Myth-conceptions About Government and Finance

For those who want to know how complex some of the labor and retirement laws are, check this out: Participants and Advisors Are Hurt By High 401K Fees. Apparently the retirement plans have high fees the advisors never get any part of, and may not be aware of. But, that's not the kicker. To find out what those fees are, you have to file a US Department of Labor form. In other words, we are being fleeced by our retirement plans, the government is aware of it—and has made it more difficult for us to find out (kind of like the Freedom of Information Act filing requirements). And, we trust Washington to straighten this whole thing out with more rules and regulations? Hmmm...

Then there is the explosion over the insurance industry report indicating health care insurance costs will rise if the government plan is enacted. No surprise, the Democrats are claiming it's self serving of the industry to publish the report, according to a Reuters news report. This after an AP report that Democrats were scrambling because of the report.

But, let's consider what may be false assumptions by the Democrats. Apparently, savings from cheaper insurance plans are begin considered in the cost-benefit calculations by the Democrats:

Critics of the study said it tilted those assumptions too far toward a worst case, ignoring the bill's potential to curb costs.

For example, the tax on high-cost health insurance that Baucus is proposing could lead employers and individuals to switch to lower-cost plans and avoid the levy. If that happens, there would be no additional costs to pass on to consumers.

Now, I am not a whiz at this. But, a couple of things become quickly apparent from this. First, does anyone else believe that a tax is supposed to lower costs? In business terms taxes are costs, and they get factored into price. Second, cheaper insurance plans also means higher out of pocket expenses. How does that translate to savings? When insurance premiums are factored, they are based on the likelihood of payout. Escalating risk by forcing absolute coverage increases payouts. If you don't believe me, consider the insurance cost and premium escalation for coastal home owners. Does anyone really believe it would be different for health insurance?

As far as I can tell, the plan does not limit costs, despite all the rhetoric. It adds them, through taxation and increased business risk. Previous reports from CNN indicate that at best the plan will decrease rate of cost increase by about a third of what it needs to reduce it by. That type of change will merely prolong the problem, while increasing the deficit. And, one important thing to remember: government reports of deficit control are almost always wrong when it includes spending increases. Instead it merely prolongs it.

Democrats and liberals are selling us a bigger bill of goods. And, unfortunately, this is a huge social hot button. With the volume of public support and demand for this, government is likely to win. Which means, we the American public are buying that bill of goods.

Economics, Politics, and Smokescreens

There was an AP news reports yesterday declaring that Social Security will pay out more in benefits than it collects in taxes the next two years. The AP also reported that regulators shut down the 95th U.S. bank to fail this year as loan defaults rise in the worst financial climate in decades. Meanwhile, the New York Times reported that job seekers exceed job openings 6-1. All of which leaves me wondering why are so many Americans are buying the media blitz and Obama's declarations that things are improving? It's time for Americans to pay attention to the facts being reported by mainstream media, and sorting them out of the hype and distractions these reports are filled with.

Meanwhile, for those who are complacent about their freedoms, you should be aware that Presidential Power to shut down the Internet is being debated in Congress. This comes at the same time that the Justice Department says Federal Computer program to watch computer use is no problem...legally or otherwise. Privacy groups disagree.

But, still, we sit back and listen as one government move after another removes freedoms and personal rights in the name of the public good. The thing to recall is the Socialist party leaders said in the 1944 that they did not need to run for office anymore because the Democratic Party had adopted their ideas.

Six-time Socialist Party candidate for president of the U.S., Norman Mattoon Thomas, said in a speech in 1944 that "The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But, under the name of 'liberalism' they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program until one day America will be a socialist nation, without knowing how it happened."

Then, he went on to say, "I no longer need to run as a presidential candidate for the Socialist Party. The Democratic Party has adopted our platform."

Even worse, by 1948 all items of the Socialist platform had been co-opted by either the Republicans or the Democrats. Obviously, the goal is to have government in charge of everything. For example, healthcare, while important, does not have to be run by the government. But, both parties are talking about how important it is for the government to be in charge of how healthcare is handled. And, the media is complicit, since they rarely if ever give equal space to those who oppose it. We should all probably spend more energy remembering that...as we consider both political parties, coming elections, and what the media feeds us.

The Unethics of Government, Lead by our President

Citezens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), a left-leaning watchdog group, has released its annual report on the most corrupt members of Congress. And, strangely enough, most of the top-ten are Democrats.



On the subject of ethics issues and government officials, And according to Liveleak.com, Obama spent $20.3M to bring Hamas "refugees" to America. Well, it was part of H.R. 1388, which passed by the way. Don’t believe me? Here is the Federal Register entry on it…

Federal Register: February 4, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 22)
DOCID: fr04fe09-106 FR Doc E9-2488
Presidential Documents
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
NOTICE: Part II
DOCID: fr04fe09-106
DOCUMENT SUMMARY:

[[Page 6115]]
Presidential Determination No. 2009-15 of January 27, 2009

Go look it up for yourself.



Obama also claims the fines for not carrying health insurance are not taxes. But, according to fact checking that’s a lie.

