees. Of the (4) parts of the bill, none of them provide any net benefit to either employees and employers. For the employer, the net effect is that, at least initially, a union could be forced on them without the employer having the opportunity to respond to the unions charges of misconduct. Employees would lose their anonymity and would accordingly open themselves up to intimidation but not only employers but Union Organizers and potentially fellow employees. The remainder of the bill is a way to further deny a company due process as well as stifle their right to free speech. The EFCA gets this done primarily via a massive increase in fines and an addition of penalties for violations of NLRB regulations. Interestingly enough, there is no increase in fines, or additional penalties added to violations of these same regulations by Labor Unions.
Perhaps on of the "Unintended" consequences of this law, if passed, would be to weaken the publics confidence in a free, fare, and anonymous election process. It is, on its face, a potential violation of an American employee's right to privacy. While this right is not specifically enumerated in the constitution, the US Supreme Court has recognized that it exists and as such, the EFCA is a massive attempt to subvert the constitution and the rights of employees and employers.
Wednesday, November 10, 2010
Veterans Day
Throughout the
rest of this week you may notice something a bit different about our Madison
Campus Rotunda. As you enter through the main doors you will see represented in
all their glory, the flag of The United States of America, The State of
Indiana, and flags of the branches of our military. Many may wish to ask a
question, "what is this for?". Well, I will tell you.
In a Presidential proclamation on October 8. 1954,
President and former General Dwight D. Eisenhower called for the observance of
a Veterans Day on Nov 11, a day formerly known as Armistice Day. With only an
exception for 1968 to 1971, we have honored our military veterans on this day.
As a veteran, father of a serving US Marine, and a member of your student
government, I wanted to express my gratitude and pride in the armed forces and
our veterans this week. It is important for me that this be an honor that is
respectful and dignified. Hence the flags. They stand as a silent but vivid
reminder that we enjoy the freedom and liberty that America offers at the price
of others service. And for those who have served, are serving, or will serve,
it serves as a matter or pride to see the standards of the most exceptional
country in the history of the world and the flags that represent what we
sacrificed as the price of our own freedom.
Let's not forget on this day of remembrance and
honor, those who have paid the ultimate sacrifice for our liberty. America has
never been short of volunteers to stand at the front and protect what he have
built here. As a way of honoring some of those, There will be a table set up
with some items which have a message to send. First, Mr Andy Gluba has so
graciously lent our school his shadow box containing his grandfathers flag. Mr
Gluba served in Pearl Harbor and was there on Dec 7 when our nation was
attacked. I am also placing a board and encourage all Ivy Tech to stop by and
sign the name of a veteran, whether it is a parent, sibling, extended family,
or friend. Sign their name and honor them in your own way.
In honor of those still missing, the POW's who
never came home, I quote a hero of my own,"Today we pay homage to not only to
those who gave their lives but to their comrades present today and all across
the country. You didn't forget. You kept the faith. You walked from the litter,
wiped away your tears, and returned to the battle. You fought on, sustained by
one another and deaf to the voices of those who didn't comprehend. You
performed with a steadfastness and valor that veterans of other wars salute,
and you are forever in the ranks of that special number of Americans in every
generation that the Nation records as true patriots." -- Ronald
Reagan, Remarks at Dedication Ceremonies for the Vietnam Veterans Memorial
Statue.
I thank each and every one of you for your honor
and respect of our Veterans and their families.
rest of this week you may notice something a bit different about our Madison
Campus Rotunda. As you enter through the main doors you will see represented in
all their glory, the flag of The United States of America, The State of
Indiana, and flags of the branches of our military. Many may wish to ask a
question, "what is this for?". Well, I will tell you.
In a Presidential proclamation on October 8. 1954,
President and former General Dwight D. Eisenhower called for the observance of
a Veterans Day on Nov 11, a day formerly known as Armistice Day. With only an
exception for 1968 to 1971, we have honored our military veterans on this day.
As a veteran, father of a serving US Marine, and a member of your student
government, I wanted to express my gratitude and pride in the armed forces and
our veterans this week. It is important for me that this be an honor that is
respectful and dignified. Hence the flags. They stand as a silent but vivid
reminder that we enjoy the freedom and liberty that America offers at the price
of others service. And for those who have served, are serving, or will serve,
it serves as a matter or pride to see the standards of the most exceptional
country in the history of the world and the flags that represent what we
sacrificed as the price of our own freedom.
Let's not forget on this day of remembrance and
honor, those who have paid the ultimate sacrifice for our liberty. America has
never been short of volunteers to stand at the front and protect what he have
built here. As a way of honoring some of those, There will be a table set up
with some items which have a message to send. First, Mr Andy Gluba has so
graciously lent our school his shadow box containing his grandfathers flag. Mr
Gluba served in Pearl Harbor and was there on Dec 7 when our nation was
attacked. I am also placing a board and encourage all Ivy Tech to stop by and
sign the name of a veteran, whether it is a parent, sibling, extended family,
or friend. Sign their name and honor them in your own way.
In honor of those still missing, the POW's who
never came home, I quote a hero of my own,"Today we pay homage to not only to
those who gave their lives but to their comrades present today and all across
the country. You didn't forget. You kept the faith. You walked from the litter,
wiped away your tears, and returned to the battle. You fought on, sustained by
one another and deaf to the voices of those who didn't comprehend. You
performed with a steadfastness and valor that veterans of other wars salute,
and you are forever in the ranks of that special number of Americans in every
generation that the Nation records as true patriots." -- Ronald
Reagan, Remarks at Dedication Ceremonies for the Vietnam Veterans Memorial
Statue.
I thank each and every one of you for your honor
and respect of our Veterans and their families.
Wednesday, November 03, 2010
What Does it ALL mean?
Post election, many of you are asking yourself, "What does all this really mean?". You have seen or heard the results, listened to the pundit's,heard the spin...and like many of us, you still don't know what to think. The truth of the matter is that the meanings are not so complicated as some would have us believe. A message was sent by the American Voter that enough is enough, Stand up, Stand on your principles, and fix this damn problem.
What provided me with an epiphany last night was the reactions of the winners, of both parties. By and large, the conservative winners seemed to have an understanding that they were being sent to Washington to stand on conservative, free market, capitalist principles and fix our economic mess. The liberal winners on the other hand, just couldn't believe that all their cronies they had counted on for cover were being replaced by "extremists" who apparently lied and cheated to get elected.
This message was simple and clear. There is no more time for progressive Utopian ideology left. We have tried it, over and over and over since the great depression and every time it has failed to produce the panacea that liberals the world over say it will. It has never worked, wherever it has been tried. Europe is a mess of debt related to social welfare issues and the steps necessary to fix it are going to come at a cost to the citizens of those nations. Likewise, America is going to have to make some hard choices and hard decisions about where to cut, and how much. The election last night seemed to me to be a clear mandate that the time for pie in the sky spending programs has to come to an end.
Another result of the elections was the death (almost) of the moderate in either party. This was the American public letting their elected representatives know that we expect them to stand on the principles they won our votes with, regardless of ideology. We want Liberals who stand on Liberal principles and Conservatives who stand on theirs. No more of this mealy mouth bs about consensus and compromise. In a sense this election cycle was about cleansing the parties, and when all was said and done, the Conservative message was loud and clear.
CUT SPENDING...no sacred cows here...across the board cuts must happen. Reduce or eliminate unfunded mandates that are killing our ability to be competitive on the national level. Pass policies and legislation that free up our economic engine once again to begin the process of creating wealth and prosperity for all Americans that choose to accept the challenge. Many of the members elect understand that we can not continue on this path and the need and desire is there to turn it around.
So the meaning is clear to establishment politicians and new politicians alike, we will exert our will, and we will hold you accountable. So step up to the plate, take your swings, and lets see where this takes us.
What provided me with an epiphany last night was the reactions of the winners, of both parties. By and large, the conservative winners seemed to have an understanding that they were being sent to Washington to stand on conservative, free market, capitalist principles and fix our economic mess. The liberal winners on the other hand, just couldn't believe that all their cronies they had counted on for cover were being replaced by "extremists" who apparently lied and cheated to get elected.
This message was simple and clear. There is no more time for progressive Utopian ideology left. We have tried it, over and over and over since the great depression and every time it has failed to produce the panacea that liberals the world over say it will. It has never worked, wherever it has been tried. Europe is a mess of debt related to social welfare issues and the steps necessary to fix it are going to come at a cost to the citizens of those nations. Likewise, America is going to have to make some hard choices and hard decisions about where to cut, and how much. The election last night seemed to me to be a clear mandate that the time for pie in the sky spending programs has to come to an end.
Another result of the elections was the death (almost) of the moderate in either party. This was the American public letting their elected representatives know that we expect them to stand on the principles they won our votes with, regardless of ideology. We want Liberals who stand on Liberal principles and Conservatives who stand on theirs. No more of this mealy mouth bs about consensus and compromise. In a sense this election cycle was about cleansing the parties, and when all was said and done, the Conservative message was loud and clear.
