Is Obamacare Delivering Health Care to the Uninsured?

Do you remember the litany from the Democrats about the uninsured people in the United States?  I remember a lot of arguments about how many people were uninsured in America.  There was a lot of discussion about how many of these folks were illegal aliens too.  We heard about how a lot of younger people decided to go uninsured, because they considered themselves invincible.  There are also some rich people that choose not to buy insurance because they can afford to pay for any medical care they need, regardless of the expense.

In March of 2009, President Obama said "all it takes is one stroke of bad luck -- an accident or an illness, a divorce, a lost job -- to become one of the nearly 46 million uninsured . . ."  Was that the real number of people in the USA without health insurance?  Who knows?  I do know that the number of enrollees for Obamacare is reportedly something less than 7 million as we are reaching the signup deadline today.  Let's assume for a minute that Barack Obama and our government are shooting straight with these two numbers.  (I know that it is a big stretch to take any statistic from our federal government as accurate or true.)  Does that mean that we have gone through a massive upheaval, the PPACA screwed up millions of satisfied Americans' health plans, and only about 15% of the formerly uninsured have insurance now?

Of course, 15% of the uninsured would have insurance now if the real number of people who have actually fully completed signing up for an Obamacare plan is 7 million and none of those people are replacing a plan that was cancelled.  Reports from the state exchanges estimate that somewhere in the 50%-75% range were previously uninsured.  It is also important to note that the nearly 7 million number is the number of people that have signed up for Obamacare, not the number that have actually completed the transaction and paid a premium.  The number that are truly Obamacare enrollees with a new Obamacare plan in force has not been reported so far.

Like most solutions created by the MessAPolitico, the Patient Protection Affordable Care Act has done a miserable job of meeting its original goal -- providing health insurance to the uninsured poor.  (Do the liberals supporting this MessAPolitico even remember the original goal?  Was the real goal to create a great legacy for Obama, Harry Reid, and Nancy Pelosi?)  It also has come with a multitude of unforeseen consequences.  As far as affordability goes, a lot more people will have to drop their insurance plans if they get much more affordable.  If more healthy people don't sign up, the premiums are going to rise further next year.  With most of the Obamacare recipients having their premiums subsidized or paid completely by the government, what will our budget deficit look like next year and the year after and off into the future?

Do the Republicans Have a Plan?

The Republicans plan to repeal the Patient Protection Affordable Care Act if they ever regain control of the House, the Senate, and the Presidency.  That doesn't constitute a plan though.  A plan would have to be a detailed procedure for shutting Obamacare off, including dealing with the people that lost their health care coverage and have pre-existing conditions.  The Republicans also need to figure out how to deal with the folks whose coverage has already been changed to a PPACA compliant policy that costs a lot more than their old plan.

I still remember the Contract with America that was used as a Republican campaign tool in the 1994 mid-term election during Bill Clinton's first term.  That plan was devised by Newt Gingrich and Dick Armey, and the voters were told what they would get if they voted Republican.  Ten legislative goals were laid out in enough specificity to get the attention of voters.  The Republicans won in a landslide, taking control of the House and the Senate.  This is what the Republicans need to do again with this election.

I've heard plenty of campaign advertisements being run by the incumbent Republicans lately.  Specifically, Mitch McConnell's ads are big on generalities with no specifics.  All of us want to know what we will get with a Republican majority after the upcoming election.  The bills they plan to introduce and pass should be published weeks before the election, so we can study them.  They should be brief and to the point.  Obamacare is a huge monstrosity that ten lawyers couldn't figure out in six months.  It needs to be replaced with simple, common sense reforms of the health care system.  These reforms shouldn't be all encompassed in one massive bill that gives legislators an "all or nothing" choice.  Each reform should be a separate bill that stands alone and can be considered on its on merits.  Hopefully the legislators will consider the pros and cons of each reform and choose to individually accept or reject each one.