...the language of Democratic bills to revamp the nation's health care system doesn't quibble. Both the House bill and the Senate Finance Committee proposal clearly state that the fines would be a tax.”

It’s totally amazing to me how many times our President can lie, and not get called for it by the media. Left wing political watchdog groups I can understand skipping over it. But, the media not only downplays the all, but spends huge amounts of time attempting to marginalize anyone who tries to bring these lies to the light of day. How do I know? Check out this quote from later in the article:

Some liberals acknowledge that Obama might be vulnerable on the insurance requirement. But they say most people will understand as long as the legislation provides enough of a subsidy to make the coverage affordable. That's a central issue this week as the Senate Finance Committee starts voting on legislation.

Not only that, it goes on to quote a left wing group as saying whether it’s a tax or not is “a metaphysical question.” And, the media never even questioned that approach.



There were two other articles today that really caught my attention. The media and the President have been touting how much the economy is improving. They have been doing it a lot. So, explain today’s article about “10 Companies Approaching Bankruptcy”. It would appear with these big companies so close to bankruptcy that the economy is not as sound as our leaders would ahve us believe.

This was quickly followed by the article titled “FDIC Might Need To Borrow From Banks.” Turns out the FDIC doesn’t want to tap it’s credit line at the FED. So, they are trying to make banks foot the bill. Of course, the money would be borrowed, meaning banks would get some income off of it. And, borrowing from the big banks is just one option, but it is being seriously considered.

“Regulators also are considering levying a special emergency fee on all banks, charging regular fees early or tapping a $100 billion credit line with the U.S. Treasury, the officials said.”

Perhaps I’m just a bit naïve, but, aren’t these banks in danger of failing due to bad lending, and so forth? Especially the big banks? The same banks that are being told not to repay their TARP funds due to possible solvency issues? And, the government is now going to borrow from the same banks it bailed out?

9/11 Morning Report

Today is mostly a day of remembrance. When i first started this blog, I wrote something on 9-11. Those thoughts apply today, just as much as they did in 2006. So, before going on to current events, I ask you once again: Where Were you?

There was a pretty good article by Robert Tracinski yesterday about what President Obama is saying, and has said, regarding healthcare legislation. I would behoove us all to pay attention to what has been said, what is being said, and how it has changed during the so far short length of his administration. For example:

he assures us that "My guiding principle is, and always has been, that consumers do better when there is choice and competition." So how is it that he was recorded only six years ago describing himself as an advocate of a Canadian style "single payer" system — the very opposite of "choice and competition"?

This goes nicely with a great ironic little cartoon yesterday:




You can hear a lot of dissenting voices on what Obama did and did not say at the NYTimes article ”What was missing from Obama’s speech”. But, it merely echoes what I said the other day. The plan throws more money at the symptoms, but does nothing to actually control costs. Put another way, it makes great political hoopla, but actually doesn’t accomplish the goal. And,that basically means the conservative claims of merely being about government control and taxation could be the real truth of what is going on.


Meanwhile, there is the war effort going on in Afghanistan. And, thanks to so many months and years of anti-Iraq involvement, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi can truly say there is little support for increased involvement. That is sad. The U.S. has once again entered into Afghan life, and once again—this time because of Democrats—is deciding to run away before the full requirement is complete. The U.S. did it under Regan after the Russians gave up, and that let the Taliban take over. I wonder what will happen if the U.S. walks out this time? And how the Democrats will save their face. You should consider the sobering conclusions and thoughts of Michael Yon. He started recognizing the problems and potentials in Afghanistan before the pundits and politicians—just as he did in Iraq.

More Unkept Promises...

Did anyone see the latest ideas from Congress on limits to healthcare? Yep. This makes good stuff available to those UNDER 25, but not over.

The measure -- offered by Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont. -- would impose new fees on some healthcare industry segments to help offset the estimated $880 billion in initial costs over 10 years, The New York Times reported Tuesday.

The plan would provide a lower-cost insurance plan for catastrophic coverage only to people up to age 25, people familiar with the outline said. It also would expand less comprehensive Medicaid coverage to millions of low-income people who now are ineligible.

With Medicaid losing money, how is this going to be funded? The question still waits a full answer.

A related article at the NYTimes adds a bit more detail about Baucus’ proposal:

To help finance the legislation, Mr. Baucus is expected to propose a new tax on insurance companies selling policies with premiums far exceeding the national average, roughly $13,000 a year for family coverage.

Government healthcare is no longer a government program, apparently. It is a commercial industry killing plan. Risk management implies that higher risk has higher costs…but not according to the government’s coming “guidelines.”