CUT SPENDING...no sacred cows here...across the board cuts must happen. Reduce or eliminate unfunded mandates that are killing our ability to be competitive on the national level. Pass policies and legislation that free up our economic engine once again to begin the process of creating wealth and prosperity for all Americans that choose to accept the challenge. Many of the members elect understand that we can not continue on this path and the need and desire is there to turn it around.
So the meaning is clear to establishment politicians and new politicians alike, we will exert our will, and we will hold you accountable. So step up to the plate, take your swings, and lets see where this takes us.
Thursday, October 14, 2010
What Have You Done For ME...Lately
I realize that we are reportedly no longer in a recession. The White house and congressional leaders continue to make the claim that their "Stimulus" and "TARP" packages have kept us from sliding into another great depression. I doing so, Washington has expanded the size and scope of the Federal Government exponentially, creating an all new generation who will be feeding from the public trough. Programs and policies from this administration have increased the scope of current entitlements, and created all new ones with legislation like ObamaCare. Washington has bailed out banks, insurance, and financial service companies, purchased Automobile companies (without submitting to shareholder approval I might add), and even appropriated taxpayer dollars to bail out states who, due to similar policies, are on the verge of insolvency. They then expressed great disbelief when the funds they appropriated, to be used to keep public employees on the job, were spent somewhere else and state workers were laid off anyway. What is the reason for all of this and other shenanigans that have been going on for generations? The answer is summed up in the question, "What have you done for me lately".
We the people, bear a significant responsibility for the problems facing this country today. Whether by complacency, apathy, or discontent, We the People have allowed this massive usurpation of our civil liberties. We live our lives under the assumption that those we have elected to public office were doing so to represent our interests in the halls of power, and were we ever so wrong. The glaring faults in the politicians "Pie in the Sky" fallacies are being exposed for what they are, and we are all suffering for them.
In January, 2011, every American who pays taxes will see an immediate increase in their taxes and a decrease in their take home pay. This is due to our elected officials inability and unwillingness to address this issue and have De-facto allowed the tax rates cuts passed post 9-11 to expire. The net effect is that every American, regardless of party or ideology, race or gender, will see a net reduction in their paycheck after the first of the year. The majority in congress has wanted to raise taxes since The Anointed one took office, but trailing in most polls across the country, they did not want to have a vote taken on the issue precisely because it would turn more voters away from their beleaguered candidates.
We the people, bear a significant responsibility for the problems facing this country today. Whether by complacency, apathy, or discontent, We the People have allowed this massive usurpation of our civil liberties. We live our lives under the assumption that those we have elected to public office were doing so to represent our interests in the halls of power, and were we ever so wrong. The glaring faults in the politicians "Pie in the Sky" fallacies are being exposed for what they are, and we are all suffering for them.
In January, 2011, every American who pays taxes will see an immediate increase in their taxes and a decrease in their take home pay. This is due to our elected officials inability and unwillingness to address this issue and have De-facto allowed the tax rates cuts passed post 9-11 to expire. The net effect is that every American, regardless of party or ideology, race or gender, will see a net reduction in their paycheck after the first of the year. The majority in congress has wanted to raise taxes since The Anointed one took office, but trailing in most polls across the country, they did not want to have a vote taken on the issue precisely because it would turn more voters away from their beleaguered candidates.
Sunday, September 19, 2010
Really? A Civil War...
Has it struck anyone as odd how quickly after Christine O'Donnell's victory the media and the left started using the term "Civil War"?
What I find interesting, to say the least, is the inability of the current administration and the left to condemn America's enemies throughout the world, while at the same time using very warlike language while talking about US Citizens, political opponents, and whomever else disagrees with socialist utopianist policies. For example, Our president won't call the Middle Eastern insurgencies by Al Qaeda and Iran as Terrorist Activity. Yet, when the white hose was talking about the Tea Parties, BP, Wall Street Bankers, and the latest towards Christine O'Donnell and the Republican Party. We can't call Iran's actions for the blatant warlike actions they are, but we can use words like Racist, "Kicking Butts", "Stepping on Necks", and "Civil War." Does anyone see a problem with this.
We have reached a pivotal moment in our Unique American history.These moments may appear once a generation, and this one is ours. It is our time to determine the fate of our country. We let the left and the press create and environment of division and distrust, and the result was the election of one of the most ideological presidents in recent history. The numbers are coming in. Obama/Pelosi/Reid have pressed a socialist agenda on the American public, and by large margins, the public does not like it. The Presidents personal poll numbers have reflected the dislike for the change he is delivering. Not even Bill Clinton, who was a polarizing character, engendered the formation of a grass roots nationwide movement to send a message to the halls of power that they work for us, we hired them...and we can fire them.
Is there a problem in the Republican party? Perhaps, the reality is that the Tea Party is saying, "We Don't Care" about party. We are American citizens that understand the type of candidate that we want and can believe in regardless of party politics. That these candidates so far seem to be running on a Republican ticket shows nothing more than the Tea Parties penchant for conservative thinking and the principles espoused by our founders in the Constitution. Americans are tired of politicians whose only real purpose after election is re-election. We hire them to do the work of the public, and pay them handsomely to do so. Yet we continue to have unemployment at 9.6%, flat wages, and creeping inflation. We have a government that has appropriated 2 trillion dollars and the only economic activity they have generated is payoffs to unions and the purchase of a car company and the threat to takeover banks that needed money to cover loans they were pressured by congress to make...all while the real culprits, congress and Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac, get away free.
If you are a Tea Party member, and you understand the fight we are in against the socialists/Marxists on the left, Then you will support, financially and with your voice, those candidates who now have an opportunity to create a paradigm shift in Washington, DC. Otherwise, we get more of the same...and that has proven disastrous so far.
What I find interesting, to say the least, is the inability of the current administration and the left to condemn America's enemies throughout the world, while at the same time using very warlike language while talking about US Citizens, political opponents, and whomever else disagrees with socialist utopianist policies. For example, Our president won't call the Middle Eastern insurgencies by Al Qaeda and Iran as Terrorist Activity. Yet, when the white hose was talking about the Tea Parties, BP, Wall Street Bankers, and the latest towards Christine O'Donnell and the Republican Party. We can't call Iran's actions for the blatant warlike actions they are, but we can use words like Racist, "Kicking Butts", "Stepping on Necks", and "Civil War." Does anyone see a problem with this.
We have reached a pivotal moment in our Unique American history.These moments may appear once a generation, and this one is ours. It is our time to determine the fate of our country. We let the left and the press create and environment of division and distrust, and the result was the election of one of the most ideological presidents in recent history. The numbers are coming in. Obama/Pelosi/Reid have pressed a socialist agenda on the American public, and by large margins, the public does not like it. The Presidents personal poll numbers have reflected the dislike for the change he is delivering. Not even Bill Clinton, who was a polarizing character, engendered the formation of a grass roots nationwide movement to send a message to the halls of power that they work for us, we hired them...and we can fire them.
Is there a problem in the Republican party? Perhaps, the reality is that the Tea Party is saying, "We Don't Care" about party. We are American citizens that understand the type of candidate that we want and can believe in regardless of party politics. That these candidates so far seem to be running on a Republican ticket shows nothing more than the Tea Parties penchant for conservative thinking and the principles espoused by our founders in the Constitution. Americans are tired of politicians whose only real purpose after election is re-election. We hire them to do the work of the public, and pay them handsomely to do so. Yet we continue to have unemployment at 9.6%, flat wages, and creeping inflation. We have a government that has appropriated 2 trillion dollars and the only economic activity they have generated is payoffs to unions and the purchase of a car company and the threat to takeover banks that needed money to cover loans they were pressured by congress to make...all while the real culprits, congress and Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac, get away free.
If you are a Tea Party member, and you understand the fight we are in against the socialists/Marxists on the left, Then you will support, financially and with your voice, those candidates who now have an opportunity to create a paradigm shift in Washington, DC. Otherwise, we get more of the same...and that has proven disastrous so far.
Saturday, September 11, 2010
Remembrance
"Greater love has no one than this, that one lay down his life for his friends" John 15:13 NASB
This morning we can't help but remember the horrible events of 9 years ago. Many have and will continue to focus on the horror of that day. Some will talk about the Heroes of that day. I am one of those some. As an American, a former US Navy service member, father to a US Marine, I understand heroes.
Heroes are people who don't seek to be considered a hero. Ordinary people who perform extraordinarily in the most extreme circumstances. There is no fanfare, no klieg lights, no TV cameras, no press conferences. They are men and women still climbing stairs in a tower that was failing. They are men and women rushing into a hazardous environment as the World Trade Center towers became massive piles of rubble. Heroes are the individuals aboard flight 93 who made the decision that their lives were needed to prevent the loss of life planned by the terrorists who had taken over the plane. Heroes were those who risked their lives running into an inferno at the Pentagon to save the lives of others. Heroes are the husbands, wives, mothers, and fathers of our service members at home making America's finest youth to make the sacrifice in defense of our countries values and ideas.