Bills should be created in committees with members of both parties negotiating to find the best solution for the American people.  Legislating is not supposed to be about screwing the other party or taking 100% credit by one party.  Americans are sick of the politics and the MessAPolitico feathering their own nests at the expense of our country.  Why can't we find a reform that is good for America and that legislators on both sides of the aisle will support?

The Patient Protection Affordable Care Act is seen as some sort of great achievement of Barack Obama, Harry Reid, and Nancy Pelosi.  Even in the face of intense opposition to the bill by the American people, the MessAPolitico won't turn back.  They can't stop this great accomplishment that they see as their legacy.  The American people don't give a damn about a politician's legacy.  And you have to wonder what happens to their legacies if the Republicans succeed in regaining control of the federal government in the next two elections.  If Obamacare is repealed, the legacy they are guarding will be gone.  That means history will say that Barack Obama had a failed presidency.  The Democrats that are running the Senate and the White House still have the opportunity to spend the next six months replacing Obamacare with new bills as I have described above.  In my opinion, that is the only way they can retain control of the Senate.

It is highly unlikely that Harry Reid or Barack Obama will concede that the PPACA is the MessAPolitico that it is.  The Republicans can wait until November rolls around and hope that America will turn over the Senate to them as the lesser of two evils.  Or the Republicans can develop a legislative strategy to get this thing fixed.  They can run on the 2014 contract with America.  Their strategic plan should include tactics that address all contingencies.  That means figuring out how to negotiate a win for America even if the Democrats retain control of the Senate in 2014 and/or the Presidency in 2016.  How will they use control of the budget to stop implementation of bills they don't like?  Are there other ways to stop the liberal MessAPolitico?  Will they work with the more conservative Democrats to craft bipartisan legislation?  Can they possibly get some of their legislative initiatives passed even without control of the entire government?

The Republicans today have a major hindrance, and it is poor leadership.  There are plenty of good Republicans in Washington, but everyone isn't united in a common purpose.  They don't believe they can ever get a conservative bill to pass unless they get control of all three branches of government.  It just isn't true.  I will say this to all Republican politicians out there:

• Develop a mission statement for the Republican party
• Get together and analyze the state of the union, identifying problems
• Develop alternative solutions to each of the problems
• Create a strategic plan for fixing these problems
• Show us your plan as you campaign
• Make this a national effort or possibly a national plea to the American voters

Do this, and you are guaranteed to take back America.

Are Charter Schools Bad?

For some reason liberal politicians are against school choice.  They also seem to oppose charter schools.  Why?  They complain that people want to send their kids to private schools, especially parochial schools.  It's not fair that the rich kids' parents can afford to send them to private schools to get a better education, while poor kids are left behind in the crumbling public school system.

Aren't charter schools just schools that compete for good students in the inner city neighborhoods with smaller classes and better academic performance.  The students also compete to be selected by the best charter schools.  These schools are publicly funded, but they function more like a private school.  There is competition that makes them more responsive to the needs of the students, and they help poor students excel.  The charter schools are exempt from many of the "one-size-fits-all" rules and regulations imposed upon the normal public schools.  However, they are still required to give all students the standardized tests and meet the minimum requirements for results.  Generally speaking, "cutting-edge" teaching techniques are used, and the students tend to thrive in the environment.  Parental involvement is encouraged if not required to show the students that their parents place a high importance on learning and high academic performance.

So, what's not to like about charter schools?  Rules for operating charter schools vary from state to state.  In some locations the charter school teachers aren't required to be credentialed.  Also, some of the teachers are non-union.  Could this be the stumbling block for Democrat politicians?  They have received campaign contributions from the unions, and they are beholden to them.  These Democrats will have a tougher time funding their campaigns without these huge contributions.  They also need the votes from the union members.  So, they find the performance of the schools and the academic results to be less important than re-election.

This proves that the MessAPolitico could even mess up their own good ideas.  Do they also not want the students in the inner city to perform well?  If those kids grow up and succeed in high school and college, they will likely grow up to be productive members of society that earn a living above the poverty line.  How can they be kept dependent on the government for everything in their lives with that kind of success?  They might even switch over and vote Republican.  That would be a travesty.

