At first glance, President Obama and FOX pundit Bill O'Reilly don't
seem to have much in common.
Politically, you wouldn't mistake one's opinions for the others.
Stylistically, one is cool and aloof, the other more bombastic.
One is the most powerful politician in the world, the other, an
influential broadcaster. You would never confuse one for the other.
But yet, there are some similarities there. Both are ivy-league,
Harvard graduates. Both have a pretty good-sized ego...you might
say they possess an arrogance located somewhere north of the
border of self-confidence. Both seem to feel that all this country
really needs is for them to tell us the right thing to do.
One of them is in the position of actually being able to tell us what we
should do; the other can merely suggest what he would like us to do
(God, that must be frustrating for him!).
In fact, they are so much alike, we should call them the "O'Breillys".
And the problem with Washington isn't that there are so many
Republicans and Democrats, it's that there are so many O'Breillys.
Washington is crawling with O'Breillys...and that leads to "The
O'Breilly Factor" in Capital politics...ego trumps results...perception
trumps reality.
So, in order to keep egos in check, I modestly propose a new
game based on life in Washington, D.C., called "Pun-dentry",
where language is defined by political behavior.
For example, Ron Paul is always railing against the Fed and
against foreign aid...we call that "a-Paul-ing behavior".
If a chairman of a banking committee holds a hearing to shake down
bankers for political contributions, we could call it "Dodd-ering".
When your eyes glaze over listening to a politician go on and on, you've
been "Pelosi-tized".
When John Boehner starts crying, he's "going Boeh-nal".
When Vallerie Jarrett goes skulking around the White House, she's
being the "Val-dictorian".
When a politician strong-arms banks to make home loans to people
who can't afford them, and then denies he had anything to do with
a housing crisis, we call that the "Barney Frank-ing privilege".
And of course, there's Anthony "Weiner-izing".
Finally, when a politician tells an epic lie over and over, and then
denies that he meant what he said, you call that "telling Obam-ers".
Feel free to come up with your own personal examples of
"Pun-dentry". Don't worry about hurt feelings.
They'll just be happy to have something named after them.
Thursday, December 12, 2013
Wednesday, December 11, 2013
The Beauty of Obamacare
The Affordable Care Act has provided a defining and pivotal moment
in American history.
Rarely has an event so distilled and clarified the difference between "Big"
and "Small" government, as well as brought the results of the program so
forcefully to the attention of Americans. How the results of this epic social
experiment will play out over the next few years will determine the path our
country will follow for generations.
The Affordable Care Act is President Obama's most striking effort to fulfill
his pledge of "fundamentally transforming" America. His intentions are good.
I believe he is honorably attempting to solve a real problem in the healthcare
industry in America. I believe he truly believes in the power of "Big
Government" to solve our problems.
The question is, does his solution help, or hurt, the majority of people in
the country? Do Americans feel the benefits offered to some outweigh the
price paid by others?
The original situation was...
1. Most people were covered by healthcare offered by their employer.
2. Most poor people were covered by Medicaid.
3. Most older people were covered by Medicare.
4. If you were in the minority of people not covered by the above,
a. you had to go without insurance and pay expenses out-of-pocket or...
b. go to the emergency room for treatment or...
c. purchase your own insurance on the individual market.
5. If you had pre-existing medical conditions, it was very expensive,
or impossible, to buy insurance on the individual market.
6. An older person in the individual market had to pay 6-7 times
as much as a younger person in the individual market, because
older people were prone to more illnesses.
7. If the average person ran into a catastrophic medical emergency
above the coverage offered by their insurance, many were forced
into bankruptcy.
8. I don't know if undocumented immigrants could buy health
insurance or not, but I think they fell into the group that had to
use the emergency room for any health care that they received.
9. Younger Americans often did not buy health insurance (or bought
very limited policies) because they figured the odds were such
that they wouldn't need health insurance until they were older,
and didn't want to pay for something they didn't feel they needed.
The majority of Americans were covered by health insurance, and most were
satisfied with their coverage. The minority who were not covered
by employer insurance, Medicaid, or Medicare, and those who could
not afford (or qualify for) individual insurance, faced the possibility
of truly difficult medical emergencies that could affect their finances and
life choices significantly.
Obamacare was sold as a plan to help those who, either by personal choice
or not, were not covered by the existing healthcare system. It was supposed
to bring the cost of healthcare down. And, it was NOT supposed to affect
those who were happy with their existing health plan. "If you are happy
with your plan, you can keep it. Period!" "If you are happy with your
doctor, you can keep him. Period" etc., etc.
But the way the plan was crafted may, or may not, fulfill those objectives.
In actuality, the plan creates some winners, some losers, and some who
are not affected at all...and the interplay among those groups will determine
the success or failure of the law.
The law mandates federal government-approved insurance policies, which
must include government-approved features, whether the policyholder
wants them or not. No one can be excluded for pre-existing conditions.
No older person can be charged more than three times the rate for a
younger person. There are no annual or lifetime limits to the policies.
If you had a policy that didn't meet these, and other, requirements, your
policy would have to be cancelled or changed to meet the new guidelines.
The new policies would cost more (to cover the new requirements), but
you may qualify for a subsidy to help cover some, or all, of the cost of
the policy.
Let's try to figure out who makes out and who loses under Obamacare.
NO CHANGE
1. If you were on Medicaid before, you are still on Medicaid
2. If you were on Medicare before, you are still on Medicare (no changes yet)
WINNERS
1. Those who didn't realize they were eligible for Medicaid and get
signed up for Medicaid.
2. Those who needed private insurance and had pre-existing conditions.
3. Those who have catastrophic medical conditions above what their old
policies covered.
4. Older people with private insurance (not on Medicare), who will pay
less for their health insurance.
5. Some working people with lower incomes will find that government
subsidies will make health insurance more affordable for them...others,
not so much. See losers section below.
LOSERS
1. Younger people who are forced to buy insurance priced to help pay
for some of the winners above, and for coverage they may not want
or need.
2. Some working people with lower incomes will find they cannot
afford the premiums, co-pays, and deductibles, even after the
government subsidy of the program...yet they will be forced to buy
the insurance or pay a penalty.
3. Taxpayers who will be stuck paying for the additional Medicaid
enrollees and for the subsidies that help pay for lower income
working people.
4. Consumers, who will pay higher prices as the taxes and fees on
medical devices, etc., get passed on from the medical companies
to the consumers.
5. Employees who may be forced from employer-sponsored health
health insurance onto Obamacare exchanges, because their
employer either drops health insurance, or keeps their weekly
hours under 30, so they will not qualify for employer-sponsored
insurance.
NOT SURE
1. I don't know how undocumented immigrants will, or will not, be
affected by this law.
So, here we are. How will it all work out? Will there be more winners than
losers? Will the losers accept the cost as the price to pay for "the
greater good"? Will the economy and employment suffer as unintended
consequences of the Affordable Care Act? Will healthcare costs to the
country rise or fall under Obamacare?
That's the beauty of Obamacare. It's all going to be out there to see in the next few years. For millions and millions of young Americans, this will be the first time they
will actually be able to see and feel the effects of big-time government programs
as they are being imposed on the population...a moment in time where the usually
theoretical arguments between big and small government become down-and-dirty
reality in their lives.
Even assuming that there was no intent to increase federal government power, and
granting President Obama the moral high ground that the Affordable Care Act was
designed to improve the lot in life of the people who were not well served by the
existing healthcare system, the question remains; were most Americans and the
healthcare system helped or hurt by Obamacare?
The basic idea of Obamacare is to force everyone to buy a product (health
insurance) that they may, or may not, want to buy, with more coverage and at
a higher price than they may want to pay, in order to provide coverage for
other people...even if President Obama neglected to explain that to the public.
Obamacare is also premised on the proposition that government officials were
more intelligent than the average citizen, knew better what the citizen really
needs, and knew better than doctors, nurses, and businessmen what the
healthcare industry needed. And finally, they thought they understood the
free market well enough to design a program to improve the situation
without creating havoc for millions of Americans.
Obamacare was also premised on the idea that the federal government is
supposed to regulate the healthcare industry, even though the Constitution
delegates that responsibility to the states and not to the federal government.
In addition, the idea that the federal government can force individuals to buy
health insurance is also constitutionally questionable.
The Affordable Care Act goes right to the crux of the relationship between the
federal government and the individual citizen. Is it right to take from some to
give to others (redistribution of wealth)? If so, how much? Who gets to decide?
What protection does the individual have from an over-reaching government?
If the federal government has the power to control, do politicians have the
wisdom, and the integrity, to do it wisely and fairly? Can good intentions and
big egos lead to bad policies?
Did Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid inspire you with the confidence that they
were on top of the law they shepherded through Congress for President Obama?
The paths that led to our modern America were created over decades and
generations of battles over the nature of Man, individual rights, freedom, and
philosophy.
For the first time, this generation of young Americans will be involved in
deciding which fork in the path our nation will take...and what our nation
will look like generations from now. I don't know which direction they will
take.
I hope we do not continue down the path to more government control, but
that's not my decision to make. That decision is for the current generation of
young Americans to make, and it will be they who will live with the conse-
quences of the decision they make.
in American history.
Rarely has an event so distilled and clarified the difference between "Big"
and "Small" government, as well as brought the results of the program so
forcefully to the attention of Americans. How the results of this epic social
experiment will play out over the next few years will determine the path our
country will follow for generations.