Meanwhile, there is a petition circulating to drum up support for House Bill HR676 to make establishing health care a civil right, giving it equal status with race, sex, and creed. The petition specifically states the Bill

Whereas HR676 provides for Medicare for All, a universal, single payer, not-for-profit health care system which means the end of premiums, copays and deductibles; and

Whereas we are already paying for a universal standard of care but are not getting it because one of every three dollars in the health care system goes to the activities of the for-profit insurance system…

In short, this Bill and the petition openly state the goal is to replace or eliminate the insurance industry. That should do wonders for the deficit effects of the healthcare plan, already planned to be partially funded by money from the insurance industry. (…not to mention Democrats have openly said that is not what they are doing or have planned…)
But, those are not as concerning as the latest changes from President Obama himself. There was a short fact check on some points from his latest speech to Congress. Gone are guarantees about personal choice. Gone is the refusal to require everyone to be insured. Gone as well is his promise to “not increase the deficit by one dime.” Why? Government accounting that lets them say what they want it to say. The article states:

House Democrats offered a bill that the Congressional Budget Office said would add $220 billion to the deficit over 10 years. But Democrats and Obama administration officials claimed the bill was actually deficit-neutral. They said they simply didn't have to count $245 billion of it — the cost of adjusting Medicare reimbursement rates so physicians don't face big annual pay cuts.

Let’s see…Broken promises…Rising deficits…A not recovering economy…Sounds like Bush all over again…doesn’t it? Or at least that’s what the media and the Left used to accuse him of. Think they might accuse their Golden Boy Obama of the same thing?

Still, all of this legislation aimed at providing healthcare to all fails to address the real problem: rising healthcare costs. None of the legislation as far as I know does anything to reign in costs. It just throws more money into the healthcare system. As education has proven, more money does not solve the problem. The United States spends more per student on education than other countries, but we have a lower student success rate. More money is not a solution to cost control issues. Basic economics says that if more money chases the same amount of goods, the price goes up. So, why do we believe more money is the solution for healthcare when the problem is costs? As the debate and clamor for this legislation goes on, let’s remember that the real problem still remains unaddressed.

Obama And the Ever Increasing Deficit

The AP article headline reads White House, Congress projects record deficits. Honestly, does this surprise anyone?

Both the White House Office of Management and Budget and the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office predicted the budget deficit this year would swell to nearly $1.6 trillion, a record, and far above the then-record 2008 budget deficit of $455 billion.

Most of that increase is from stimulus spending. And, many are still arguing over whether the stimulus is actually accomplishing what it was supposed to do: job creation.

Meanwhile, there is a very important, and very over-looked, point in all of this:

Both see the national debt — the accumulation of annual budget deficits — as nearly doubling over the next day. The total national debt, made up of amounts the government owes to the public, including foreign governments, as well as money it has borrowed from itself, stood Tuesday at a staggering $11.7 trillion.

How many people realize the government has been borrowing from itself? This is one reason why Social Security is nearly broke. But, in the double entry world of accounting that becomes OK. I have money, I loan it to myself at interst, and that creates an asset to counter balance the liability. The problem is, in effective reality, the government is now out the money twice...and still can't pay it back.

And, the fiscal responsibility mud should get slung both ways. As much as the Democrats and the media slung it at Bush and the Republicans, we should expect to see it fly the other way. But, the media is already hiding things in these articles to gloss things over. For example, this article ends by saying:

The Obama administration did tout one number in its budget review: The 2009 deficit is now expected to be $1.58 trillion, $263 billion less than projected by the White House in May. That's largely because the White House removed a $250 billion item that it had inserted as a "place holder" in case banks needed another bailout.

The effect of ending on such a note is to say "Obama did good, so everything is OK." Which basically means the media will gloss over this. And, the American public will be hoodwinked again.

Oh! Haven't you realized? The media and government is playing the same games it did over the Vietnam War protests and 60s economy. Only this time, it's the liberals in control of what's being fed to the public.

(...my how the times they are a-changin...)

Revealing Leftism and Healthcare Lies In the Media

For those who wonder just how leftist the media and the country are going, take a look at this CNBC discussion of the second round of AIG bonuses. Kindly notice that Leslie Marshall (from national Radio) and Tanya Acker (from the Huffington Post) are in favor of throwing legal obligations to the wind based on the income or situation of the average American. In other words, what is right by law has nothing to with what is right from a socialistic viewpoint. What that boils down to, ladies and gentlemen, is that your contract can be voided if it does not meet the social norm, or average, in terms of benefits, salary, and so forth. And, if you don’t think that’s important, look how successfully they were allowed to out-voice the more business minded speakers (leftist though they are).


On the subject of leftists taking over with media help, have you been paying attention to what it will cost for the government to get back to fiscal responsibility? According to an article at CNNMoney last week:

Under Obama's budget, Gale and Auerbach (Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center) estimate the fiscal gap would be 9% of GDP. Conceptually, that means to restore fiscal balance over the long-term the federal government would need to increase taxes by 9% of GDP or cut spending by that amount starting now and lasting "until the end of time," Gale said.

They go on to note that neither the Republican (“no new taxes”) or Democrat (“only tax the rich”) stance on taxes has any fiscal responsibility.

That article is actually about the cost of healthcare legislation. But, there are interesting points on other items, too. But, on the healthcare point:

Gale and Auerbach (Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center) estimate that for health cost savings alone to stabilize the debt-to-GDP ratio over time, the growth rate in health costs would need to be slowed by 3 percentage points a year -- for 75 years.