It's time for the poor and lower middle class members of our society to realize that liberal politicians want to sound compassionate about their plight.  However, they don't want to pull them up out of poverty and government dependence.  The MessAPolitico might be compassionate about poverty, but they are only passionate about re-election.

VA Health Care: Obamacare Preview

Don’t we have a government run health care system already in place?  The Veterans Administration operates a health care system that is funded and run by our United States federal government.  Should we expect a government run health care system for the rest of us to be run as efficiently as the VA health care system?

Of course, the Patient Protection Affordable Care Act doesn’t set up a government run health care system that employs doctors and owns and operates clinics and hospitals.  Many believe it is a first step toward some larger goal like this.  Maybe that goal is to have a single payer system.  When Barack Obama was secretly recorded in a fund raiser during his first election campaign, he could be heard saying that ultimately he wants a single payer system of health care.  That is a government takeover of the health insurance industry.  The President and probably many other progressives and socialists and communists believe that the reason we have high health care costs is because of the profits earned by insurance companies and the salaries of their top management.

If the progressives ever reach their goal of a single payer health care system, what will it look like?  How will it operate?  Will there be any problems?  Will everyone get the health care they need, just like the upper and middle economic classes have today?  Will our health care cost less?  Will the health care services we need be available in a timely fashion?

Let’s take a look at the Veterans Affairs health care system for some answers to the questions above.  On November 20^th of last year, CNN ran a report about veterans dying needlessly.  They reported that these folks were dying because of delays in getting preventative care like colonoscopies or endoscopies or other tests that check for cancer in the early stages.  With regard to cancer, CNN reported that a number of veterans are dying due to delays in diagnosis and in receiving treatment.  The report focused on the Williams Jennings Bryan Dorn Veterans Medical Center in Columbia, South Carolina.  That hospital had a wait time in summer of 2011 of eight months for gastrointestinal appointments.

Stars and Stripes reported on their website in April of 2012 “that veterans on average have to wait nearly two months” for mental health care.  The Washington Examiner reported that “thousands of orders for diagnostic medical tests have been purged en masse by the Department of Veterans Affairs to make it appear its decade-long backlog is being eliminated.”  On March 15^th of last year, www.armytimes.com reported that “according to VA, about 49 percent of new patients and 90 percent of established patients are able to see a primary care doctor or specialist within VA’s goal of 14 days, a metric established in 2011.  But the first-time patients who weren’t seen within 14 days waited an average 50 days to schedule initial appointments.”

I have an individual health insurance policy for myself, my wife, and my daughter.  We utilize private physicians and hospitals for our medical care.  When I read things like these above, it is unacceptable.  All of us that have access to private health care know that we can call and get an appointment to see a doctor later today if it’s early, and tomorrow if it is late in the day.  When I call, it is very unusual to have a wait time or to be put on hold.  If we call for a check-up, mammogram, colonoscopy, or other preventative care, we are given an appointment at a time that fits our schedule and within a few weeks.  Is this what we will have in our future if the liberals get their wish and we have a complete government takeover of the health care industry?

I suspect that the upheaval in health care has only just begun.  If Obamacare was shut off today, what would happen to all of the folks with pre-existing conditions that have lost their health insurance?  The further we go down this road, the harder it will be to turn back.  If doctors can’t charge enough for their services to cover the costs of providing it and meeting the regulations laid down by the PPACA, will they quit or retire?  Will they go to work for the government on salary?  If enough of them quit, where will we get the health care we need and want?

The MessAPolitico has already done damage to the American health care system.  I’m not sure why my health care had to be touched in order to provide better care for someone else.  I don’t understand why this PPACA was supposed to insure tens of millions that had no insurance, but it seems to have done poorly at that.  Instead, more or as many people lost their insurance coverage as gained it.

The sooner this gets stopped, the better.  Please go to the primaries to vote for new blood in the Senate.  Get rid of anyone that voted to fund the PPACA last fall.  I don’t care if your Senator or Representative is a Democrat or a Republican.  If they didn’t do everything in their power to stop the PPACA at every opportunity, they should be replaced.