The Affordable Care Act is President Obama's most striking effort to fulfill
his pledge of "fundamentally transforming" America. His intentions are good.
I believe he is honorably attempting to solve a real problem in the healthcare
industry in America. I believe he truly believes in the power of "Big
Government" to solve our problems.
The question is, does his solution help, or hurt, the majority of people in
the country? Do Americans feel the benefits offered to some outweigh the
price paid by others?
The original situation was...
1. Most people were covered by healthcare offered by their employer.
2. Most poor people were covered by Medicaid.
3. Most older people were covered by Medicare.
4. If you were in the minority of people not covered by the above,
a. you had to go without insurance and pay expenses out-of-pocket or...
b. go to the emergency room for treatment or...
c. purchase your own insurance on the individual market.
5. If you had pre-existing medical conditions, it was very expensive,
or impossible, to buy insurance on the individual market.
6. An older person in the individual market had to pay 6-7 times
as much as a younger person in the individual market, because
older people were prone to more illnesses.
7. If the average person ran into a catastrophic medical emergency
above the coverage offered by their insurance, many were forced
into bankruptcy.
8. I don't know if undocumented immigrants could buy health
insurance or not, but I think they fell into the group that had to
use the emergency room for any health care that they received.
9. Younger Americans often did not buy health insurance (or bought
very limited policies) because they figured the odds were such
that they wouldn't need health insurance until they were older,
and didn't want to pay for something they didn't feel they needed.
The majority of Americans were covered by health insurance, and most were
satisfied with their coverage. The minority who were not covered
by employer insurance, Medicaid, or Medicare, and those who could
not afford (or qualify for) individual insurance, faced the possibility
of truly difficult medical emergencies that could affect their finances and
life choices significantly.
Obamacare was sold as a plan to help those who, either by personal choice
or not, were not covered by the existing healthcare system. It was supposed
to bring the cost of healthcare down. And, it was NOT supposed to affect
those who were happy with their existing health plan. "If you are happy
with your plan, you can keep it. Period!" "If you are happy with your
doctor, you can keep him. Period" etc., etc.
But the way the plan was crafted may, or may not, fulfill those objectives.
In actuality, the plan creates some winners, some losers, and some who
are not affected at all...and the interplay among those groups will determine
the success or failure of the law.
The law mandates federal government-approved insurance policies, which
must include government-approved features, whether the policyholder
wants them or not. No one can be excluded for pre-existing conditions.
No older person can be charged more than three times the rate for a
younger person. There are no annual or lifetime limits to the policies.
If you had a policy that didn't meet these, and other, requirements, your
policy would have to be cancelled or changed to meet the new guidelines.
The new policies would cost more (to cover the new requirements), but
you may qualify for a subsidy to help cover some, or all, of the cost of
the policy.
Let's try to figure out who makes out and who loses under Obamacare.
NO CHANGE
1. If you were on Medicaid before, you are still on Medicaid
2. If you were on Medicare before, you are still on Medicare (no changes yet)
WINNERS
1. Those who didn't realize they were eligible for Medicaid and get
signed up for Medicaid.
2. Those who needed private insurance and had pre-existing conditions.
3. Those who have catastrophic medical conditions above what their old
policies covered.
4. Older people with private insurance (not on Medicare), who will pay
less for their health insurance.
5. Some working people with lower incomes will find that government
subsidies will make health insurance more affordable for them...others,
not so much. See losers section below.
LOSERS
1. Younger people who are forced to buy insurance priced to help pay
for some of the winners above, and for coverage they may not want
or need.
2. Some working people with lower incomes will find they cannot
afford the premiums, co-pays, and deductibles, even after the
government subsidy of the program...yet they will be forced to buy
the insurance or pay a penalty.
3. Taxpayers who will be stuck paying for the additional Medicaid
enrollees and for the subsidies that help pay for lower income
working people.
4. Consumers, who will pay higher prices as the taxes and fees on
medical devices, etc., get passed on from the medical companies
to the consumers.
5. Employees who may be forced from employer-sponsored health
health insurance onto Obamacare exchanges, because their
employer either drops health insurance, or keeps their weekly
hours under 30, so they will not qualify for employer-sponsored
insurance.
NOT SURE
1. I don't know how undocumented immigrants will, or will not, be
affected by this law.
So, here we are. How will it all work out? Will there be more winners than
losers? Will the losers accept the cost as the price to pay for "the
greater good"? Will the economy and employment suffer as unintended
consequences of the Affordable Care Act? Will healthcare costs to the
country rise or fall under Obamacare?
That's the beauty of Obamacare. It's all going to be out there to see in the next few years. For millions and millions of young Americans, this will be the first time they
will actually be able to see and feel the effects of big-time government programs
as they are being imposed on the population...a moment in time where the usually
theoretical arguments between big and small government become down-and-dirty
reality in their lives.
Even assuming that there was no intent to increase federal government power, and
granting President Obama the moral high ground that the Affordable Care Act was
designed to improve the lot in life of the people who were not well served by the
existing healthcare system, the question remains; were most Americans and the
healthcare system helped or hurt by Obamacare?
The basic idea of Obamacare is to force everyone to buy a product (health
insurance) that they may, or may not, want to buy, with more coverage and at
a higher price than they may want to pay, in order to provide coverage for
other people...even if President Obama neglected to explain that to the public.
Obamacare is also premised on the proposition that government officials were
more intelligent than the average citizen, knew better what the citizen really
needs, and knew better than doctors, nurses, and businessmen what the
healthcare industry needed. And finally, they thought they understood the
free market well enough to design a program to improve the situation
without creating havoc for millions of Americans.
Obamacare was also premised on the idea that the federal government is
supposed to regulate the healthcare industry, even though the Constitution
delegates that responsibility to the states and not to the federal government.
In addition, the idea that the federal government can force individuals to buy
health insurance is also constitutionally questionable.
The Affordable Care Act goes right to the crux of the relationship between the
federal government and the individual citizen. Is it right to take from some to
give to others (redistribution of wealth)? If so, how much? Who gets to decide?
What protection does the individual have from an over-reaching government?
If the federal government has the power to control, do politicians have the
wisdom, and the integrity, to do it wisely and fairly? Can good intentions and
big egos lead to bad policies?
Did Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid inspire you with the confidence that they
were on top of the law they shepherded through Congress for President Obama?
The paths that led to our modern America were created over decades and
generations of battles over the nature of Man, individual rights, freedom, and
philosophy.
For the first time, this generation of young Americans will be involved in
deciding which fork in the path our nation will take...and what our nation
will look like generations from now. I don't know which direction they will
take.
I hope we do not continue down the path to more government control, but
that's not my decision to make. That decision is for the current generation of
young Americans to make, and it will be they who will live with the conse-
quences of the decision they make.
Saturday, December 7, 2013
The Case Against Big Government
The original Constitution divided authority and power between the
federal government, the state governments and local municipalities.
The purpose of this division of power was to prevent consolidation of power
in one authority that may become oppressive.
The Feds were authorized power to levy taxes, borrow, declare war and
raise armies, coin money, regulate commerce, etc.
The states and local governments control (and tax) for all other matters
not specifically designated to the federal government; education, social
welfare, healthcare, fire, water, police, etc.
Suppose you lived in a small community of ten people and all of you
earned the same ($10,000 each). Now let's say you all agreed to hire
a teacher for your children, at an annual salary of $10,000.
You set your tax rate at 10% each ($1,000) to cover the teacher's
salary and each of you are left with $9,000 to support your families.
In this sample, it is pretty easy to decide how much you would be willing
to take away from your family to pay for a teacher, or a fireman, or a
policeman. Or, if you could afford two or three teachers, or maybe all
of the above.
The same type of decision applies to welfare, unemployment benefits,
food stamps, etc. How much of the income you earn are you willing to
take from your family and give to others? Or to protect yourself and
your family if you fall on hard times?
But, this simple calculation can become infinitesimally more complicated
and confusing, when the groups become larger, and the information becomes
more hidden to the average taxpayer.
How many teachers does your school district need? Why? Are they all
necessary? What are they paid? How do their pensions and benefits compare
to yours? Where exactly does the money come from that pays for the teachers?
Who is responsible to raise the taxes that pay them...the local, state, or federal government, or some combination of all three?
Government workers, teachers, firemen, the police, the military, FBI agents,
politicians, congressional offices, etc., are necessary and important. No one
would argue that they are not, or that they shouldn't be fairly paid for the work
they do.
The other side of that argument is that the money that pays those workers is,
one way or another, coming out of your money that you earn to take care of
your family. The overriding concerns should be...Can you afford it? Are they
using your money wisely? Are you getting your money's worth?
Unfortunately, the more that unions, politicians, special interest groups, trade
associations, business cronies, and all sorts of other advocacy groups become
involved in spending that money, the less likely it is that there will be a clear
accounting of where your money is being spent, and who is getting it.
And, the further away those decisions are being made from your local
community, the less likely you will ever know what is going on.
To keep perspective in the midst of confusion, remember the ten people
and their teacher as an example of how politicians should be required to
justify their spending to you. What are you getting for your money?
Politicians tend to excel at touting the proposed benefits of the service
but rarely disclose the source of the money or how much the service costs
the taxpayer. In a true and honest discussion of government services,
the cost and source of the funds should be budgeted, along with an
explanation of the benefits of the service.
Governments do not create money. They get their money by (1) taking
it away from citizens, either in taxes or in fees, or (2) by borrowing money
that the citizens pay back with interest. The federal government has an
additional option of printing money, but that eventually leads to inflation.
