Friday, October 30, 2009

1990 pages and 19 pounds of Insanity


It seems that we now have incontrovertible proof that Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi has made a clean and total break from reality, if not sanity.

We have seen so many versions of health care reform from both the House and Senate that most of the people of this nation are completely confused. Even legislators are confused as they themselves are forced to await simple language versions of the bill sent to committees for review and vote. The size and arcane nature not to mention the scope of the bills themselves preclude the average person, let alone Congress members or Senators from even reading and understanding the cost, benefits, detriments and effects of these bills they must consider.

The latest incarnation has been brought to us by Her Majesty, Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi. In a delusional flight of fancy, she and her denizens have drafted the largest, most convoluted piece of tripe to come down the pike yet. At 1990 pages and over 400,000 words, HR 3962 is by far the biggest health care / tax raising / freedom killing proposal yet in a cacophony of bills on the subject. The Congressional Budget Office has made preliminary estimates that this bill will cost approximately 1.055 TRILLION dollars. Dollars that must be raised on the backs of individuals and businesses in an economy still reeling from the financial crisis the entire nation finds itself. Costs in this bill are somewhat offset by massive cuts in Medicare Advantage ($426 billion), tax increases ($572 billion), and result in expansion of Medicaid enrollment by some 15 million persons due to expanded eligibility rules in the bill.

One of the interesting aspects of this bill is the list of revenue targets that Speaker Pelosi and Co. has targeted.

Medical device and drug makers: The House added $20 billion in taxes on sales of medical devices like artificial hips, pacemakers and heart stents to the legislation. The measure is even worse for the pharmaceutical makers, an industry that agreed to a deal with Obama and key senators to hold down its costs. Pharmaceutical companies agreed to pay protection to government up to $80 billion in the health overhaul. It would give the federal government power to negotiate (compel?) drug prices on behalf of Medicare beneficiaries.

Specific language in the bill has many facets. Some of the more glaring examples are:

Page 94 Section 202 (c) which will prohibit private insurance purchases not approved as part of the “public option” pool exchange created by the federal government. In other words, if you change job, and your coverage changes with employer after 2013 (Y1 or Year 1 of the start of enforcement), you MUST buy from approved plans via the government.

Page 110 Section 222 (e) states: “ COVERAGE UNDER PUBLIC HEALTH INSURANCE OPTION.— The public health insurance option shall provide coverage for services described in paragraph (4)(B). Nothing in this Act shall be construed as preventing the public health insurance option from providing for or prohibiting coverage of services described in paragraph (4)(A).
The aforementioned paragraphs 4(A) and (B) are specific abortion sections. 4(B) describes the abortion program elements that are allowed and 4(A) describes abortion prohibitions, which means that that Public Option Plans will be able to cover abortions...ergo, by extension; public monies will be able to cover abortions through this legislation.

Page 225 Section 330 allows for but does not require members of congress to enroll in the “Public Option”. Mind you, all the rest of us will be required to participate if we don’t have coverage or if our existing coverage’s lapse and we need to buy new plans or change carriers or coverage. Once again, congress has made a law that is elective for them but mandatory for the rest of us.

Page 297 Section 501 describes a 2.5% tax on individuals who fail to purchase “approved” insurance plans. This is in direct conflict with Barack Obama’s promises NOT to raise taxes on poor or middle income earners; those who make $250,000 or less.

Page 520 Section 1161 cuts more than $150 billion from Medicare Advantage plans, placing millions of seniors’ existing coverage in imminent jeopardy.

Page 704 Section 1308 provides for coverage of marriage counseling... There’s a vital service that needs government support subsidy and protection.

Page 1131 Section 1771 describes specific dollar amount increases in payments to the territories and possessions and protectorates of the United States that amount to billions in increased spending and subsidies to areas of the country that don’t have federal income tax burdens. We mainlanders in the 50 states will foot the bill for those who don’t have the same tax burdens that the rest of us do.

This bill is a major blow against all Americans who believe in freedom and liberty. Looking at the arcane legalisms are enough to put a speed freak to sleep, but if honest analysis is done by thoughtful people, it becomes blatantly obvious that the purpose of this bill is nothing short of placing all Americans solidly under the thumb of federal bureaucrats and removing choice from as to what health care we can expect in our futures and wealth from the private sector to government. Barack Obama said in a speech to members of labor unions prior to his election as President that he wanted to see America onto a single payer system like those used in Great Britain and Canada and other nations in Europe. He acknowledged that it may take many years, but that was his objective. This bill will put that objective on a fast track. This bill will lead to huge increases in the deficit and in tax burdens and reductions in existing programs and coverage’s for most everyone.

The only positive thing I can see about this bill is that coverage for pre-existing conditions like insanity or other psychosis such as those suffered by Nancy Pelosi, architect of this disastrous bill, would most likely be covered. Maybe she can finally get some much-needed help.