On this day, we experienced something that will be forever etched in memory. Those of us who sat and watched were in disbelief. Yet in the midst of this horrific event, the stories of heroism started to filter out. At that point, on that day, America showed it's true mettle. America showed its greatness. We did not apologize because some radical extremists decided that our way of life should be targeted for death and destruction. On this day, as we examine deep within ourselves what this country means to us, to our children, and grandchildren, may we honor the memories of these Heroes. We do that by standing up, and self governing. By taking back the government for the people, by the people, and of the people. We stand up and honor these men and women by taking responsibilities for ourselves and educating ourselves on the Greatness of America as our founders envisioned not. NOT as it's being redefined.
This morning we can't help but remember the horrible events of 9 years ago. Many have and will continue to focus on the horror of that day. Some will talk about the Heroes of that day. I am one of those some. As an American, a former US Navy service member, father to a US Marine, I understand heroes.
Heroes are people who don't seek to be considered a hero. Ordinary people who perform extraordinarily in the most extreme circumstances. There is no fanfare, no klieg lights, no TV cameras, no press conferences. They are men and women still climbing stairs in a tower that was failing. They are men and women rushing into a hazardous environment as the World Trade Center towers became massive piles of rubble. Heroes are the individuals aboard flight 93 who made the decision that their lives were needed to prevent the loss of life planned by the terrorists who had taken over the plane. Heroes were those who risked their lives running into an inferno at the Pentagon to save the lives of others. Heroes are the husbands, wives, mothers, and fathers of our service members at home making America's finest youth to make the sacrifice in defense of our countries values and ideas.
On this day, we experienced something that will be forever etched in memory. Those of us who sat and watched were in disbelief. Yet in the midst of this horrific event, the stories of heroism started to filter out. At that point, on that day, America showed it's true mettle. America showed its greatness. We did not apologize because some radical extremists decided that our way of life should be targeted for death and destruction. On this day, as we examine deep within ourselves what this country means to us, to our children, and grandchildren, may we honor the memories of these Heroes. We do that by standing up, and self governing. By taking back the government for the people, by the people, and of the people. We stand up and honor these men and women by taking responsibilities for ourselves and educating ourselves on the Greatness of America as our founders envisioned not. NOT as it's being redefined.
Sunday, August 29, 2010
Whos Economy is it Anyway?
The time has come for Democrats and liberals alike to stand up and take credit for a tepid economy. This is not to say that Bush 43 is absolved from his bad decisions and poor economic policies. I don't absolve President Bush from signing the TARP bill nor failing to understand that more needed to be done on the spending side of things. However, in comparison, the Obama/Pelosi/Reid agenda has spent more, and been far more destructive in two short years than Bush in an 8 year stretch.
The facts are what they are, Tepid and anemic growth (average of 3.5% for last three quarters), massive unemployment (currently at 9.5% with an actual rate of approximately 14%), and massive deficit spending (2 trillion dollars in two short years), have put us at risk both now and in the future. Quite simply, this direction is economically unsustainable and has become, in the words of Adm Mike Mullen, a national security risk. The question is how much blame does the Obama adminsitrtion and Democrat majorities in congress bear for these numbers.
Quite simply, most of it. The policy initiatives coming out of the Obama white house have had a net negative effect on economic growth and job creation. Now, as the liberals in congress and the media like to espouse, something like two million jobs have been "created or saved" by their economic policies. The fact of the matter is that regardles of their use of a non proveable term "Jobs Saved", the private sector has been nleeding jobs at a rate unprecedented since the 1930's. Specifically, the "new claims" numbers weekly range from 425,000 to a recent high of 500,00. A conservative valuation of these numbers means that in the 18 months of the Obama administration, the private job creators have shed 7.65 million jobs. Any realist can see that this is not a positive economic direction. These job losses represent real Americans no longer paying taxes, which has the net effect of reducing incoming revenue at a time when spending has increased exponentially.
In their reticence to actually entertain ideas for private sector growth, this Adminstration has not "created or saved" anything. Anti private sector growth has stifled and will contiue to stifle any recovery we might actually have. Coupled with policies which have created massive unease whith those who create private sector jobs has created an environment in which these employers are sitting on 3 trillion dollars of capital, rather than expanding and hiring, and this my friends is where the rubber hits the road with the Obama administrattion.
The failure of the President to actually LEAD this country out of an economic morass is monumental. Leadership requires making togh decisions, real decisions, and backing them up. And when those decisions are innefective or actually have a negative effect, a real leader steps up, takes the blame, and tries something else. Yet President Obama seems unable to do this very thing. Blaming the minortiy party and a President long retired to his ranch in Texas is not leadership. It is childish and destructive to the country and the economy. It is time for Obame, Reid, Pelosi and others to step up and say, "this isn't working, it's time to entertain some different ideas." Unfortunately, teh lack of leadership from our Chief Executive will continue to cause economic doubt and tepid growth at a critical juncture of our history. President Obama, the economy is now yours...Cowboy up sir and take responsibility for your failed policies and decisions...President Bush can no longer help you.
The facts are what they are, Tepid and anemic growth (average of 3.5% for last three quarters), massive unemployment (currently at 9.5% with an actual rate of approximately 14%), and massive deficit spending (2 trillion dollars in two short years), have put us at risk both now and in the future. Quite simply, this direction is economically unsustainable and has become, in the words of Adm Mike Mullen, a national security risk. The question is how much blame does the Obama adminsitrtion and Democrat majorities in congress bear for these numbers.
Quite simply, most of it. The policy initiatives coming out of the Obama white house have had a net negative effect on economic growth and job creation. Now, as the liberals in congress and the media like to espouse, something like two million jobs have been "created or saved" by their economic policies. The fact of the matter is that regardles of their use of a non proveable term "Jobs Saved", the private sector has been nleeding jobs at a rate unprecedented since the 1930's. Specifically, the "new claims" numbers weekly range from 425,000 to a recent high of 500,00. A conservative valuation of these numbers means that in the 18 months of the Obama administration, the private job creators have shed 7.65 million jobs. Any realist can see that this is not a positive economic direction. These job losses represent real Americans no longer paying taxes, which has the net effect of reducing incoming revenue at a time when spending has increased exponentially.
In their reticence to actually entertain ideas for private sector growth, this Adminstration has not "created or saved" anything. Anti private sector growth has stifled and will contiue to stifle any recovery we might actually have. Coupled with policies which have created massive unease whith those who create private sector jobs has created an environment in which these employers are sitting on 3 trillion dollars of capital, rather than expanding and hiring, and this my friends is where the rubber hits the road with the Obama administrattion.
The failure of the President to actually LEAD this country out of an economic morass is monumental. Leadership requires making togh decisions, real decisions, and backing them up. And when those decisions are innefective or actually have a negative effect, a real leader steps up, takes the blame, and tries something else. Yet President Obama seems unable to do this very thing. Blaming the minortiy party and a President long retired to his ranch in Texas is not leadership. It is childish and destructive to the country and the economy. It is time for Obame, Reid, Pelosi and others to step up and say, "this isn't working, it's time to entertain some different ideas." Unfortunately, teh lack of leadership from our Chief Executive will continue to cause economic doubt and tepid growth at a critical juncture of our history. President Obama, the economy is now yours...Cowboy up sir and take responsibility for your failed policies and decisions...President Bush can no longer help you.
Sunday, May 16, 2010
Immigration Reform, a Different View
Illegal Immigration is one of the most contentiously debated topics in the country today. As with most things it seems that unauthorized immigrants have become political fodder for members of both political parties. It is time to get rid of political grandstanding and partisan rhetoric to solve this problem once and for all. The politicians on the left want to provide unlawful immigrants with an immediate and unrestricted citizenship. The political right contends that all we need to do is build thousands of miles of walls and hammer any employer who, knowingly or not, hires an unlawful immigrant. Without question, unauthorized immigration puts an excessive strain on social services, doctors, hospitals, and law enforcement. A multi pronged approach is needed encompassing border security, employer enforcement, legal immigration reform and well defined naturalization policies. Unauthorized immigration and our current policies are contributing to an already bad economic and security situation and it is time to put aside partisan politics and pass common sense policy solutions to this growing problem.
America takes pride in its status as a nation of immigrants. A poem, penned by Emma Lazarus and engraved in bronze at the foot of the Statue of Liberty, ends with "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore … " (lines 10-14). The first immigrants to this amazing country were fleeing oppression and religious persecution. Later immigrants came to this country to escape a lack of opportunity and freedom in the countries of their birth. America offered those immigrants that freedom from persecution and seemingly unlimited opportunity and she continues to provide that same promise to millions of people around the world. In fact, According to a report released from the US Department of Homeland Security, there are approximately 10.8 million unauthorized persons in the country as of January 2009 (1). This amounts to approximately 4% of the US Population. With the poor economic production of some bordering nations, America is the place immigrants want to come in an effort to improve their lives and that of their families.
The policies that America follows regarding immigration have far reaching effects. As Michele Wucker writes in her article Fixing the Borders (Without a Wall), “The immigration policies that America pursues resonate around the world. As a superpower whose identity is rooted in the notion of itself as an immigrant nation, the United States stands as an example … to countries that only recently have begun to wrestle with the question of how to integrate large foreign born populations” (55). As the leaders of any nation will tell you, security, in this age of increased terrorist actions and threats is of paramount importance.