In other words, Obama’s healthcare savings, without major tax increases, are a fiction. Of course, this goes along with the CBO report that the healthcare legislation will actually increase the deficit by $1 trillion. Liberals were quick to change that verbiage to “increase the cost”, but the report specifically said it would increase the deficit. (…make sure you pay attention to how things are said…)

We also need to remember that all the projections on budgets are based on economic growth and output. Tax increases equal to 9% of Gross Domestic Product is based on the projected economy. For those who don’t know, 9% of GDP is A LOT! So, what if the economy continues to crater, instead of responding to the first (and expected second) stimulus?

It is, after all, a real possibility. There are many who say the market increases are not backed by real economic activity to match it. Unemployment projections during the campaign and early days of the administration said it would not reach these levels, and now Obama is projecting double-digit unemployment. And, several prominent economists are now saying no economic recovery in the second half of 2009.

Over spending got the world into this mess. And, government wants you to believe that increased borrowing will solve the problem of overspending. Congress, specifically the banking committees chaired by Democrats, allowed this mess to happen in the US. Deregulation may have played a part, but it was not the whole story.

I know this goes contrary to what the media and Liberal leaders are telling Americans. So, take some action. Hold the media accountable. Hold your Congressmen and Senators accountable. Let your voice be heard.

ACLU, Healthcare and the Socialism of America

I find it fascinating that people believe the American Civil Liberties Union (ALCU) has a high minded goal of seeing equal liberty for all. This is simply not the case. Have you ever heard of them taking a case to defend Christian rights? No. There are reasons for this. At its heart, the organization is Communist. Communist regimes have the state as God, since religion is merely a tool to keep the downtrodden masses in check. Don’t believe me? Let’s take a look at the writings of Robert Baldwin, founder of the ACLU:

[There] I saw … fresh, vigorous expressions of free living by workers and peasants all over the land. And further, no champion of a socialist society could fail to see that some suppression was necessary to achieve it. It could not all be done by persuasion. … [I]f American champions of civil liberty could all think in terms of economic freedom as the goal of their labors, they too would accept ‘workers’ democracy’ as far superior to what the capitalist world offers to any but a small minority. Yes, and they would accept — regretfully, of course — the necessity of dictatorship while the job of reorganizing society on a socialist basis is being done.”(From "Freedom in the USA and the USSR" , 1934)

Their goal is to change the way Americans think about liberty, and bring about dictatorial leadership by the state.

What, you ask, does that have to do with cap and trade and government healthcare? Simple. It leaves the government in charge of everything, which is the goal of a socialist or communist state—it is just a matter of degree. Manufacturing is openly being bought by the federal government, in the name of job salvation. But, only economic development and growth can guarantee jobs—not government, Financial institutions are being bought out by the government, in the name of monetary stability. That one may be arguable, but one certain thing is government doesn’t finance entrepreneurs because they are not looking to increase return on their investment.

Consider that government healthcare, as it did in Russia and most socialist states, will reduced the quality and quantity of available healthcare. Don’t believe me? Name the countries that have produced applyable medical breakthroughs. Most have been from the US. Research, high caliber no doubt, has come from many countries. But, real advances in medicine and industry have primarily come from the US. Senators and Congressmen are already saying this will change with the implementation of proposed legislation. If you don’t believe me, maybe you should believe them.

And, if you don’t like any of this, let YOUR elected officials know. Make your voice heard on the internet, in public discussions, and anywhere else you can peacefully take a stand. As long as the American people say nothing, this will go on until there are no liberties left in this country. As the old saying goes, “All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good people to do nothing.” What are you doing to bring change?

Consider more about Baldwin. He was a friend of terrorists who supported communism (Pedro Albizu Campos). He was a friend and supporter of those who were willing to murder their won people for political means (Ho Chi Minh). In fact, maybe we should just consider Baldwin’s own words:

"I am for socialism, disarmament, and ultimately, for abolishing the state itself as an instrument of violence and compulsion. I seek social ownership of property, the abolition of the properties class, and sole control of those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal. It all sums up into one single purpose -- the abolition of dog-eat-dog under which we live. I don't regret being part of the communist tactic. I knew what I was doing. I was not an innocent liberal. I wanted what the communists wanted and I traveled the United Front road to get it."

You should also know that Baldwin maintained an office in the United Nations after his retirement from the ACLU, working as a consultant for the International League for Human Rights.

So…do you still think it’s all about the best for man as opposed to what’s best for the state?

Obama and Government Financial Games

First, it was western banks and financial institutions. Now, Chinese banks are accused of taking excessive risks.

Chinese banks' surge in lending to support the government's stimulus package is leading to excessive risk taking, said the Fitch ratings agency.

The Fitch agency’s main point is the focus is on short term profits, instead of long term stability. Isn’t that what got the West in so much financial trouble? Perhaps the Obama administration should take a lesson on the subject of short term fixes. If the financial industry is beginning to recognize these signs, maybe the US government should, too, and stop borrowing to solve the credit crunch. If excessive credit got us into this mess, maybe someone should realize that even more credit is not likely to get us out.