Wednesday, October 28, 2009

Simple reasons to doubt "The Government Option"

To those in the “Kumbaya Crowd” who think government health care will be a good thing, remember that government has never...not once EVER run a program of any real scale or magnitude that has worked as advertised, on budget or efficiently. Look at Social Security (it’s broke...congress raped the trust fund), Medicare (it’s broke too...), AMTRAK (never has shown a profit though mandated to do so...), and Postal Service (same as AMTRAK...). When government is slated to “compete” there is no competition. Private insurers work on an average 2.2% profit margin. The Government run health services and “insurance option” can loose millions and billions and run inefficiently because they aren’t held accountable and can always count on congress and by extension, the taxpayer to bail them out. Private insurers can’t do that, therefore are at a marked disadvantage. How long will it take for private companies to dump private coverage for the more “competitive” government plan, even if it isn’t as good a coverage just to reduce cost to them or to just pay the cheaper “fine” and not cover employees at all? Not long!! Then there is the cost...nearly 1 TRILLION dollars (probably more when all is said and done)...and no way to pay for it. All this nonsense, all that debt just to deal with less than 15% of the total population...
Oh, ye suckers!!!

Wednesday, October 21, 2009

Obama, the Budgetary Slight of Hand and “Obamacare”... Just more debt!!




As if the entire Democrat health care debacle were not enough of a national disgrace, we now have another point of contention to argue with the powers that be.


One of the most boring, convoluted and confusing issues in government is the federal budget. Most people think this is a fairly simple thing in principle, but it most assuredly is NOT a simple thing because the entire process is a political and mathematical nightmare of biblical proportions. Nothing is as it should be and nothing is as it seems.


The language of the budgetary process is a unique dialect that defies all translation and is as understandable as Sanskrit or Urdu to the average guy on the street. No word in the language of the budget means the same thing as it would in common spoken or written colloquial English.


If one speaks of “spending cuts”, he is actually not cutting any money from a program of a service or agency. They are merely reducing the amount of the percentage of increase in a given line item expenditure. Nearly all government expenditures have built in increases year to year. The politicians who advocate spending cuts are just decreasing the increases, not actually cutting spending in any real sense, or measurable way.


An example is that Agency “A” has a budget of 10 million dollars this fiscal year. Each year, the administrator goes to congress and asks for an increase, say a 12 % increase in funding to cover pay raises, additional resources and other costs for the next fiscal cycle. After much debate in committees and many revisions, the congress agrees to a 10% increase. That means that now Agency “A” will have an additional 1 million dollars to spend the next fiscal year. If congress or the executive branch does a cut in expenditures as a way of placating fiscally conservative people who object to higher expenditures, they will routinely say something on the order of “Well... we will cut the budget back 10% on all discretionary spending increases or on all general increases...” That sounds like a good thing. Agency “A” should loose its 10% increase, right?


Wrong.


Here is what happens.....


Rather than revoke the entire increase, they cut 10%...off the increase. That means that Agency “A” will only have an increase of $900,000 rather than the 1 million they were originally slated to get. What most people think is that Agency “A” was not going to get its raise or that they might actually loose $1 million out of their total budget of $10 million, reducing them down to $9 million. They (congress) can say they cut spending “10%” and the public is duped to believe that the congress is actually cutting expenditures in a real and meaningful way. In other words, the politicians and the civil service administrators and the executive branch of government are all in it together to fool the tax payers into thinking one thing as they in fact, do another.


The budget process is so confusing and made overly complex on purpose in order to conceal and to mislead any casual reviewer as to its content. The reasons for this are that they, the political elites, don’t want the average person to understand any portion of the process nor do they want John or Jane Q. Public to truly understand the scope and depth of the budgetary disaster that faces this country. So in one of the great slights of hand since Houdini, the congress, who has the constitutional power of the purse strings, drafts a budget that is so confusing and mesmerizing in its complexity that most who attempt to read and understand may be rendered mute, eyes a glaze, while others may run screaming off into the night in frustration and some others may even succumb to madness...


In all seriousness though, the real subterfuge in the process is not the massive deficits that appear on the budget, but that little known bookkeeping trick called “Off Budget” spending.


What is this you may ask?


It is a trick, or if you prefer the truth, it is a LIE designed to protect the political backsides of the powers-that-be from getting excoriated by us, the American people, by concealing the true amount of spending of the Federal government. If they, the congress and the sitting President, were up front and truthful in putting ALL spending programs on the actual Federal Budget, there would be massive political upheaval and potential sanctions to whatever party was in power in the congress and to whatever President approved such inflated budgets. Granted, they approve deficit budgets now, but the “off budget” subterfuge hides the true scope of the practice of spending what we as a nation can’t afford.

Let’s look at an example. President Reagan and Congress placed strategic petroleum reserve spending off-budget in 1982. Instead of using other means to control the size of the deficit, such as raising revenues (taxes) or cutting spending, they used the trick of placing this program off-budget making the deficit seem smaller, even though the government still needed to finance (borrow the money) for this spending program to purchase oil to just store it...just in case.