While disagreement on other aspects of immigration reform exists, border security is one aspect that everyone agrees needs improvement. Building a fence, a “Great Wall” of America so to speak, is cost prohibitive and geographically impractical. Additionally, a fence presents a negative psychological barrier, because, unlike the Great Wall of China, this fence, in this country, directly contradicts the immigrant foundation of which we as Americans are so proud. To provide for better border security, we need to begin by beefing up our enforcement efforts with more Border Patrol agents who are better equipped, and have better mobility.
Our best and first lines of defense against unauthorized immigration are the US Border Patrol agents who monitor our thousands of miles of border and hundreds of access points. Their goal is not to harm those trying to enter the country illegally, but to be a presence in an attempt to prevent them from crossing. Additionally, they watch and attempt to rescue those who endanger their own lives by trying to cross into the deserts, which surround much of our southern borders. The 2010 federal budget allows funding for 20,000 border patrol agents, a significant increase in manpower, and this is a step in the right direction. An additional 10,000 agents would allow better coverage of the borders would provide a significant decrease in the flow of unauthorized immigrants. However, we cannot stop the flow with just additional agents but there is more that can be done to enhance the ability of these brave men and women to perform an often maligned and thankless job.
Border Patrol agents are in need of better and more effective equipment. There exists proven technology used by our troops in the deserts of Iraq and Afghanistan, which could greatly benefit and increase their efficiency. UAV’s (Unmanned Aerial Vehicles) could provide real time surveillance of a larger portion of our borders than agents alone are able to. Ground scanning radar and infrared motion detection systems could provide agents with near instantaneous and location specific data for border incursions. Military style vehicles such as the HUMVEE would provide better mobility over the more rugged portions of our borders. A larger and more robust Border Patrol with state of the art technology is but one cog in the wheel of Immigration reform. It is imperative that we enhance US security by enforcing current laws affecting employers.
A major part of the immigration debate is the enforcement of employer violations of immigration laws. Most unlawful immigrant workers in the U.S. perform jobs that are low skilled and low wage. Employers hire these individuals for a multitude of reasons. According to Peter Cappelli, “Many employers seek illegal workers for the simple reason that it keeps costs down and means the companies do not have to invest in equipment and other capital improvements” (Para 11). Undocumented workers can be paid “under the table”, eliminating the tax burden employers bear for legal citizens. In many cases, a robust counterfeit document market provides undocumented workers with identification good enough to fool the average human resources manager. This creates a situation wherein employers may not ever know that an employee is working illegally.
It is abundantly clear that any immigration reform policy has to provide for better enforcement and larger penalties for employers who chose to violate the law. Enhanced and upgraded employee verification, perhaps with biometric technologies or counterfeit resistant identification requirements would greatly improve enforcement success. These steps combined with an increase in enforcement penalties against employers who violate the law would ensure that both employer and unauthorized worker understand that their illegal actions carry consequences. However, these two aspects only begin to address the problem that both lawful and unlawful immigrants face. We should also look closely at a major reform of our legal immigration policies.
Suppose we implement these first two ideas effectively. A complete overhaul of our legal immigration policies and agencies must occur. Horror stories of immigrants waiting months and sometimes years for an immigrant Visa are frustrating at best. As Michele Wucker writes, “If … you were an adult sibling from the Philippines and wanted a green card, as of December 2006, the government would not process your application unless you had filed it before June 1, 1984, a wait of nearly 22 years” (58). With all of the modern technology available to us today, this is inexcusable. We should be able to reduce the amount of time an individual waits for a US Visa. Just as problematic is the number restrictions placed on the work visas the State Department issues annually. Once new Visa holders are in the country, agents should follow up regularly with these individuals in an attempt to ensure compliance and to provide assistance with the naturalization process.
What do we do about unauthorized persons already living and working in the US? A massive deportation of them is not a workable option. How would we address the sudden hole in the workforce caused by the deportation of unauthorized immigrants? There has to be a common sense policy that addresses unauthorized immigrants as well. Blanket Amnesty, a policy that allows almost instantaneous citizenship to unauthorized immigrants, and has been enacted twice since 1980, has done nothing to slow down the flood of unauthorized persons entering the country. In fact, one could argue that these policies are responsible for an increase in the tide of immigrants entering the country illegally. However, you cannot just rip 12 million people from their homes, jobs and families without causing a great deal of harm both economically and familial. In addition, as many immigrant workers send a portion of their earnings to relatives, massive deportation could simply worsen the economic reasons in their home countries, a primary reason why they want to come to the US in the first place. Rhetoric aside, these individuals are already in this country, and the resources to arrest and deport them all just do not exist.
A policy that outlines a clear and concrete path to US Citizenship could go a long way towards reducing the number of unauthorized immigrants. Requiring immigrants to pay a fine (a flat fee) and learn both English and basic US History, would ease their transition into the legitimate workforce and into American society as a whole. This simple policy would go a long way towards ensuring that these individuals would be paying their share of taxes. Additionally, they would have a voice in the workplace that many of them do not have because of their illegal status.
It is clear that politicians on both sides use these immigrants as political currency. Many elected democrats figure that by preaching a policy of instant naturalization or amnesty, many of these immigrants will vote for their candidates in future elections. This has prohibited them from even considering many of the solutions mentioned above. Republicans on the other hand, seem hard wired to a policy that only provides for building fences and massive deportation. While these policies may appeal to extreme elements of the Republican base, it is a nonsensical approach to an increasingly difficult problem. Neither side seems to be willing to meet in the middle on the kinds of policies that would create an environment commensurate with our belief that we are a Nation of Immigrants.
It is time that we put away the partisanship that has crippled true reform on the issue of immigration. We need to explore and pass a policy that encompasses the ideas of enhanced border security, increased employer enforcement, reform to our legal immigration policies, a well defined naturalization process, and a process that provides a path to citizenship for those already in the country. It seems to me that we as a nation of immigrants need to make our voices heard to our elected representatives in the hope that we can fix a policy that is broken and unworkable.
Works Cited
Batalova, Jeanne. "Immigration Reform in the United States: Raising Key Questions." Generations 32.4 Print (2008): 73-79.
Lazarus, Emma. The New Colossus. Statue of Liberty National Monument, New York.
The Wharton School at The University of Pennsylvania. "The Immigration Debate: Its Impact on Workers, Wages, and Employers." 17 May 2006. Web Knowledge@ Wharton. 2010.
US Department of Homeland Security. Estimates of the Unauthorized Immigrant Population Residing in the United States: January 2009. Web. Statistical Analasis. Washington: Department of Homeland Security, Office of Immigration Statistics, 2009.
Wucker, Michele. "Fixing the Borders (Without a Wall)." World Policy Journal 23.4 Print 2006: 55-59.
America takes pride in its status as a nation of immigrants. A poem, penned by Emma Lazarus and engraved in bronze at the foot of the Statue of Liberty, ends with "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore … " (lines 10-14). The first immigrants to this amazing country were fleeing oppression and religious persecution. Later immigrants came to this country to escape a lack of opportunity and freedom in the countries of their birth. America offered those immigrants that freedom from persecution and seemingly unlimited opportunity and she continues to provide that same promise to millions of people around the world. In fact, According to a report released from the US Department of Homeland Security, there are approximately 10.8 million unauthorized persons in the country as of January 2009 (1). This amounts to approximately 4% of the US Population. With the poor economic production of some bordering nations, America is the place immigrants want to come in an effort to improve their lives and that of their families.
The policies that America follows regarding immigration have far reaching effects. As Michele Wucker writes in her article Fixing the Borders (Without a Wall), “The immigration policies that America pursues resonate around the world. As a superpower whose identity is rooted in the notion of itself as an immigrant nation, the United States stands as an example … to countries that only recently have begun to wrestle with the question of how to integrate large foreign born populations” (55). As the leaders of any nation will tell you, security, in this age of increased terrorist actions and threats is of paramount importance.
While disagreement on other aspects of immigration reform exists, border security is one aspect that everyone agrees needs improvement. Building a fence, a “Great Wall” of America so to speak, is cost prohibitive and geographically impractical. Additionally, a fence presents a negative psychological barrier, because, unlike the Great Wall of China, this fence, in this country, directly contradicts the immigrant foundation of which we as Americans are so proud. To provide for better border security, we need to begin by beefing up our enforcement efforts with more Border Patrol agents who are better equipped, and have better mobility.
Our best and first lines of defense against unauthorized immigration are the US Border Patrol agents who monitor our thousands of miles of border and hundreds of access points. Their goal is not to harm those trying to enter the country illegally, but to be a presence in an attempt to prevent them from crossing. Additionally, they watch and attempt to rescue those who endanger their own lives by trying to cross into the deserts, which surround much of our southern borders. The 2010 federal budget allows funding for 20,000 border patrol agents, a significant increase in manpower, and this is a step in the right direction. An additional 10,000 agents would allow better coverage of the borders would provide a significant decrease in the flow of unauthorized immigrants. However, we cannot stop the flow with just additional agents but there is more that can be done to enhance the ability of these brave men and women to perform an often maligned and thankless job.