Low-Flush Toilets

Our government MessAPolitico passed the Energy Policy Act, and in 1992, it was signed into law by President George H. W. Bush.  This law specified that new toilets must not require more than 1.6 gallons of water per flush, whereas the normal flush toilets had required around 3.5 gallons per flush. 

I remember seeing Hollywood celebrities like Tom Cruise running around talking about how we need to waste less water.  Of course, the Hollywood types generally live out in the western U.S. where water is in short supply.  If there is a drought for a little while in California, Arizona, New Mexico, or Nevada, their rivers and streams start to dry up.  The big cities out there are filling with millions of folks moving out for better weather and sunny Pacific coast beaches.  They need more and more water, but the climate is quite arid.

The question is this:  why does the eastern 2/3 of America need to ration water?  In the areas where I have lived my entire life from Mississippi to Missouri to the Ohio River Valley, drought will cause your lawn and the crops to dry up, but there is always water coming from the faucet.  The Ohio, Tennessee, Mississippi, or Missouri Rivers may drop in times of low rainfall, but there is always plenty of water at the intakes to the water treatment plants.

You might ask why are low-flush toilets such a bad thing.  What is so bad about saving water?  My answer is that these "dribbling" toilets don't get enough water flowing to get the job done.  If I save 1.9 gallons of water per flush, but I need to flush three times, how did I save any water?  (How's that for answering a question with a question?)

There's another thing I heard about low-flush toilets, and I don't know for sure that it is true.  A while ago a plumber called into a radio talk show and said that the plumbing in most U.S. homes wasn't designed or installed for such a low amount of water flow.  He said that the piping has a gradual slope from the toilets and sinks and tubs in the home to the sewers under the streets.  With the low-flush toilets, there isn't enough flow generated to push the solids all the way to the main sewer system.  This results in a build up of these solids in the system that can lead to clogs and plumbing problems.  According to him, the sewer system needs more slope to work with the limited water flow.

Once again, the MessAPolitico tells folks how to run their business and design their products.  Their intentions are good, but the results aren't that great.  Some areas of the country have a limited supply of water, so the entire country needs to change how things are done.  Wouldn't the shortage of water in the west lead to very high water rates out there?  And, wouldn't the high water rates encourage the folks out west to use less water?  Maybe they would buy a low-flush toilet.  Maybe they would decide not to flush after number one.  Maybe they would install a low-flush toilet in one bathroom and only use that for number one.  Maybe the high water rates would discourage more people from moving to an area with limited water supply.  You know, those free-market solutions work so much better than the government regulations that are shoved down our throats every day.

The MessAPolitico keeps pushing Americans.  They keep telling us what we can and can't do.  Laws are passed to take away our free will to do anything they've deemed bad for us.  Please vote in the upcoming primaries to end the "nanny state."  They can't run our country, and I don't want them running my life.  I can't stand any more of their improvements.

Compact Fluorescents

The MessAPolitico has decided that we all need compact fluorescent light bulbs everywhere.  In fact, they have banned the normal incandescent light bulb.  This is the typical "one-size-fits-all" philosophy that our illustrious government specializes in delivering.  I think fluorescent bulbs are great.  I have them in many places in our home.  The light is pleasantly bright, with less glare than some incandescent bulbs and a more natural white light.  The problem is that these bulbs aren't the best solution for every application.

We all know that fluorescent bulbs require a starter or ballast.  The ballast and the bulb will both wear out if they are turned on and off too frequently.  In your family room where the light is turned on at dusk and stays on until bedtime, a fluorescent bulb should be used to save energy and reduce the monthly electric bill.  However, in a closet where the light stays on for maybe 20 minutes a day, while being turned on and off four or more times daily, a fluorescent makes absolutely no sense.  Of course, when something makes no sense, that makes it the perfect MessAPolitical solution to a problem that doesn't really exist.