The savings and loan bailout provides another example of this practice of hiding true costs of government from the people. The Bush Administration in the years 1989 through 1992 wanted spending on this bailout program, a huge spending program in terms of the overall budget, to be placed off-budget, circumventing balance budget legislation that was on the books. Congress retained some of the spending as on-budget so there was an appearance of propriety, while placing most of it off-budget to hide the true scope.

The other great lie that has been foisted on the American people is the concept of the “Social Security Trust Fund” which has become a great piggy bank that can be raided and exploited by the political powers that be for extra cash to fund pet projects of major expenditures. The Social Security system was supposed to help folks have something for retirement, but it has proven to be a pile of loot too big for the politico’s to resist.

Social Security trust funds are financed through dedicated payroll taxes. Because of the unique nature of the funding source, it is kept off-budget and its purpose is considered sacrosanct, to provide a decent quality of life for the elderly. The funds are off-budget, supposedly safe from expropriation. The payroll taxes levied on workers were raised in the 1980s producing vast surpluses in anticipation of the baby boomer generation retiring in the following decades. The problem is that the government has since returned to on-budget deficit spending as of 2001. This has led to the federal government to borrow from the Social Security trust fund surpluses to pay for other on-budget programs. This causes the trust fund to end up in deficit (little cash and many IOU’s from the treasury) and therefore unable to have sufficient funds on hand to pay out to the growing population of retiring citizens that are beginning to come on line, utilizing the program.

In other words, we have robbed from ourselves to cover up for the lack of fiscal discipline and foresight needed by our nation to survive and to be prosperous. All this has happened regardless of political party affiliation. Both Democrats and Republican have participated and are indeed continuing to participate in this great lie and need to be brought to heel. We need to stop the practice of keeping what is in effect, a duel set of books for the national budget. If we, the common citizens did this, we would go to jail. Congress and the sitting administration need to be held accountable for this travesty. We as people need clarity - we need the truth as to what our government spends.... no games, no slight of hand to hide the real fiscal situation.

We NEED the TRUTH!

So how are they going to hide some of the costs of the “Obamacare” health care reform package off-budget you may ask?

Where is the lie?

It is complex and but in effect, they will rob from Medicare by using a 12 year old piece of legislation as a model to fix doctor payments from the off-budget Medicare program and shunt the projected $250 billion dollars they expect to save over a 10 year period to cover the on-budget shortfalls caused by the costs of “Obamacare”. This results in doctors getting paid money for “Obamacare” and Medicare and the monies being shunted off as off-budget debt (that most folks don’t know about) increasing the national debt by $250 Billion dollars. It is a complete lie...A complete fabrication and if you wish to read further details of just how this fraud works please go to:

http://wsbradio.com/blogs/jamie_dupree/2009/10/medicare-doc-fix.html

This site has the whole sordid chapter and verse on this...

Monday, October 19, 2009

Medical marijuana and Federalism




I am really torn on this issue as I am not a person who has ever used an illegal substance in his life nor do I personally approve of their use for recreational purposes. When it comes to the use of marijuana for medical uses, I find myself having to agree with advocates for several reasons. These reasons are political, philosophical, medical, legal and economic.

I wish to restate that I do NOT approve of drug use for recreational purposes... If a doctor were to see a valid therapeutic use for a particular substance, he should be able to prescribe that substance as he or she sees fit. Lawyers or politicians in charge of drug policy who have no expertise in medicine or biochemistry should probably butt out.

The use of medical marijuana has currently been approved in 14 states. Federal law has been very strict on the issue of not allowing the use of this treatment, and indeed, the FDA has not approved specific treatments. This conflict between states rights and federal law have been a huge issue and have impacted the doctor/patient relationship and ability of seriously ill people to seek whatever treatments they and their medical practitioners want to use. The Obama administration change of federal guidelines on prosecutions for distribution, sale or consumption of medicinal marijuana, provided that those activities are within the scope of existing state laws, should alleviate some of the problems we have seen occur. This change in policy does not give blanket approval to users and those who grow and sell the drug. Recreational users would still face sanction as would their suppliers. This change merely gives federal prosecutors more latitude in pursuing cases against users and dispensers of medicinal marijuana. Essentially, you could treat marijuana the same way opium is treated. It is used as a pharmacological product in such drugs a morphine, codeine, Percocet, and OxyContin.


Medically, there is ample proof that for certain patients, specifically those being treated for cancer who are undergoing chemotherapy and radiation treatments and who suffer from the pain and nausea associated with those treatments, the use of medicinal marijuana is beneficial. Treatments for those suffering from glaucoma have been proven as well in some studies here and abroad. These reasonable exemptions alone should be enough to trump federal regulation.

Politically, I have to admit that I see this as a winning issue among the more liberal and libertarian voter base. If use of marijuana is restricted to medical use, then it will be seen as humanitarian and thus palatable to most liberals even if it isn’t completely permitted for all uses. For the more libertarian voters who see any government regulation on the subject of drug use as undesirable or unconstitutional, it is a step in the right direction even if a small step toward complete decriminalization.