All of the above options can lead to severe consequences for governments,
just as they can for individuals and businesses, if they are hidden, overdone,
and not controlled.
As a general view, those who believe in "Big Government" believe that a
governing class made up of a well-educated, well-intentioned, elite, will be
better at promoting the general welfare of the country...if they have the
authority to enforce proper behavior on the rest of the country, and if they
can take enough money to fix the problem.
Those who believe in "Small Government", believe that governments are
made up of people, and, the greater power those people are given, the more
likely they will be to abuse it, regardless of their good intentions. Human
beings are not smart enough, or incorruptible enough, to be entrusted with
the power to take away the individual freedoms bestowed in the Constitution.
"Big Government" wants to consolidate as much power in Washington as
possible, in order to control as much of the country as possible. "Small
Government" wants to disperse as much power to the states, local
governments, and individuals as possible...to more closely follow the
original Constitutional concepts designed to prevent consolidation of
power in Washington.
"Big Government" is about control. "Small Government" is about liberty
and freedom from control.
At the time of its founding, this country was the only country to limit
federal authority and declare individual liberties. It remains to this day
an on-going experiment in the proposition that a limited government of
a free people can survive and thrive.
From the time of its founding, this country has been a battleground
between these two, completely different, completely incompatible, concepts.
The country has lurched, back and forth, as different politicians,
political movements, and philosophies have pulled it one way or the
other in this ideological battle.
Social Security, Medicaid, and Medicare were steps toward centralizing
control in Washington, either by direct federal control, or by providing
federal funding from Washington to indirectly control state-administered
programs. As massive and expensive as these programs are, they
started, and remain, as programs that provide benefits to only a SMALLER
portion of the population of the United States.
And now, comes Obamacare...the culmination of generations of political
efforts to consolidate political control of ALL healthcare in Washington,
to dictate the benefits that ALL of the population receives and pays for.
The size of the program (and potential cost to citizens) is staggering.
The perfect storm of ego, power, and arrogance, cloaked in good intentions...
hidden behind lies that misrepresented the true intentions and effects of the
program.
But, there's a good side to everything. The beauty of Obamacare follows...
federal government, the state governments and local municipalities.
The purpose of this division of power was to prevent consolidation of power
in one authority that may become oppressive.
The Feds were authorized power to levy taxes, borrow, declare war and
raise armies, coin money, regulate commerce, etc.
The states and local governments control (and tax) for all other matters
not specifically designated to the federal government; education, social
welfare, healthcare, fire, water, police, etc.
Suppose you lived in a small community of ten people and all of you
earned the same ($10,000 each). Now let's say you all agreed to hire
a teacher for your children, at an annual salary of $10,000.
You set your tax rate at 10% each ($1,000) to cover the teacher's
salary and each of you are left with $9,000 to support your families.
In this sample, it is pretty easy to decide how much you would be willing
to take away from your family to pay for a teacher, or a fireman, or a
policeman. Or, if you could afford two or three teachers, or maybe all
of the above.
The same type of decision applies to welfare, unemployment benefits,
food stamps, etc. How much of the income you earn are you willing to
take from your family and give to others? Or to protect yourself and
your family if you fall on hard times?
But, this simple calculation can become infinitesimally more complicated
and confusing, when the groups become larger, and the information becomes
more hidden to the average taxpayer.
How many teachers does your school district need? Why? Are they all
necessary? What are they paid? How do their pensions and benefits compare
to yours? Where exactly does the money come from that pays for the teachers?
Who is responsible to raise the taxes that pay them...the local, state, or federal government, or some combination of all three?
Government workers, teachers, firemen, the police, the military, FBI agents,
politicians, congressional offices, etc., are necessary and important. No one
would argue that they are not, or that they shouldn't be fairly paid for the work
they do.
The other side of that argument is that the money that pays those workers is,
one way or another, coming out of your money that you earn to take care of
your family. The overriding concerns should be...Can you afford it? Are they
using your money wisely? Are you getting your money's worth?
Unfortunately, the more that unions, politicians, special interest groups, trade
associations, business cronies, and all sorts of other advocacy groups become
involved in spending that money, the less likely it is that there will be a clear
accounting of where your money is being spent, and who is getting it.
And, the further away those decisions are being made from your local
community, the less likely you will ever know what is going on.
To keep perspective in the midst of confusion, remember the ten people
and their teacher as an example of how politicians should be required to
justify their spending to you. What are you getting for your money?
Politicians tend to excel at touting the proposed benefits of the service
but rarely disclose the source of the money or how much the service costs
the taxpayer. In a true and honest discussion of government services,
the cost and source of the funds should be budgeted, along with an
explanation of the benefits of the service.
Governments do not create money. They get their money by (1) taking
it away from citizens, either in taxes or in fees, or (2) by borrowing money
that the citizens pay back with interest. The federal government has an
additional option of printing money, but that eventually leads to inflation.
All of the above options can lead to severe consequences for governments,
just as they can for individuals and businesses, if they are hidden, overdone,
and not controlled.
As a general view, those who believe in "Big Government" believe that a
governing class made up of a well-educated, well-intentioned, elite, will be
better at promoting the general welfare of the country...if they have the
authority to enforce proper behavior on the rest of the country, and if they
can take enough money to fix the problem.
Those who believe in "Small Government", believe that governments are
made up of people, and, the greater power those people are given, the more
likely they will be to abuse it, regardless of their good intentions. Human
beings are not smart enough, or incorruptible enough, to be entrusted with
the power to take away the individual freedoms bestowed in the Constitution.
"Big Government" wants to consolidate as much power in Washington as
possible, in order to control as much of the country as possible. "Small
Government" wants to disperse as much power to the states, local
governments, and individuals as possible...to more closely follow the
original Constitutional concepts designed to prevent consolidation of
power in Washington.
"Big Government" is about control. "Small Government" is about liberty
and freedom from control.
At the time of its founding, this country was the only country to limit
federal authority and declare individual liberties. It remains to this day
an on-going experiment in the proposition that a limited government of
a free people can survive and thrive.
From the time of its founding, this country has been a battleground
between these two, completely different, completely incompatible, concepts.
The country has lurched, back and forth, as different politicians,
political movements, and philosophies have pulled it one way or the
other in this ideological battle.
Social Security, Medicaid, and Medicare were steps toward centralizing
control in Washington, either by direct federal control, or by providing
federal funding from Washington to indirectly control state-administered
programs. As massive and expensive as these programs are, they
started, and remain, as programs that provide benefits to only a SMALLER
portion of the population of the United States.
And now, comes Obamacare...the culmination of generations of political
efforts to consolidate political control of ALL healthcare in Washington,
to dictate the benefits that ALL of the population receives and pays for.
The size of the program (and potential cost to citizens) is staggering.
The perfect storm of ego, power, and arrogance, cloaked in good intentions...
hidden behind lies that misrepresented the true intentions and effects of the
program.
But, there's a good side to everything. The beauty of Obamacare follows...
Thursday, September 5, 2013
Freedom's Sweet Refrain
I've heard thunder, softly pealing o'er distant plains,
smelled fragrant grass, anticipating rain.
I've heard the ocean's rumbling roar upon reaching land,
and midnight lakes gently lapping, caressing sand.
I've heard a coyote's mournful wail, dwarfed by massive, starry, skies,
I've seen proud people walk tall, freedom in their eyes.
From ocean shores to dust bowls, to verdant forest scenes,
a country big enough to fill our senses and our dreams.
I'm a born-free American, my spirit fuels my dreams
I'm a born-free American, free to live my dreams
In a land forged by fire, built on freedom's themes
I'm a born-free American, my spirit fuels my dreams
I'm a born-free American, free to live my dreams
The one true revolution, designed to make Men free,
took power from oppressors, gave it to you and me.
Founders knew the evil secret, hidden in the heart of Man,
if you give him the power, he'll abuse it because he can.
Lucky to be born free, keep it if you can,
never, never, never, give it away again.
From ocean shores to dust bowls, to verdant forest scenes,
a country big enough to fill our senses and our dreams.
I'm a born-free American, my spirit fuels my dreams
I'm a born-free American, free to live my dreams
In a land forged by fire, built on freedom's themes
I'm a born-free American, my spirit fuels my dreams
I'm a born-free American, free to live my dreams
smelled fragrant grass, anticipating rain.
I've heard the ocean's rumbling roar upon reaching land,
and midnight lakes gently lapping, caressing sand.
I've heard a coyote's mournful wail, dwarfed by massive, starry, skies,
I've seen proud people walk tall, freedom in their eyes.
From ocean shores to dust bowls, to verdant forest scenes,
a country big enough to fill our senses and our dreams.
I'm a born-free American, my spirit fuels my dreams
I'm a born-free American, free to live my dreams
In a land forged by fire, built on freedom's themes
I'm a born-free American, my spirit fuels my dreams
I'm a born-free American, free to live my dreams
The one true revolution, designed to make Men free,
took power from oppressors, gave it to you and me.
Founders knew the evil secret, hidden in the heart of Man,
if you give him the power, he'll abuse it because he can.
Lucky to be born free, keep it if you can,
never, never, never, give it away again.
From ocean shores to dust bowls, to verdant forest scenes,
a country big enough to fill our senses and our dreams.
I'm a born-free American, my spirit fuels my dreams
I'm a born-free American, free to live my dreams
In a land forged by fire, built on freedom's themes
I'm a born-free American, my spirit fuels my dreams
I'm a born-free American, free to live my dreams
Thursday, August 15, 2013
Have You Ever Wondered Why?.