Border Patrol agents are in need of better and more effective equipment. There exists proven technology used by our troops in the deserts of Iraq and Afghanistan, which could greatly benefit and increase their efficiency. UAV’s (Unmanned Aerial Vehicles) could provide real time surveillance of a larger portion of our borders than agents alone are able to. Ground scanning radar and infrared motion detection systems could provide agents with near instantaneous and location specific data for border incursions. Military style vehicles such as the HUMVEE would provide better mobility over the more rugged portions of our borders. A larger and more robust Border Patrol with state of the art technology is but one cog in the wheel of Immigration reform. It is imperative that we enhance US security by enforcing current laws affecting employers.
A major part of the immigration debate is the enforcement of employer violations of immigration laws. Most unlawful immigrant workers in the U.S. perform jobs that are low skilled and low wage. Employers hire these individuals for a multitude of reasons. According to Peter Cappelli, “Many employers seek illegal workers for the simple reason that it keeps costs down and means the companies do not have to invest in equipment and other capital improvements” (Para 11). Undocumented workers can be paid “under the table”, eliminating the tax burden employers bear for legal citizens. In many cases, a robust counterfeit document market provides undocumented workers with identification good enough to fool the average human resources manager. This creates a situation wherein employers may not ever know that an employee is working illegally.
It is abundantly clear that any immigration reform policy has to provide for better enforcement and larger penalties for employers who chose to violate the law. Enhanced and upgraded employee verification, perhaps with biometric technologies or counterfeit resistant identification requirements would greatly improve enforcement success. These steps combined with an increase in enforcement penalties against employers who violate the law would ensure that both employer and unauthorized worker understand that their illegal actions carry consequences. However, these two aspects only begin to address the problem that both lawful and unlawful immigrants face. We should also look closely at a major reform of our legal immigration policies.
Suppose we implement these first two ideas effectively. A complete overhaul of our legal immigration policies and agencies must occur. Horror stories of immigrants waiting months and sometimes years for an immigrant Visa are frustrating at best. As Michele Wucker writes, “If … you were an adult sibling from the Philippines and wanted a green card, as of December 2006, the government would not process your application unless you had filed it before June 1, 1984, a wait of nearly 22 years” (58). With all of the modern technology available to us today, this is inexcusable. We should be able to reduce the amount of time an individual waits for a US Visa. Just as problematic is the number restrictions placed on the work visas the State Department issues annually. Once new Visa holders are in the country, agents should follow up regularly with these individuals in an attempt to ensure compliance and to provide assistance with the naturalization process.
What do we do about unauthorized persons already living and working in the US? A massive deportation of them is not a workable option. How would we address the sudden hole in the workforce caused by the deportation of unauthorized immigrants? There has to be a common sense policy that addresses unauthorized immigrants as well. Blanket Amnesty, a policy that allows almost instantaneous citizenship to unauthorized immigrants, and has been enacted twice since 1980, has done nothing to slow down the flood of unauthorized persons entering the country. In fact, one could argue that these policies are responsible for an increase in the tide of immigrants entering the country illegally. However, you cannot just rip 12 million people from their homes, jobs and families without causing a great deal of harm both economically and familial. In addition, as many immigrant workers send a portion of their earnings to relatives, massive deportation could simply worsen the economic reasons in their home countries, a primary reason why they want to come to the US in the first place. Rhetoric aside, these individuals are already in this country, and the resources to arrest and deport them all just do not exist.
A policy that outlines a clear and concrete path to US Citizenship could go a long way towards reducing the number of unauthorized immigrants. Requiring immigrants to pay a fine (a flat fee) and learn both English and basic US History, would ease their transition into the legitimate workforce and into American society as a whole. This simple policy would go a long way towards ensuring that these individuals would be paying their share of taxes. Additionally, they would have a voice in the workplace that many of them do not have because of their illegal status.
It is clear that politicians on both sides use these immigrants as political currency. Many elected democrats figure that by preaching a policy of instant naturalization or amnesty, many of these immigrants will vote for their candidates in future elections. This has prohibited them from even considering many of the solutions mentioned above. Republicans on the other hand, seem hard wired to a policy that only provides for building fences and massive deportation. While these policies may appeal to extreme elements of the Republican base, it is a nonsensical approach to an increasingly difficult problem. Neither side seems to be willing to meet in the middle on the kinds of policies that would create an environment commensurate with our belief that we are a Nation of Immigrants.
It is time that we put away the partisanship that has crippled true reform on the issue of immigration. We need to explore and pass a policy that encompasses the ideas of enhanced border security, increased employer enforcement, reform to our legal immigration policies, a well defined naturalization process, and a process that provides a path to citizenship for those already in the country. It seems to me that we as a nation of immigrants need to make our voices heard to our elected representatives in the hope that we can fix a policy that is broken and unworkable.
Works Cited
Batalova, Jeanne. "Immigration Reform in the United States: Raising Key Questions." Generations 32.4 Print (2008): 73-79.
Lazarus, Emma. The New Colossus. Statue of Liberty National Monument, New York.
The Wharton School at The University of Pennsylvania. "The Immigration Debate: Its Impact on Workers, Wages, and Employers." 17 May 2006. Web Knowledge@ Wharton. 2010
US Department of Homeland Security. Estimates of the Unauthorized Immigrant Population Residing in the United States: January 2009. Web. Statistical Analasis. Washington: Department of Homeland Security, Office of Immigration Statistics, 2009.
Wucker, Michele. "Fixing the Borders (Without a Wall)." World Policy Journal 23.4 Print 2006: 55-59.
Friday, May 14, 2010
Headed Down the Highway to Healthcare Serfdom
The following is a research paper written for an English Composition class.
On March 23, 2010, President Barack Obama signed into law historic change to our health care industry. It arrives as law with a reported price tag in excess of 900 billion dollars, and a bevy of new taxes reportedly necessary to pay for the legislation. The “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act” makes many bold promises about its cost, its coverage 30 million uninsured Americans, and claims to lower the deficit. Although this law is reportedly the savior of America’s Health Care industry and our faltering economy, in reality it is a recipe for the destruction of the industry and economic collapse simply because the debt levels and end entitlement mentality are completely unsustainable.
In simple terms, a serf is a slave. To be more precise, a serf is a slave who is bound to the debt or land, to which they are enslaved. How does one become a serf in the land of the free? We become serfs by allowing something to go unchallenged and unchanged which will put this country, and by extension us, into financial servitude for generations. Alongside a host of other damaging legislation, the new health care law will push us all into becoming serfs to the debt left behind by federal government largesse.
There are many societal impacts of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. According to a summary of the bill, approximately 30 million new people will be able to obtain health insurance coverage. The bill achieves this level of coverage through a number of mechanisms, some of which include: Health Insurance Exchanges, removal of any pre-existing injury or illness clauses, and individual mandates requiring coverage. This massive intrusion -into private lives and private industry is unprecedented. Never before has our government forced free citizens to purchase a private service.
America prides itself on its dedication to individual privacy, liberty, and personal responsibility. Perhaps that is why this particular legislation is so damaging to American society. Perhaps the most destructive part of this legislation is the “Individual Mandate.” This provision requires every American to purchase health insurance coverage or face a fine, defined by the Obama Administration as a “tax penalty.” The agency responsible for collecting this “penalty” would of course be the Internal Revenue Service. It is this “mandate” that sticks in the craw of every American opposed to the new legislation. At what point in this country did we authorize politicians to decide for us that we must obtain a private service at the point of the government’s gun?
Some will think that statement is outrageous. They will say, “There is no gun, the government, in its benevolence, is simply trying to ensure everyone can get medical care.” The “gun” referred to is that of a penalty, levied by the federal government, for not doing something they the government decide individuals must do. Not paying your taxes will get you put in prison; not registering for the draft can get you put in jail. Not buying, at your own expense, a health insurance plan approved by the mandating authority, well get you a penalty, paid as part of your taxes. Additionally, patients without health insurance coverage arrive every day in hospitals across the country for any number of illnesses and injuries and they are able to obtain treatment.
In fact, one of the problems facing an overburdened healthcare system is legislation passed that prohibits a hospital to deny care based on a potential patients ability to pay. Hospitals write off billions of dollars annually in emergent care costs and basic economics says that someone else has to pick up that costs. That someone is the American healthcare consumer and taxpayer. In order to operate for paying customers, a hospital has to offset the costs of “Free” care by increasing its charges to those same paying customers.
Ultimately, The U.S. Supreme Court will decide the constitutionality of the Individual Mandate. The administration and congress argue that the purchase of insurance is engaging in interstate commerce, providing the necessary constitutional coverage for their mandate. However, never has the federal government dictated to individual citizens that they actually engage in interstate commerce by forcing them to purchase a private service. Some of those arguing for the legislation in court point to the requirement to carry automobile insurance. However, as Stuart Taylor tells us, “The Analogy Drawn by some of the new laws supporters to state laws requiring car owners to buy car insurance does not survive scrutiny. You can avoid that requirement simply by not buying a car, and states have broad powers to regulate purely intrastate activities. . . “(3). American’s just do not like being told they have to do something “or else,” especially when a nanny state government is doing the demanding.