Philosophically, as a conservative, I have always been of the mind that the government that governs least, governs best and that we should adhere to a more strict interpretation of the constitution. Specifically, those powers in Article 1, Section 8 of the constitution should be the only areas where the Federal Government has sway. The rest of the regulations should be left in the hands of the individual state governments. Provided that purity was assured and dosages were uniform the same as other drugs that are dispensed today. That approach is the Federalist system in a nutshell.

The economic advantage to allowing medicinal use becomes evident when you consider the cost of enforcement activities in states that allow medical use. Law enforcement resources could be redeployed elsewhere allowing them to be utilized for crimes that are more serious in nature. The reduction of prison and jail populations would be an immediate positive result as well. There is also the commercial component to consider when you look at the revenue that can be generated for states and business that grow, process, and distribute medical grade marijuana. Sales taxes would help states generate revenue needed for support programs for those needing drug treatments. Jobs would be generated and other tax revenues would increase as well from the businesses and jobs created.

Thursday, October 15, 2009

A Liberal Looses it @ Starbucks...

I was asked one day what I did in the Navy....

This question was posed by a young (and as I was to find out, very liberal) fellow in the Starbucks that I frequented for my morning caffeine fix. He saw my old, beat-up squadron ballcap that I have worn off and on for over 20+ years and pegged me for a former serviceman. We had a companionable chat about my service while we waited for our turn to order. He said that he hadn’t served and then made his displeasure known about the activities in Iraq and Afghanistan. I just stood in line next to him, half listening and trying to decide if a Large or Grande sized morning cup would be enough. He, at some point in his anti-war soliloquy, as we meandered to the tables with our respective drug of choice, saw my “required reading” stack, which usually consists of a copies of the local paper, the Navy Times, and copy of some book that I am reading at the time. In this case it was a well-worn copy of radio talk show host Michael Savage’s book “Liberalism is a Mental Disorder”.

Upon seeing this in my stack of reading materials, he became nearly apoplectic. I, on the other hand, sat there quietly, with what some described later, a rather sardonic smile on my face, letting him rant on about how George Bush was the root of all evil and how he got us into all the troubles we are in now and how Republicans are the ones to blame for everything from global warming to the trains not running on time to the root cause of the common cold...

After about a 2-3 minute tirade, he finally ran out of steam. He stood there, red-faced, and without seemingly anything more to say, staring down at me as I calmly sipped my large Carmel Macchiato. He seemed to have run into a wall as his rant ran out. The place was dead silent as about 20 customers and assorted staff stood there staring at him and I. With total serenity, and in a seeming state of grace, I sat my coffee down and placed my hands on the table, fingers intertwined and steepled, and very quietly asked if he was finished. He stood there with a look of befuddlement on his face for a moment. Then in an attempt to begin anew his tantrum, he loudly demanded that I deny the substance of his indictment of the previous 8 years of Bush. The place was so quiet, you could hear a flea pass gas, and said the one thing I am sure he did not expect to hear. I told him that I agreed with some of what he said...

He seemed at the moment to be at a total loss as to what to say next. I think he was counting on a fight that wasn’t going to happen. He then seemed even more befuddled and asked why I wanted to read that crappy book by that fascist, hate monger Michael Savage. The morning crowd seemed to be half listening to us as they were consuming their beverages and pastry, attempting to listen to us and half paying attention to their own morning routines. I asked him as calmly and reasonably as I could, a series of questions:

1. Had he ever listened to the talk show host Michael Savage?

2. Had he read the book written by Michael Savage? If so:

3. What precisely did he object to?

From these questions we determined that he had not heard the radio show nor had he spent any appreciable time listening to talk radio of any type (all radio hosts were “wingnut” fascist and racists after all...). No, he had not read the book (wouldn’t waste his money on that crap...), and finally he could only admit to not being able to precisely tell me what he objected to in the book, but since it was written by a fascist “wingnut” wacko nut-job like Savage, it had to be full of hatemongering and other vitriol.

The sum total of the exchange was that he was utterly ignorant of what he was railing against and that all he had were insults and rash words, not fact or reason. In other words, he was a prototypical modern liberal.

I sat there looking up at him and didn’t really have to say much at all. He began looking around at the other customers and staff people and realized that they were looking at him like he was the fascist wacko nut-job lunatic. A couple of people were even giggling at him sotto voce, and that finally seemed to bring him around. He looked back at me and I sat, tranquil as a statue of Buddha, waiting. I didn’t say a word; I just sat there, looking at him. He instantly realized as he looked around that he was the sole focus of two-dozen souls that were looking at him with various expressions ranging from bemusement, to annoyance and some, with outright contempt. I then held up the book with the cover facing to him and pointed to the title of the book, with emphasis on the “Mental Disorder” portion of the title, then pointed at him with a smile on my face. He looked at me directly, seemingly embarrassed by what had just transpired, and sheepishly muttered a quick and shallow apology, while beating a hasty retreat. With a smile and a chuckle, I and my fellow caffeine mainliners resumed our respective morning routines.