How is it that the system of tenure, designed to ensure free
speech and open discussion on college campuses, has led to
an outbreak of political correctness and group-think in our
universities and colleges?
How did our system of welfare, designed to provide a
temporary helping hand to those in need, morph into a
system enabling a permanent social underclass dependent
on politicians?
Isn't it interesting how public service unions, designed to
provide a fair wage and protection from political patronage,
have led to a politically protected class of workers, who,
in many cases, receive better wages and benefits than
the public, who is taxed to support them.
Is it only me who notices, or does it seem to you, too, that
people who express the most concern for the welfare of others
tolerate the least dissent from the others who disagree with them?
Doesn't it seem that, the longer a politician remains in office,
the more they become concerned with protecting wealthy
special interests and themselves, and the less they become
concerned with protecting the average citizen?
How did it happen that, over the years, so many religions have
been interpreted in ways that lead to bigotry and oppression?
When did this country start its slide from a place that celebrated
rugged individualism, to a place where its people rely more on
guidance from celebrities, politicians, businessmen, teachers,
doctors, and gurus of every imaginable kind, to think for them and
tell them what's important or what's right or wrong for them? Will
the pendulum swing back, or has it permanently moved?
Good intentions have led us to this place. The question we must
each answer for ourselves is, where do we go from here, and does
that road lead us to, or from, Hell?
speech and open discussion on college campuses, has led to
an outbreak of political correctness and group-think in our
universities and colleges?
How did our system of welfare, designed to provide a
temporary helping hand to those in need, morph into a
system enabling a permanent social underclass dependent
on politicians?
Isn't it interesting how public service unions, designed to
provide a fair wage and protection from political patronage,
have led to a politically protected class of workers, who,
in many cases, receive better wages and benefits than
the public, who is taxed to support them.
Is it only me who notices, or does it seem to you, too, that
people who express the most concern for the welfare of others
tolerate the least dissent from the others who disagree with them?
Doesn't it seem that, the longer a politician remains in office,
the more they become concerned with protecting wealthy
special interests and themselves, and the less they become
concerned with protecting the average citizen?
How did it happen that, over the years, so many religions have
been interpreted in ways that lead to bigotry and oppression?
When did this country start its slide from a place that celebrated
rugged individualism, to a place where its people rely more on
guidance from celebrities, politicians, businessmen, teachers,
doctors, and gurus of every imaginable kind, to think for them and
tell them what's important or what's right or wrong for them? Will
the pendulum swing back, or has it permanently moved?
Good intentions have led us to this place. The question we must
each answer for ourselves is, where do we go from here, and does
that road lead us to, or from, Hell?
Sunday, July 21, 2013
The Obama Drama
In all the fire and smoke, claims and counter-claims, hue and cry
around the Trayvon Martin - George Zimmerman controversy and
trial, the thing that upsets me the most is President Obama's insistence
in entering the fray.
Why would the President of the United States inject himself into a
local trial and identify himself with one of the participants?
Why would he imply that he agrees with those who demonstrate
against the verdict (as long as they are not violent), and that there must
implicitly be something wrong with a justice system that found
George Zimmerman not guilty?
Once, before the trial began, President Obama identified Trayvon
Martin as "someone who could be my son". After the trial, he
doubled-down and identified Mr. Martin as someone who could
have been the President himself thirty five years ago.
He quoted the black man's experience of being followed in stores,
of car doors being locked when crossing streets, and of old ladies
guarding their purses and not breathing when on an elevator with
a black man, I guess as somewhat of a justification of Mr. Martin's
anger.
Somehow, I doubt if the reaction would be as strong if the black
man was dressed in the President's business suit or dressed like
Cliff Huxtable, as opposed to being dressed like a gang-banger.
And, somehow, I think the reaction would be just as strong if a
white man, dressed as a biker, walked into a store, up to a car,
or into an elevator with an old lady...or perhaps a white teenager
Goth, with their piercings, tats, and great-coats might create a pretty
strong reaction, also.
And, even if this reaction happens to blacks more often than to
other races, does this justify punching Mr. Zimmerman in the face,
smashing his nose, and pounding his head into the cement?
You say this could have been you, thirty five years ago. I don't
think so. Thirty five years ago, I don't think you, or even I, would
have lost control and punched Mr. Zimmerman out.
You might have confronted him and asked him why he was following
you, and he would have told you he was Neighborhood Watch and
asked you to explain what you were doing there, or, since you were
close to your house, you might have gone into the house and asked
your father who that creepy guy was, instead of going back and
punching him out.
We will never know what actually happened that night. Perhaps
Mr. Martin was angry over historic injustices against blacks,
perhaps he had family problems, or school problems, or girl
problems. Maybe his teenage hormones were just running wild.
I was a teenager. I had two teenage sons. I know the drill. They
can think they know everything. They can think they're indestruc-
table. They can do the dumbest things. They can think they're
Mr. Macho. You can love them and still wonder how they can act
so stupidly sometimes.
If the police had arrived a few minutes earlier and broke up the
fight before the shot was fired, I believe you, and I, and Mr. Martin's
parents would all handle Trayvon the same way. "What were you
thinking?!!!" "Are you crazy, son?" "You could have got yourself
killed!"
Unfortunately, the police didn't arrive in time, and we know the tragic
ending. Which brings me to the part that bothers me about your
response to this case, Mr. President.
Why couldn't you identify with Mr. Zimmerman? You're a product
of a mixed-race marriage. So is George Zimmerman.
George Zimmerman felt strongly enough about his community that
he signed up for Neighborhood Watch in a effort to protect his
community. You were a Community Organizer in an effort to
help your local community in Chicago.
Mr. Zimmerman was brave enough to go out at night to patrol
his crime-ridden neighborhood, but smart enough to know he
might need a gun to protect himself. I think you would probably
feel the same in his position, if you didn't have the Secret Service
around to handle that problem for you.
Again, we will never know for sure, exactly what happened that
night. It's possible that Mr. Zimmerman was brow beating Mr.
Martin, but there was no evidence of that at the trial.
It's possible that Mr. Zimmerman threw the first punch, but if
he did, there was no evidence it ever landed on Mr. Martin.
The evidence does show that Mr. Martin was on top of Mr.
Zimmerman, pretty much beating the stuffing out of him. Mr.
Zimmerman had every reason to think he was going to end
up pulverized or killed.
And, Mr. President, I think if you were in Mr. Zimmerman's
position, and you had a gun available to you, you would use
it, too...regardless of the race, gender, or nationality of the
person pounding you. I know I would.
So why, Mr. President, can't you identify with Mr. Zimmerman?
Was it Mr. Zimmerman's role to pay the price for Mr. Martin's
anger and frustration? His role was to lay there and be
beaten to a pulp or killed, or be portrayed as a racist for doing
what he had to do?
I can't see how you can't see. If you're using this situation as
an opportunity for political gain, then you must be the most
crass, opportunistic President I've ever seen, and that's saying
a lot.
If you're identifying with Mr. Martin because of skin color over
evidence, rule of law, and the jurors verdict, then I don't want
to even state where that road leads.
You are supposed to be the President of all the people of the
United States. George Zimmerman could be your son, just
as Trayvon Martin could be your son. If you can't see that,
you don't deserve to be the leader of this great country.
We all grieve for Trayvon Martin. We all grieve for Mr. Martin's
parents. We all feel that, but for the Grace of God, our sons
could have been in Trayvon's position. It's not the first, nor
will it be the last time, that a teenager makes a tragic mistake.
But, Mr. President, you owe George Zimmerman an apology.
He is not an evil man. He is not a racist man. He's just a
good man caught in an impossible situation, and he should
not be persecuted by the Federal Government.
The jury decided correctly. Let's hope you make the correct
decision as well.
around the Trayvon Martin - George Zimmerman controversy and
trial, the thing that upsets me the most is President Obama's insistence
in entering the fray.
Why would the President of the United States inject himself into a
local trial and identify himself with one of the participants?
Why would he imply that he agrees with those who demonstrate
against the verdict (as long as they are not violent), and that there must
implicitly be something wrong with a justice system that found
George Zimmerman not guilty?
Once, before the trial began, President Obama identified Trayvon
Martin as "someone who could be my son". After the trial, he
doubled-down and identified Mr. Martin as someone who could
have been the President himself thirty five years ago.
He quoted the black man's experience of being followed in stores,
of car doors being locked when crossing streets, and of old ladies
guarding their purses and not breathing when on an elevator with
a black man, I guess as somewhat of a justification of Mr. Martin's
anger.
Somehow, I doubt if the reaction would be as strong if the black
man was dressed in the President's business suit or dressed like
Cliff Huxtable, as opposed to being dressed like a gang-banger.
And, somehow, I think the reaction would be just as strong if a
white man, dressed as a biker, walked into a store, up to a car,
or into an elevator with an old lady...or perhaps a white teenager
Goth, with their piercings, tats, and great-coats might create a pretty
strong reaction, also.
And, even if this reaction happens to blacks more often than to
other races, does this justify punching Mr. Zimmerman in the face,
smashing his nose, and pounding his head into the cement?
You say this could have been you, thirty five years ago. I don't
think so. Thirty five years ago, I don't think you, or even I, would
have lost control and punched Mr. Zimmerman out.
