Why This Particular Health Care Reform Package?

by j. wright
.
A clever quote from a former U.S Senator, Illinois Republican Everett McKinley Dirksen said, "A million here, a million there, soon adds up to real money."

Not any more, at least if you are an elected legislator working in Washington, D. C.

Remember as recently as last fall when President Bush's Secretary of the Treasury Henry Paulson asked for a then astronomical $700 billion dollars ($700,000,000,000.00) which was approved after much wailing and gnashing of Congressional teeth. Called TARP for Troubled Asset Relief Program, it expanded beyond the $700 billion before leaving the Senate. Congress entrusted Paulson, unconstitutionally, to "fix" the financial mess; it's still with us. Where did the $700 billion in taxpayer dollars go?

Now we are getting used to larger numbers: trillions with 12 zeroes. Dirksen's millions here and there pale in comparison. President Obama started pushing a new health care reform package that was to top out at $1.trillion (1,000,000,000,000.00) over ten years. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) took a closer look and came up with $1.6 trillion. Today, their revised figure is $3 trillion. This astronomical amount of future taxpayer debt (Quoting Obama: we don’t have the money) will supposedly provide Americans with a questionable health care program similar to that of the UK and Canada. That's something to look forward to.

Why are we considering this? To provide access or coverage for some unverified number of Americans who for a multitude of reasons, some personal, do not have health insurance coverage? Even the various plans being considered do not cover everyone, that’s been reported for weeks. So how much will this boondoggle really cost if it passes? Many of the legislators are in the dark though they seem willing to pass the bill anyway. Can "We the People" stop them? Maybe when pigs fly. We need health care reform but is this it?


jaq~

Do We Have An Over-reaching Executive Administration?

by j. wright


Two things in the national political works at this writing concern me greatly. One that may become enacted is the proposed appointment by President Obama of an “Executive-Pay Czar,” or as sometimes referred to in the media, a “Master of Compensation.” This appointed “Master,” not one selected or approved by Congress, will be filled by attorney Kenneth Feinberg, formerly on vice-president Joe Biden’s economic advisory staff. Feinberg’s job will be to ensure that private companies that received tazpayer bailout dollars from the questionable Troubled Asset Relief Fund (TARP) are abiding by the new executive pay levels put in place by Obama.

To begin with, TARP’s constitutionality was highly questionable when the Democrat controlled Congress relinquished its sovereign responsibility for the disbursement of the national treasury to the Executive branch, namely the Secretary of the Treasury under former president Bush and now under Obama. Add to that, the naming of a "Pay Czar" is another affront to the American free enterprise system exercised by the Executive branch whose apparent intention is to control private business expenditures. It has been reported that the new federal “Pay Czar’s” authority could possibly even reach into private companies that were NOT recipients of TARP. This the America where I grew up? Hardly.

The other issue is how Chrysler Corporation’s remaining debt holders had their day before the U.S. Supreme Court and lost, leaving the Indiana pensioners whose retirement savings were wrapped up in Chrysler bonds, standing alone in challenging Obama and his administration who earlier had called for “shared sacrifice” in this issue.

As National Review printed recently: “It should be noted that Chrysler’s unions, unsecured creditors who jumped to the head of the line thanks to White House power play, did not give an inch on their base pay or pension terms. Who would call that shared sacrifice?”

jaq~


National Review quote source: http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZTA4MTRlYmFiODhhNGU5MDI0YjhhMGNkZTY1NzAwY2Y=.

Whom to Advise in the Ongoing Israeli-Palestinian Issue

by jwright

In reading Philadelphia Inquirer columnist and editorial board member Trudy Rubin’s recent column in the Cadillac News, I found myself amazed at her naiveté in general with the ongoing, never ending Israeli-Palestinian issue.

Ms. Rubin suggested that President Obama “coulda-woulda-shoulda” said things much differently when meeting earlier with Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu at the White House and she offered some examples.