The manager came up to me some time later after the morning rush had died down and apologized for the incident. I assured him that I was fine and that I wasn’t put-off. He told me the fellow that had accosted me was a regular and that if I needed or wanted anything to let him know. I told him that all was well and that I had actually somewhat enjoyed the diatribe as it reaffirmed what I had always believed about most people on the Unreasoning Left. They are an angry and self-absorbed lot with no idea what they really believe. Most of the charges that we spewed were right out of the Democrat talking points that we all hear in the media. Not a single original idea or salient point in the whole rant. Liberals don’t exercise reason but seem to live on platitudes and emotional drivel. They claim a love of freedom, but shout down those who speak freely and persecute those who attempt to live their lives in liberty. They don’t understand the price of freedom or liberty nor do they appreciate the sacrifices that must be made to maintain those hallowed states of being. My morning coffee companion certainly didn’t. It is becoming plain to me that the Washington establishment has lost sight of it as well.


Wednesday, October 14, 2009

Throwing the dollar under the bus...


As we come to the close of the year, we have many challenges facing the country. These challenges seem nearly insurmountable. This very morning, I learned that the dollar, the currency that has been the world’s reserve currency for nearly 65 years, is facing disaster. The government has so inflated the money supply that the currency is nearly worthless on the world markets. We have so much debt that the world believes us incapable of anything resembling fiscal responsibility. There are rumblings that the world financial community might even throw the dollar “under the bus” in favor of the Euro or the Yen or a commodity like gold or a combination of all of the above. This would be a disaster for us as a country as we have relied on dollar supremacy to fund the ridiculous spending practices of our government.

In the seminal work, “Democracy in America”, by Alexis de Tocqueville, the author stated “a democratic government is the only one in which those who vote for a tax can escape the obligation to pay it”. Both major political parties, Republicans and Democrats have been guilty of this. He further stated, “The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money”. In that, Masseur de Tocqueville was a prophet. We have now reached the point where reason has been suspended in favor of more largesse for the people at public expense. The costs of which can be funded or financed via taxes or debt which can be deferred. The congress and the executive branch have seemingly lost control of themselves in an effort to see who can give away the most to the greatest number of people, thus “buying” the votes necessary to remain in power. The level of dependency on selling our debt overseas has reached critical mass. What’s more, the major holders of the mortgages (Communist China, Russia, and the Persian Gulf oil monarchies) that have been written on our futures are seemingly positioning themselves to call the notes.

What of the responsibility of the people in this rising tide of financial and social decay?

They, the people, are absolutely responsible for what we suffer today and must now reassert the common sense and fiscal responsibility necessary to reverse certain disaster. True conservatives must stop being so one-dimensional in their views, so stuck strictly on a single issue like reproductive rights, gun rights, gay rights or indeed, “rights” of any group or individual. We must begin to look outside our own pet concerns and worry about the very survival and solubility of the republic. Without our fiscal, monetary, and general economic issues being addressed and made secure, those other concerns become immaterial as the nation will cease to exist. The people must stop electing politicians to office just because they bring home the cash and benefits they have become accustomed to. We must realize that we can’t expect government to provide for our every need and want, to “level the playing field and ensure prosperous outcomes for all”. We must insist instead on the freedom to pursue our own means and insist government stop spending beyond its means and financing all manner of government give-aways on the backs of those of us who are productive and taking care of ourselves.

All men (and women) may have been created equal endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, such as Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness, but nowhere, anywhere does it say that all will have an equal outcome of their pursuits or that they will all attain Happiness, even at the expense of their fellow man, thus depriving them of their full and just due.

We have to make fundamental changes in what we can expect government to do, and indeed what it should do. If we don’t, the rest of the world will force the issue, and when it happens (not “if”...) it will be very ugly indeed. Already Russia, Communist China, the Arab oil states in the Persian Gulf are beginning to make loud noises that in the near future, they won’t take our dollars for oil and other goods we rely on everyday. If that happens, if they kick the dollar to the curb as a reserve currency, this nation will see financial and economic damage worse than anything that was seen in the 1930’s. For those who think this can’t or won’t happen, I ask them to consider that the nations that hold our debt are in much better shape economically than we are and that they are developing nations who could survive any economic hit that would occur if the dollar collapses. They have the mineral and economic resources, the political will, a singularity of purpose and an intrinsic dislike of America and her institutions that would allow them to make the calculation to dump the dollar and/or call our Treasury Notes at the first opportunity, and failing to pay back what we owe, the world would and could simply let us go, and we would be powerless to stop the disaster that would follow.

I am reminded once again of Masseur de Tocqueville and his view of Americans. He said in his book “The greatness of America lies not in being more enlightened than any other nation, but rather in her ability to repair her faults.”

