Communism: What do the Gen Xers Think About it?

Last week, I watched The Hunger Games with my wife and some friends.  It seems that everyone was struck by the brutality.  One of my wife's friends was upset that her young son had been to see the movie with a friend.  She was worried that he would be scarred by viewing the violence.

I was struck by something else.  I saw the people living with no freedom.  The police were called peace keepers.  That sounds very much like the United Nations military force.  There was stark poverty.  The people were supposed to stay within their home district, and electric fences were erected to prevent free travel between districts.  The capitol district was filled with members of the ruling class.  They were affluent.  They were the trendsetters.  The ruling class was an elitist bunch that smugly considered the folks from the outlying districts to be ignorant hicks.

I wonder if the kids today have any clue what they were watching.  The fact that the characters spoke English with an American accent indicated that this was some futuristic United States.  Many of the scenes of the outlying District 12 looked a lot like the Appalachian mountains in North Carolina or Tennessee.  Everything I saw with the way the people lived brought back visions I had developed in my mind of the Eastern European communist states during the cold war.  Is this the vision the communists have of the United States of the future?  Is this their dream for America?

I hope that the schools today teach our kids about the realities of communism.  After all, there are a number of countries in Eastern Europe and Asia where communism was tried on a very large scale over decades.  Do the kids get a good, realistic view of what life in a communist country was like?  Do they understand shortages of basic necessities like food and clothing?  Have they been taught that making everyone equal doesn't mean that everyone will be rich?  Are they aware that everyone won't be in the middle class?  Is the brutality of an unbridled police force taught to our next generation?  If communism is the ideal state, why did communist countries need to erect fences to keep people inside?  We don't need fences to keep Americans here; I don't see hordes of Americans emigrating to communist states for a better life.

Communism allows the government to seize all private property and share everything with everyone.  Although it seems that everything is shared equally, some folks are "more equal" that others.  That's an interesting way of saying that the ruling class can be rich, while non-government rich folks get their property taken away.

In the 1960's and 1970's, Americans in general were strongly against communism.  They understood the difference between our laissez-faire, capitalist economic and political system and communism.  Any American that claimed to be a communist was considered to be pretty far out there.  Today, things have changed.  The MessAPolitico is slowly eroding our freedoms.  They run for office and offer everyone a bunch of "free" services that will be paid for by getting the rich to pay more and more taxes.  The tax system today has managed to get about half of us a free ride; the bottom half of the economic scale doesn't pay any taxes.  The budget is hopelessly out of balance, and the MessAPolitico continues to tell us that the rich can afford to pay more to get it balanced.

Is this not taking from the rich and moving it to the poor to equalize us?  That seems like a good idea on the surface, but there is a major flaw in the communist system.  First, the communists will tell you that the rich got rich by taking from the poor.  In fact, the rich got rich by selling products and services that deliver more value than they cost to produce and deliver.  The difference is the profit.  Everyone is better off for this exchange of money for goods and services.  The purchaser gets a product or service that they need at a price they find acceptable.  The business owner gets a profit and return on their investments in capital.  The people that are employed by the business earn a salary and benefits helping the business produce and deliver the goods and services.  The suppliers of equipment and raw materials to the business are also better off.  When communists come along and convince us to punish the rich people that made all of this possible, everyone is hurt.  All of the folks that received all of the benefits of a vibrant economy lose out.  That's how we all end up poor, except for the ruling class that skims a bunch off of the top to feed the bureaucracy.  That's why the government is so terribly inefficient.

Getting back to The Hunger Games, it was an interesting movie.  I thought it was a good view of communism and the affect of a totalitarian government on the average people.  I wonder if President Obama watched this movie with a gleam in his eye.  I also wonder if the parents have pointed out something to their kids that wasn't pointed out in the movie.  Have they told the kids that this is the way a communist country looks?

Can Republicans Play Hardball?

I have watched the Republicans operate over the past several years, and I don't believe they know how to play hardball.  They just don't have the courage to stick to their principles.  When the Democrats control everything, they get everything they want.  When the Republicans are in power, they reach across the aisle and compromise.  The Democrats control the mainstream media, and most things the Republicans do gets spun into a MessAPolitico.  The Republicans are left cowering in the corner.

When Democrats get in trouble, they circle the wagons.  The media ignores the story.  It all goes away with no lasting ramifications.  The Republicans, by contrast, often very publicly denounce one another.  They can tell the Tea Party members that helped elect them to stand down.  At times, this has infuriated me.  I do understand that no law can be passed without Democrat support in the Senate.  I also understand that the President won't sign anything that gives conservatives everything they want.

With the Republicans compromising on the budget and giving up the sequester cuts, it appears that they don't realize the position they are in today.  Just a couple of weeks ago, one of my Senators wrote me a letter bragging that the continuing resolution passed to end the "government shutdown" had preserved the sequester cuts.  Those were the cuts that weren't really cuts.  Well, now those cuts have been given away by the Republicans.

Today, the opinion polls are solidly against Obama and the Democrats in Congress.  Everyone out here in the real world now sees that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is anything but affordable.  Already, almost 6 million people have lost their health insurance coverage.  This number dwarfs the number of folks that have gained insurance through the PPACA.  The people that have lost coverage will need to replace it with a new policy that is undoubtedly going to be much more expensive than the original.  Many others are finding out that their doctor is not covered by their new Obamacare coverage.  Still others are receiving letters from their doctor, because Obamacare has made their medical practice financially unsustainable.  The inadequacies of the website to sign up for Obamacare coverage have been covered extensively in the media, and it is highly unlikely these problems will be fixed anytime soon.

All of the Democrats in the House and about one third in the Senate are up for re-election next November.  The folks out in America know that the PPACA was passed without a single Republican vote.  I'll bet that the Democrats that passed this health care MessAPolitico are hoping we will forget about all of the problems by next November.  Of course, we are all reminded with each monthly insurance premium about how much we abhor Obamacare.  Those folks that lost their jobs or got their hours cut back or lost the insurance formerly offered by their employers won't forget.

Now is the time to ask for the Democrats to help repeal this MessAPolitico.  The people are demanding it.  The people are going to replace the politicians that don't help stop Obamacare.  A bunch of these Democrats are going to have to be recruited to override the veto of Barack Obama.  The dirty little secret is that the Republicans don't want to fix this MessAPolitico any time soon.  In fact, they want it around until after the election in 2014.  They need it for political reasons.  Instead of taking advantage of the current Democrat political situation, the Republicans would prefer to hold out for bigger gains in November.  Who cares if it is terrible for America?  Their political futures are much more important than their constituents' needs.

Tea Party Racists?

Last night, I was watching a talk show where a Democratic strategist was debating a Tea Party person.  The Democratic strategist was an African-American gentleman, and he repeated over and over that the Tea Party is a racist organization.  The host and the other guest from the Tea Party asked him for an example of something racist that was done by the Tea Party or said by one of its members or leaders.  The strategist kept bringing up some Neo-Nazi group that has a website claiming they are affiliated with the Tea Party or maybe they support the Tea Party.

I had never heard of this Neo-Nazi organization, and I didn't write down the name so I could check it out.  In any case, this is a pretty loose interpretation of what it means to be a racist organization.  I guess it would make Barack Obama a socialist if a socialist organization supported him.  Alec Baldwin was recently accused of yelling an anti-gay slur at a reporter, and he is well known for his liberal leanings and support for Barack Obama.  Mr. Baldwin also had a show on MSNBC.  Does that make MSNBC an anti-gay network?  Is the Democrat party also anti-gay since Alec Baldwin supports it?

Interestingly, Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia was a member of the Ku Klux Klan in his younger years.  In fact, some people referred to him as "Sheets" Byrd.  He wasn't just dabbling in the Klan, but was a recruiter.  Considering that Senator Byrd was a Democrat, you might think that this certainly would qualify the Democrat party as a racist organization.  After all, they supported his campaigns for the Senate over decades.  They didn't even think of kicking him out of the party.  The Democrat party didn't even denounce his past life.  So why are these Democrats given a free pass on this issue, with even the NAACP giving him a 100% rating for his votes in the 108th congress.

I've attended a few Tea Party meetings.  I'm not a member.  I don't think you can even become a member per se.  It seems that some regular folks get together twice a month and discuss issues with the country.  Sometimes a candidate for some local office comes in and discusses their platform.  On several occasions, a candidate was addressing the group, and their positions weren't fiscally responsible.  That candidate was told by several attendees that they would not be getting their support, and in one case the attendee said that this candidate would receive active opposition.

Never once have I heard or seen anything that was the least bit racist at any Tea Party function.  I've never seen it at my local meetings in person.  I've never seen or heard anything racist from a national figure on the radio or television.  I visited www.teapartypatriots.com and found this mission statement:

• The Tea Party Patriots’ mission is to restore America’s founding principles of Fiscal Responsibility, Constitutionally Limited Government and Free Markets.

How is this mission racist in any way?