Perhaps the most damaging social aspect of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is the entitlement mindset it creates. America is fast becoming the land of entitlements. Nanny state protections are in place to cover us in old age (Social Security, Medicare) an in our young age (Medicaid, TANF, SCHIP). Now, the federal government has created a mew entitlement for every American in between. Once an entitlement becomes popular with the public at large, that same public is less likely to do anything to take that entitlement away. Sadly, this has become true of the sacred cows of welfare and social security. This mentality is perhaps the most damaging to the social fabric of the United States. To date it has fostered programs, which have cost magnitudes of orders more than originally projected. However, the extent of economic damage that it will do is staggering.
Economically, the Patient Protection and Affordability act is detrimental to creating jobs and encouraging economic growth. The administration claims that this legislation will be economically beneficial, by lowering health care costs and ensuring greater coverage of uninsured individuals. However, the fact remains that it has actually done nothing to ensure either of these goals. Perhaps these laws authors are relying on the law of unintended returns. As the public is now beginning to figure out, the bill of goods sold with Health Care Reform was disingenuous at best and downright lying at worst.
Any discussion about lowering costs cannot begin without a determination of why those costs are elevated in the first place. It is really quite simple, to quote economist Thomas Sowell, “One of the biggest reasons for higher medical costs is that somebody else is paying those costs” (1). Logically this is understandable. If individuals obtain a service for which their payment is minimal or not required, they will use that service more. Increasing the use of a service without a significant increase in the availability of that service will increase its cost and reduce its availability. To clarify further, Dr. Sowell in his book Applied Economics: Thinking Beyond Stage One, states, “… Governments do not simply pay whatever medical costs happen to be, as determined by supply and demand. Governments impose price controls, in order to try to keep the costs of medical care from absorbing so much of their budgets as to seriously restrict other government functions” (70).
Here we come to the crux of the “cost” issue when applied to health care spending (which includes both spending on actual care and insurance premiums) as a whole. It is safe to say that government involvement to this point, whether through agencies such as Medicaid and Medicare, or through increased regulation on the insurance industry, has caused the dramatic rise in the cost of care and the cost of insuring medical risk. The President is telling us relentlessly that we are going to have access to a healthcare “free lunch” paid for by other taxpayers.
It stands to reason that if you add demand for a product or service, without adequate increases in the supply of that good or service, than the resultant shortages will cause an increase in the cost of that product or service. It also stands to reason that if you mandate an additional cost to an already expensive service provided by employers, than employers are going to have to cut costs to compensate for the higher imposed costs of government. Typically, that is done by either reducing the workforce or at the very least, not increasing it. Add in the loss of jobs at insurance companies forced to face the realities of lower net incomes and higher net costs, and you have a recipe for unemployment above 12% nationally.
There is no shortage of results from government interference in health care and health insurance. Close to home, our Canadian friends have fully socialized medicine, and often, Canadian Citizens, in their twilight years, travel to America to obtain lifesaving medical treatment denied them in Canada. This denial of treatment is due to a lack of supply offset by overactive demand. Let us be clear, Canadian citizens are not coming here for cosmetic procedures. They are making the trip to the United States for medically necessary treatment. The single payer system in Canada, as well as in other countries with similar government controlled health care systems is financially bankrupt. In an attempt to rein in costs, these aforementioned governments have had to ration care.
If this legislation is causing social and economic instability, actually raising prices and costs, how is it going to reduce the deficit? The short answer is that Health Care reform will not help reduce anything except the quality and availability of health care. Congress has asked the American people to accept, at face value, their promise to cut 500 billion dollars in Medicare through cutting fraud, waste, and abuse. We are supposed to believe that they will be able to do something no group of politicians in this country has been able to do since Medicare’s inception, cut fraud and waste. The truth of the matter is that we have yet to see the full impact of the baby boomer generation on Medicare. There are only two real ways to reign in Medicare costs, neither of which is palatable to most.
First, we should entertain an increase in the Medicare tax imposed on both employees and employers. The new health care law does not address this idea. Second, reduce the amounts paid out to physicians for services rendered. The reality is that we will likely need to do both to have any chance at reducing the federal deficit over the next 50 years. As Lawrence Kotlikoff and Scott Burns state: “First, we could raise federal income taxes, immediately and permanently, by 57 percent. Second, we could raise payroll taxes, immediately and permanently, by 79 percent. Third, we could cut the current level of real Medicare benefits by 83 percent and let benefits grow at their projected rate thereafter” (6).
However, as the country is already seeing, if legislation drastically cuts reimbursement rates, doctors will simply decide to stop treating Medicare patients as those reimbursements already fall well short of their actual costs of treatment. According to Dr. Sowell, “In the United States, the government has already reduced payments for patients on Medicare and Medicaid, with the result that some doctors no longer accept new patients with Medicare or Medicaid. That has not reduced the cost of medical care. It has reduced the availability of medical care, just as buying a pint of milk reduces the payment below what a quart of milk will cost” (1).
Included in the Patient Care and Affordability act is a whole range of tax increases on medical services, medical devices, and in some cases, medical insurance premiums. The implied reasoning for all these increases is to pay for this massive federal entitlement. However, as has been historically the case with taxation, revenues from those streams tend to drop off over time. The regressive and punitive nature of taxation causes this drop in revenue. Additionally, new taxes or increases in existing taxes tend to cause a rise in the cost of those taxed goods and services. This is at the heart of the discussion related to the claim that the health care reform law will reduce costs. If, in fact, the intent were to actually lower health care costs, there would be no need for financial disincentives, which actually cause an increase in the costs of doing business and treating patients.
Perhaps the most damage from this over reaching bill is that done to our doctors, nurses and hospitals. Part of the problem with health care costs comes from the fixed or negotiated rates paid to service providers via the insurance companies. This combined with the exorbitant cost of medical malpractice insurance puts health care providers in the position of trying to decide how best to treat patients, pay their bills, and not be financially destroyed should an unfortunate incident or death occur while a patient is under their care. Dr. Sowell, in response to the demand on the part of some politicians to cut the incomes of doctors and insurance executives said this. “What it would do is reduce the number of very able people willing to take on the high costs of a medical education . . .” (1).
This returns us to the problem of supply and demand. There is no relation to affordable costs and the costs required to produce something (Sowell). If the government takes which result in an increase in health care services, such as it has done with the new law, while at the same time taking steps that will result in a reduction of the suppliers of those services, the resultant costs will skyrocket. Government’s next logical step then, after creating new crises, is to take draconian measures to ensure adequate care. Those measures could include determining who can and cannot access life saving treatments, requiring a certain number of high school graduates attend medical school, or importing physicians from third world countries whose medical school standards are perhaps not as rigorous as our own.
In light of everything outlined in this paper, one has to decide whether the consequences from the Patient Protection and Affordable Care act were deliberate and calculated or just an over reach by politicians who actually believed the misstatements told to the public. Looking at the penumbra of the debate provides insight into that very issue. There were a number of politicians whose ultimate goal was a single payer system, run by the federal government. The President himself stated numerous times that he envisioned an America with a single payer system. It is hard then for a person to be sure that the actions taken in signing this bill into law were not a calculated attempt at pushing us over the edge into socialized medicine.
At the end of the day, only time will tell the real damage that this legislation will do to America’s healthcare system. It will not be long, provided the public at large do nothing, before we begin to see doctors leaving practice, refusing or dropping Medicare or Medicaid patients, and health insurance companies going out of business. A scenario, which poses dire consequences to the social, psychological, and economic fabric of this great country.
Works Cited
Kotlikoff, Laurence J., and Scott Burns. “The Perfect Demographic Storm: Entitlements Imperil Americas Future.” Chronicle of Higher Education 50.28 (2004): B6-B10. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Web. 19 Apr. 2010
Sowell, Thomas. Applied Economics: Thinking Beyond Stage One. New York: Basic Books, 2004. Print.
---, “Alice in Health Care.” JewishWorldReview.com. Jewish World Review 02 Mar. 2010 Web 13 Apr. 2010.
---, “The ‘Costs’ of Medical Care.” JewishWorldReview.com. Jewish World Review 03 Nov. 2009. Web. 26 April 2010.
---. “The ‘Costs’ of Medical Care II” JewisWorldReview.com. Jewish World Review 04 Nov. 2009. Web. 26 Apr. 2010
---. “The ‘Costs of Medical Care III” JewishWorldReview.com. Jewish World Review 05 Nov 2009. Web. 26 April 2010
Taylor Jr., Stuart. “Health Law Not A Sure Bet in Court.” National Journal (2010): 1. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Web. 19 Apr 2010
On March 23, 2010, President Barack Obama signed into law historic change to our health care industry. It arrives as law with a reported price tag in excess of 900 billion dollars, and a bevy of new taxes reportedly necessary to pay for the legislation. The “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act” makes many bold promises about its cost, its coverage 30 million uninsured Americans, and claims to lower the deficit. Although this law is reportedly the savior of America’s Health Care industry and our faltering economy, in reality it is a recipe for the destruction of the industry and economic collapse simply because the debt levels and end entitlement mentality are completely unsustainable.