I’m not an expert on mid-east politics but my memory still works. The suggestion that Israeli should again seriously recognize a sovereign Palestinian state brings to mind what happened when the Israel government decided to remove itself, it’s people and military from the contentious Gaza Strip neighboring Egypt. This was a unilateral act on Israel’s part to show the Palestinians and their neighboring Arab state supporters that peaceful coexistence might be possible. It takes two to tango.

Israel discovered too late when Hamas, the elected Palestinian terrorist government of the Gaza Strip, began to ruthlessly and indiscriminately shower the neighboring Israeli villages and towns with rockets, killing and injuring hundreds of innocent men, women and children. All while the United Nations looked the other way. Very convenient for Hamas, a declared enemy of Israel who has vowed to never recognize Israel as a Jewish State, or as a sovereign state at all.

I also don’t know Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu personally but I’d wager that he is not interested in having a repeat of that mindless behavior coming from the West Bank from a newly formed sovereign Palestinian State. My suggestion would be to not advise Israeli on what to do but instead direct any further discussion at the terrorist government in Gaza, and to any potential Palestinian terrorists in the West Bank. In my biased opinion, that’s who requires that proverbial trip to the woodshed.
.
jaq~

A Letter from a Dodge Dealer, soon to be "former dealer."

by jwright
.
For all the supporters of President Obama and his Administration currently intent on socializing or destroying privately owned businesses, some very much like Don's Auto Clinic here in Cadillac, MI , or that of a personal life-long friend, (James) McHugh Dodge-Jeep in Zanesville, OH.

Please read on...
.
May 19, 2009 - Letter from a Dodge dealer
.
Letter to the Editor:
.
My name is George C. Joseph. I am the sole owner of Sunshine Dodge-Isuzu, a family owned and operated business in Melbourne, Florida. My family bought and paid for this automobile franchise 35 years ago in 1974. I am the second generation to manage this business.
.
We currently employ 50+ people and before the economic slowdown we employed over 70 local people. We are active in the community and the local chamber of commerce. We deal with several dozen local vendors on a day to day basis and many more during a month. All depend on our business for part of their livelihood. We are financially strong with great respect in the market place and community. We have strong local presence and stability.
.
I work every day the store is open, nine to ten hours a day. I know most of our customers and all our employees. Sunshine Dodge is my life.
.
On Thursday, May 14, 2009 I was notified that my Dodge franchise, that we purchased, will be taken away from my family on June 9, 2009 without compensation and given to another dealer at no cost to them. My new vehicle inventory consists of 125 vehicles with a financed balance of 3 million dollars. This inventory becomes impossible to sell with no factory incentives beyond June 9, 2009. Without the Dodge franchise we can no longer sell a new Dodge as "new," nor will we be able to do any warranty service work.
.
Additionally, my Dodge parts inventory, (approximately $300,000.) is virtually worthless without the ability to perform warranty service. There is no offer from Chrysler to buy back the vehicles or parts inventory. Our facility was recently totally renovated at Chrysler's insistence, incurring a multi-million dollar debt in the form of a mortgage at Sun Trust Bank.
.
HOW IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA CAN THIS HAPPEN? THIS IS A PRIVATE BUSINESS NOT A GOVERNMENT ENTITY
.
This is beyond imagination! My business is being stolen from me through NO FAULT OF OUR OWN. We did NOTHING wrong.
.
This atrocity will most likely force my family into bankruptcy. This will also cause our 50+ employees to be unemployed. How will they provide for their families? This is a total economic disaster.
.
HOW CAN THIS HAPPEN IN A FREE MARKET ECONOMY IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA?
.
I beseech your help, and look forward to your reply. Thank you.
Sincerely,
.
George C. Joseph
President & Owner
Sunshine Dodge-Isuzu
.
Source: American Thinker Blog: Letter from a Dodge dealer
.
Welcome to the new United Socialist States of America boys and girls.
.
"Change You Can Believe In?" I hope the millions of star-stunned idiots that voted for Mr. Obama are discovering that it's not becoming the "Change" they expected.
..
jaq~

Will Michigan's Stimulus Billions Be Rescinded Too?

by jwright
.
A couple of weeks ago the Detroit News reported that the State House Republican leaders in Lansing were pressuring Governor Jennifer Granholm to slash state spending another half-billion dollars because revenue is falling short by $25 million a week.