Speaking of President Obama and financial solutions, people are getting pretty hacked off at him. Congress is mad. The average John Doe is mad. Why? Job losses in the auto industry, for one. Chrysler and GM are cutting jobs left and right. You might also consider the following two headlines from Reuters:

17 years for the US to exit GMAC
GM borrows more while preparing for bankruptcy

Increasing loans to companies that will fail? Taking on debt that may not be recoverable for decades? What, pray tell, is there to be excited about?

(…welcome to Liberal Obamaland…where special Liberal interests get LOTS of breaks…in the name of stamping out capitalism…)

Banking, Education...and Islam

Despite Ben Bernake’s news of increased consumer spending, things are not what they appear. According to The Economist, consumption will remain in a depressed state for years. Why?

Since the early 1980s, spending by households on goods, services and homes has grown faster than GDP, making it the locomotive of American—and global—expansion. By 2006 it accounted for 76% of nominal GDP, the highest since quarterly data begin in 1947.

It will likely remain depressed for the same reason we got into this mess: an ever increasingly credit driven economy. And that problem, by the way, is not one that governments are addressing. Instead, they are trying to increase the amount of available credit. Granted, there is a need for that in the short term. But, the long term solution for the credit mess is not being addressed at all. And that is going to be very bad.

Ultimately, it’s why the Chinese and other Asian countries own so much of America. And, lest we forget, so do the Arabs. Unfortunately, with their continued investment will likely come more Sharia Law requirements which banks will undoubtedly go for. Don’t think they will? Think again. Profits alone will drive them there. But, the western world is not being threatened by Islamic rules just in banking. Germany is facing this issue in their schools. But, that is nothing new. It’s been an ongoing battle in the U.S. for a few years. It was an unintended consequence of 9-11, to be sure. Of course, educators and teachers unions deny this is some soft form of indoctrination, but…

Democrats on Taxes, Banking, and Healthcare...Nothing But Lies.

There was a very interesting discussion of ”What Is Rich”. President Obama, and most Liberal politicians, intend to raise taxes on those making $250,000 or more. Unfortunately, that is a very arbitrary standard.

An income of $250,000 is a lot richer in Abilene, Texas, than in New York's Nassau County, where it takes $430,000 to enjoy a similar quality of life, according to bankrate.com. So let's call them the "working rich."

The other flaw in this idea is that the burden of these new taxes will actually fall on the “working rich” rather than the super rich, as all the political rhetoric implied. The “working rich” are, in reality, the upper middle class. It also needs to be remembered that taxing the rich doesn’t actually stimulate the economy,

Soaking the rich doesn't even seem to increase tax revenues. The top marginal tax rate has fluctuated wildly over the past 50 years, from 91% to 28%; it's now 35%. But individual tax revenue as a percent of GDP hasn't varied much at all - it hovers at about 8% - and its variations don't correlate with the top tax rate.

So, in reality, who is really getting soaked by President Obama’s new tax plan? It’s not the rich. Obama changed nothing, despite his rhetoric.

(…is anyone really surprised?...)


Meanwhile, U.S. House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank who did such an amazing job of wathing over the financial community (aka Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac) wants to eliminate the ban on internet gambling in the US. Given that Frank has never been called on the carpet by the media for his misdeeds, this will probably be trumpeted as some noble cause by the media. In an effort to look good for the party, it should be noted that Frank is also pressing legislation to halt implementation of Bush administration anti-gambling laws.

"The government should not interfere with people's liberties," said Frank.

You have to admit that as he and the other Democratic leaders in Congress press on with increase nationalization and control of business, standing up for people’s liberties is kind of reversal. The sad part is that the European gambling firms have lost millions in recent times. So, this would not even make sense from a tax revenue standpoint. But, then again, if you put in line with Obama’s failure to tax the rich, it does make a sick sort of sense.


But, in a Reuters news report, the Democrats are telling more lies. Perhaps repeating the same lie would be more accurate in this case. This time, the lie-teller is new U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius. On Wednesday, she made an appearance before Congress and stated that the new US Health Agency will “compete with private insurers rather than lead to a socialized system as Republicans claim.” Her statements fly in the face of Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL) Admission that Obama Healthcare Plan Will Destroy Insurance Industry. However, the report goes to great lengths to discuss to studies showing the need for urgent reform. Will the media ever get around to reporting this sort of thing properly?

(…it would be nice…but I am not holding my breath…)

Smoke and Mirrors from Obama and the Swine Flu

So much for President Obama’s “tax credit for all” package. The way it was written, it is actually creating tax liabilities for the poor. And, more importantly, nothing is being done to let people know.

At-risk taxpayers include a broad swath of the public: married couples in which both spouses work; workers with more than one job; retirees who have federal income taxes withheld from their pension payments and Social Security recipients with jobs that provide taxable income.

The Internal Revenue Service acknowledges problems with the withholding tables but has done little to warn average taxpayers.