I think we have the time to correct what needs to be corrected if we muster the will to end the liberal penchant to create dependency. We can reverse course from certain disaster if we revive conservative practices and instill conservative principles into the next generation. We must elect conservative candidates to elective office so that they can begin to dismantle and reverse the destructive policies of their predecessors. We must completely discard the antiquated 19th century tax system and system of financial supports and ruinous bail-outs that are crippling the private sector and impoverishing the nation by removing capitol from the system to support failing businesses because they are allegedly “too big to fail”. We must make it possible to utilize our natural resource base again and to revitalize our industry so we can employ Americans and make the products that Americans can buy. We must encourage businesses to start here or come here instead of outsourcing or moving off-shore, especially in the manufacturing sector. We must free the people of this country from the crushing burdens that government has placed on them by casting off old ideas of entitlement and dependency and encourage self-sufficiency and enterprise that built this nation in the beginning.

We have always been the nation of big ideas and even bigger accomplishments. We can still be that if we return to the roots of what made us that for over two hundred years. The time to repair the faults is at hand.
As we come to the close of the year, we have many challenges facing the country. These challenges seem nearly insurmountable. This very morning, I learned that the dollar, the currency that has been the world’s reserve currency for nearly 65 years, is facing disaster. The government has so inflated the money supply that the currency is nearly worthless on the world markets. We have so much debt that the world believes us incapable of anything resembling fiscal responsibility. There are rumblings that the world financial community might even throw the dollar “under the bus” in favor of the Euro or the Yen or a commodity like gold or a combination of all of the above. This would be a disaster for us as a country as we have relied on dollar supremacy to fund the ridiculous spending practices of our government.

In the seminal work, “Democracy in America”, by Alexis de Tocqueville, the author stated “a democratic government is the only one in which those who vote for a tax can escape the obligation to pay it”. Both major political parties, Republicans and Democrats have been guilty of this. He further stated, “The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money”. In that, Masseur de Tocqueville was a prophet. We have now reached the point where reason has been suspended in favor of more largesse for the people at public expense. The costs of which can be funded or financed via taxes or debt which can be deferred. The congress and the executive branch have seemingly lost control of themselves in an effort to see who can give away the most to the greatest number of people, thus “buying” the votes necessary to remain in power. The level of dependency on selling our debt overseas has reached critical mass. What’s more, the major holders of the mortgages (Communist China, Russia, and the Persian Gulf oil monarchies) that have been written on our futures are seemingly positioning themselves to call the notes.

What of the responsibility of the people in this rising tide of financial and social decay?

They, the people, are absolutely responsible for what we suffer today and must now reassert the common sense and fiscal responsibility necessary to reverse certain disaster. True conservatives must stop being so one-dimensional in their views, so stuck strictly on a single issue like reproductive rights, gun rights, gay rights or indeed, “rights” of any group or individual. We must begin to look outside our own pet concerns and worry about the very survival and solubility of the republic. Without our fiscal, monetary, and general economic issues being addressed and made secure, the rest are immaterial as the nation will cease to exist. The people must stop electing politicians to office just because they bring home the cash and benefits they have become accustomed to and realize that we can’t expect government to provide for our every need and want, to “level the playing field and ensure prosperous outcomes for all”. We must insist instead on the freedom to pursue our own means and insist government stop spending beyond its means and financing all manner of government give-aways on the backs of those of us who are taking care of ourselves.

All men (and women) may have been created equal endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, such as Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness, but nowhere, anywhere does it say that all will have an equal outcome of their pursuits or that they will all attain Happiness, even at the expense of their fellow man, thus depriving them of their full and just due.

We have to make fundamental changes in what we can expect government to do, and indeed what it should do. If we don’t, the rest of the world will force the issue, and when it happens (not “if”...) it will be very ugly indeed. Already Russia, Communist China, the Arab oil states in the Persian Gulf are beginning to make loud noises that in the near future, they won’t take our dollars for oil and other goods we rely on everyday. If that happens, if they kick the dollar to the curb as a reserve currency, this nation will see financial and economic damage worse than anything that was seen in the 1930’s. For those who think this can’t or won’t happen, I ask them to consider that the nations that hold our debt are in much better shape economically than we are and that they are developing nations who could survive any economic hit that would occur if the dollar collapses. They have the resources, the political will, a singularity of purpose and an intrinsic dislike of America and her institutions that would allow them to make the calculation to dump the dollar and/or call our Treasury Notes at the first opportunity, and failing to pay back what we owe, the world would and could simply let us go, and we would be powerless to stop the disaster that would follow.

I am reminded once again of Masseur de Tocqueville and his view of Americans. He said in his book “The greatness of America lies not in being more enlightened than any other nation, but rather in her ability to repair her faults.”