You might have confronted him and asked him why he was following
you, and he would have told you he was Neighborhood Watch and
asked you to explain what you were doing there, or, since you were
close to your house, you might have gone into the house and asked
your father who that creepy guy was, instead of going back and
punching him out.
We will never know what actually happened that night. Perhaps
Mr. Martin was angry over historic injustices against blacks,
perhaps he had family problems, or school problems, or girl
problems. Maybe his teenage hormones were just running wild.
I was a teenager. I had two teenage sons. I know the drill. They
can think they know everything. They can think they're indestruc-
table. They can do the dumbest things. They can think they're
Mr. Macho. You can love them and still wonder how they can act
so stupidly sometimes.
If the police had arrived a few minutes earlier and broke up the
fight before the shot was fired, I believe you, and I, and Mr. Martin's
parents would all handle Trayvon the same way. "What were you
thinking?!!!" "Are you crazy, son?" "You could have got yourself
killed!"
Unfortunately, the police didn't arrive in time, and we know the tragic
ending. Which brings me to the part that bothers me about your
response to this case, Mr. President.
Why couldn't you identify with Mr. Zimmerman? You're a product
of a mixed-race marriage. So is George Zimmerman.
George Zimmerman felt strongly enough about his community that
he signed up for Neighborhood Watch in a effort to protect his
community. You were a Community Organizer in an effort to
help your local community in Chicago.
Mr. Zimmerman was brave enough to go out at night to patrol
his crime-ridden neighborhood, but smart enough to know he
might need a gun to protect himself. I think you would probably
feel the same in his position, if you didn't have the Secret Service
around to handle that problem for you.
Again, we will never know for sure, exactly what happened that
night. It's possible that Mr. Zimmerman was brow beating Mr.
Martin, but there was no evidence of that at the trial.
It's possible that Mr. Zimmerman threw the first punch, but if
he did, there was no evidence it ever landed on Mr. Martin.
The evidence does show that Mr. Martin was on top of Mr.
Zimmerman, pretty much beating the stuffing out of him. Mr.
Zimmerman had every reason to think he was going to end
up pulverized or killed.
And, Mr. President, I think if you were in Mr. Zimmerman's
position, and you had a gun available to you, you would use
it, too...regardless of the race, gender, or nationality of the
person pounding you. I know I would.
So why, Mr. President, can't you identify with Mr. Zimmerman?
Was it Mr. Zimmerman's role to pay the price for Mr. Martin's
anger and frustration? His role was to lay there and be
beaten to a pulp or killed, or be portrayed as a racist for doing
what he had to do?
I can't see how you can't see. If you're using this situation as
an opportunity for political gain, then you must be the most
crass, opportunistic President I've ever seen, and that's saying
a lot.
If you're identifying with Mr. Martin because of skin color over
evidence, rule of law, and the jurors verdict, then I don't want
to even state where that road leads.
You are supposed to be the President of all the people of the
United States. George Zimmerman could be your son, just
as Trayvon Martin could be your son. If you can't see that,
you don't deserve to be the leader of this great country.
We all grieve for Trayvon Martin. We all grieve for Mr. Martin's
parents. We all feel that, but for the Grace of God, our sons
could have been in Trayvon's position. It's not the first, nor
will it be the last time, that a teenager makes a tragic mistake.
But, Mr. President, you owe George Zimmerman an apology.
He is not an evil man. He is not a racist man. He's just a
good man caught in an impossible situation, and he should
not be persecuted by the Federal Government.
The jury decided correctly. Let's hope you make the correct
decision as well.
Monday, June 24, 2013
You Haven't Been Educated Yet
If you think "Entitlement Mentality" pertains more to the uneducated
poor than to the educated elite, you haven't been educated yet.
If you've never been responsible for earning your own living, you
haven't begun to be educated yet.
If you've never loved, lost, and learned to love again, you haven't
been educated yet.
If you can't understand the difference between the true beauty of
religion and the ugliness of religious bigotry and persecution, you're
not educated yet.
If you think intelligence is all you're going to need, you've
wasted your education so far.
If you haven't had to persist when everything's gone bad, your
friends are gone, and you're tired, discouraged, and see no hope,
you haven't been educated yet.
If you've never learned important lessons from those whom you
never would have expected to have such insight, you haven't
found the best source of education yet.
If you haven't learned when to be compassionate and when to
be "tough as sandpaper", you haven't been educated yet.
If you haven't held your child's hand, looked into their eyes,
and felt that bond of love, you haven't been educated yet.
If you believe that politicians don't promise more than they
can pay for or deliver, you haven't come close to being
educated yet.
If you haven't found that very educated people can be "dumb
as a stump" regarding human nature and how things really work,
you haven't been educated yet.
If you haven't learned that you need both luck and preparation
to succeed at the highest level, you haven't been educated yet.
And finally, if you haven't learned that living your life with
truth, integrity, honesty, and honor is the only way to lead to
true self-esteem and happiness, you've defeated the purpose
of getting an education in the first place.
A degree is not an end unto itself. It's only a tool. Merely
a temporary measuring post on the road to discovery.
A true education is not something that is bestowed on one when
receiving their degree...it is something that is earned by embracing,
relishing, and overcoming the challenges of life, as it is lived.
Real education is the result of a life, well lived.
poor than to the educated elite, you haven't been educated yet.
If you've never been responsible for earning your own living, you
haven't begun to be educated yet.
If you've never loved, lost, and learned to love again, you haven't
been educated yet.
If you can't understand the difference between the true beauty of
religion and the ugliness of religious bigotry and persecution, you're
not educated yet.
If you think intelligence is all you're going to need, you've
wasted your education so far.
If you haven't had to persist when everything's gone bad, your
friends are gone, and you're tired, discouraged, and see no hope,
you haven't been educated yet.
If you've never learned important lessons from those whom you
never would have expected to have such insight, you haven't
found the best source of education yet.
If you haven't learned when to be compassionate and when to
be "tough as sandpaper", you haven't been educated yet.
If you haven't held your child's hand, looked into their eyes,
and felt that bond of love, you haven't been educated yet.
If you believe that politicians don't promise more than they
can pay for or deliver, you haven't come close to being
educated yet.
If you haven't found that very educated people can be "dumb
as a stump" regarding human nature and how things really work,
you haven't been educated yet.
If you haven't learned that you need both luck and preparation
to succeed at the highest level, you haven't been educated yet.
And finally, if you haven't learned that living your life with
truth, integrity, honesty, and honor is the only way to lead to
true self-esteem and happiness, you've defeated the purpose
of getting an education in the first place.
A degree is not an end unto itself. It's only a tool. Merely
a temporary measuring post on the road to discovery.
A true education is not something that is bestowed on one when
receiving their degree...it is something that is earned by embracing,
relishing, and overcoming the challenges of life, as it is lived.
Real education is the result of a life, well lived.
Saturday, May 18, 2013
Playing Politics With Benghazi
Pretend, for a minute, that your spouse, son, daughter, or friend was
killed or injured at Benghazi...or maybe your loved one is stationed
at some other dangerous outpost for the State Department or for
the Armed Forces.
Now, you find out that...
Benghazi had been attacked at least twice in recent months, once
even blowing a hole in the wall of the compound...and Washington
knew that.
And, the British Ambassador had been attacked, and the British
had closed down for security reasons...and Washington knew
that.
And, the Libyan compounds were far below the standards for
safety set by the Accountability Review Board (ARB), convened
after the Nairobi bombing in 1998...and, Washington knew that.
And, embassy officials had been asking for additional security...and,
Washington knew that, yet they CUT security, not increased it.
Further, on such an obviously dangerous date as 9/11, there was no
emergency backup security plan that could offer assistance for hours
and hours.
And THAT is the time you choose to send your Ambassador to a
sorely under-defended outpost to prepare for Secretary Clinton's
upcoming visit?
OK, to this point, the situation is that really bad decisions were
being made, and some really good people lost their lives, or had
their lives changed forever, because of those bad decisions.
But those bad decisions don't detract from the heroism of those
who fought for their lives in the heat of Benghazi. In fact, those
bad decisions ACCENTUATED how brave the ones who chose
to accept such conditions were.
Even in the midst of an obvious SNAFU, they chose to stand in,
face the danger of the situation, and do the jobs they were sent to
do.
What does detract from their heroism is that when the situation
in Benghazi went bad, Department of State and Administration
officials doctored all of the above information so that it did not
come out, and instead blamed the attack on a reaction to a
video.
It was as if, suddenly, miraculously, no one could be blamed for
failing to anticipate a spontaneous demonstration by those peace
loving (if a little overly sensitive) Libyans. It wasn't a terrorist
attack at all. It was an over-reaction to an insensitive video made
in America. What a gift from Allah!
Then they fought and fought again to keep the truth from coming out.
In effect, they were deciding that their political ambitions and egos
were more important than revealing the truth about the causes of
Benghazi, the true danger our people were in, and the clueless
decisions that left those people unprotected.
To them, Benghazi was nothing more than a case of "bad things
happening to good people"...so sad that people were killed or injured,
but don't look too closely at how and why it happened...because the
facts make Washington look bad.
Eureka, ladies and gentlemen, we've arrived at THE classic textbook
example of playing politics and "politicizing" an issue! We've reached
the mother lode of political obfuscation.
When Secretary Clinton asks "what difference does it make?", she
is in effect saying "They did their job, they fought and died, and it
really doesn't make any difference WHY they died".
We don't owe them the truth behind the sacrifices they made, if
the truth makes us look bad. In effect, they are our expendable pawns.