Retirees get the latest $250 SSN check deducted from their eligible “refund. College students may not get to claim it at all. Yet, this was hailed as a package that would provide for these very people.

Now, I am smart enough to realize people need to keep up with their own tax issues. But, the whole thing smells like a cheap public relations stunt. That is especially true since the government is saying nothing even though they knew in advance this would happen. So, how come no one is saying “Obama lied and ripped us off again.”

(…tell me again why people believe the Liberals really care about the poor…???...)

And, in the continuing stories showing the stupidity over the Swine Flu, Mexico is reporting a drop in reported cases THE DAY AFTER closing businesses and offices.

Mexico started a five-day shutdown of most offices and businesses on Friday to try to halt the spread of a deadly flu strain, and officials said they were encouraged by signs the number of new cases was dropping.

Does anyone really believe that a single day of closings brought an immediate drop to the number of cases? That’s as crazy closing schools in Texas in hopes of keeping disease from spreading. The kids will go to malls and daycare centers while their parents work. That is not the type of isolation required to stop the spread of a dangerous disease. The WHO (World Health Organization)…

said on Friday that no meeting of its emergency committee was scheduled, meaning there was no immediate likelihood of the current level 5 alert being raised to a full 'phase 6' pandemic alert.

In fact, only mild cases have occurred anywhere outside of Mexico, indicating the spread is relatively limited. According to this article, the number of new cases being reported by hospitals in Mexico in the last 10 days has dropped by some 75%. And, while 176 deaths so far is a lot, 13,00 flu deaths occur in the US each year. This is a very far cry from a lethal pandemic.

(…do I really want to ask how dumb the media and government think we are…)

The problem this type of media hype could create is horrifying. consider all the false warnings the media gives...on an ever increasing basis. As time goes on, people will probably pay less and less attention. And, then, one day, the media will get one right but no one will pay attention. People will probably blame God for the problems. But, in fact, they were created by men and God simply let us have what we created and did not bother to fix. I pity the millions who will probably die in those days. I also pity the punishment that awaits those who brought it on.

Liberal Hate-mongering and Media "Pandemic" Hoaxes

It seems that the Huffington Post is pulling out more stops (…I doubt all of them are pulled, by the way…) in their hate speech and denigration of Conservatives. A recent article paints Republican Party as a dying tyrant, mad with syphilis, ironically like that very Stalin they would accuse their enemies of associating with. Isn’t it interesting that using similar hate filled speech against Homosexuals, Immigrants, and a host of others would generate an outcry. But, not against those of opposing opinions…unless of course, you hold liberal opinions and a conservative disagrees with you. And, Liberals have the nerve to claim they are “open minded” and “fair” and..well…you get the idea.

Meanwhile, did you know the Democrats have openly said they are out to do in the insurance companies? You can watch the video for yourself…


Of course, it was pretty much given that this would happen as soon as the new agency was created to handle all that money. I doubt anyone is surprised by the announcement. We’ll see if liberals have overstepped their hand on that or not.

But, the big media circus, hiding all of this other “trivial stuff”, is the Swine Flu. Let’s put a few facts on the table before we go to far into that discussion. Did you know that some 13,000 people a year die of the flu in the United States under normal conditions? Did you know that according to the WHO:

30 April 2009 -- The situation continues to evolve rapidly. As of 17:00 GMT, 30 April 2009, 11 countries have officially reported 257 cases of influenza A (H1N1) infection.

<…snip…>

The following countries have reported laboratory confirmed cases with no deaths - Austria (1), Canada (19), Germany (3), Israel (2), Netherlands (1), New Zealand (3), Spain (13), Switzerland (1) and the United Kingdom (8).

What a stunning world health threat! 257 total cases WORLDWIDE!!! It should also be noted, in light of this “sweeping pandemic” the media is foisting on us, that the World Health Organization is not even advising any travel restrictions. Pretty devastating stuff, don’t you think? Before you give in to the media hype, check your facts, then take action. At the very least, take time to present the facts to your local media outlets and officials.

Obama and The Military...and debt

Obama has already begun to cut defense spending. The article, ostensibly about the proposed missile shield in Poland, went on to give some specific numbers. The most specific point is there will be no additional funding. Obama’s proposed budget only funds ongoing operations, with a supplement for Afghanistan and Iraq. The expanding military requirements, coupled with lower financing, does not bode well for the future—much as it did during the Clinton administration.

Meanwhile, a proposed insurance change for Veterans was scrapped by the White House. Despite the number of military families that have been receiving welfare support, the Obama administration had plans to make military personnel pay for their treatments through their own private health insurance. While in this time, I applaud the idea of creating savings, this was appalling. The White House has announced that is no longer under consideration. However, it seems the issue may not be completely off the table:

Having dropped the idea of billing private insurers for the treatment of service-connected conditions, administration officials have told veterans groups that they want to find another way to save a similar amount of money.

(…and people scoffed when Obama was accused of being anti-military…)


In other Obama news, it seems that on top of borrowing huge sums from China, the US will also be giving China money for going green.