In simple terms, a serf is a slave. To be more precise, a serf is a slave who is bound to the debt or land, to which they are enslaved. How does one become a serf in the land of the free? We become serfs by allowing something to go unchallenged and unchanged which will put this country, and by extension us, into financial servitude for generations. Alongside a host of other damaging legislation, the new health care law will push us all into becoming serfs to the debt left behind by federal government largesse.
There are many societal impacts of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. According to a summary of the bill, approximately 30 million new people will be able to obtain health insurance coverage. The bill achieves this level of coverage through a number of mechanisms, some of which include: Health Insurance Exchanges, removal of any pre-existing injury or illness clauses, and individual mandates requiring coverage. This massive intrusion -into private lives and private industry is unprecedented. Never before has our government forced free citizens to purchase a private service.
America prides itself on its dedication to individual privacy, liberty, and personal responsibility. Perhaps that is why this particular legislation is so damaging to American society. Perhaps the most destructive part of this legislation is the “Individual Mandate.” This provision requires every American to purchase health insurance coverage or face a fine, defined by the Obama Administration as a “tax penalty.” The agency responsible for collecting this “penalty” would of course be the Internal Revenue Service. It is this “mandate” that sticks in the craw of every American opposed to the new legislation. At what point in this country did we authorize politicians to decide for us that we must obtain a private service at the point of the government’s gun?
Some will think that statement is outrageous. They will say, “There is no gun, the government, in its benevolence, is simply trying to ensure everyone can get medical care.” The “gun” referred to is that of a penalty, levied by the federal government, for not doing something they the government decide individuals must do. Not paying your taxes will get you put in prison; not registering for the draft can get you put in jail. Not buying, at your own expense, a health insurance plan approved by the mandating authority, well get you a penalty, paid as part of your taxes. Additionally, patients without health insurance coverage arrive every day in hospitals across the country for any number of illnesses and injuries and they are able to obtain treatment.
In fact, one of the problems facing an overburdened healthcare system is legislation passed that prohibits a hospital to deny care based on a potential patients ability to pay. Hospitals write off billions of dollars annually in emergent care costs and basic economics says that someone else has to pick up that costs. That someone is the American healthcare consumer and taxpayer. In order to operate for paying customers, a hospital has to offset the costs of “Free” care by increasing its charges to those same paying customers.
Ultimately, The U.S. Supreme Court will decide the constitutionality of the Individual Mandate. The administration and congress argue that the purchase of insurance is engaging in interstate commerce, providing the necessary constitutional coverage for their mandate. However, never has the federal government dictated to individual citizens that they actually engage in interstate commerce by forcing them to purchase a private service. Some of those arguing for the legislation in court point to the requirement to carry automobile insurance. However, as Stuart Taylor tells us, “The Analogy Drawn by some of the new laws supporters to state laws requiring car owners to buy car insurance does not survive scrutiny. You can avoid that requirement simply by not buying a car, and states have broad powers to regulate purely intrastate activities. . . “(3). American’s just do not like being told they have to do something “or else,” especially when a nanny state government is doing the demanding.
Perhaps the most damaging social aspect of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is the entitlement mindset it creates. America is fast becoming the land of entitlements. Nanny state protections are in place to cover us in old age (Social Security, Medicare) an in our young age (Medicaid, TANF, SCHIP). Now, the federal government has created a mew entitlement for every American in between. Once an entitlement becomes popular with the public at large, that same public is less likely to do anything to take that entitlement away. Sadly, this has become true of the sacred cows of welfare and social security. This mentality is perhaps the most damaging to the social fabric of the United States. To date it has fostered programs, which have cost magnitudes of orders more than originally projected. However, the extent of economic damage that it will do is staggering.
Economically, the Patient Protection and Affordability act is detrimental to creating jobs and encouraging economic growth. The administration claims that this legislation will be economically beneficial, by lowering health care costs and ensuring greater coverage of uninsured individuals. However, the fact remains that it has actually done nothing to ensure either of these goals. Perhaps these laws authors are relying on the law of unintended returns. As the public is now beginning to figure out, the bill of goods sold with Health Care Reform was disingenuous at best and downright lying at worst.
Any discussion about lowering costs cannot begin without a determination of why those costs are elevated in the first place. It is really quite simple, to quote economist Thomas Sowell, “One of the biggest reasons for higher medical costs is that somebody else is paying those costs” (1). Logically this is understandable. If individuals obtain a service for which their payment is minimal or not required, they will use that service more. Increasing the use of a service without a significant increase in the availability of that service will increase its cost and reduce its availability. To clarify further, Dr. Sowell in his book Applied Economics: Thinking Beyond Stage One, states, “… Governments do not simply pay whatever medical costs happen to be, as determined by supply and demand. Governments impose price controls, in order to try to keep the costs of medical care from absorbing so much of their budgets as to seriously restrict other government functions” (70).
Here we come to the crux of the “cost” issue when applied to health care spending (which includes both spending on actual care and insurance premiums) as a whole. It is safe to say that government involvement to this point, whether through agencies such as Medicaid and Medicare, or through increased regulation on the insurance industry, has caused the dramatic rise in the cost of care and the cost of insuring medical risk. The President is telling us relentlessly that we are going to have access to a healthcare “free lunch” paid for by other taxpayers.
It stands to reason that if you add demand for a product or service, without adequate increases in the supply of that good or service, than the resultant shortages will cause an increase in the cost of that product or service. It also stands to reason that if you mandate an additional cost to an already expensive service provided by employers, than employers are going to have to cut costs to compensate for the higher imposed costs of government. Typically, that is done by either reducing the workforce or at the very least, not increasing it. Add in the loss of jobs at insurance companies forced to face the realities of lower net incomes and higher net costs, and you have a recipe for unemployment above 12% nationally.
There is no shortage of results from government interference in health care and health insurance. Close to home, our Canadian friends have fully socialized medicine, and often, Canadian Citizens, in their twilight years, travel to America to obtain lifesaving medical treatment denied them in Canada. This denial of treatment is due to a lack of supply offset by overactive demand. Let us be clear, Canadian citizens are not coming here for cosmetic procedures. They are making the trip to the United States for medically necessary treatment. The single payer system in Canada, as well as in other countries with similar government controlled health care systems is financially bankrupt. In an attempt to rein in costs, these aforementioned governments have had to ration care.
If this legislation is causing social and economic instability, actually raising prices and costs, how is it going to reduce the deficit? The short answer is that Health Care reform will not help reduce anything except the quality and availability of health care. Congress has asked the American people to accept, at face value, their promise to cut 500 billion dollars in Medicare through cutting fraud, waste, and abuse. We are supposed to believe that they will be able to do something no group of politicians in this country has been able to do since Medicare’s inception, cut fraud and waste. The truth of the matter is that we have yet to see the full impact of the baby boomer generation on Medicare. There are only two real ways to reign in Medicare costs, neither of which is palatable to most.
First, we should entertain an increase in the Medicare tax imposed on both employees and employers. The new health care law does not address this idea. Second, reduce the amounts paid out to physicians for services rendered. The reality is that we will likely need to do both to have any chance at reducing the federal deficit over the next 50 years. As Lawrence Kotlikoff and Scott Burns state: “First, we could raise federal income taxes, immediately and permanently, by 57 percent. Second, we could raise payroll taxes, immediately and permanently, by 79 percent. Third, we could cut the current level of real Medicare benefits by 83 percent and let benefits grow at their projected rate thereafter” (6).
However, as the country is already seeing, if legislation drastically cuts reimbursement rates, doctors will simply decide to stop treating Medicare patients as those reimbursements already fall well short of their actual costs of treatment. According to Dr. Sowell, “In the United States, the government has already reduced payments for patients on Medicare and Medicaid, with the result that some doctors no longer accept new patients with Medicare or Medicaid. That has not reduced the cost of medical care. It has reduced the availability of medical care, just as buying a pint of milk reduces the payment below what a quart of milk will cost” (1).
Included in the Patient Care and Affordability act is a whole range of tax increases on medical services, medical devices, and in some cases, medical insurance premiums. The implied reasoning for all these increases is to pay for this massive federal entitlement. However, as has been historically the case with taxation, revenues from those streams tend to drop off over time. The regressive and punitive nature of taxation causes this drop in revenue. Additionally, new taxes or increases in existing taxes tend to cause a rise in the cost of those taxed goods and services. This is at the heart of the discussion related to the claim that the health care reform law will reduce costs. If, in fact, the intent were to actually lower health care costs, there would be no need for financial disincentives, which actually cause an increase in the costs of doing business and treating patients.
Perhaps the most damage from this over reaching bill is that done to our doctors, nurses and hospitals. Part of the problem with health care costs comes from the fixed or negotiated rates paid to service providers via the insurance companies. This combined with the exorbitant cost of medical malpractice insurance puts health care providers in the position of trying to decide how best to treat patients, pay their bills, and not be financially destroyed should an unfortunate incident or death occur while a patient is under their care. Dr. Sowell, in response to the demand on the part of some politicians to cut the incomes of doctors and insurance executives said this. “What it would do is reduce the number of very able people willing to take on the high costs of a medical education . . .” (1).