And when President Obama calls the controversy a "sideshow"
and accuses those who are searching for the truth as merely
"politicizing the issue" (and some of them are playing politics),
he is ignoring the issue of who STARTED playing politics with
this issue.
More importantly, he is placing a dagger in the hearts of
the loved ones of those who died or were injured in Benghazi,
by refusing to acknowledge the true extent of how much their
loved ones willingly gave for the country.
As the head of an administration that happily took responsibility
for, and basked in the success of, the Bin Ladin operation,
President Obama should not appear to be hiding the administration's
failures in Benghazi.
One does not honor the sacrifice of warriors by hiding from the
consequences of the truth.
One does not console the bereaved, or honor a hero, if one does
not acknowledge the true extent of the danger they faced.
If you don't agree with me, ask yourself if you would feel
the same if we were talking about President Bush and Secretary
Powell, instead of President Obama and Secretary Clinton.
I would. Would you?
killed or injured at Benghazi...or maybe your loved one is stationed
at some other dangerous outpost for the State Department or for
the Armed Forces.
Now, you find out that...
Benghazi had been attacked at least twice in recent months, once
even blowing a hole in the wall of the compound...and Washington
knew that.
And, the British Ambassador had been attacked, and the British
had closed down for security reasons...and Washington knew
that.
And, the Libyan compounds were far below the standards for
safety set by the Accountability Review Board (ARB), convened
after the Nairobi bombing in 1998...and, Washington knew that.
And, embassy officials had been asking for additional security...and,
Washington knew that, yet they CUT security, not increased it.
Further, on such an obviously dangerous date as 9/11, there was no
emergency backup security plan that could offer assistance for hours
and hours.
And THAT is the time you choose to send your Ambassador to a
sorely under-defended outpost to prepare for Secretary Clinton's
upcoming visit?
OK, to this point, the situation is that really bad decisions were
being made, and some really good people lost their lives, or had
their lives changed forever, because of those bad decisions.
But those bad decisions don't detract from the heroism of those
who fought for their lives in the heat of Benghazi. In fact, those
bad decisions ACCENTUATED how brave the ones who chose
to accept such conditions were.
Even in the midst of an obvious SNAFU, they chose to stand in,
face the danger of the situation, and do the jobs they were sent to
do.
What does detract from their heroism is that when the situation
in Benghazi went bad, Department of State and Administration
officials doctored all of the above information so that it did not
come out, and instead blamed the attack on a reaction to a
video.
It was as if, suddenly, miraculously, no one could be blamed for
failing to anticipate a spontaneous demonstration by those peace
loving (if a little overly sensitive) Libyans. It wasn't a terrorist
attack at all. It was an over-reaction to an insensitive video made
in America. What a gift from Allah!
Then they fought and fought again to keep the truth from coming out.
In effect, they were deciding that their political ambitions and egos
were more important than revealing the truth about the causes of
Benghazi, the true danger our people were in, and the clueless
decisions that left those people unprotected.
To them, Benghazi was nothing more than a case of "bad things
happening to good people"...so sad that people were killed or injured,
but don't look too closely at how and why it happened...because the
facts make Washington look bad.
Eureka, ladies and gentlemen, we've arrived at THE classic textbook
example of playing politics and "politicizing" an issue! We've reached
the mother lode of political obfuscation.
When Secretary Clinton asks "what difference does it make?", she
is in effect saying "They did their job, they fought and died, and it
really doesn't make any difference WHY they died".
We don't owe them the truth behind the sacrifices they made, if
the truth makes us look bad. In effect, they are our expendable pawns.
And when President Obama calls the controversy a "sideshow"
and accuses those who are searching for the truth as merely
"politicizing the issue" (and some of them are playing politics),
he is ignoring the issue of who STARTED playing politics with
this issue.
More importantly, he is placing a dagger in the hearts of
the loved ones of those who died or were injured in Benghazi,
by refusing to acknowledge the true extent of how much their
loved ones willingly gave for the country.
As the head of an administration that happily took responsibility
for, and basked in the success of, the Bin Ladin operation,
President Obama should not appear to be hiding the administration's
failures in Benghazi.
One does not honor the sacrifice of warriors by hiding from the
consequences of the truth.
One does not console the bereaved, or honor a hero, if one does
not acknowledge the true extent of the danger they faced.
If you don't agree with me, ask yourself if you would feel
the same if we were talking about President Bush and Secretary
Powell, instead of President Obama and Secretary Clinton.
I would. Would you?
Wednesday, May 15, 2013
Hawaiian Sky
On a recent trip to Kauai, I spent some time staring up at the
nighttime sky...peaceful, beautiful, vast, humbling.
Can anyone have the arrogance to "know!", "for sure!" there is
a God (or not)? Can anyone presume to "know!", "for sure!" the
answers to eternal and unknowable questions?
And, if a person is not free to answer, for themselves, basic
questions regarding God, the purpose of life, the nature of
morality, etc., is there, truly, any freedom for individuals?
Isn't the current world conflict a titanic clash over the
perception of this basic human freedom of choice, values, and
rights? A conflict between Theocracy and individual freedom?
I am neither Mormon nor Muslim, and I am certainly not an
expert on either religion, but it seems to me that their different
approaches to proselytizing are striking.
Mormons ask young believers to travel the world attempting to
persuade others to become believers. They do not attempt to
gain political power to force their beliefs on others. They
attempt to convert by demonstrating their personal commitment
and character.
Maybe I'm a Pollyanna, but I believe that most Muslims could
co-exist with, and have no problem with, the way that Mormons
attempt to recruit new members.
But within the Muslim faith, a significant number of militant
Islamists go much, much, further in recruitment.
They rightly criticize the sins of the Christian Crusaders of the
past, but the militant's goals and tactics mirror those of the
Crusaders they say they hate.
If your goal is to create a government Theocracy, or a
Caliphate, and your tactics are to kill or intimidate any and all
opposition, then you are not religious, you are dangerous...at
least to anyone who believes in human freedom.
You are using religion as a cover to attain political power and
crush all opposition, just like all other tyrants of the past.
A charismatic speaker can be very spellbinding, but if you are
a young person in Saudi Arabia, America, Yemen, or anywhere
else, think hard before you buy into such a program.
You are turning your life, your dreams, and your future over to
hateful people who will manipulate and sacrifice you to their
own political goals.
Religion can give purpose and meaning to your life, if you choose
to believe...and you are willing to allow others that same freedom
to choose. It can destroy your life, if you are forced to believe,
or try to force others to believe.
Funny where the mind wanders when you're looking at peaceful,
beautiful, star-filled Hawaiian skies.
nighttime sky...peaceful, beautiful, vast, humbling.
Can anyone have the arrogance to "know!", "for sure!" there is
a God (or not)? Can anyone presume to "know!", "for sure!" the
answers to eternal and unknowable questions?
And, if a person is not free to answer, for themselves, basic
questions regarding God, the purpose of life, the nature of
morality, etc., is there, truly, any freedom for individuals?
Isn't the current world conflict a titanic clash over the
perception of this basic human freedom of choice, values, and
rights? A conflict between Theocracy and individual freedom?
I am neither Mormon nor Muslim, and I am certainly not an
expert on either religion, but it seems to me that their different
approaches to proselytizing are striking.
Mormons ask young believers to travel the world attempting to
persuade others to become believers. They do not attempt to
gain political power to force their beliefs on others. They
attempt to convert by demonstrating their personal commitment
and character.
Maybe I'm a Pollyanna, but I believe that most Muslims could
co-exist with, and have no problem with, the way that Mormons
attempt to recruit new members.
But within the Muslim faith, a significant number of militant
Islamists go much, much, further in recruitment.
They rightly criticize the sins of the Christian Crusaders of the
past, but the militant's goals and tactics mirror those of the
Crusaders they say they hate.
If your goal is to create a government Theocracy, or a
Caliphate, and your tactics are to kill or intimidate any and all
opposition, then you are not religious, you are dangerous...at
least to anyone who believes in human freedom.
You are using religion as a cover to attain political power and
crush all opposition, just like all other tyrants of the past.
A charismatic speaker can be very spellbinding, but if you are
a young person in Saudi Arabia, America, Yemen, or anywhere
else, think hard before you buy into such a program.
You are turning your life, your dreams, and your future over to
hateful people who will manipulate and sacrifice you to their
own political goals.
Religion can give purpose and meaning to your life, if you choose
to believe...and you are willing to allow others that same freedom
to choose. It can destroy your life, if you are forced to believe,
or try to force others to believe.
Funny where the mind wanders when you're looking at peaceful,
beautiful, star-filled Hawaiian skies.
Friday, March 15, 2013
Another Lesson From the 2012 Election
OK. So the first lesson was for working people to learn to limit the
access the Federal Government has to the cash in your pocketbook.
The second lesson would be to limit (or eliminate) the money the
Federal Government can collect and/or spend on programs that
are constitutionally the responsibilities of the state or local
governments.
Politicians love to piggy-back on spur-of-the-moment, hot button,
emotional issues they can use to gain votes, face-time on
television, and attention on the Internet.
The first question working Americans ask should be "Whose
responsibility should it be to fix the problem?". Then, "Does the
Federal Government really need to collect taxes from everyone to
give back to the states to give to the local governments to solve
this problem?".
Why couldn't local governments raise the funds to fix this problem
if it were important to their constituents? Collecting Federal taxes
to give to local governments seems to be designed only to make
the local governments financially dependent on the Feds and the
strings that come attached to the funds.
