A staff editorial in the Wall Street Journal last Thursday crystallized some of the bald-faced lies that Wonderboy is telling on behalf of his beloved universal, single-payer health care plan.
The article noted,
"He likes to start off explaining our catastrophe of a health system. "What is truly scary—what is truly risky—is if we do nothing," he said in Portsmouth, New Hampshire. We can't "keep the system the way it is right now," he continued, while his critics are "people who want to keep things the way they are."
However, his supporters also want to keep things the way they are. "I keep on saying this but somehow folks aren't listening," Mr. Obama proclaimed in Grand Junction, Colorado. "If you like your health-care plan, you keep your health-care plan. Nobody is going to force you to leave your health-care plan. If you like your doctor, you keep seeing your doctor. I don't want government bureaucrats meddling in your health care."
So things have to change- except they won't. Your health care will remain as you like it, unless, of course, it is changed, because the system is currently broken.
Very clear, isn't it?
Then there's this,
"Maybe you're starting to fret about all those bureaucrats and bean-counters again. You shouldn't, according to Mr. Obama. "The only thing I would point is, is that Medicare is a government program that works really well for our seniors," he noted in Colorado. After all, as he said in New Hampshire, "If we're able to get something right like Medicare, then there should be a little more confidence that maybe the government can have a role—not the dominant role, but a role—in making sure the people are treated fairly when it comes to insurance."
The government didn't get Medicare right, though: Just ask the President. The entitlement is "going broke" (Colorado) and "unsustainable" and "running out of money" (New Hampshire). And it's "in deep trouble if we don't do something, because as you said, money doesn't grow on trees" (Montana).
So Medicare is the model of how our First Rookie will expand government into all health care. Except, damn, it's broken. Medicare itself is "going broke," "unsustainable," and "running out of money."
Say what?
The bankrupt 1960s era Medicare program is the model for our new and improved government-run health care. But, sadly, it is a financial failure.
So let's double-down on badly-designed and -operated federal medical insurance systems.
Just precious, isn't it? Wonderboy will literally stop at nothing to sell his ill-considered takeover of your personal medical service.
Even lying, bluntly talking out of both sides of his mouth, contradicting himself at different stops while he flogs his flawed plan.
Not only is Wonderboy's health care plan bankrupt. So, clearly, is his own morality and any sense of principle.
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
Monday, August 24, 2009
Why Do Liberals & Conservatives Betray Their Ideals?
Why do both liberals and conservatives initially identify with narrower bases of issues than they end up championing?
Liberals begin with concern for the poor and defenseless. They claim to want a safety net for all in society. In time, however, they move from providing means for them to simply making them dependent upon the state. And, once liberals succeed in making the poor, and others, wards of the state, they suddenly become concerned with how state funds are spent, and begin to control the lives of those they once wished to simply defend.
Genuine compassion for someone's poor lot in life morphs into controlling that life.
Conservatives likewise morph into something frightening.
They begin wanting individual liberty and freedom. They value economic freedom and the "freedom to fail." Often, they are willing to provide means to the poor, but not a free ride.
Somehow, along the way, they begin to equate liberty and freedom with a sort of old-timey libertarian desire for moral purity. They begin to preach against social change, and, in time, begin to legislate morality and values.
A movement initially dedicated to individual freedom begins to pass laws regulating personal freedoms and behaviors. They allege to be the arbiters of "family values."
Liberals, who initially desire more means for the poor and weak to live life, shift to controlling them and society at large
Conservatives, who initially desire freedom and liberty for all, along with consequences to each for his choices, in time, legislate private morality as social good, and also try to control people's lives.
They both betray their initial ideological purity by straying too far from their limited focus.
How are citizens to act if they truly desire freedom, and these two political movements are their only broad choices for government?
Liberals begin with concern for the poor and defenseless. They claim to want a safety net for all in society. In time, however, they move from providing means for them to simply making them dependent upon the state. And, once liberals succeed in making the poor, and others, wards of the state, they suddenly become concerned with how state funds are spent, and begin to control the lives of those they once wished to simply defend.
Genuine compassion for someone's poor lot in life morphs into controlling that life.
Conservatives likewise morph into something frightening.
They begin wanting individual liberty and freedom. They value economic freedom and the "freedom to fail." Often, they are willing to provide means to the poor, but not a free ride.
Somehow, along the way, they begin to equate liberty and freedom with a sort of old-timey libertarian desire for moral purity. They begin to preach against social change, and, in time, begin to legislate morality and values.
A movement initially dedicated to individual freedom begins to pass laws regulating personal freedoms and behaviors. They allege to be the arbiters of "family values."
Liberals, who initially desire more means for the poor and weak to live life, shift to controlling them and society at large
Conservatives, who initially desire freedom and liberty for all, along with consequences to each for his choices, in time, legislate private morality as social good, and also try to control people's lives.
They both betray their initial ideological purity by straying too far from their limited focus.
How are citizens to act if they truly desire freedom, and these two political movements are their only broad choices for government?
Saturday, August 22, 2009
A New Obama Bumper Sticker You Can Believe In!
Last night, while driving on an errand, I saw an Obama bumper sticker on a car in front of me.
But it wasn't that stupid rainbow thing from the campaign.
No, this was different. And somehow not overtly positive.