The MessAPolitico can't fight a common sense message like the one above head-on.  So, how do they take on the Tea Party?  It has to be done with spin, lies, innuendo, and a carefully crafted image of the Tea Party.  I think I heard the real gist of the Democrat strategist's argument that the Tea Party is an inherently racist organization.  He made some offhand comment that some Tea Party members were "birthers."  He said that the Tea Party people were trying to prove that the President was born in Kenya and thus, not an American citizen.  That's why the Tea Party is racist.

First, I will say that I heard something at a Tea Party meeting that was quite contrary to this.  I was told by another attendee at a tea party meeting that Barack Obama's real father was an American named Frank Marshall Davis.  He loaned me a movie that I watched, and it presented a case for Mr. Davis being his real father.  I was told that it was a mistake to try and prove that Barack Obama was not an American citizen.  Photographs are shown to illustrate the similarity of their appearance.  Mr. Davis lived in Hawaii when Barack Obama was born and thereafter.  The movie stated that Barack spent a lot of time with Mr. Davis, who was a Communist party propagandist.  It also says that the President was born in the US.  Never once have I heard anyone question Barack Obama's citizenship at a Tea Party function.

In any case, I'm not sure how it is racist to check into Barack Obama's background to find out if he is a US citizen.  I guess any questioning of Barack Obama is inherently racist, since he is African-American.  Probably it is racist to disagree with Barack Obama or any of his policies.  Since the Tea Party disagrees with the liberal fiscal policies and the massive power grab that is currently eroding our freedoms, they are racist.  Me, I'm not racist.  I'm just anti-MessAPolitico.  My personal mission is precisely aligned with the mission statement above for the Tea Party Patriots.

Fracking: Friend or Foe?

The environmentalists are all worked up about hydraulic fracturing.  I have been reading some information on the Ohio Environmental Council's website.  They refer to fracking as a "relatively new drilling technology."  Interestingly, this technology was first used in 1949.  I guess that is "relatively new" compared to the Earth.

The website www.dangersoffracking.com states that "Up to 600 chemicals are used in fracking fluid, including known carcinogens and toxins."  Numerous websites out there want to imply that "fracking" is destroying the Earth.  There contention is that the process pollutes ground water and produces cancer deaths.  In fact, they don't have any studies showing this to be the truth.  Former EPA administrator Lisa Jackson is quoted as saying that there is no "proven case where the fracking process itself has affected water."  Fracking has been done on federal lands, and the former director of the Bureau of Land Management says that his federal agency "has never seen any evidence of impacts to groundwater from the use of fracking technology on wells that have been approved by [the Bureau of Land Management]. . . We believe, based upon the track record so far, that it is safe."

It is ironic that the MessAPolitico is trying to block the use of fracking.  Stopping fracking would limit the supply of natural gas.  This technology has unlocked a lot of domestic sources of natural gas and oil.  About 10-12 years ago, the price of natural gas was rising dramatically, and we were being told that the last supplies of clean natural gas were depleted.  Those of us that heat our water and our homes with natural gas could see the effects of this waning supply of natural gas.  I live in a new, efficient home, but I would have two gas/electric bills in the winter every year that were around $400.  Of course, that makes the cost of industrial production where heating is used, very expensive too.

The big irony is that 71% of our electricity is produced by burning coal.  Coal is a cheap, but not very efficient way to produce electricity.  It also produces a lot more greenhouse gas and other pollutants in heating your home than electricity produced by burning coal.  Wouldn't it make sense to a tree-hugger to encourage folks to use more natural gas and less electricity?  Wouldn't more plentiful natural gas tend to reduce it's cost relative to electricity and make folks migrate from electricity toward natural gas?

The truth is that the environmental movement is littered with liars and people that believe the lies.  I don't believe that the tree-huggers are really all that worried about fracking destroying the environment by pumping chemicals and water into the ground.  I firmly believe that they want to stop anything that reduces the cost of energy produced by fossil fuels.  They are using EPA regulations to shut down coal-fired power plants.  They are stopping the Keystone XL pipeline based on environmental concerns that are shaky at best.  They don't want any drilling for oil in the ocean or northern Alaska or anywhere else.  The environmentalist wacko strategy is to very simply limit the supply of all fossil fuels to make the alternative energy sources cost competitive.

What does this mean for us regular Americans?  They aren't going to make alternative energy less expensive to make it competitive.  The goal is to make our current sources a lot more expensive -- probably more than double what it is today.  That drives energy intensive manufacturing out of the USA.  It means we spend more on energy and less on other stuff.  It hurts our economy.  It drives the prices of a lot of things that require significant amounts of energy to produce and/or deliver up, up, up.

If you believe the doom and gloom brought to you by the tree-huggers that are controlling the strings of their puppets in the MessAPolitico, then I would bet that you are a voter who helped put them in power.  You are hurting us all by believing the crap they are spewing.  That's the biggest pollution problem we have in America today -- the crap being spewed into the environment from Washington, DC.  Don't forget that increasing the use of natural gas instead of electricity and oil would make the environment cleaner, and the environmental movement is fighting this.

New IRS Regulations

The IRS has announced new regulations governing 501(c)(4) tax exempt organizations.  They say it was done to remove the ambiguity that led to the IRS scandal a few months ago.  Of course, the IRS was denying tax exempt status to Tea Party groups and other conservative groups on the basis that they were political organizations.  Of course, they were approving the 501(c)(4) applications for liberal or progressive organizations and showing favoritism.

The new regulations were released for discussion on November 26th, just before the Thanksgiving holiday.  I don't remember hearing any mention of these new rules in the mainstream media or talk radio or anywhere.  Imagine that.  I read a little about the changes on line today, and it doesn't really appear that the new regulation will remove the ambiguity at all.  The rule now says that a 501(c)(4) social welfare entity can take part in political activities related to a candidates as long as these activities don't constitute the entity’s primary purpose.  So what does that mean?  If an organization is talking about liberty or fiscal responsibility or following the constitution and that happens to be the platform of a candidate, then does that make candidate promotion a primary purpose of the organization?

Furthermore, why is this any concern of the IRS?  Are they supposed to operate in such a way as to tax free speech?  Isn't that what this is about?  If you want to be a tax exempt organization, then you can't say things in support of the position of the opposition party to the one currently holding office.

Now, let's look at the bigger picture.  The IRS isn't a legislative branch of the government.  How can they operate within the confines of the US Constitution and create all of these regulations?  What's the difference between a law and a regulation?  The IRS, like most other federal government entities, is producing rules and regulations that we must follow or be fined or imprisoned.  That is nothing but a law hiding behind the name of IRS regulation.

Our federal government is a huge MessAPolitico that is totally out of control.  Our freedoms are under assault every day.  The IRS is busy taking from the rich and giving to the poor -- and also giving to their cronies.  It's time for another American revolution.  Hopefully this time it can be a political revolt rather than a military operation, but it's going to happen.  Maybe Obamacare will be the straw that breaks the camel's back, or maybe it will be the IRS or the NSA or something else.  Americans are nearly at their breaking point.  It is my optimistic belief that the revolt will take place at the polls next November.

Obamacare: Does the Strategy Make Sense?

Regardless of whether the folks supporting it knew this, Obamacare had a strategy for reducing insurance premiums for some, while increasing them for others.  The plan had a number of tactics for taking money from one group and giving it to another group.  Here was the plan:

• Force young, healthy people to buy insurance that will only be used rarely, and use these extra premiums paid to the insurance companies to subsidize the people that need health care
• Make these young people pay a fine if they don't buy insurance, and use that to pay for the coverage of the uninsured
• Make anyone else that doesn't have insurance also pay the same fine, and use that to pay for some of the health care they use (the rest will be paid for by the young people and the insured folks with higher premiums)
• Tax the so called "Cadillac" insurance plans that are obviously purchased by the rich, and use the collections to provide coverage for the uninsured
• Tax the evil companies that make profits off of the misfortune of the sick, which can be translated into liberal speak as "tax the profits of medical device manufacturers"
• Make it unlawful for an insurance plan to refuse coverage for pre-existing conditions
• Allow children to stay on their parents' health insurance plan until age 26
• Set a minimum standard for the things that must be covered by a health insurance plan

These things all sound so wonderful.  It brings forth visions of rainbows and unicorns and lots of love and caring.  The government is taking all of the poor and downtrodden in our society and placing them under the wing of the evil, rich capitalists amongst us.  A lot of them are under the wings of the young, healthy folks too.

Does any of this stuff make sense when you think about it for a minute or two?  Let's take a look at these tactics:

• Does a penalty that is much lower than the cost of the insurance do anything to induce the purchase?
• Will the healthy, young folks with insurance continue to pay for it when their premiums triple?  (I work with a young, single man of 23 years old that is having his health insurance premium go up from about $50/month in 2013 to over $150/month in 2014.)
• Will young folks sign up for Obamacare when they are allowed to stay on their parents' plan to age 26?
• Why would anyone of any age buy health insurance today?  You can pay a fine that is much less than the new higher premiums for a PPACA compliant plan.  If you get a terrible, very expensive illness, just sign up for a plan then.  They will have to accept you and the pre-existing condition.
• The "Cadillac" plans were mostly held by union members that had negotiated a premium insurance plan as part of their labor contract.  The unions were exempted from this tax penalty because of their support for Obama and the Democrats.  Maybe we should call them cronies of the Democratic party.
• What happens when the medical device manufacturers have to pay a larger tax?  They raise the prices so that they are passed along to their customers.  That raises the price of the medical care being paid for with the extra money collected.  On the other hand, if you liberals are right and the cost can't be passed along, then the return on investment developing the products will be reduced.  That will cause some product development projects to be cancelled.  This also encourages these companies to move their production and sales overseas, reducing US employment and limiting access to advanced medical care.

