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?