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 REAL Man-made God!

I had a really interesting…and frightening…thought today. But, have you ever considered how government is becoming like a god?

Let’s think about this for a minute. When things went wrong, people used to cry out to their deity of choice for relief. Who do we cry out to now? The government! Most religions have some clause where you give some percentage of your income to them to placate the anger of your particular deity. So what do we have now? The IRS! Most religions go to great lengths to keep you from finding out about other religions. So, what do we have? Separation church and state…where you can’t discuss other things or have government funding if whatever you does so! And, let’s not forget that every religion has all kinds of rules for proper behavior to keep your deity happy…or at least less mad at you. Dare we even discuss the size and complexity of legal code coming out of Washington (or whatever other world capital) these days? We can even carry out the Biblical analogy and say we have our own Pharisees and Saducees (feuding sects, a.k.a. Republicans and Democrats). This religion even has it’s own mouthpiece to declare it’s worthiness and greatness! Enter Mainstream media (MSM). And, finally, like all relgions, it wants to be incontrol of everything. So…we get nationalization of business and industry!

I tell you, it’s a religious monopoly! Government is forcing us all into religious service! It shuts down or marginalizes other religious views, defines proper behavior and activity, and demands out obeisance by threatening to not meet our needs. If that isn’t a man-made god, I don’t know what is.

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.

The Socialization of America...continues...

About 10 months ago, hyper liberal Maxine Waters, Democratic representative from California, announced that the agenda was to socialize big oil, and by extension business in general. The so-called ”Democratic Underground” promptly labeled it as a smear campaign by Fox News, in spite of the fact that Waters clearly stated what she believed should happen. Then back in May, at a regional Democratic conference, delegates specifically stated one agenda of the healthcare reform was to get rid of the insurance industry. (The video used to be on YouTube, but has been removed due to copyrights belonging to Boiling Water Media.) The Obama administration had several soundbites over the following couple of weeks denying this revelation. And, Americans, for the most part, accepted it.

We are sheep, as a nation. Unfortunately, sheep are dumb and do nothing about their condition. We are told, repeated, that national, government healthcare is a must to “save our country.” Wonderful waving of the American flag to stir our patriotism for this “crisis.” I won’t argue that healthcare costs are not out of control, they are. But, unless government can prove to me it can successfully run something without losing money…I don’t want government in charge of my healthcare.

You should also consider that Democratic Congressmen and Senators have openly stated healthcare may go to people based on the economic benefit. That is one method of cost containment being actively considered. You might want to consider an article at The Free Liberal.

As the healthcare debate rages on, there is one reality that even the proponents of this hostile takeover of healthcare by government cannot ignore – and that is money. The government simply does not have the money for a new, expansive, public healthcare plan.



It is still surreal that in a free country we are talking only about HOW government should fix healthcare, rather than WHY government should fix healthcare.

Indeed why do Americans believe that government is always the solution to a problem? The answer is, they have been conditioned by the media and school s to believe that.

As a final thought, here is an ACLU video of where nationalized healthcare could take us. Enjoy your pizza.

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?