The PPACA isn't just the latest MessAPolitico brought to us by Washington liberals.  It is most likely the largest and most damaging one ever conceived.

Obama's Latest Diversion

Obama has decided that wage disparities are really bad.  Look at all of these companies with increased profits of billions of dollars?  According to Barack Obama, we need to raise the minimum wage from $7.25/hour to $9.00/hour.  It's only fair that the excessive corporate profits should be shared with the workers.

Who holds the jobs that earn minimum wage?  Most minimum wage earners are high school and college students working to earn money for college.  Many of them are working in retail and fast-food jobs.  The rest are unskilled workers that are career minimum wage earners, and many of them also work in the retail and fast-food industries.  Interestingly, many of these workers are making less money than they did before Obamacare took effect.  Now their employers are required to buy them health insurance unless they work less than 30 hours/week, so their hours have been cut back by 25%.  I guess this increase in minimum wage will almost get them back up to the same money they earned at 40 hours/week before.

Why do all these folks work in retail and fast-food today?  When I was in high school and college, I had jobs at four different manufacturing companies.  I worked in a shoe factory, a freezer factory, a truck axle factory, and a cotton gin factory.  The problem today is that the minimum wage has risen pretty high, and more than ever, we are competing with low cost, third world countries all over the planet.  All of the manufacturing jobs that require little or no skill are moving to these low cost countries.  As the minimum wage rises, the folks in these countries must cheer the influx of new jobs moving there from America.  Everyone in this country whose job skills are worth less than minimum wage will be permanently unemployed.

Of course, the fast-food jobs can't move overseas.  That means we will see inflation in these sectors.  Who will pay the higher wages?  Is it the rich, capitalist small business owner?  No.  It is you and me that pay the higher prices.

What happens in the retail sector?  People are replaced by a website and an automated warehouse.

Obama's answer to every problem is another MessAPolitico.  In this case the problem is the Obamacare debacle.  He hopes that raising the minimum wage will make you forget that MessAPolitico.  Now Obama is making a play to the uninformed voters out there, and this play lacks substance.  Or maybe it does have substance, and it is all negative.

Obama: Constitutional Scholar?

Obama was a professor of constitutional law before running for Senate and the Presidency.  So, has he used this knowledge of the constitution to keep it sacred and use it for guidance in governing?  I don't believe so.  I believe he has used this knowledge to figure out how to get around the constitutional checks and balances.  It would appear that Obama doesn't believe in the sanctity of the  US Constitution.  His actions seem to snub this most powerful and important document at every turn.

Last week our President was speaking on immigration in San Francisco.  In the middle of the speech, a person behind the stage began heckling the President.  He was shouting that Mr. Obama should use his executive authority to give amnesty to illegal immigrants.  When the heckler was shouting, the president turned around and acknowledged the voice he heard, and addressed the concerns being expressed.  Wow!  That was an amazing moment, where the President of the United States was actually listening to this little voice yelling from behind the stage.  Mr. Obama actually gave the man a response that was coherent and showed that he cared about him and folks like him.

The President said that he would like to do something to help, but he couldn't.  The Constitution prevented him from taking this kind of executive action.  The law needs to be changed or passed by Congress to fix this.  If it wasn't for the Congress and the Constitution, this problem would be fixed.  What was the unspoken message between the lines?  It's those evil, obstructionist Republicans in the House.  Even, I, the great and powerful Obama, can't help you out.  My hands are tied.

Hey, Barack, since when did you let the Constitution stop you from doing anything?  You always try to get Congress to pass the bills you want, but it doesn't even slow you down if they don't cooperate.  They don't pass Cap and Trade, and you just use the EPA regulations to close power plants.  If Congress won't pass gun control, just use the EPA to close all of the lead smelting plants in the USA.  You can't fire your guns if you can't get ammunition.  You don't like the laws that prevent illegal immigration, then just choose not to enforce them.  Obama operates more like a dictator than the President of a representative republic that has a strong Constitution to divide the power of governance between three equal branches of the federal government.

If you think that the President seemed smoother than usual when he was talking without a teleprompter, then maybe you are on to something.  You see, the whole incident was completely staged.  The heckler was a plant.  He is Ju Hong, a Cal-Berkeley graduate from South Korea.  Mr. Hong came to America on a student visa, but he has graduated.  Consequently, his visa has expired, and he is in the country illegally.  Why didn't our President enforce the immigration laws and have Mr. Hong arrested and deported?  Maybe it was because the whole incident was planned.  You see, Obama was really smooth in his response to Mr. Hong since he could read it on the teleprompter in front of him.  Our most transparent administration of all time was not treating us with respect.  He was lying to us.

This is the MessAPolitico that was elected by the American people.  It's time to deport all of the illegal aliens from our country.  It's also time to crack down on the businesses and people that hire them.  Let's forget about the civil rights of these illegal visitors, because they aren't protected by the US Constitution.  Only American citizens are covered by the Constitution.  Mr. Obama, we know that your Democrat party needs the votes of these non-citizens to retain your control of the government.  America, please stop this MessAPolitico, and keep in mind whom the MessAPolitico is concerned about when they give these law breakers amnesty.  They are concerned about themselves and their re-election.

Will the Democrats Join the Republicans in January?

Obamacare is proving to be very troublesome for the Democrats that are up for re-election in 2014.  Will they abandon the Democrat leadership to save their skins?  That remains to be seen.  If they don't join the Republicans to change the course of Obamacare, there will be a Republican landslide of monumental proportions.  Maybe you Democrat voters out there who are suffering the effects should tell your favorite politician what you expect.  Do you like what you are seeing from Obamacare?  Are your premiums going down $2500/year?  Can you keep that health care insurance you like?  Do you still have the same doctor under Obamacare?  Will you be able to keep that doctor going forward?

Those Democrats can still take the steps needed now to save the Democratic party.  They can end this particular MessAPolitico and help repeal the PPACA.  These Democrats can work together with the Republicans to pass smaller, incremental reforms to health care and health insurance.  The results can be in the best interest of America.  That would be much better than a bill that helps a politician get what he wants -- re-election.  The results can be so good that folks actually re-elect the politicians because they like what they have done.  The bills can be truly bipartisan.  I use the plural "bills" because no bill should ever be so big that it can't be read in a short time and understood.  No bill should be large enough to hide things that are unrelated inside.  No bill should ever be so big that it must be passed to find out what's in it.  Break this thing down into a hundred bills that can each be debated and decided individually.  All or nothing is a terrible choice to make.

You know, I heard an interview with a House member from Tennessee a couple of weeks ago.  He was commenting that he is one of twenty medical doctors in the 113th Congress.  Did you know that during the crafting of the PPACA and in discussions since its passage, not a single one of these physicians was consulted?  The law was written and is being implemented by lawyers instead of doctors.  Does that make any sense at all?  Maybe, the fact that the law doesn't work at all makes more sense now.  Maybe we can all understand why the PPACA is such a MessAPolitico.

Democrat voters, I'm asking for your help.  I don't think you want this MessAPolitico anymore than I do.  We can stop it together.  Threaten your congressional representatives and Senators with something that gets there attention.  Tell them you won't vote for them next time unless they stop this MessAPolitico.

Did Congress Have an Ulterior Motive?

Recently, I speculated in a post that Congressional Republicans didn't really want to de-fund Obamacare.  I received a letter from my Senator on Friday, and it further confirmed my belief that this is true.  The establishment Republicans would prefer that we have Obamacare with all of its problems.  They don't want the website to be fixed, and I doubt that they have to worry about it working well for a long time.  They want a lot of folks to lose their insurance policies.  They want you to lose access to your favorite doctor.  They want everyone to be required to beg a bureaucrat for access to health care.  If you don't lose your policy, they want the price to rise dramatically.  If you do lose your policy, they want the replacement to be very expensive or to come from a terribly flawed website or both.

Why do they want the middle class folks to suffer this way?  They want it because the Obamacare MessAPolitico was brought to you 100% by the Democrats.  Everyone knows the promises Barack Obama made about your health care under the Patient Protection Affordable Care Act.  We are now learning that almost all of those promises were wrong.  There is also evidence that the Democratic leadership held meetings discussing whether they should lie about the effects of the PPACA on your health care and mine.  Ultimately, they decided to use those lies to get Barack Obama re-elected in 2012 and to retain control of the Senate.

Now the Republicans have helped pass a continuing resolution to fund the government, including Obamacare, through January 15th.  They wanted us all to get a big old dose of unadulterated PPACA for several months.  If they hadn't done it, the Democrats and the media would have said that everything that has happened was the fault of the Republicans.  After all, these obstructionist Republicans have denied everyone the benefits of the PPACA.  The PPACA would have reduced the cost of health care, but they stopped it.  The PPACA would have prevented your insurance company from denying you coverage based on pre-existing conditions, but those Republicans took it away.  Now, the Republicans have allowed the results of the PPACA to turn the public against the Democrats in huge numbers.