Take the Department of Education as an example. I can see
using this department to do things that the states can't do for
themselves. National tests to measure achievement in basic
educational skills (reading, writing, math, science, and logic) seem
to be an impartial, proper way to compare state and local results
against others, so that parents and educators could measure their
results against others, and decide if improvements need to be made.
But I can't see using this department to set standards on everything
from school nutrition, to the curriculum, to anti-bullying policies, to
political correctness, to union issues, to anti-violence policies, etc.,
etc., etc.
I'm not trying to say that these aren't important issues. I'm saying
that it is the local school districts who should be funding and deciding
these issues, not the Federal Government.
I feel the local citizens can decide these issues for themselves just as
well, or better, than the Republican Senior Senator from California can,
or the Democratic Representative from the State of Alabama can, or the
President of the United States can.
Lesson Number Two for the working person...stop giving money from
your pocket to the Feds to decide things that you can be, and
constitutionally should be, spending and deciding on your own.
I know. I know. You're busy, you've got a life to live, kids to take care
of, you don't have the technical training, yada, yada, yada. They must
know better than you do what's the right thing to do.
True, some of them do know better than you. But to the vast majority,
the right thing to do is for them to get re-elected. They will say what
they have to say, they'll cave to the special interest groups, they will play
on your emotions, and they'll stick it to you if you let them.
Do not let national politicians game the system to take your money and use it
to gain power in areas where they don't belong. Vote for those who are willing
to limit the ever-increasing takeover of local decisions by the Federal
Government.
access the Federal Government has to the cash in your pocketbook.
The second lesson would be to limit (or eliminate) the money the
Federal Government can collect and/or spend on programs that
are constitutionally the responsibilities of the state or local
governments.
Politicians love to piggy-back on spur-of-the-moment, hot button,
emotional issues they can use to gain votes, face-time on
television, and attention on the Internet.
The first question working Americans ask should be "Whose
responsibility should it be to fix the problem?". Then, "Does the
Federal Government really need to collect taxes from everyone to
give back to the states to give to the local governments to solve
this problem?".
Why couldn't local governments raise the funds to fix this problem
if it were important to their constituents? Collecting Federal taxes
to give to local governments seems to be designed only to make
the local governments financially dependent on the Feds and the
strings that come attached to the funds.
Take the Department of Education as an example. I can see
using this department to do things that the states can't do for
themselves. National tests to measure achievement in basic
educational skills (reading, writing, math, science, and logic) seem
to be an impartial, proper way to compare state and local results
against others, so that parents and educators could measure their
results against others, and decide if improvements need to be made.
But I can't see using this department to set standards on everything
from school nutrition, to the curriculum, to anti-bullying policies, to
political correctness, to union issues, to anti-violence policies, etc.,
etc., etc.
I'm not trying to say that these aren't important issues. I'm saying
that it is the local school districts who should be funding and deciding
these issues, not the Federal Government.
I feel the local citizens can decide these issues for themselves just as
well, or better, than the Republican Senior Senator from California can,
or the Democratic Representative from the State of Alabama can, or the
President of the United States can.
Lesson Number Two for the working person...stop giving money from
your pocket to the Feds to decide things that you can be, and
constitutionally should be, spending and deciding on your own.
I know. I know. You're busy, you've got a life to live, kids to take care
of, you don't have the technical training, yada, yada, yada. They must
know better than you do what's the right thing to do.
True, some of them do know better than you. But to the vast majority,
the right thing to do is for them to get re-elected. They will say what
they have to say, they'll cave to the special interest groups, they will play
on your emotions, and they'll stick it to you if you let them.
Do not let national politicians game the system to take your money and use it
to gain power in areas where they don't belong. Vote for those who are willing
to limit the ever-increasing takeover of local decisions by the Federal
Government.
Saturday, March 2, 2013
Some lessons from the 2012 Election
Almost everyone realizes that big money influences politics today.
Politicians need votes to get elected, and they need money to reach
out to the voters.
Special interest groups need access to politicians in order to push
their private agendas onto the general public...and are more than
willing to offer money or bloc votes to gain that special access.
It can be a marriage made in Heaven, as it was when it helped
correct the days of child labor, unfettered pollution, and other
human, ethical, and environmental problems.
It can be a marriage made in Hell, when it is used to prevent the
correction of injustices, or when it continues to push further and
further beyond a solution of fairness and common sense on problems
that have already been solved.
The problem today is that most Federal politicians are so wedded
to the special interest money that they spend scant, if any, time
worrying about Constitutional limitations, State's rights, or individual
rights and liberties, or the fiscal impact of their promises.
Republicans and Democrats alike spend the majority of their time
raising campaign money by promising tax or regulatory breaks for
their favorite constituencies, while playing lip service to the
"middle-class American", who continues to get shafted.
The career Republicans and Democrats both know that their key to
remaining in power is to use the tax system as a tool to fund the
promises they make to their supporters, or as a method to threaten
their detractors. They are virtuosos at playing the existing system to
their benefit.
But now, this system of tax increases and increasing exemptions
has expanded and expanded so much over so many years, it has
become bloated and unmanageable. It is close to burying the nation
in debt.
Who pays for all this? You do, if you work for a living. The
Federal Government alone withholds income taxes, social security
taxes, and medicare taxes out of your pay stub, as well as
additional social security taxes from your employer for you.
And if they don't take enough money from you to pay for the
promises they make, they'll go ahead and borrow the money, so
you, or your children, will be paying it back later.
You may think you're making out on this deal. You're a union
member and you've got political friends who are covering for you.
Or, you're a Wall-Street banker, or, a farmer. Maybe you're a
manufacturer, or a small businessman. You might be interested
in protecting the environment. You could be in the one percent,
or in the ninety nine percent, or in the middle-class.
If you're in any of these groups, or any other group, you may
think the politicians are looking out for you. True, they're giving
your group something. They're also promising all the other
groups something...and they're taking all of it out of your pocket.
If you work for a living, your family is paying for the promises
they make. It doesn't matter if you earn $20,000 a year or
$2,000,000 a year...you are paying for it. You are the individual
working person, and you are paying for ALL the special interest
groups the politicians are favoring.
So, the first lesson learned is to start thinking of yourself as an
individual who is paying for all the special interest groups, and
start demanding that politicians justify how they are spending
your money and where it is going.
Use your influence to support candidates that promise to
support a simpler tax plan with lower tax rates and fewer
deductions. My preference would be a plan similar to that
described in my "Tax Overview" and "Five Ten Begin Again"
posts.
With any plan, the general idea should be to simplify the tax
code and prevent politicians from using the code to reward
or penalize individuals and/or organizations, and to force
them (the politicians) to live within a budget, just like the rest
of us do.
Even if you think that tinkering with the tax code was justified
in the past, it has gotten so bloated and inefficient that it has to
be reset before we implode in the future.
If you work for a living, you're being played, one against another.
In order to distract you from asking why anyone who earns less
than $20,000 should pay any federal income tax, or why anyone
at all should pay almost a 40% tax rate, they have you arguing over
which rich guy should pay more than you or which special interest
group should get a special tax break.
The question should be "Why should politicians take so much
money from my family, and give so much of it to other people?".
Even the Social Security Trust Fund is used as a piggy bank to fund
government spending through special issue treasury bonds at low
interest rates.
A simpler, fairer tax code at lower rates would help impose fiscal
discipline in Washington, would help discourage social tinkering and
political cronyism, and would help prevent politicians from using
the threat of tax consequences to extort political contributions and/or
to silence political opposition.
Politicians need votes to get elected, and they need money to reach
out to the voters.
Special interest groups need access to politicians in order to push
their private agendas onto the general public...and are more than
willing to offer money or bloc votes to gain that special access.
It can be a marriage made in Heaven, as it was when it helped
correct the days of child labor, unfettered pollution, and other
human, ethical, and environmental problems.
It can be a marriage made in Hell, when it is used to prevent the
correction of injustices, or when it continues to push further and
further beyond a solution of fairness and common sense on problems
that have already been solved.
The problem today is that most Federal politicians are so wedded
to the special interest money that they spend scant, if any, time
worrying about Constitutional limitations, State's rights, or individual
rights and liberties, or the fiscal impact of their promises.
Republicans and Democrats alike spend the majority of their time
raising campaign money by promising tax or regulatory breaks for
their favorite constituencies, while playing lip service to the
"middle-class American", who continues to get shafted.
The career Republicans and Democrats both know that their key to
remaining in power is to use the tax system as a tool to fund the
promises they make to their supporters, or as a method to threaten
their detractors. They are virtuosos at playing the existing system to
their benefit.
But now, this system of tax increases and increasing exemptions
has expanded and expanded so much over so many years, it has
become bloated and unmanageable. It is close to burying the nation
in debt.
Who pays for all this? You do, if you work for a living. The
Federal Government alone withholds income taxes, social security
taxes, and medicare taxes out of your pay stub, as well as
additional social security taxes from your employer for you.
And if they don't take enough money from you to pay for the
promises they make, they'll go ahead and borrow the money, so
you, or your children, will be paying it back later.
You may think you're making out on this deal. You're a union
member and you've got political friends who are covering for you.
Or, you're a Wall-Street banker, or, a farmer. Maybe you're a
manufacturer, or a small businessman. You might be interested
in protecting the environment. You could be in the one percent,
or in the ninety nine percent, or in the middle-class.