Discussions are in the early stages but the EU has been talking to the Obama administration about offering cash for clean technology to countries like China if it agrees in turn to cap emissions in key industrial sectors and adopt cutting-edge technology.

After severely criticizing one US bank for using stimulus funds in China, it will be interesting to see if this is ever explained. This is especially true in light of China’s quiet diversification--a fancy way of saying they are scared about mounting US debt.

(…gee…I wonder why that might be…)

Bad Decisions...And More Bad Decisions

Well…no surprise…but another Obama nominee appears to be in legal trouble.

Obama appointee Vivek Kundra is on leave from his White House post following the arrest Thursday of one of his former colleagues on suspicion of bribery and money laundering.

Now, to be fair, Kundra is not actually named as a party in any of the FBI actions. But, it once again raises the question of who Obama associates with. Pre-election, he was bothered by conservative calls for definition and repudiation of relationships with several unsavory characters. Since his election, he has appointed several who have had tax-evasion problems. And, it seems the circle just keeps repeating itself. My question for America is when does the love of personal charisma give way to legitimate skepticism?

Kind of makes you wonder about another Presidential nominee.

Prominent Wall Street lawyer H. Rodgin Cohen has withdrawn from consideration to become deputy U.S. Treasury Secretary, Democratic sources said on Thursday, dealing another setback to the department's efforts to fill critical positions.



Cohen is the second person to withdraw from consideration for the No. 2 job at Treasury after former Securities and Exchange Commissioner Annette Nazareth decided to drop out last week.

What is it about our President that keeps him from picking people for important positions who do not have legal or personal problems that unqualify them for office? When you add it all up, it appears that the conservatives may have been more correct in their judgments than the liberal left has been.

(...didn't we hear somewhere that there would be no double standard for Obama's appointments?...guess the media really does recognize a difference between a liberal and a conservative...check the coverage levels for yourself...)

Is It Islam...or Money?

MSNBC has made another massive gaff. Friday, the “news source” once again demonstrated it lack of understanding of things Islamic by saying that capitalism not religion defines roles for women in that culture.

O'Donnell then turned to Sally Quinn of the Washington Post, who wrote about the theory on the newspaper's On Faith blog: "This is a hot topic, Sally. Do you believe that oil is behind sexism in the Middle East?" Quinn replied: "Well, I do think that it has a lot to do with it...when you have an oil-rich country, there's much less manufacturing, so that there are fewer jobs for women. But also because the country is so rich that women don't need to work and therefore they're comfortable and they stay home."

How anyone can say that is a mystery to me. The role of women has not changed, per se, in traditional Islamic cultures for hundreds of years. The roles were defined before the oil wealth existed there, and they permeate the culture from the bottom to the top. These kinds of determinations are just perfect examples of Liberalism trying to make things what they appear, not what they really are. And, unfortunately, people believe them rather than question them.

On the subject of things Islamic, the US is reportedly planning to send $900 million in aid to Gaza.

The aid would go to nongovernmental and UN organisations, with some going to the Palestinian Authority, the official said.

Given the UN track record of keeping tabs on and controlling Hamas activities—such as those recently missing explosives--I am not holding my breath over any aid not going to the terrorists.

NEW US Healthcare Initiatives (...yeah...right...)

There is now another healthcare plan being proposed. The center point of this plan is to keep the government from totally controlling healthcare. This plan uses the availability of a government plan as well as private insurance. But, there is one small detail…

Every American would be required to have some form of public or private health insurance, and one choice would be a new nationwide government program for anyone under 65, the age when eligibility for the existing Medicare program begins.

Can someone please tell me the difference? Either way, the government is in control and be in the insurance business, making it one more Nationalized industry.

Speaking of which, did anyone else notice the report about exceptions allowing the sale of your medical records included in the Stimulus Bill?

Though the legislation says there is a “prohibition on sale of electronic health records or protected health information,” there are five pages of exceptions to the prohibition that include research, treatment of an individual, or a decision by the Secretary of Health and Human Services to waive the prohibition.

Now, I understand the need for combining data for research and so forth. But, since when does that involve SALE of data? And, since when has that involved the inclusion of personal and private information?

(…does anyone still believe the government respects your rights of privacy?...)

The Middle East And Middle America

How can anyone believe that the Arab world really wants a peaceful settlement in the Middle East? The Turish Prime Minister walked out (stormed was the word used by the BBC) of meetings in Davos over the Gaza situation. Then, in a meeting in Instanbul, Sunni sheiks and scholars called for a new jihad.

Mohammed Nazzal, a senior Hamas leader based in Damascus, challenged Arab governments to "open their borders and allow the fighters to come."

Delegates from all over the Middle East, and from Somalia, Sudan, Pakistan and Indonesia applauded as he stabbed the air with a raised finger and declared: "There will be no agreement with Israel... only weapons will bring respect."

Mr Nazzal told his audience: "Don't worry about casualties."