This returns us to the problem of supply and demand. There is no relation to affordable costs and the costs required to produce something (Sowell). If the government takes which result in an increase in health care services, such as it has done with the new law, while at the same time taking steps that will result in a reduction of the suppliers of those services, the resultant costs will skyrocket. Government’s next logical step then, after creating new crises, is to take draconian measures to ensure adequate care. Those measures could include determining who can and cannot access life saving treatments, requiring a certain number of high school graduates attend medical school, or importing physicians from third world countries whose medical school standards are perhaps not as rigorous as our own.
In light of everything outlined in this paper, one has to decide whether the consequences from the Patient Protection and Affordable Care act were deliberate and calculated or just an over reach by politicians who actually believed the misstatements told to the public. Looking at the penumbra of the debate provides insight into that very issue. There were a number of politicians whose ultimate goal was a single payer system, run by the federal government. The President himself stated numerous times that he envisioned an America with a single payer system. It is hard then for a person to be sure that the actions taken in signing this bill into law were not a calculated attempt at pushing us over the edge into socialized medicine.
At the end of the day, only time will tell the real damage that this legislation will do to America’s healthcare system. It will not be long, provided the public at large do nothing, before we begin to see doctors leaving practice, refusing or dropping Medicare or Medicaid patients, and health insurance companies going out of business. A scenario, which poses dire consequences to the social, psychological, and economic fabric of this great country.
Works Cited
Kotlikoff, Laurence J., and Scott Burns. “The Perfect Demographic Storm: Entitlements Imperil Americas Future.” Chronicle of Higher Education 50.28 (2004): B6-B10. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Web. 19 Apr. 2010
Sowell, Thomas. Applied Economics: Thinking Beyond Stage One. New York: Basic Books, 2004. Print.
---, “Alice in Health Care.” JewishWorldReview.com. Jewish World Review 02 Mar. 2010 Web 13 Apr. 2010.
---, “The ‘Costs’ of Medical Care.” JewishWorldReview.com. Jewish World Review 03 Nov. 2009. Web. 26 April 2010.
---. “The ‘Costs’ of Medical Care II” JewisWorldReview.com. Jewish World Review 04 Nov. 2009. Web. 26 Apr. 2010
---. “The ‘Costs of Medical Care III” JewishWorldReview.com. Jewish World Review 05 Nov 2009. Web. 26 April 2010
Taylor Jr., Stuart. “Health Law Not A Sure Bet in Court.” National Journal (2010): 1. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Web. 19 Apr 2010
Saturday, September 26, 2009
America the Pathetic
Is anyone else as tired as I am of having our country, and by extension ourselves, being put down and marginalized on the world stage? If you listen to the President and his far left advisory panel (Czars), America is the worlds ONLY true problem. The terrorists are only terrorists because of America. Dictators are dictators because of the failure of America's freedom. Global Warming, which in this writers opinion is a scientific myth, is due to the American producer and the American driver and the American family.
It is a sad state of affairs when your elected President goes in front of a Global Audience and just gives your country away practically lock stock and still smoking barrel. It is simply unacceptable and un-american to apologize to dictators, thugs and kooks for America's prosperity. Does it not just push you over the edge when American greatness is given the moral equivalence of a statist regime in Venezuela or a Rogue nation like Iran?
Where are the Ronald Reagan's when you need them most? Where are the ones who defend this country with their words, calling for all Americans to get up and make America the place that only it can be again? Raise your voice, Speak up, now is the time to demand that your elected representatives stop the bashing of our country and it's founding principles. Tell them to stop apologizing NOW!
It is a sad state of affairs when your elected President goes in front of a Global Audience and just gives your country away practically lock stock and still smoking barrel. It is simply unacceptable and un-american to apologize to dictators, thugs and kooks for America's prosperity. Does it not just push you over the edge when American greatness is given the moral equivalence of a statist regime in Venezuela or a Rogue nation like Iran?
Where are the Ronald Reagan's when you need them most? Where are the ones who defend this country with their words, calling for all Americans to get up and make America the place that only it can be again? Raise your voice, Speak up, now is the time to demand that your elected representatives stop the bashing of our country and it's founding principles. Tell them to stop apologizing NOW!
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
When is a "Tax" not a "Tax"?
Tax: "A compulsory contribution levied upon persons, property, or businesses for the support of government" (Funk and Wagnalls Standard Desk Dictionary)
During his weekend media blitz, President Obama blatantly denied while talking to former Clinton staffer George Stephanopolous that a "fine" on an individual for a failure to obtain, at their own expense, compulsory (mandatory) health insurance coverage is a tax. Is this the Obama version of word definition? Is this the liberals new "is"? Is Obama trying to redefine words to help his troubled agenda?
Obama has some shelter on the tax issue. His "plan" might not raise taxes on all Americans mostly because the White House does not actually have, well, a "plan". That leaves us to revert to one of two plans currently in congress. The House plan, HR3200 is practically toxic waste and has all but been abandoned. That leaves us with the "plan" recently announced, with very little senate support, by Senate Finance Chairman Max Baucus (D, Iowa). It is laughingly named, "America's Healthy Futures Act of 2009", and is rife with things actually called "taxes", that would negatively affect the personal economics of the vast majority of the American public.
Foremost in the "plan" is a plan which states the following, "The consequence for not maintaining insurance would be an excise tax." Now by my definition, and the definition of this bill, the penalty to be paid for failing to obtain "compulsory" coverage is an excise TAX. President Obama can call it whatever he wants but at least Senator Baucus was honest in calling it what it is. It is a tax which will be paid by all uninsured Americans who are not covered by health insurance at the time the law goes into affect. On a percentage basis the poor, and the middle class would bear a disproportionate part of the burden for Universal Coverage.
At the end of the day, any levy enacted by a government, regardless of the Presidents idea of semantics, is a TAX! That the taxes would be regressive and a disincentive to insurance companies and individuals alike is without question. Can we afford to allow our government to pass any legislation, forcing a free American citizen to do something against their will again? To belabor a tired point yet again, The copy I have of the US Constitution does not include any statements allocating Health Insurance as a right of the people. Does yours?
Thursday, September 17, 2009
I Am a Racist?
To quote my 16yo son, "really". Does that fact that I, a white, middle aged, male who disagrees with the euro centric and socialist views of President Obama make me a racist. There is nothing in my history to suggest that I in fact AM a racist. Anyone who knows me personally and has heard my personal philosophy, knows that for me, Race, Gender, Sexual Orientation, Age, Disability Status, etc. are never even a consideration of someones value. And yet, since I began weighing in on my disaffection with the President's policies and legislative agenda, I, along with a multitude of others have been labeled as Racists and Bigots.
Funk & Wagnalls Standard Desk Dictionary defines racism as an "Irrational belief or advocacy of the superiority of a given group, people, or nation, on the basis of racial differences having no scientific validity." It follows that up by adding, and I quote, "social action or GOVERNMENT policy based on such assumed differences." The definition here is important when we consider the circumstances surrounding the current debate in this country over it's direction.
In any discussions of my differences with President Obama, I have never directed any commentary or opinion with regard to his racial status. I am not one who considers or opines on the legitimacy of President Obama to hold office. I don't concern myself with his religious beliefs except when said beliefs and associations shine a light on his character (IE Reverend Jeremiah Right) and call in question his ability to lead in a colorblind manner. What I do discuss and bloviate on is his policies and his associations with people and groups who seek to remake this Republic in their image, and it is an image that I can not accept or tolerate.
You see, we don't disagree because of race, but because of his political ideology as borne out in his proposed legislation. I could care less about the supposed validity questions about his birth certificate. What I do care about is an increasing series of statements and legislative proposals which are a danger to this Republic as our founders established it. I don't give a damn about Speaker Pelosi's gender. I DO care that she is obviously a strident, statist demagogue with no concern for those whom she represents. Look. I will be clear about what I AM. I am a Capitalist, a Conservative, a Christian, a believer in our Constitution as our founders wrote it. I am a former US Navy Sailor and father of a US Marine. I am a Patriot and an AMERICAN! What I am most decidedly not is a racist.
Many Americans are as I am. In fact, I would posit that the majority of Americans see it like I do. We are to busy managing our own lives and our own issues to even notice something as unimportant as a persons skin color. Does that mean that there is no racism? Absolutely not, in fact it exists in both directions in this country. The not so mainstream media only reports about it in one direction , white to black. It seems to this blogger as if all the charges and demagoguery are coming either old white leftists men or your white leftist women (Maureen Dowd). Is this some sort of guilt compensation for the realization that their longstanding policy and legislative agenda's are inherently racist in their own right for singling out a specific demographic based on race. By my dictionary that action meets the criteria of Racism. Who's a racist now?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Campaign for Liberty
Creative Commons License
Larry's Blog Publications by Larry Head is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License.