This is certainly good for their re-election and election possibilities in Congress in November 2014.  It's not so good for all of the regular, middle-class Americans out there trying to live.  It's not good for all of us that want to be employed in a good job.  They may win their election in 2014 and maybe even in 2016 for the presidency.  The problem with our health care system remains though.  Unless they can win a large enough majority to over-ride a presidential veto, they won't be able to repeal Obamacare until 2016.  Can we afford the cost of health insurance until 2016?  Can our economy survive the worst effects of Obamacare on employment and GDP growth until 2016?  Will there be any doctors left in 2016?  Will the health insurance companies still be in business then, or will we have a one-payer, government insurance system?

Can America survive the ongoing MessAPolitico?  Will the American people wise up and end the MessAPolitico?  These are some great questions, but I don't like the answers I'm coming up with.

Which Should I Buy, Health Insurance or a New Car?

I have a 2005 Honda Accord with 160,000 miles.  Fortunately, Honda makes a pretty good car, and mine still runs well.  However, I'm ready to trade it in and get a new one.  In fact, I would make that big purchase this weekend, but something is stopping me.  What is it?  Obamacare.

I can't afford a new car payment with my health insurance premiums going up by $550/month next year.  I know you liberals are going to say that I'm a greedy conservative.  I should just buy a used car so the poor can have free health care and free health insurance.  Wow!  I am a terrible person for even thinking of buying a new car.

Of course, the price of used cars is up significantly thanks to government intervention in the auto market.  Do you remember "Cash for Clunkers?"  That little tax incentive was intended to get older, greenhouse gas spewing cars off the streets and into the junkyard car crusher.  That reduced the supply of used cars.  The terrible economy also reduced the availability of low mileage used cars, because people were keeping their cars longer and longer.  They just couldn't afford to buy new cars.  Now, if you try to buy a used car with less than 60,000 miles, it can cost as much as 75% of the cost of a new one.  To me the new car with a warranty and three to five more years of life is a much better deal.  Am I supposed to accept the poorer deal because I can't afford the new car?

By the way, is it good to "punish" me for having a job and the ability to pay for my own food, housing, and health care?  Is it good to punish me by making it difficult to buy a new car?  Why don't you ask an auto worker?  Whether we are talking about workers in an assembly plant, an engine plant, a component manufacturing plant, or a new car dealership, they won't be helped by punishing me this way.  It can be an American brand or a foreign brand, but the result for the workers is the same.  I'll bet they won't be happy that I spend my money on health care for the family instead of the new car.

Liberals are in the business of creating the MessAPolitico.  They certainly need folks to have the opinion that anyone that can afford to live without government assistance got that way by "stealing" from the poor.  We need to have compassion for the folks that have been made poor by the MessAPolitico.

Obamacare Faces A New Legal Challenge

I'm not sure what has taken so long, but US Representative Trent Franks of Arizona has gotten together with other members of the House and filed an amicus brief challenging Obamacare.  Their suit is based on the origination clause in the Constitution.  That's the clause that says all bills imposing taxation must originate in the people's House of Representatives.  You probably recall that the US Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act by redefining the fines intended to force folks to buy insurance as taxes.  If that is truly the case and Obamacare imposes taxes on us, then the bill must have originated in the House.  That is a big problem for the PPACA.  It originated in the Senate.

This may be our last hope to kill this MessAPolitico, before it starts to kill Americans.  I know that Obama would like to use the website problems as an excuse to delay implementation until after the elections next November.  He knows that the more we see about the PPACA, the more we will want to avoid Democrats in the voting booth.  The Democrats might have underestimated how Americans feel about the government messing around in something as important as our health care.  If the President lets this MessAPolitico continue flailing along, it will stay in the news.  The possibility certainly exists that the website will still be a mess next fall.  The possibility exists that more people will either have their premiums raised dramatically or their policies cancelled over the next 12 months.  The Democrats desperately need to get this thing out of the news long before the next election, or they are toast.  If America has a longer memory about something as important as health care, they may be toast anyway.  In fact, paying that higher premium every month may just be all the reminder we need.

The PPACA is unconstitutional.  It is the government forcing us to buy a product.  It is the government telling us what features and benefits the product must have.  Politicians decide for us what we need and what we want.

It is also unconstitutional for the President to stand up and defy the stipulations in the implementation of the PPACA or any other law.  Somehow, the President believes that he can change the timeline laid out very explicitly in the bill as passed.  If the thing isn't working right, then Congress has the option of repealing it or amending it.  The President can ask for that.  The President cannot legislate.  The Constitution specifically created a separation of powers.  Legislation is done in Congress and only in Congress.  The President can sign a law or veto it, but he cannot write it or amend it or repeal it.

It will be interesting to see if the media picks up on this new congressional challenge to the PPACA.  Is this a story that warrants any media reports?  Will they present stories educating the American people about the origination clause of the Constitution?  Will they tell us about the dangers of giving up our freedoms to the federal government?  Do you expect them to report on the possible long term ramifications of government intervention in health care?  Let's watch and see.

Is Martin Bashir Really Sorry?

You probably have heard that Martin Bashir said some nasty stuff about Sarah Palin recently on MSNBC.  Mrs. Palin had made comments comparing the national debt to a form of slavery.  She said we would someday be beholden to the foreign governments that hold a large amount of this debt.  Mr. Bashir responded, calling Mrs. Palin ignorant and suggesting that she should be subjected to the same punishment that was reportedly practiced by a slave owner, Thomas Thistlewood.  According his diaries, the slaves were kept "in line" by the minority white slave owners by extremely brutal treatment ranging from floggings to other less "mainstream" tactics.  When a slave committed an "offense" requiring punishment, they sometimes had another slave defecate or urinate in their mouth.  Then, the mouth was wired shut for four or five hours.

I'm not sure which is more offensive, Mr. Bashir making the personal attack on Mrs. Palin or suggesting that she should be treated brutally for expressing an opinion that is different from his.  If any of you watch MSNBC, I'm surprised.  The odds are certainly against it considering their ratings.  The folks running MSNBC or even NBC News certainly would have editors reviewing the verbiage on the teleprompter before it is read and broadcast.  It seems just a little disingenuous for the MSNBC "big wigs" to apologize and demand that Mr. Bashir take it all back.  I'm sure they are really appalled.  Ha!  Ha!

Was Martin Bashir really sorry about the stuff he said?  I doubt it.  Did management at MSNBC regret that he made those comments?  Not at all.  They used the whole thing to get mentioned extensively on every news outlet in America, including Fox News.  I'll bet their ratings have gone up dramatically.  I hope you aren't one of the 10 extra people that are watching now, doubling their viewership.

Now, what would have happened if Rush Limbaugh had made a comment like this aimed at Hillary Clinton?  Can you hear the outcry from every mainstream media outlet?  Can you imagine the calls for advertisers to boycott Rush?  Just think about the folks that would demand that advertisers be boycotted as well.  Why can't we demand a similar boycott?  I'd love to tell you the names of advertisers on MSNBC, but I don't know who they are.  I am asking for the help of any of you that might watch MSNBC.  What companies should we avoid when making our purchase decisions?  Please respond by commenting on my blog.

I think we should squelch free speech in the same way the liberals do it.  If you can't stop the MessAPolitico any other way, then let's use the tactics they have demonstrated so many times.

Was All of the Obamacare MessAPolitico Planned?

There has been a massive uproar over the Obamacare rollout.  President Obama has currently got the lowest approval rating of his five years in the White House.  A lot of regular folks are scared to death about everything going on with health care.  Rand Paul was being interviewed last night on Fox News, and he was asked about how well the rollout was working in his home state of Kentucky.  He responded by saying that the ratio of folks losing their healthcare coverage in Kentucky to those signed up for Obamacare coverage was 40:1.  That's right.  7,000 Kentuckians have signed up for Obamacare, while about 280,000 have lost coverage.

With the information coming out of the hearings in Washington, somewhere between 30% and 70% of the work on the back end of the Obamacare website hasn't been done yet.  The president's folks were saying that the website would be finished by the end of November, and now Obama says it will be ready by January 1, 2014.  What do you believe?  I don't think it will be working well enough a year from now to cover everyone that is losing their coverage as of the end of 2013.

There are a lot of Democrats up for election in November 2014, and they are scared to death.  The smarter of these politicians are getting together with the Republicans to offer bills in the House to give their constituents relief.  It's a nice gesture, but I think it is a little too late.  Are the insurance companies just going to reinstate the same old policies that were made unlawful under the PPACA?  Obama told them to do that, but how can it be done?