An incandescent bulb in a closet or a bathroom or the garage is a great solution.  They use more energy, but these bulbs run so few hours/month that the payback on a more expensive energy saving bulb would be a very long time.  No one could justify buying a CFL bulb for these places, and the frequent short usages lead to premature failure.

Outdoor applications in a front porch light might make sense for the compact fluorescent bulb, but the environment with temperature extremes and moisture are pretty rough on the average CFL bulb.  Maybe an LED bulb would be a better solution there.  If the LED is a good solution, I wouldn't expect the MessAPolitico to jump on it.

Whenever our government sets about fixing some problem a bureaucrat decided exists, they end up causing a problem.  It's the law of unintended consequences that was created just for MessAPolitical action in society.  Washington uses endless rules, regulations, laws, and tax incentives to tell Americans how to live their lives.  These arrogant, self-righteous, egotistical narcissists in Washington and in state capitols across America think they know what is best for each of us.  It's time we let them know what we think of their opinions on how our lives should be run.  Send the incumbents home in the upcoming primaries.  Let's send the next batch of politicians to Washington to represent our views, not to dictate how America should operate.  Remember, they work for us, not the other way around.

A New Record High Temperature

I was watching the weather report on Saturday night, and the weatherman showed the daily temperature data.  It showed that we had an above average high that day of 60 degrees.  The average or, as he put it, "normal" high for March 15th in Cincinnati is 53 degrees.  The implication of this statement is that any time the high on March 15th is anything besides 53 degrees, it is not normal.  Do you think that is right?  54 degrees is above normal in Cincinnati on March 15th.  It certainly is above average, but that doesn't mean above normal.  If the temperature here was very consistent like it is in a cave thousands of feet below the Earth's surface, then 1 degree above average would be above normal.  However, the high temperature in most places on the surface of the Earth varies with a standard "bell" curve distribution.  That means that 68.2% of the time, the high temperature will fall between plus or minus one standard deviation of the average temperature.  So what is the standard deviation of the high temperature on March 15th in Cincinnati?  I don't know, but it seems that normal might be defined as the range of temperatures that occurs 68.2% of the time.

Of course, this statistical math seems to make everyone's eyes glaze over.  It's no wonder that the weatherman doesn't talk about a range of high temperatures that constitutes normal.  There is a simple way to handle this.  Just refer to the average high as the average high temperature.  Quit trying to change the mindset of people watching the weather forecast using questionable wording.  53 degrees is not the only normal high temperature for Cincinnati on March 15th, and the weatherman shouldn't make it out to be this way.

There was another interesting tidbit in the daily temperature data presented in that weather summary.  It was a pretty warm day compared to the rest of this winter of 2014 with the high being 60 degrees.  However, it was nowhere near the record high of 82 degrees.  With all of this global warming hoopla we've all had drilled into our heads, that record was probably set within the past couple of years.  Do you think we hit 82 degrees in 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, or 2013?  If you guessed one of those years, you would be off a little bit.  That record was set in 1944.  That's kind of interesting.  Was there global warming in the 1940's.  You might think so, because the all time warmest average temperature for the month of March was set in 2012, and it broke the old record set in 1946 for Cincinnati, Columbus, Dayton, and a number of other cities in Ohio.  Other cities in the area had high average temperatures in March of 1921, 1945, 1973, and 2000.  You would guess that 1921, 1945, 1946, 1973, and 2000 were all relatively hot years for all the cities in the same general area, so the statistics seem to indicate that some years are hot, while others are not.  I don't see a general trend towards hotter and hotter years recently.  In fact, it looks like those really hot years are spaced out by about 25-30 years.

It should be noted that these record temperatures aren't the highest temperatures we've had here since Adam and Eve invented the thermometer and started writing down the temperature every hour.  We have temperature data going back to about 1880.  One might wonder about the accuracy of the data in the early part of that 134 year span.  In any case, with 130 years of data for a planet that is somewhere between 5000 and millions of years old, you can't show much of a trend.  The scientists have told us that an ice age came and went millions of years ago.  How did the ice age end?  Didn't we have global warming that started at the peak of the ice age?  I guess the cave men and women were driving around in gas guzzling SUV's and burning coal.