I think we have the time to correct what needs to be corrected if we muster the will to end the liberal penchant to create dependency. We can reverse course from certain disaster if we revive conservative practices and instill conservative principles into the next generation. We must elect conservative candidates to elective office so that they can begin to dismantle and reverse the destructive policies of their predecessors. We must completely discard the antiquated 19th century tax system and system of financial supports and ruinous bail-outs that are crippling the private sector and impoverishing the nation by removing capitol from the system to support failing businesses because they are allegedly “too big to fail”. We must make it possible to utilize our natural resource base again and to revitalize our industry so we can employ Americans and make the products that Americans can buy. We must encourage businesses to start here or come here instead of outsourcing or moving off-shore, especially in the manufacturing sector. We must free the people of this country from the crushing burdens that government has placed on them by casting off old ideas of entitlement and dependency and encourage self-sufficiency and enterprise that built this nation in the beginning.

We have always been the nation of big ideas and even bigger accomplishments. We can still be that if we return to the roots of what made us that for over two hundred years. The time to repair the faults is at hand.

Friday, October 9, 2009

Soooo.... Can Barack accept and actually get the Nobel Peace Prize Legally?


I just thought of this a moment ago....

Can President Obama legally accept the Nobel Peace Prize?

Doesn’t the prize include cash and a medal?

According to Public Citizen, a governmental watch dog organization and the Department of State who manages the vast collection of gifts that are given to our government employees including Presidents and Vice President, an employee of the Executive Branch may accept a gift only if it is unsolicited and:


• Favors or benefits are not offered under circumstances that might be construed by
reasonable persons as influencing the performance of their governmental duties;
• Gift is not cash or a cash equivalent (e.g. stocks and bonds);
• Gift is valued at $20 or less; and the
• Aggregate value of gifts from one source in a calendar year is less than $50.
These limitations seem to make Executive Branch gift rules very strict. However, numerous exceptions reduce the scope of regulation dramatically.

Exceptions to Executive Branch Gift Rules

An employee of the Executive Branch may accept gifts that exceed the $20 value limit for individual gifts and $50 annual limit for gifts from one source if they are subject to one of 12 exceptions:
1. Anything for which the employee pays the market value, or does not use and
promptly returns. If it is not practicable to return the item to the giver because it is
perishable, it may be given to an appropriate charity or discarded.
2. Gifts based on a personal or family relationship. Relevant factors in making such a
determination include the history of the relationship and whether the family member or
friend personally pays for the gift.
3. Discounts and similar benefits that are not directly related to government
employment.
4. Awards (other than cash) and honorary degrees with an aggregate market value of $200 or less. If aggregate market value is in excess of $200, acceptance is contingent
upon the written determination by an agency ethics official.
5. Meals, lodgings, transportation and other benefits that result from the outside
business or employment of that employee or his/her spouse. The benefits should be
customarily provided and not offered or enhanced because of the government employee’s
position.
6. Gifts in connection with political activities permitted by the Hatch Act. An employee may take an active part in political management or in political campaigns. Meals, lodgings, transportation, and other benefits in connection with such active participation may be accepted.
7. Admission into widely attended gatherings. An employee may accept free admission
to represent the agency as a speaker or panelist by the sponsor only. If the event is
considered to be in the best interests of that agency, the employee may accept free
attendance as a gift from a person other than the sponsor of the event only if there will be
more than 100 persons expected to attend and the free admission has a market value of
$285 or less.
8. Social invitations from persons other than prohibited sources or where there is no
admission charge. An employee may accept food, refreshments and entertainment, not
including travel or lodgings, at a social event attended by several persons.
9. Meals, refreshments and entertainment in foreign areas.
10. Gifts to the President and Vice President. Both offices may accept any gift on his own behalf or on behalf of any family member, provided that such acceptance does not violate conflict of interest or anti-bribery laws, or the Constitution of the United States.
11. Gifts authorized by supplemental agency regulation. An employee may accept any
gift if it is specifically authorized by a supplemental agency regulation.
12. Gifts accepted under specific statutory authority.

I am not a lawyer, but it seems to me that exemption 10 and 12 of the above rules exemptions might allow the President to accept the prize. However, I am not sure that he would or should be allowed to keep the cash. In fact, it would be politic to give the cash award to charity. As for the medal, it is 200 grams of gold, so its market value would exceed the limit of what he would be allowed to accept. It could end up in his Presidential Library after he leaves office.

Obama and the Nobel Peace Prize.... How did that happen??

This morning, I awoke to the news that President Barack Hussein Obama was the winner of the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize.

For the record, I wish to congratulate Mr. Obama on his award and wish him well. It is an achievement that has been won by many of the great men and women of the 20th and 21st century, 4 of whom were Presidents and Vice-Presidents of the United States. America has had many winners since the prize was first awarded in 1901. Indeed, more Americans have one the award than any nationality in the history of the prize. As an American, I feel a certain pride and satisfaction in this.

On November 27, 1895, Alfred Nobel signed his last will and testament, giving the majority share of his fortune, received in large measure from proceeds from his invention, Dynamite, to a series of prizes, known today as the Nobel Prizes. As described in Nobel's will, one of the prizes was dedicated to "the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses". Since the inception of the prize 23 American citizens and U.S. based organization have now been given this prestigious award, and now President Barack Obama becomes the 24th American recipient.