Of course, Obama is acting like he cares, but I have to wonder if all of this was planned.  Obama doesn't care at all about his approval rating, considering that he will never run for office again.  Obama doesn't really care about the other Democrats either when you get right down to it.  Could it be that the upheaval and turmoil in the health insurance world these days is designed to collapse the system?  I have heard the clandestine recording of Obama speaking to some liberal, socialist group during the 2008 campaign where he said that a "one payer system" was his ultimate goal.  He believed correctly that this goal couldn't be achieved all in one step.  The system must be gradually moved in this direction until it seems like a good idea.  The rollout of Obamacare has been gradual over several years.  Now we have reached the culmination, and suddenly most people are finding Obamacare to be even worse than expected.  Is all of this upheaval going to be blamed on the insurance companies cancelling your coverage?  Are you going to have no choice in the end but to sign up of your "free" coverage?  Is this the Alinsky method of achieving radical change through upheaval?

The voters in the United States voted in Obama to his first term in 2008.  That started a drastic acceleration of the MessAPolitico.  I couldn't believe it happened in 2008, but the 2012 presidential election left me frustrated, disheartened, and is total disbelief.  The Socialist revolution in America has begun, and the people did it to themselves.  The leftist elitists are in command, and their goal is destroy the middle and upper classes.  They were voted in because their message sounds like the wealth will be transferred from the rich to the poor, but that's not quite right.  The wealth is coming from the middle class too, and it's headed to the elitist ruling class.  Their Totalitarian style of "ruling" the USA is destroying us slowly from within, and the MessAPolitico is just the first stage.  It may be too late to stop it, but we've got to try.

Mayor Bloomberg Knows What's Best

It looks like Michael Bloomberg, mayor of New York City, is at it again.  Several years ago he led the charge to outlaw large beverages in New York City.  Now, they have added taxes to raise the price of a pack of cigarettes to $10.50 in the city.  Of course, New Yorkers that want to smoke and can't afford the high price can always go to New Jersey or Connecticut to buy cigarettes.  So the folks getting hurt are the cigarette vendors in New York.  Of course, in case anyone is thinking of evading the New York taxes, that has been addressed with new, increased penalties.

First, I will tell you that I don't smoke.  I never have, except a few times as a young kid.  I think cigarette smoking is a bad habit that can damage your health.  A number of my family members have died from emphysema, and one of my cousins had lung cancer.  My brother-in-law smoked until he had heart bypass surgery.  Many of my co-workers smoke, and I hear them hacking and coughing all day long.

This is not about what I think about cigarette smoking, because I wish everyone would stop.  However, it isn't my place to tell other adults that they shouldn't smoke.  In fact, it isn't the place of a government official to decide whether any adult should smoke either.  Of course, Mayor Bloomberg hasn't banned smoking altogether in New York City.  Instead, taxes are being used to discourage smoking.  If the government wasn't paying for your health care, it truly wouldn't be any of their business that folks choose to suck tobacco smoke into their lungs.  If the city run hospitals weren't providing free care to these folks when they are indigent, it wouldn't cost the government a dime.

Maybe you smoke, or maybe you don't.  Do you do anything that is considered unhealthy?  Do you like a good, thick, juicy steak?  What if we had a tax on red meat to discourage you from eating that steak?  How about French fries?  Do you think a tax on fries is a good idea?  Maybe McDonald's is your favorite fast food joint.  Would it be a good idea for a government panel to be appointed that decides which restaurants are good for you and which ones aren't?  Those guys could levy a tax on any restaurant the serves meals with too many calories or too much salt or too much fat or any ingredient that has been deemed unhealthy.  Maybe cars should be sold with a governor on the engine that won't allow you to exceed the speed limit based on a GPS reading of where you are driving.  Would that be good for you?  The government could mandate a maximum size and horsepower for your car, and make the automaker include all kinds of rear view cameras and automatic braking systems to prevent accidents.  These new features may raise the price so much that you can't afford a new car.  Maybe your family is too big to fit in one of those small, green vehicles.  Should the government tax you for having extra kids that inhale oxygen and exhale carbon dioxide?

These sorts of things are exactly the reason why the federal tax code is such a convoluted mess.  Politicians everywhere are using the tax code to steer Americans to do the right thing as defined by them.  Now it takes a degree in accounting, an expensive tax preparer, or tax preparation software to get the tax return filled out.  That, of course, is the least of the problem though.  In fact, the MessAPolitico is using the tax code to run your life.  Wake up America; more of your freedoms are being stolen by the MessAPolitico every day.

The War On Poverty

We've been fighting the war on poverty since Lyndon Johnson was president.  If you think the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are dragging on, how about the war on poverty.  So far, it has lasted about 50 years.  The end is not in sight.  That light at the end of the tunnel is definitely a train headed toward us.  Our fiscal situation in Washington is the proverbial train wreck about to happen.

In the 1970's, 1 in 50 people were receiving food stamps.  Today that number has risen to 1 in 7.  Most of these families have at least one person that is healthy enough and capable to work, but that person is unemployed.  As everyone knows, there are quite a few people these days that are perpetually unemployed.  They don't even bother looking for employment.  They are considered unemployable.

If a person is healthy, why are they unemployable?  Very simply said, their skills are not very valuable in the employment market.  Today, we have minimum wage laws, and many people believe that they raise the average wages in America.  It is true that they raise the average wage of employed Americans.  However, if you look at the average wages of everyone, included the unemployed who earn $0 in wages, the average wage goes down.  That is because anyone whose skills are worth less than the minimum wage are unemployable.

The welfare/food stamps/government assistance level also comes into play here.  If you don't earn more working than you would collecting government entitlements, then why bother getting up to go to work?  Of course, there are a number of the so called "low cost countries" around the world where workers earn far less than our US minimum wage, and these workers receive little of no benefits.  There are issues of quality, shipping costs, logistics, etc. that make overseas manufacturing more challenging, but there is a point where the wage differential is so great that the business must move overseas.

That's right; I wrote that the business MUST move out of the US.  The competition we see on store shelves here in America comes from all over the globe.  If a US manufacturing organization can't compete with one from China or Vietnam or Mexico or the Dominican Republic or Korea or wherever, then they will very simply go out of business.  Their only choice is to move manufacturing somewhere else less expensive.  This may mean picking up the US manufacturing plant and moving it overseas or farming out production to a foreign manufacturing company with a plant over there already.  When that happens, we take manufacturing employees and place them on unemployment, and when that runs out, they collect welfare and other forms of government assistance.

Manufacturing employees range from assembly line workers to skilled machinists to plant management folks to skilled support staff.  That includes manufacturing engineers, mechanics, and electricians.  The plants also don't purchase machinery when they quit manufacturing.  The electricity and natural gas used to run the machines drops to nearly nothing.  They won't buy lubricants and parts to refurbish and maintain the equipment.  When manufacturing jobs move overseas, a lot is lost.

The MessAPolitico is perfectly happy to play politics and drive good manufacturing jobs overseas.  Look at all of the benefits they get for themselves:

• The MessAPolitico can talk about how evil big business is in America and say that they will protect the little guy with government regulations and minimum wage laws.
• The MessAPolitico will pay people for the rest of their lives, using our tax dollars to buy votes.
• The folks getting the entitlements will always vote for the MessAPolitico to perpetuate their government hand-outs.
• The MessAPolitico can talk about how much cleaner the air and water is without manufacturers producing pollution (even though the plants in "low cost countries" generally produce more pollution than ours in the USA).
• The MessAPolitico can talk about their compassion for the poor and needy amongst us, while the evil rich folks don't give a hoot about anything but their stacks of cash gained on the backs of the little guys.
• The MessAPolitico can say that the amount of energy used and green house gases produced under their watch is reduced.
• The MessAPolitico can take money from the rich and the upper middle class and use it to give away free everything to the poor from food to shelter to health care.

The MessAPolitico does things that they say are fighting the war on poverty, but paying people to do nothing besides being poor only perpetuates poverty.  This is a lot like supplying arms to your enemy that you are fighting against in a real war.  They raise minimum wage rates to make people better off, but those people end up unemployed and making less instead.  I guess this is another case of the MessAPolitico taking care of themselves and their re-election at the expense of those who vote for them.

The MessAPolitico just doesn't care about America.  They are the ones that are greedy.   They are the ones that are destroying America for their own benefit.  This is what I'm compassionate about.  I will scream this message from the mountaintop or from this blog until folks start to notice.  The MessAPolitico must be stopped before they have destroyed the greatest country on earth.

How About the Success of Keynesian Economics?

The media loves to blame the economy on government shutdowns or something George W. Bush did while president.  In the words of Jackie Gleason in Smokey and the Bandit, that "barbecues my ass."  The Democrats were fully in charge of everything for two years after the 2008 election.  They made it a point to do all the wrong things during those two years.  This could have been different.  We could have had a normal recession of a year and a half to two years, but only if the government had done things to encourage economic growth.  They discouraged it in every way.  They punished prosperity.  They left the business leaders wondering what would come next.

When the Republicans took over control of the House in 2010, the Democrats were only slowed down a little.  We still have endured tax increases.  The debt limit has risen several times, and spending hasn't dropped an iota.  The Obama administration continues to use its EPA to stop pipelines from being built and to shutdown coal fired power plants that produce cheap electricity.  So, how is it that the Republicans have caused and perpetuated the recession?  Somebody, please explain to me how the media story is right?