Hearing mental midgets like Al Gore or Michael Moore or Barack Obama running around talking like they are scientists is infuriating.  They are the MessAPolitico.  They've made a mess of politics, which is their area of expertise of course.  Why should you believe that they know anything about science?  When they pay out billions in grant money to scientists to prove that global warming is man-made, what would you expect the results to be?  I guess they don't realize that real scientists would set out to learn what is going on rather than trying to prove something is true so they can collect a payday.

Democrat Global Warming Smoke Screen

A few Democrats in the Senate stayed up all night Monday to "wake up" Congress to the evils of climate change.  Only thirty of the fifty three Democrats in the Senate participated in this Climate Action Task Force event.  When the MessAPolitico is bloviating, listen carefully to what they say.  The Republicans were labeled "climate change deniers."  We were told by these Democrats that there is "overwhelming scientific consensus that climate change is occurring, is caused primarily by humans, and will have serious impacts if unchecked."  Then, one after another, they stepped up to the microphone and said that 97% or 98% or 99% of scientists that study climate change agree.  The doubt is all gone.

Notice what that statement really said.  They didn't say that 98% of all scientists agree on climate change.  The statement said that these climatologists all agree that global warming is real, and man has caused it.  If you think about this, is it surprising?  Why would a person that disagrees with climate change/global warming write a PhD dissertation and spend years in college trying to earn a degree in climatology?  If you did the research and ended up with the opinion that climate change was a big hoax or maybe just bad science, you would be pretty far down the road with your career choice in a field rendered worthless by your research.  Would you tell anyone about the results of your research?  Probably not.

So, we have a bunch of "blow hard" politicians making judgments of a scientific or logical nature.  If there's one thing lacking amongst the MessAPolitico, it's logic.  There's probably enough hot air in Washington to actually cause man-made global warming.

This task force says the science is all settled, and now it's time to take action.  They want to kill the economy, make us all pay a lot more for alternative energy, and put everyone out of work that mines coal, drills for oil or natural gas, or works at a coal-fired power plant.  Why not take an action that really would put folks to work?  Put the people to work planting trees.  Harvest trees to make wood pellets, and use torrefaction to increase the energy density to approximately that of coal.  The wood products can be burned interchangeably with coal to produce electricity, and the carbon dioxide created is offset by the carbon dioxide conversion to oxygen during the growth of the tree.  That would be doing something that really does reduce the carbon dioxide in the environment.  It also provides a use for trees that were formerly grown and harvested for producing paper.  Why can't the MessAPolitico do something positive for a change?

Will Mitch McConnell Win in the Republican Primary?

I just saw a campaign ad for Mitch McConnell against the Tea Party candidate, Matt Bevin.  They will face off in the Republican primary in Kentucky on May 20th.  It is interesting the contrast in their campaign ads.

Mitch McConnell's ads have two messages.  Number one, they say over and over that Matt Bevin lied on his resume, saying that he attended MIT.  The other message is filled with vague generalities about how Senator McConnell opposes the Obama agenda.  Mitch is in his thirtieth year in the Senate, and he can't find any specific accomplishment in his resume.  The McConnell campaign pitch is to simply smear his opponent.  He might oppose the Obama agenda, but he voted with the Democrats to fund Obamacare with the continuing resolution back in the fall.  The Democrats could have passed it in the Senate without the help of Senator McConnell.  Every one of them could have passed the bill to fund Obamacare with no help from a Republican, but the Minority Leader joined them.  The consequence of this is Mitch McConnell losing the conservative base in Kentucky.