If you're in any of these groups, or any other group, you may
think the politicians are looking out for you. True, they're giving
your group something. They're also promising all the other
groups something...and they're taking all of it out of your pocket.
If you work for a living, your family is paying for the promises
they make. It doesn't matter if you earn $20,000 a year or
$2,000,000 a year...you are paying for it. You are the individual
working person, and you are paying for ALL the special interest
groups the politicians are favoring.
So, the first lesson learned is to start thinking of yourself as an
individual who is paying for all the special interest groups, and
start demanding that politicians justify how they are spending
your money and where it is going.
Use your influence to support candidates that promise to
support a simpler tax plan with lower tax rates and fewer
deductions. My preference would be a plan similar to that
described in my "Tax Overview" and "Five Ten Begin Again"
posts.
With any plan, the general idea should be to simplify the tax
code and prevent politicians from using the code to reward
or penalize individuals and/or organizations, and to force
them (the politicians) to live within a budget, just like the rest
of us do.
Even if you think that tinkering with the tax code was justified
in the past, it has gotten so bloated and inefficient that it has to
be reset before we implode in the future.
If you work for a living, you're being played, one against another.
In order to distract you from asking why anyone who earns less
than $20,000 should pay any federal income tax, or why anyone
at all should pay almost a 40% tax rate, they have you arguing over
which rich guy should pay more than you or which special interest
group should get a special tax break.
The question should be "Why should politicians take so much
money from my family, and give so much of it to other people?".
Even the Social Security Trust Fund is used as a piggy bank to fund
government spending through special issue treasury bonds at low
interest rates.
A simpler, fairer tax code at lower rates would help impose fiscal
discipline in Washington, would help discourage social tinkering and
political cronyism, and would help prevent politicians from using
the threat of tax consequences to extort political contributions and/or
to silence political opposition.
Complex Problems
The original purpose of the Federal Government was to protect the
rights of the individual from the over-reaching tyranny of an
all-powerful federal executive AND from the tyranny of an
all-powerful majority vote.
That's why it was set up as a democratic republic and not set up
as a pure democracy. That's why the Federal Government had its
powers limited by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. That's
why competing power centers were created to diffuse the central
accumulation of power.
The members of the House were elected by popular vote to represent
the people's will.
The Senators were appointed by state politicians to represent state's
rights in Washington. The election of Senators has since been
changed to popular vote, with the effect of lessening the influence
of state's rights in Washington.
The President was elected by Electors appointed by representatives
of the states, to carry out constitutional duties and to enforce proper
laws and regulations. The Electors have since been chosen to
represent the popular vote for President in the states.
Finally, the Supreme Court was created to adjudicate the
Constitutionality of Federal laws and regulations.
Over the years, the increasing reliance on the popular vote has
increased the political importance of achieving majority vote and
decreasing the importance of state's rights or individual rights.
The country has moved closer to a pure Democracy and further
from a Republic.
At first blush, most would think this shift has been a good thing,
but there's a darker side as well. Power has been gradually
shifting away from States and individuals to the centralized power
of the Federal government...the polar opposite of what the founders
intended.
To get elected in Washington, one has to deal with power centers
that are more concerned with the welfare of their members than
with the welfare of the Country, the individual States, or any
individuals outside of their membership.
Eisenhower once warned about the rising influence of the
Military/Industrial Complex. Today we've progressed to the
Federal Government Complex, the Banking, the Public
Union, and the Environmental Complexes, as well as the
Healthcare and Welfare Complexes...and who knows how many
more?
There used to be many competing car companies and banks. Now,
maybe two or three US car companies, and maybe five or six giant
banks, all becoming bigger and bigger until they become "too big to
fail"...protected by the federal government and feeding off taxes paid
by working American citizens.
Millions of Americans wonder "how we ever got in this mess"?
Others wonder "how we're ever going to get out of this mess?'. It
started with the well-intentioned shift towards centralized Federal
control.
Some suggestions for getting out of this mess will follow.
rights of the individual from the over-reaching tyranny of an
all-powerful federal executive AND from the tyranny of an
all-powerful majority vote.
That's why it was set up as a democratic republic and not set up
as a pure democracy. That's why the Federal Government had its
powers limited by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. That's
why competing power centers were created to diffuse the central
accumulation of power.
The members of the House were elected by popular vote to represent
the people's will.
The Senators were appointed by state politicians to represent state's
rights in Washington. The election of Senators has since been
changed to popular vote, with the effect of lessening the influence
of state's rights in Washington.
The President was elected by Electors appointed by representatives
of the states, to carry out constitutional duties and to enforce proper
laws and regulations. The Electors have since been chosen to
represent the popular vote for President in the states.
Finally, the Supreme Court was created to adjudicate the
Constitutionality of Federal laws and regulations.
Over the years, the increasing reliance on the popular vote has
increased the political importance of achieving majority vote and
decreasing the importance of state's rights or individual rights.
The country has moved closer to a pure Democracy and further
from a Republic.
At first blush, most would think this shift has been a good thing,
but there's a darker side as well. Power has been gradually
shifting away from States and individuals to the centralized power
of the Federal government...the polar opposite of what the founders
intended.
To get elected in Washington, one has to deal with power centers
that are more concerned with the welfare of their members than
with the welfare of the Country, the individual States, or any
individuals outside of their membership.
Eisenhower once warned about the rising influence of the
Military/Industrial Complex. Today we've progressed to the
Federal Government Complex, the Banking, the Public
Union, and the Environmental Complexes, as well as the
Healthcare and Welfare Complexes...and who knows how many
more?
There used to be many competing car companies and banks. Now,
maybe two or three US car companies, and maybe five or six giant
banks, all becoming bigger and bigger until they become "too big to
fail"...protected by the federal government and feeding off taxes paid
by working American citizens.
Millions of Americans wonder "how we ever got in this mess"?
Others wonder "how we're ever going to get out of this mess?'. It
started with the well-intentioned shift towards centralized Federal
control.
Some suggestions for getting out of this mess will follow.
Thursday, January 10, 2013
Strange New World
One day, in a school yard, a little boy and a little girl got angry at each
other. She called him a "booger". He called her a "double slimy booger".
They argued.
A teacher came to break up the disagreement, and wondered "how do I
best turn this difficult situation into a teachable moment, so the children
will learn, and no-one will suffer irreparable damage"?
A child psychologist postulated that, in order to avoid self-esteem issues,
children should not call each other names.
Then, the same situation happens at two other schools. A TV station
picks up the story and starts referring to it as a "booger epidemic".
And, in a completely unrelated incident, the Child Suffrage Movement
succeeds in its hard fought efforts to lower the voting requirement to
five years of age...in order to ensure that the rights of children are
protected in the political system.
And, Washington politicians do become involved in the "booger
epidemic," with Congress identifying children as a protected class,
and identifying "booger" as hate speech under its new "Snot Crimes"
legislation.
Not to be outdone, the President notes that studies have found it
unfair that some children have more Kleenex than others, and
proposes new taxes to invest in a "Kleenex Redistribution Bill,"
as a part of a social justice agenda.
And then, I woke up. It was all a bad dream. We still teach our
children about "sticks and stones". Our children still learn to be
tough enough to stand up to bullies and others who don't like them,
or attempt to intimidate them.
We don't really attempt to limit free speech with politically correct
speech. We don't really try to over-legislate to score political points
with lobbyists or special interest groups.
Our children know that there will always be someone who dislikes
them because they have too much, or too little, or look too good, or
too bad, or are the wrong religion, or the wrong color, or are too smart,
or too stupid, and on, and on.
We have taught our children not to expect a perfect world, but to stand
up and deal with an imperfect world, and make the best of it, all with
minimum help from the Feds.
They can "man-up" on their own. Sorry...that should be "child-up" on their
own. I don't want to offend gender or age demographics.
'
other. She called him a "booger". He called her a "double slimy booger".
They argued.
A teacher came to break up the disagreement, and wondered "how do I
best turn this difficult situation into a teachable moment, so the children
will learn, and no-one will suffer irreparable damage"?
A child psychologist postulated that, in order to avoid self-esteem issues,
children should not call each other names.
Then, the same situation happens at two other schools. A TV station
picks up the story and starts referring to it as a "booger epidemic".
And, in a completely unrelated incident, the Child Suffrage Movement
succeeds in its hard fought efforts to lower the voting requirement to
five years of age...in order to ensure that the rights of children are
protected in the political system.
And, Washington politicians do become involved in the "booger
epidemic," with Congress identifying children as a protected class,
and identifying "booger" as hate speech under its new "Snot Crimes"
legislation.
Not to be outdone, the President notes that studies have found it
unfair that some children have more Kleenex than others, and
proposes new taxes to invest in a "Kleenex Redistribution Bill,"
as a part of a social justice agenda.
And then, I woke up. It was all a bad dream. We still teach our
children about "sticks and stones". Our children still learn to be
tough enough to stand up to bullies and others who don't like them,
or attempt to intimidate them.
We don't really attempt to limit free speech with politically correct
speech. We don't really try to over-legislate to score political points
with lobbyists or special interest groups.
Our children know that there will always be someone who dislikes
them because they have too much, or too little, or look too good, or
too bad, or are the wrong religion, or the wrong color, or are too smart,
or too stupid, and on, and on.
We have taught our children not to expect a perfect world, but to stand
up and deal with an imperfect world, and make the best of it, all with
minimum help from the Feds.
They can "man-up" on their own. Sorry...that should be "child-up" on their
own. I don't want to offend gender or age demographics.
'
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)