The Republicans suggested that Granholm could accomplish the spending cuts by reducing all governmental departments wages by 5 percent across-the-board; a 5 percent wage cut for Michigan's 52,000 state workers and a 5 percent increase in the amount state workers must contribute for health care coverage.

They also called for 5 percent cuts in lawmakers' office budgets, pay for non-teaching workers at the 15 public universities and pay for legislative employees. It wasn’t mentioned if the state lawmakers, the second highest paid in the nation, would accept a wage cut as well.

This should be interesting to watch. The Los Angeles Times has reported that the Obama administration is threatening to rescind billions of dollars in federal stimulus money to California if its Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and state lawmakers do not restore wage cuts to unionized home healthcare workers approved in February as part of the budget. California, much like Michigan only worse off financially, has a tremendous budget deficit currently with no seeming resolution in sight.
.
Like California, many of Michigan’s state workers fall in the category as union members. Will Obama’s Administration threaten fellow Democrat Governor Jennifer Granhom with rescinding the billions of “stimulus” dollars promised to Michigan now? Or, because she is a Democrat, will they simply look the other way if Michigan’s state workers are forced to accept a cut?
.
I’m semi-curious as to how many of our state workers might have voted for both Obama and Granholm and are wondering why today. Like I said, this should be interesting to watch.
.
jaq~

Obama's Grand Plan to Spend Us Into Prosperity

J wright says; "This isn't an original of mine. It's an article based on a recent Fact Check report and well worth repeating."
.
FACT CHECK.org:
Obama disowns deficit he helped shape