The Arabs do not want, and have never really wanted, peace with Israel. Consider, for example, missing explosives, under Hamas guard, waiting UN disposal that are now missing. Does it really surprise anyone that Israel is blaming Hamas for sneaking the weapons off. And, in normal anti-Israel media fashion, no one seems to be commenting on Hamas’ silence over the situation. And, then, there was John Kerry’s comment about the peace process. Speaking about relations with Syria Rueters reports:

On the possibility of improved relations with Israel following recent elections there, he said: "Betting on the Israeli government is a waste of time."

(…nope…no bias in this administration…)

Meanwhile, at home, the Obama Administration is figuring out how to limit executive compensation. A Reuters news report said something stunning:

Many analysts say the government's activities in pumping massive amounts of capital into banks and setting rules for executive pay for those receiving funds represents the greatest intrusion of government into the private sector in decades.

Is there really any question on this issue? The government is nationalizing banks, and perhaps other industries. It is deciding what employees (executive or otherwise) can and cannot be paid. And, nothing of this scope has been done in America since the 1930s. The Stimulus Plan does not “represent” the biggest move of government into the private sector. It IS the biggest such move in America. And, it certainly is not what America’s founding fathers had in mind when they strove to create limited government and maximum personal freedom.

I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.
Thomas Jefferson

(...you might also want to go read The Mind of the Obama Follower does not understand that Tax and Wage Increases on Business Hurts The Middle Class...well worth it...)

02/12 Obama's Stimulus "Victory"

Well…the “Stimulus Plan” is one step closer to passing. It made it through the Senate yesterday. But, that wasn’t really a surprise to anyone. After all,

Senator Charles E. Grassley, Republican of Iowa, complained that despite Mr. Obama’s call for bipartisan cooperation, Republicans had largely been shut out. “We didn’t have a chance to negotiate,” Mr. Grassley said.

It is very difficult to get much disagreement when, having the majority and needing little help from opponents (3 Republicnas), you can shut off input and debate.

In the same article, I found something else that was quite frightening.

The White House is considering a prime-time bill signing ceremony, and on Wednesday asked the television networks if they would air the event.

Obama is running government on public opinion like no one has before him. As we all know, polls and opinions are fickle. They change on a whim. More than one government has been established on setting, controlling, or living by public opinion. And, they have all failed, leaving their nations in worse state than they were before. The design of the Constitution was such that public opinion would be separated, as much as possible, from the legislative process to allow careful deliberation and appropriate action. I still very much want to remind people of my comments yesterday. Government, by design, is supposed to move slowly—not taking immediate action on every whim of the people. We see all the ramifications of rapid changes and actions taken by the Bush administration. Do we really believe the same speed of action by the Obama administration will produce better results? I think we are going to get much more than we bargained for from this President who runs on Charisma and persona rather than decision making skill.

Indecisive Leadership

Should we be surprised at the "Stimulus Package" announcement? Not really. Geitner's announcement was so full of vague there was no substance to it at all. It was almost as if the administration was trying to see what would public opinion might be, rather than making a statement of policy. Of course, this is nothing new for Obama. The signs of this style of decision making were all there during the Presidential Election Debates. When asked a question that required a direct answer, Obama never gave one unless someone else did first. Not so McCain. Even if the answer was not popular, McCain spoke directly to almost every question. Obama ALWAYS spoke in generalities first, specifics later. Yet he demands swift passage of his plan...which still lacks details. That smacks of everything the Democrats were complaining about during the Bush years. I guess somethings don't change.

The lesson of the Bush administration should be to act with consideration and restraint. That is, by the way, the function of government. It is, by design, slow to accomplish anything. Swift change is dangerous for government to enact. Consider the billions released during the closing years of the Bush presidency that are unaccounted for. As much as we would like to blame Bush for everything, Congress is equally at fault for not providing oversight of the money. It was a knee jerk reaction to a crisis, which is understandable. Mistakes in things done that quickly should be unstandable as well. But, now we are angry at the consequences--while looking for someone to blame. And, of course, Bush is an easy target. But so are the Democrats that continue to chair the financial committes in Congress but haven't done their jobs.

Meanwhile, we have Congress wrangling over passage of the Stimulus package. Why? Maybe it's because they are trying to create something the American people can actually live with. Maybe the creation of some a new super agency, with more funding than the military, to monitor and control healthcare access. If nothing else, maybe there are enough Senators and Congressmen who aren't sure where the money for that will come from to pay for that. But, since it was put on the Stimulus Package without disagreement by either party, that's probably not true.

It's been said that it takes anywhere from 5-8 years for Presidential policies to take full effect. If true, that would actually mean that most of the economic success attributed to Clinton was actually the result of the Reagan-Bush policies. It would also mean that, taking the Iraq and Afghanistan expenses out, the economic failures of the W years were actually Clinton's fault. Not too far fetched since the economy was already strating to slide during Clinton's last two years in office.

So, now we have Congress dragging it's feet in tackling the economy, just as it did during the Bush years. And, we have a President who demands things change immediately, while threatening to use Presidential Orders to accomplish his goals--just like Bush did, and Clinton. Some things just don't change--even though party affiliations do.