Matt Bevin, by contrast, tells us his stance on the issues before America.  I haven't heard anything in his advertisements that is contrary to my beliefs.  As I wrote above, I haven't heard anything in Mitch McConnell's ads, period.  Matt Bevin says that Obamacare needs to be stopped, period.  Matt Bevin will vote for a budget that cuts spending.  Unlike Mitch McConnell, Matt Bevin isn't afraid to stand up to President Obama and the other Democrats in Washington.  In fact, Matt Bevin is not a career politician and will stand up against the establishment Republican and Democrat MessAPolitico.  This is not a job Matt Bevins needs.  It isn't his career.  I don't expect any double talk to save his butt.

These primary elections are the place to stop the MessAPolitico.  Please go out and vote in the primaries in your states.  Don't just rubber stamp the incumbents in the primaries.  Vote for bringing back fiscal responsibility and leadership.

Why Delay the Greatest Bill Ever Passed?

The President continues to delay the health care mandates written into the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.  Various groups are exempted from compliance until after the mid-term elections.  If your group wants to be exempted, the group had better support Democrats.  I just don't understand why the Democrats would want to exempt any group or any individual from the terms of the PPACA though.  After all, they've been telling us how much we will like the law after it is enacted.  Maybe they don't want us to be overwhelmed with joy and elation all at once.  Too many folks might want to worship at the feet of our great leader, Barack Hussein Obama II.  I bet he wouldn't be able to play an entire round of golf without being disturbed by some worshippers.

Earlier this week, the House passed a bill by a large majority that would delay the individual mandate until 2015.  They call it the Simple Fairness Act.  It passed 250 - 160, and 27 Democrats voted for it.  Of course, this is window dressing that will help get some Democrats re-elected this fall.  Those Democrats can say that they voted against the unpopular MessAPolitico, but the bill will never be brought up in the Senate.

If there's a law that needs to be written, it is one that would force the Senate to vote on any bill passed by the House and vice versa.  It would be interesting to see what would happen if the Democrats in the Senate were forced to decide between the will of their constituents and the Democratic leadership.  Those Democrats will never have to make a tough choice though.  They have the protection of Harry Reid.  The only way to get these bill an honest up/down vote in the Senate is to change the majority.  I'm hoping that the mid-term elections will find folks upset enough by the PPACA to get a new majority.

Imagine if one of the PPACA repeal votes happened in the Senate and passed.  Of course, Barack Obama would veto the bill, but could his veto be overridden?  I think it is possible.  The Democrats in Congress, or any office for that matter, are running away from Barack Obama.  They are more interested in their own future political aspirations than Obama's.

Of course, this is the way a representative republic is supposed to work.  These politicians are supposed to represent our views in Washington, not tow the party line.  It's our job as Americans to throw the bums out when they don't represent our views.  That's why our government is elected.  It's also why we have multiple parties and independents to choose from on election day.  How did we end up with this MessAPolitico?  The American voters have made the election a popularity contest.  We also let the media control what we think and what we know.  The media can take any opposing candidate that looks strong and marginalize them.  If the media finds any dirt, the opposing candidate will be destroyed.  On the other hand, bad stuff that America needs to know about the candidates that the media supports gets ignored.

Please join me and never watch the mainstream media again.  Then, help me vote to regain strong, conservative control of the Republican party.  This will have to be done in the primaries.  Elect the Tea Party Libertarians in the congressional primaries coming up, and we can stop the MessAPolitico once and for all.

Putin vs. Obama

Over the past week or so, Barack Obama has been negotiating with Vladimir Putin, President of Russia.  A former part of the USSR, the Ukraine, has had a revolt and civil unrest recently, and Putin has taken the opportunity to send in Russian troops to end the revolt.  It appears that his goal is to regain Russian control of the Ukraine.

News reports say that Mr. Obama had a 90 minute telephone call with Putin, trying to convince him to get the Russian military out of the Ukraine.  Was Obama begging?  How long can it take to tell Putin that he has no business interfering in a conflict in a neighboring country?

Now President Obama and Secretary of State Kerry have started to threaten Russia with more of their "serious consequences."  What consequences are we talking about?  Do the Russians have anything to fear from the USA these days?  Our military is involved in Afghanistan and Iraq already.  Our commander in chief didn't even have enough confidence in our military to strike back against terrorists in Benghazi that killed our ambassador and three others.  In fact, our Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, and the President apologized to the terrorists and others that we may have offended.  Then, the President drew a "line in the sand" with Syria.  He said that this little nation would face "serious consequences" if they used chemical weapons.  They did use chemical weapons, and Obama backed down and did nothing.