It's interesting that recessions have drug along for years and years only twice in the history of our country.  The presidents on those two occasions were Franklin Roosevelt and Barack Obama.  Both of these presidents believed that the economy could only be saved by massive government spending.  Massive government programs were believed to be the answer.  Certainly, Keynesian economic policies were used to extreme in both administrations.

In both cases, these programs kept a blanket on the economy.  Of course, Obama says that things would have been much worse had these steps not been taken.  We will never know if that is true.  Neither Obama nor Roosevelt can prove that that is true.  I can't prove that it is false either.  Of course, there is one little fact that indicates that I'm right and they are wrong.  These are the only two cases in history where our government has taken Keynesian economics to the extreme.  These are also the only two cases where the recession has been so long-lived.

This is the center of the debate between liberals and conservatives.  Keynesian economics are practiced by the MessAPolitico.  Keynesian economics is the cause of the great depression, and if this isn't the second great depression, then the Obama multi year recession has been caused by this same misguided policy.  Economic prosperity isn't created by the MessAPolitico; it is created by the private sector.  Let's vote to remove the MessAPolitico in the next election.

Is Government Provided Health Care More Affordable?

Health care insurers look to the percentage of their premiums collected that are paid out for medical care as a measure of their efficiency.  With individual insurance plans, insurance companies generally have paid out around 60% of the premiums collected.  With insurance companies averaging only about 5% net profit, the average cost of overhead is running around 35%.  This 35% of the premiums is used to pay sales commissions, marketing costs, administration costs, and claims handling.

This is data based on individual policies.  With group policies, the pay out percentage can be as high as 90%.  With those policies, marketing costs per person insured are much less since a single sales effort can sign on hundreds or thousands of new customers.  An independent broker is generally not involved, so there is no sales commission.  Also, the company usually has good data on the costs incurred in prior years, and with a variety of insured people there is less risk than with an individual policy.  The group policies are written based on the average cost per person, and the costs are the same to everyone regardless of age or health condition.

These insurance companies are regulated by individual state commissions.  State regulators are demanding that insurers pay out larger percentages of the premiums collected today -- in some cases, 70%.  This puts the squeeze on the companies to make a profit.  If the companies are only making 5% profit with a 60% pay out ratio for individual policies, then how can they make a positive profit if they must cut the premiums by over 14%?  The answer is that they can't.  It is likely that this is the reason that some folks are having their policies terminated.

It seems only fair that the government should demand the same of themselves that they demand of the insurance companies.  What are the pay out ratios of Medicare and Medicaid?  I'd like to know.  If they made this calculation, I'll bet that the government would look at the Medicare insurance premiums being paid into the system by all of the workers out there.  You know that the folks that earn a salary pay Medicare taxes.  Of course that isn't all of the revenue coming into the Health and Human Services department in Washington.  They collect all of those Medicare taxes, plus a big chunk of the regular budget is allocated to provide health care to millions and millions of senior citizens.  The other thing hokey about this system is that the folks paying Medicare premiums aren't the people receiving the insurance coverage.  The premiums are paid by the folks still working today, whereas the recipients largely have retired.

When all of the dollars coming into the Health and Human Services coffers are added up, what percentage are paid out to health care providers?  Is the number more or less than this magical 70% that the state governments are demanding?  For that matter, is it less than the 60% number the insurance companies are able to achieve for an individual policy?  When you consider that no one is selling Medicare or Medicaid and earning a commission, why shouldn't the pay out ratio rise up toward the 90% number achieved by the private group insurance policies?  There certainly is no 5% profit being earned by the government, and no marketing or advertising costs are required to entice folks to sign up for free insurance.

Do you think the MessAPolitico is able to offer insurance to Medicare and Medicaid recipients with lower administrative costs than private insurance?  Does the MessAPolitico achieve higher pay out ratios without the evil profits?  Does the MessAPolitico do a better job of identifying fraud and waste than the private insurance companies?  I'll bet you know the answer to these questions, but no one in Washington is even asking them.  If you're a supporter of Obamacare, don't YOU want to know the answers to these questions.  Do you still support Obamacare when you look at it this way?

Is Obamacare Alienating Democrat Voters?

I ate dinner last night with a couple of friends that are Democrat voters.  Several years ago they thought my beliefs about Obama were funny.  They didn't believe that Obama could be a socialist.  It was kind of a joke to them that a conservative could believe that Obama is fallible.

It seems that their tune has changed somewhat as they see the effects of Obamacare.  Their insurance premiums will be rising significantly next year.  They also realize that a lot of uninsured people were supposed to benefit by obtaining insurance coverage under Obamacare.  All of the trouble and upheaval we are experiencing has still left significant numbers of these people uninsured, while millions of us will lose coverage.  Many other people are seeing there hours cut back to avoid Obamacare.  Others are having their spouse eliminated from their employer provided coverage.  Most of us are seeing very significant increases in premiums next year.  As it turns out, we're able to keep the coverage we like as long as a government bureaucrat deems it suitable for us.  If the coverage that the bureaucrat believes we really want costs more, then our premiums go up.  I heard a comment from one of my friends referring to the politicians as "a bunch of bone heads."

Are the Democrat voters going to vote for their incumbent Democrat that voted for Obamacare?  Are these Democrat voters seeing the MessAPolitico for what it is now?  Or do these Democrat voters really blame all of the problems on the Republicans in the House?  We will know next November.  Over the coming 12 months, will the Democrats in Congress abandon Obama and force the delay of Obamacare until after the mid-term elections?  I suspect that this will happen.  If it happens, will it save the Democrats political skin?  I don't know.  Hopefully the folks out here in the heartland will realize that health care is far too important to leave in the hands of a bunch of inept bureaucrats.  The roll out of Obamacare has certainly demonstrated that we are governed by a massive and growing MessAPolitico.

Were the Elections this Week a Sign?

On Tuesday November 5th, off-year elections were held in Ohio, Virginia, New Jersey, and probably some other places as well.  These were local elections for mayors, city council members, school board members, local tax levies, etc.  In some places, there were important state elections for governor.

The city of Cincinnati has been run by liberals.  That includes the mayor and a majority on council.  That has changed this time.  A more fiscally conservative Democrat was elected mayor, and the majority of council is now fiscally conservative.

Cincinnati politics has been dominated in recent years by a hugely controversial streetcar project that was projected to cost tens of millions of dollars to build.  The city is struggling with unfunded pension liabilities and a huge upcoming project that the EPA has mandated to upgrade the sewer system.  The budget isn't in balance today, and the previous council was trying to force through the expensive streetcar anyway.  They were selling off assets to private companies just to make the budget balance for a year or two, but there was no cut in spending to make the ongoing budget deficits go away.  In fact, most people believe the streetcar won't generate enough revenue to pay for itself in the long run, so it will likely become another ongoing cost item, exacerbating the fiscal problems.  All of this is happening while basic city services aren't being maintained.  Some of the assets that were sold off to help out with the current year budget had been generating revenue, and now they are gone.

As with all liberal government entities, the proposed solutions involve raising property taxes or corporate taxes.  Of course, this has driven some major employers away in search of greener pastures.  The exodus of residents has continued as well.  Of course, the higher property taxes are just passed along in the form of higher rents for the poor living in the urban neighborhoods.  There are also cuts being proposed in police and fire services.

This election brought a new fiscally conservative majority, and the streetcar project is likely to be stopped.  Is this a sign of things to come in America?  Will the uninformed voters still show up at the polls to vote when they don't have their savior, Barack Obama, on the ballot?  I wonder if Barack Obama is the driving force behind the advancement of the MessAPolitico.  I hope so.

Is Congress Working on the Debt Ceiling Compromise?

Congress keeps putting off the debate over increasing the debt ceiling.  It was increased without any debate or discussions about spending reductions several weeks ago.  This latest increase is expected to get the government the credit limit it needs to get to about January 14th.  Of course, Congress will get a Christmas break that ends on January 7th.  That gives them one week to figure out what to do to prevent another government shutdown.  Will they work on this before the Christmas break?  If you believe they will, then I have some beach front property to sell you in Wyoming.

So what will happen on or about January 14th?  Maybe we'll get another extension for a few months.  I also expect the Republicans in the House to demand spending cuts, while the Democrats in the Senate will refuse to cut spending without a tax increase on the rich.  It will be deja vu all over again.

If we get any spending cuts, will they be real?  Will the government actually spend less or will the rate of growth be reduced?  There are already advertisements on TV in Cincinnati claiming that the Republicans want to cut or even take away Social Security from the retirees.  Any meaningful attempts at cutting spending will bring us attacks like this that make cuts political suicide.  Americans continue to reward the MessAPolitico with re-election after they run ads like this.  Will we ever get enough cuts to balance the budget with this system in place?  It is not likely.

I know this blog sounds like a broken record sometimes, but I wholeheartedly believe that our country is headed for bankruptcy unless the politicians make drastic cuts immediately.  All of the senior citizens that are receiving Social Security, Medicare, and, in some cases, Medicaid, should be more worried about these programs going away completely.  That's what would happen if the bond markets suddenly downgraded our debt drastically.  The US credit rating will eventually be downgraded if we remain on this path.  Maybe the retired folks of today figure it won't happen until they are gone from this earth.  I guess they don't care about the younger folks like their kids or grandkids.