When you look ant the list of names and organizations, the record of achievement and dedication to the betterment of all mankind becomes clear. Some of the more notable American winners are President Theodore Roosevelt; for his efforts to bring a treaty of peace between the Empire of Japan and Imperial Russia. Another sitting President, Woodrow Wilson was given the award for his founding of the League of Nations, the precursor to the United Nations Organization we know today. American based organizations like The American Society of Friends (Quakers) Service Committee, the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War and International Campaign to Ban Landmines have all been recipients. Other notable awardees include Secretaries of State like Cordell Hull, George C. Marshall, for whom the Marshal Plan was named, and Henry Kissinger, who shares the prize with his North Vietnamese counterpart for their work to end the war in Vietnam.

Other notable winners include such persons as the Reverend Martin Luther King for his work in Civil Rights, Elie Wiesel, for his Chairmanship of the Presidential Commission on the Holocaust, which was charged with bringing the horrors of that genocidal act to the attention of the American people and to the world. Former President Jimmy Carter, who as a sitting President, helped negotiate a peace treaty between Israel and Egypt at Camp David, and who continued his humanitarian efforts even after leaving office. As the Nobel committee stated in his award citation: "For his decades of untiring effort to find peaceful solutions to international conflicts, to advance democracy and human rights, and to promote economic and social development".

As one can see, the list is a long, and distinguished.

The Nobel Committee has awarded this prize many times over that last century and all the winners have had legitimate and notable achievement. Agree or disagree on the actual effectiveness of their work, they made great efforts to promote peace, justice and the betterment of the human condition.

When one looks at the latest award, one is apt to ask, where is the notable achievement? Where is the noble work? What war has been stopped or prevented? What treaty has been struck? Where has a conflict been resolved? What proposition of peace has has been made? The Nobel Committee is free of course, to award to whomever it chooses, it is after all is said and done, THEIR award.... But when one looks at the people who have won this prize, when one looks at the body of work done by those who have achieved these accolades, President Barack Hussein Obama is NOT an obvious choice by any means. His nomination is reported to have been made two months prior to his ascendancy to the office of President of the United States. He had only achieved notoriety on the world stage by virtue of his running for office and for his campaign promises. Since his ascendancy to the office of President, he has made many speeches, mostly geared to presenting apologies to the world for the actions of the nation he now is chief executive of. He has made overtures to nations seen as tyrannical and dangerous. And in some quarters his actions have made America seem less strong, even weak and accommodating to those who suppress human rights and freedom.

Perhaps his more conciliatory tone is viewed as positive for world peace. It is conceivable that the Nobel Committee saw in the campaign rhetoric and in the sitting President we have today something more. According to the citation, the award was given for “his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples". A very noble sounding sentiment.... It is a grossly broad, nebulous and generalized sentiment.

Let’s review the record.

By his own account, Barack Obama had virtually no body of work beyond local (Chicago) community organizing. Indeed, until less than 2 years ago was just a candidate for the office of President, who has only recently attained office and any authority or real, meaningful public forum to “promote” anything. This award seems the act of individuals who have bought into the cult of personality instead of looking to actual good works in the name of peace. Is the world so bereft of deserving persons who have an actual record of achievement in forwarding the cause of world peace, that they felt obliged to give it to a man who’s only achievements to date are increasing his nations indebtedness, making a couple of apologetic speeches to a hostile audience deriding his own country and its foreign policy positions which have ensured the peace, security and the very existence of the western world for over 60 years? Where and what were the “extraordinary efforts” cited in the citation?

As an American, part of me is proud he won. It is hoped that it may set a good example to young and old people alike that great things are possible for those who strive to attain excellence. God knows, we need as many “Good Examples” as we can get. But on a deeper, less nationalistic or idealistic level, I am less than enthralled. It seems that the Nobel Committee is giving the award not for actual good works, actual “extraordinary efforts”, but for good intentions. His actual work, nothing except speeches and ideals and notions. I ask myself and indeed the committee: Does Barack Obama, the Apprentice President of the United States, meet the criteria of “the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses”?

Somehow I think someone, somewhere, was not keeping to the spirit or the letter of intent of the award. Was this the best possible choice? Was this the best the folks in Stockholm could do?

I had hoped for something more...

I had hoped for something real...

Wednesday, October 7, 2009

One great observation about Health Care...

While scanning Face Book, I found this little gem...

I told Nancy that I was going to steal this...

I hope she doesn't mind.

"We're going to pass a health care plan written by a committee whose head says he
doesn't understand it,
passed by a Congress that hasn't read it but exempts
themselves from it,
signed by a president that also hasn't read it, and who smokes...
with funding administered by a treasury chief who didn't pay his taxes,
overseen by a surgeon general who is obese, and financed by a country that's broke.

What possibly could go wrong?"


Nancy Meinhardt-
10/7/2009