Apr 29, 5:55 PM (ET)By CALVIN WOODWARD

WASHINGTON (AP) - "That wasn't me," Barack Obama said on his 100th day in office, disclaiming responsibility for the huge budget deficit waiting for him on Day One. It actually was him - and the other Democrats controlling Congress the previous two years - who shaped a budget so out of balance.
.
And as a presidential candidate and president-elect, he backed the twilight Bush-era stimulus plan that made the deficit deeper, all before he took over and promoted spending plans that have made it much deeper still.
.
Obama met citizens at an Arnold, Mo., high school Wednesday in advance of his prime-time news conference. Both forums were a platform to review is progress at the 100-day mark and look ahead.
.
At various times, he brought an air of certainty to ambitions that are far from cast in stone.
His assertion that his proposed budget "will cut the deficit in half by the end of my first term" is an eyeball-roller among many economists, given the uncharted terrain of trillion-dollar deficits and economic calamity that the government is negotiating.
.
He promised vast savings from increased spending on preventive health care in the face of doubts that such an effort, however laudable it might be for public welfare, can pay for itself, let alone yield huge savings.
.
A look at some of his claims Wednesday:
.
OBAMA: "Number one, we inherited a $1.3 trillion deficit.... That wasn't me. Number two, there is almost uniform consensus among economists that in the middle of the biggest crisis, financial crisis, since the Great Depression, we had to take extraordinary steps. So you've got a lot of Republican economists who agree that we had to do a stimulus package and we had to do something about the banks. Those are one-time charges, and they're big, and they'll make our deficits go up over the next two years." - in Missouri.
.
THE FACTS: Congress controls the purse strings, not the president, and it was under Democratic control for Obama's last two years as Illinois senator. Obama supported the emergency bailout package in President George W. Bush's final months - a package Democratic leaders wanted to make bigger.
.
To be sure, Obama opposed the Iraq war, a drain on federal coffers for six years before he became president. But with one major exception, he voted in support of Iraq war spending.
The economy has worsened under Obama, though from forces surely in play before he became president, and he can credibly claim to have inherited a grim situation.
Still, his response to the crisis goes well beyond "one-time charges."
.
He's persuaded Congress to expand children's health insurance, education spending, health information technology and more. He's moving ahead on a variety of big-ticket items on health care, the environment, energy and transportation that, if achieved, will be more enduring than bank bailouts and aid for homeowners.
.
The nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget estimated his policy proposals would add a net $428 billion to the deficit over four years, even accounting for his spending reduction goals. Now, the deficit is nearly quadrupling to $1.75 trillion.
---
OBAMA: "I think one basic principle that we know is that the more we do on the (disease) prevention side, the more we can obtain serious savings down the road. ... If we're making those investments, we will save huge amounts of money in the long term." - in Missouri.
.
THE FACTS: It sounds believable that preventing illness should be cheaper than treating it, and indeed that's the case with steps like preventing smoking and improving diets and exercise. But during the 2008 campaign, when Obama and other presidential candidates were touting a focus on preventive care, the New England Journal of Medicine cautioned that "sweeping statements about the cost-saving potential of prevention, however, are overreaching." It said that "although some preventive measures do save money, the vast majority reviewed in the health economics literature do not."
.
And a study released in December by the Congressional Budget Office found that increasing preventive care "could improve people's health but would probably generate either modest reductions in the overall costs of health care or increases in such spending within a 10-year budgetary time frame."
---
OBAMA: "You could cut (Social Security) benefits. You could raise the tax on everybody so everybody's payroll tax goes up a little bit. Or you can do what I think is probably the best solution, which is you can raise the cap on the payroll tax." - in Missouri.
.
THE FACTS: Obama's proposal would reduce the Social Security trust fund's deficit by less than half, according to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center.
.
That means he would still have to cut benefits, raise the payroll tax rate, raise the retirement age or some combination to deal with the program's long-term imbalance.
.
Workers currently pay 6.2 percent and their employers pay an equal rate - for a total of 12.4 percent - on annual wages of up to $106,800, after which no more payroll tax is collected.
.
Obama wants workers making more than $250,000 to pay payroll tax on their income over that amount. That would still protect workers making under $250,000 from an additional burden. But it would raise much less money than removing the cap completely.
---
Associated Press writers Kevin Freking and Jim Kuhnhenn contributed to this report.

More Attacks from the Left on our Constitution

by j wright
.
Recently a bill was introduced in the U.S Senate that would allow President Obama to shut down the Internet in the event of a national emergency. A Zogby poll afterward reflected that 81 % of those polled were in opposition with only 5% in favor of such a drastic move.
.
Another rights infringing bill that could pass the U.S. House this week would outlaw preaching on homosexuality, calling it a “hate crime.” What happened to the First amendment of our Constitution allowing Freedoms of Religion and Expression?
.
Or should we consider Homeland Security Secretary Napolitano's recent controversial report to our nation's law enforcement officials to be looked at as a hate crime as well, not to mention the continuing vitriolic blasts aimed at Alaska's Governor Sarah Palin and her family by the extreme leftists, especially MSNBC Cable News and the mainstream press? I mean they are mere words, similar to those the House bill would label hate as crimes.

Fair is fair. What Congress is attempting is far worse than a Christian Pastor or layperson expressing an opinion, which the last time I looked, the First Amendment still protected.

Maybe the next set of laws our Democrat Congress will consider might eliminate the open practice of Christianity altogether, making its practice punishable. What a wonderful new world we're living in today, so full of "Change."

President Obama has been in office 100 days or so and he had an opportunity, as did former President Clinton, to work wonders. Instead he is caving to the radical leftists in his party, who in my opinion, seem hell-bent on driving America’s government in the direction of progressive socialism, or worse. I’m not certain this is the “Change” many of his supporters had in mind, certainly not what the Founding Fathers of our Republic had in mind. Pray folks.
.
jaq~