How do we solve the budget problems facing the federal government?  There are a couple of choices:  spending reduction or increased tax revenue generation.  Spending reduction as it has been done (or not done) in the past will never get us there.  I believe that it could if we eliminated a lot of worthless agencies, waste, and redundancy in the federal government.  However, I don't see that happening.

So, let's consider the tax revenue side of the equation.  This could definitely stem the tide of red ink.  Do I think we need tax rate increases on the rich or anyone?  Absolutely not!  That will cause revenues to drop.  This has been proven time and time again.  Reducing tax rates frees up capital in the private economy.  Increasing spending there will put more people to work, and they will pay taxes.  The corporations will have increased profits, and that means they will pay more taxes.  More people working will pay more Social Security and Medicare taxes as well.

Why does our economy remain in a funk after over five years?  Our federal government has been doing all the wrong things for five years.  This will never end if the government continues to punish prosperity and job creation.  Endless regulations, not the least of which is Obamacare, keep businesses small and large from hiring more employees in the USA.  Tax increases on the "rich" small business owners simply take money from them that might have been spent on inventory or equipment or new buildings or hiring new employees.  They are encouraged to move their plants overseas or to simply purchase goods from manufacturers outside the USA.

Please join me in voting out the MessAPolitico post haste.

Why Is Congressional Approval So Low?

The spinmeisters in Washington are always trying to guide your thinking.  They think they can tell you why you don't like Congress.  I've heard and seen numerous reports saying that the Republicans, and especially those radical Tea Party Republicans, have made everyone mad.  They shut down the government and cost us millions of dollars.  We're mad, because these radicals want to cut Social Security.  They don't want to pay for the bills for the stuff that Congress has passed.

Spinmeisters, please let me tell you that you're wrong.  A few liberals and socialists may feel that way, but the average American out there does NOT.  We are all sick and tired of the Washington establishment on both sides spending OUR money and running up huge debts on OUR behalf.  Those of us in America have incurred $17 trillion in National Debt, plus probably 3-4 times that much in unfunded liabilities.  Yes, you read that right.  Our politicians have committed us and our children and our grandchildren to pay for lots of stuff in the future, and these politicians haven't been setting aside any money to pay for these things as they come due.  This would be pensions for politicians and government employees.  It would be Medicaid and Medicare and now Obamacare.  There are also payments for Social Security.  We have created an entire class of permanently unemployed by taking care of them instead of forcing them to find a job.  Those folks represent an unfunded future bill for their food, housing, and income far off into the future.  Most of this spending has been put on autopilot by the original legislation, with formulas for calculating the payouts.  It isn't even considered as part of the discretionary spending, and Congress can't change the spending without changing the laws that govern it.

It seems that fewer and fewer of us are working and trying to pay these bills, and more and more folks are staying back and collecting their livelihood from the government dole.  The liberals speak to your emotions and sound so compassionate.  They never solve any of these nagging problems that keep these folks unemployed and unemployable.  Instead, they just pass more laws that create more unemployment and more poverty.  We have more people than ever living below the poverty level. 

The average American is fed up with Congress.  We are fed up with them "kicking the can down the road."  We keep looking for a sign that they will take the actions necessary to get Americans working again.  We are hoping that Congress will take the drastic steps needed to actually get the budget under control.  We want a balanced budget, and I personally want to see the National Debt paid down over time.

Do I hate the MessAPolitico that runs this country?  You bet I do.  Am I frustrated with them?  Absolutely.  Is it just the Democrats or just the Republicans?  I have had it with all of the establishment types in both the Democratic and Republican parties.  The Tea Party "radicals" like Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, and Mike Lee are the ones I support.  They recognize the problems and they're willing to risk their own political futures to save something far more important, America.

Whopee! Free Health Care

All you health care providers that voted for Obama should be commended.  You're apparently willing to give us all free health care.  After all, health care won't be free unless it's, well, free.

They won't sell the medicine anymore.  All those scientists that figure out the formulas for the drugs will work for no pay.  The research they do will be done just for the good of all of us.  That's great.  The drug companies will take money from the stockholders and use it to build laboratories.  They will fill these labs with all the best equipment.  The mixers and pill forming machines, the packaging equipment, the bottling conveyors will all be provided by the stockholders out of the goodness of their huge hearts.  Of course, any workers on the factory floors will want to get in on the action.  They also are charitable people, willing to put in 40+ hours every week unpaid.

I'm sure the future doctors will be happy to spend 10 years in college and medical school, working to get the best grades possible.  The tuition and other school expenses can be financed with student loans that will be forgiven when the doctors agree to work for free.  If you need to take your kid to the pediatrician with an earache, don't worry.  The doctors and nurses will work without pay.  Any equipment these doctors will need will be provided by the companies that make them at no charge.

The hospital companies will spend their capital to build the hospitals, but they won't expect any return on their investment.  They paid for all that stuff with the ill gotten profits that came on the backs of the poor.

If it sounds too good to be true, it must be a MessAPolitico.  Do you really want everything to be free?  I suspect it won't be free for everyone.  The top 50% will pay for everything.  The bottom 50% will soon be 60%.  Then it will be 70%.  Where will it end?

Let's Make it Simple - Give the Government Access to Everything

According to the Democrats, America wants Obamacare.  They know this because Barack Obama was re-elected.  They have a point.  At least 50% of us must want Obamacare, or we would have voted for a presidential candidate that would repeal it.

All that being said, we are apparently willing to turn over control of this important part of our lives to the federal government.  If it's going to happen, then we might as well do it right.  So everyone should turn over every bit of information about themselves to the federal government.  Since they are providing health care, at least in part, for the poor and lower middle classes, the government is going to want to tell you how to live your life.  They won't want you taking risks.

Do you like rock climbing or sky diving or base jumping?  That might be frowned upon by your health care provider.  What about auto racing?  Do you ever drive above the speed limit?  Maybe the government should install a GPS and speed tracker that will let them know if you drive too fast.  Do you drink too much alcohol?  Are you a smoker?  Do you eat too much beef?  Are hot wings one of your favorite foods?  Have you bought your monthly quota of cookies already at the grocery store?  I hope you don't like fast food.  Are you a gun owner?  Watch out, they may be coming for your guns.

Is your family using too much electricity, natural gas, or gasoline?  Do you meet the green standards for each American?  Don't worry, there's a bureaucrat that will tell you how much you can use.  They could automatically control your thermostat remotely.  The technology certainly exists.  They know what temperature is right for you.  How would you like having the thermostat set to 67 degrees in winter.  Maybe 77 degrees is cool enough in summer.  People didn't even have air conditioning that much in the 1940's and 1950's.  If they could live without it back then, we can survive without it today.  Maybe you should hang the clothes on a line to dry; you don't need that dryer.

You know, today the retailers can get information about your purchasing habits from credit card activity and rewards programs.  Maybe the government needs to issue each of us a social security card with a magnetic strip on the back.  It could be used to monitor all of your purchases if retailers are required to scan it every time you buy something.  The EPA and Health and Human Services will be able to figure out if you owe a penalty for violating the government imposed standards.  If your home is bigger than average, maybe you could take in a homeless person or family.  I'm sure you can afford to feed them and clothe them too.

Does this all sound crazy?  Yes, it does.  It's not something that will happen overnight.  It's something that will come about one step at a time.  Once you figure out that America isn't a free country anymore, it will be too late.  Vote for freedom.  Vote for candidates that will support the constitution, not the MessAPolitico.

The Obamacare Roll Out - a Lesson in Incompetence

It has been reported that our government spent $500M on the enrollment website programming.  It also has been reported that the programming was done by a Canadian company.  I guess they couldn't find an American company that could screw it up this bad.  Of course, I can't say whether the problems were caused by the contractors or the project management team in Health and Human Services.  In any case, this software roll out has come after a multi-year development effort.  I wonder what the original budget was.  Was the original quotation for $500M, or did mismanagement create opportunities for the contractor to increase the billings?  Was there scope creep?  Did the original request for quote provide a clear definition of the desired operation of the software?  Have the bureaucrats added a bunch of features at the last minute?

When private companies roll out a website, do they have problems like this?  Rarely.  Do they generally spend $500M for their website design and information systems?  I doubt it.  Does this Obamacare website have any earth shaking innovations that held things up?  Not likely -- at least, unless you consider making the website virtually impossible to figure out, redundant, slow, and riddled with problems an innovative strategy.

Contrast this MessAPolitico with a private sector website introduction.  The private sector would generally be finished on-time, fully tested for security and ease of use.  The private company would want to make their website as easy to use and customer friendly as possible.  After all, they are competing with other companies, and a user friendly website might entice some customers away from the competition.  If the private company already had your name, address, and financial information, they would likely share the data between divisions and allow you to streamline the process of buying their products.

Everyone knows that the government has all of our data in multiple databases.  Of course, the IRS has our name, address, income, etc. stored under your social security number.  They see your tax payments sent in by your employer or by you quarterly.  If you already receive welfare, food stamps/SNAP, Medicaid, Medicare, VA benefits, etc., why can't the data be transferred across?  Better yet, why can't all government entities share one database that contains all of the information they need when you sign up for any program?