How could this have been handled better?  It seems that our role will have to be one of condemnation of these sorts of aggressive acts.  If we don't plan to back up our words with action, then we shouldn't lay down any ultimatums or draw any lines in the sand.

All of this has been preceded by a request by our Secretary of Defense, Chuck Hagel, to reduce the US military force as our conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan come to an end.  He is talking about eliminating new weapons programs.  This is typical of Democratic administrations.  The Republicans have been complaining that we need to cut spending, so let's cut the military spending.  We can't cut the social programs for the poor and unemployed.  We can't even cut the waste from these and all other government programs.  Instead, we need to cut our defense when the world is in a dangerous state that is on the edge of chaos.

Once again, the MessAPolitico is proving its ineptitude at dealing with anything and everything.  Logic has once again gone out of the window.  If hot air is a greenhouse gas, then maybe man-made global warming is for real.  In fact, Washington, DC is the number one area on the planet for producing hot air.  Please join me in the upcoming primaries to replace the incumbents on the tickets with new faces.  The career politicians have made this a MessAPolitico for far too long.

More Global Cooling This Week

We are expected to get enough snow Sunday night and Monday morning to break the record for snowfall in a winter season here in Cincinnati.  So far, it has snowed 41.2 inches this year, and the previous record was 42.4 inches in the 77-78 season.  77-78 was a colder year, but this year has been quite cold.  The coldest low this year was about -12F, and there have been a lot of days where the low was below zero.  There were several snows in early December, and that is unusual in this area.  We usually don't get snow until mid-December.  It didn't snow any in the latter half of December, but it made up for that in January and February.  We had snowfall after snowfall, with weather that was really cold with no sun.  These little snows just built up.  Cincinnati has used about twice as much salt on the roads this year compared to an average year.

Recently, some UK scientists have said that we can eliminate all CO2 emissions, and it won't stop global warming.  You might think it odd that I agree with them totally.  That's because global warming isn't being caused by CO2 emissions by humans burning fossil fuels.  Of course, they are trying to say that it's too late to reverse the phenomenon.  Of course, they are wrong on several levels.

First, we could reduce levels of CO2 in the atmosphere.  Do we not remember why cars have catalytic converters?  Automobiles used to emit carbon monoxide instead of carbon dioxide.  Carbon monoxide is poisonous, and these emissions got all of the attention in the early 1970's.  I believe General Motors invented the catalytic converter, and it provides a catalyst that facilitates a chemical reaction that converts the hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide, and nitrous oxide to carbon dioxide, nitrogen, and water vapor.  The beauty of the catalytic converter is that it produces harmless gases that occur naturally in the atmosphere.

The carbon dioxide is great because it facilitates growth of plant life.  We could eliminate the CO2 excesses by simply planting a bunch of trees.  Why don't we do it?  How much money does our government spend on talking about the problem and studying it?  We spend billions of dollars trying to prove whether there is global warming.  Too many scientists and environmentalists are receiving government grants that focus on proving that humans, and Americans in particular, are causing the global warming.  We could spend that money planting trees along the highways, in parks, or around government buildings.  That, at least, would do something toward reducing carbon dioxide levels.  That is unlikely to do anything since I don't believe CO2 is the cause of global warming, but the believers could plant the trees and do something meaningful.

This 2013-2014 winter season has been amongst the coldest on record in most of the United States.  The MessAPolitico still says that the global warming is man-made.  They say that the science is known today.  We are told that 100% of the scientists agree that greenhouse gas emissions are causing the global warming.  They also say that the cold weather is "climate change" that is also caused by greenhouse gas emissions.  CO2 continues to be the gas of greatest concern to the MessAPolitico.  So why not plant the trees and convert the CO2 to oxygen?