The simple answer is that bureaucracies just don't work that way.  Why should they?  They have no interest in efficiency, because profits aren't necessary.  They are spending tax dollars, not their own investment.  The boss doesn't see you spending his money on some wasted efforts.  Duplication of effort means more jobs.  Making a project long and complex means job security.  Why fix a problem when that might eliminate the need for a department and jobs.

Look at the war on poverty that was started with LBJ in the early 1960's.  That war has been fought for about 50 years, and today there are more people living in poverty than ever.  When did the war on drugs begin, and has it been won?  If the military had as much trouble winning wars as these government agencies, we would still be fighting the revolutionary war.

So, this inept government of ours is running our health care now.  How great is that?  Health care is so important to all of us.  Eventually, all of us will need it.  The government is taking the incentive to excel away from our health care providers.  The cost of medical training is higher than ever, yet providers are being squeezed financially with stifling regulations when the graduate and enter the workforce.  Medical device innovators are being punished with higher taxes that will eventually run them out of the country.  We can look forward to having lawyers decide for us and our doctors about what health care is right for us.

I think this health care MessAPolitico was intended to bring health care to some tens of millions of people that had no insurance.  I'm not really sure anymore, but it seems that I was told everyone has the "right" to health care.  There was a lot of debate about how many Americans were uninsured and whether they were truly Americans or illegal aliens.  However, I keep hearing reports that we haven't managed to insure all of these folks AND a bunch of other Americans have now lost their health care as a result of the PPACA.  Some employers have cut back employees hours because they don't want to pay the rising costs for everyone.  Others are electing to pay the tax/fine and drop employee coverage.  Small companies are avoiding the high costs by not hiring.

There is an important lesson here.  Never look to the government for improvements in efficiency or effectiveness.  Don't look to the government to solve problems.  The only thing we should ever ask of government is to get out of the way.

Was the Shutdown Planned?

Was the whole the shutdown planned and orchestrated to come down the way it did?  I think it was.  I don't think the Republicans wanted to "win."  I believe they planned to make a show of trying to stop Obamacare, but then giving in to the Democrats after waiting just long enough to give us all hope.  The Republicans were seemingly negotiating with themselves when they offered up alternative after alternative.  This was all done while the Democrats sat back and repeated their mantra of "we won't negotiate about this." 

After waiting for a couple of weeks, the Republican leadership just woke up one day and said they had lost the battle.  Is that true?  No.  They just gave up.  Do the Republicans really believe that a government shutdown would eventually result in a government default?

I believe that the default is more likely to come from not fixing the spending problem we have in America.  If you ran your household like the federal government, how long would it last.  Our federal government has been spending about 40% more than it takes in ever since Obama took office.  Imagine if your annual household income was $60k, but you were spending $85k.  After 5 years, you would have $125k in credit card debt.  Think of all the interest you would pay every month on the credit cards.  That would be an expense that would grow every month, because if you don't reduce any of your other spending, you would need to borrow more every year as the interest cost rises.

If your home is like the federal government, you would go to your boss and demand a raise.  After all, he's a rich guy that makes more money than you; he can afford to pay you more.  You can't reduce your spending.  Why should you have to drive a Chevrolet?  It's not fair that a rich guy can have a Lexus, and you can't.  Just go out and get the Lexus and demand a raise.

What happens to your interest payments if the interest rates start to rise?  That could happen because no one wants to give you a credit card when you have $125k in credit card debt.  You're not a very good credit risk when you owe more than your annual income.  This is especially true when your credit history doesn't show that you are responsible with credit.

Of course, there is the economic reality that interest rates today are as low as they will ever be.  In fact, the Federal Reserve has taken many steps to try and "jump start" the economy, and the slow economy is the reason interest rates are so low.  What happens if the economy ever takes off?  There will be excessive inflation unless the Federal Reserve takes steps to limit economic growth.  One of the primary levers they have for reining in the economy and inflation is to raise the interest rates.  Are you old enough to remember the 1980's?  Interest rates for home loans were well into the teens.  My first home loan had an adjustable rate of around 14%, and I bought it after the peak had passed.  I was on my third home in 1988 before I had a fixed rate mortgage and one with an interest rate below 10%.

Right now, we are in the tenuous position of wanting the economy to take off, but fearing the inflation that will result.  Imagine what happens to the interest payments on the national debt if interest rates were to triple.  At least the tax revenues would rise if the economy took off.  The question is whether revenues would rise more quickly than costs.  Historically, the government has grown spending faster than revenues, growing the MessAPolitico.

Additionally, we will pay higher interest rates on government debt instruments if the markets downgrade our bond rating.  Is that going to happen because Congress is trying to get the government spending under control?  No.  It is more likely to happen because Congress keeps kicking the can down the road and does absolutely nothing to control spending.

America, it is time to wake up to the MessAPolitico that is before us.  Vote for freedom.  Vote for fiscal responsibility.  Vote for reducing government regulations that stifle our economic growth.  Vote to kick the establishment out of power in the federal government.

Republicans Headed for Irrelevance

I am sorry to say that this headline is coming true before our eyes.  Their are some Tea Party Republicans that are certainly relevant, but the establishment Republicans that are running the party are not.  These Republicans get re-elected over and over, just like the establishment Democrats.  The voters see them as the lesser of two evils.  More and more, I see them as nothing but the same evil in a different package.  This package says "I'm conservative," but it votes and acts like a liberal.  They are too afraid to shake things up much, and they cower around the halls of Washington in fear of the media and their buddies in the Democrat party.

I have always seen a conservative or libertarian third party as nothing but a help to the Democrats in getting elected.  Now, I can see that voting third party against an establishment "RINO" as a necessary evil.  If there isn't a strong enough Tea Party challenger in the Republican primary, then why even show up to vote in the general election?  Does it really matter whether you vote Democrat or "RINO?"  I'm afraid not.  When I see discussion boards where liberals are singing the praises of John Boehner and Mitch McConnell, how can I see that as a reason to vote for their kind in the next election?  I'm casting my votes in hopes of electing someone that will represent my point of view and ideology in Washington, not that of the liberals.

Unfortunately, I believe this recent government "shutdown" was an orchestrated show by the Republicans.  They knew they could hold out a couple of weeks and then let the big liberal machine run over them.  Their goal isn't to stop Obamacare.  They very simply want to say they want it stopped.  Hopefully, implementation of Obamacare will be traumatic for the people, and a good recession to end Obama's second term would be very helpful to the Republican election cause.  With a result like that, the Republicans would expect to take back both the White House and the Senate!

This is a sorry state of MessAPolitico that we are in today.  We the people have created it.  We are the ones that re-elected these folks over and over until they believe now that we want the MessAPolitico.  I don't want my Congressional leaders doing what is best for them.  I want them to do what is best for our country and tell the truth about all situations we are facing.  That's what it will take to restore my faith in our American government.

Why Does Everyone Operate on the Extremes?

From time to time, I participate on discussion boards online.  I've noticed that the responses of disagreement to folks can be pretty nasty.  The conservatives tend to call the liberals socialists or communists.  Several days ago, I made a simple comment that I had written my Senator after he voted to fund Obamacare, and I had told this Senator that I would vote against him in the primary.  I had written and warned all of my representatives in the House and Senate that anyone voting to fund the PPACA would never get my vote again.

A couple of people responded to my comment and suggested that I was a fascist and that I should move to Mexico.  Now a fascist is a person, more specifically a leader, that is so far to the right that they are almost back to the extreme far left position.  Facism is marked by a totalitarian government that forces it's right-wing ideology on the people.  My point of view is not that I want to force anything on anyone.  Quite to the contrary, I see Obamacare and other left-wing rules and policies being forced upon me.

Those of us in America that want our health care and our freedoms left alone are not practicing fascism.  In fact, it is the will of the liberal elitists in this country to force their brand of socialized health care down our throats.  Most Americans would be far more receptive to an expansion of Medicaid that provides better options for the poor.  However, we don't want the politicians to force us to change our medical insurance in the process.  Let's face a couple of facts with Obamacare.  Firstly, my health insurance premiums will go up by about 82% in 2014.  My insurer has told me so.  Secondly, providing me and my family with health care under this insurance plan will not cost the insurance company any more next year.  However, that extra $550/month will be used to pay for the health care of others, not in my family and not covered under my individual plan.

I'm certainly not against charity.  I give money at church every month.  However, I don't like being told by the government that I have to give what they say I will give to whom they say I will give it.  There are too many people that put forth no effort at finding employment.  I saw a YouTube video several days ago showing an unmarried woman with 15 children and a boyfriend that was in jail.  She wanted to know who was going to pay for her children.  She obviously thought they were someone else's financial responsibility.  Although I feel sorry for the kids, I just don't understand how she deserves any sympathy or tax dollars.

This is the MessAPolitico we are in, and I don't really see the people electing politicians that have the stomach to fix it.  We need drastic actions in Washington to turn this thing around.  The wimpy little actions like the sequester, just won't get it done.  We may be past the tipping point politically.  Not economically yet, but the politics are such that we won't even slow down the progression toward the tipping point.  This is a grim statement, but unfortunately, I think it is a realistic one.