Then I drew within reading range of the smaller letters, and here is what I saw
One Big Ass Mistake for America
Isn't it just the truth?
Maybe I will finally put one of Wonderboy's bumper stickers on my car.
But it wasn't that stupid rainbow thing from the campaign.
No, this was different. And somehow not overtly positive.
Then I drew within reading range of the smaller letters, and here is what I saw
One Big Ass Mistake for America
Isn't it just the truth?
Maybe I will finally put one of Wonderboy's bumper stickers on my car.
Friday, August 21, 2009
Barney Frank: Congressional Royalty
Here's the video clip of Barney Frank summarily dismissing a voter's questions regarding his support for Wonderboy's socialization of health care.
Technically, it was apparently not a 'town hall' meeting. And the woman apparently led with a clear hatred of the president.
But what's clear is Barney Frank's sense of superiority and invulnerability as a sitting House member. He castigated and insulted the woman quite freely.
This is how elected representatives are supposed to behave? He seems to share quite a bit of attitude with Diane Feinstein and Arlen Specter.
The former had police arrest old people who camped out in her office to protest her support of Wonderboy's health care bill, while the latter lost control of himself when questioned by a voter.
It seems the new Democratic response to honest, impassioned voter expressions of frustration are to demonize them as hate-mongering, bombastic, and 'going too far.'
Even Wonderboy has resorted to this tactic in an attempt to declare that some voter feedback, especially when not what he wants to hear, is no longer democratic free speech, but hate speech and undemocratic.
Funny how free speech is coming under fire when it disagrees with the Democrats in power, isn't it?
And scary, too.
Technically, it was apparently not a 'town hall' meeting. And the woman apparently led with a clear hatred of the president.
But what's clear is Barney Frank's sense of superiority and invulnerability as a sitting House member. He castigated and insulted the woman quite freely.
This is how elected representatives are supposed to behave? He seems to share quite a bit of attitude with Diane Feinstein and Arlen Specter.
The former had police arrest old people who camped out in her office to protest her support of Wonderboy's health care bill, while the latter lost control of himself when questioned by a voter.
It seems the new Democratic response to honest, impassioned voter expressions of frustration are to demonize them as hate-mongering, bombastic, and 'going too far.'
Even Wonderboy has resorted to this tactic in an attempt to declare that some voter feedback, especially when not what he wants to hear, is no longer democratic free speech, but hate speech and undemocratic.
Funny how free speech is coming under fire when it disagrees with the Democrats in power, isn't it?
And scary, too.
Thursday, August 20, 2009
Charles Murray On The Evils of Tax Withholding
Charles Murray wrote a wonderful editorial in last Thursday's Wall Street Journal, entitled "Tax Withholding Is Bad for Democracy."
Murray provides a lot of interesting and compelling statistics. Among them,
"Turn to the bottom three-quarters of the families who filed income tax returns in 2007—not just low-income families, but everybody with family incomes below $66,500. That 75% of families paid just 13% of all personal income taxes. Scott Hodge of the Tax Foundation has recast these numbers in terms of a single, stunning statistic: The top 1% of American households pay more in federal taxes than the bottom 95% combined.
My point is not that the rich are being bled dry. The taxes paid by families in the top 1% amounted to 22% of their adjusted gross income, not a confiscatory rate. The issue is that it is inherently problematic to have a democracy in which a third of filers pay no personal income tax at all (another datum from the IRS), and the entire bottom half of filers, meaning those with adjusted gross incomes below $33,000, have an average tax rate of just 3%.
This deforms the behavior of everyone—the voters who think they aren't paying for Congress's latest bright idea, the politicians who know that promising new programs will always be a winning political strategy with the majority of taxpayers who don't think they have to pay for them, and the wealthy who know that the only way to get politicians to refrain from that strategy is to buy them off."
Murray is correct, of course. It's not so much the tax rate on higher-earnings, as it is the existence of a large number (i.e., those that cause the so-called "tipping point" to be reached) of voters who don't think more government costs them anything.
Murray offers two simple ideas by way of solving this mess,
"For once, we face a problem with a solution that costs nothing. Most families who pay little or no personal income taxes are paying Social Security and Medicare taxes. All we need to do is make an accounting change, no longer pretending that payroll taxes are sequestered in trust funds.
Fold payroll taxes into the personal tax code, adjusting the rules so that everyone still pays the same total, but the tax bill shows up on the 1040. Doing so will tell everyone the truth: Their payroll taxes are being used to pay whatever bills the federal government brings upon itself, among which are the costs of Social Security and Medicare.
The finishing touch is to make sure that people understand how much they are paying, which is presently obscured by withholding at the workplace. End withholding, and require everybody to do what millions of Americans already do: write checks for estimated taxes four times a year."
Murray does something that I've seen nobody else do. He observes, and states, the truth- that Social Security is a shell game, in which taxes buy government IOUs, so that the net result is that the "program" doesn't really have any sequestered assets of its own. It's really just another tax program, the payments from which go into the general Treasury fund, though indirectly, through the purchase of that department's instruments.
Second, Murray touches on a point that only my late father, to my personal knowledge, understood. As a youth, I listened to him lecture my brother and I on how FDR had stripped from every citizen their right to not pay taxes. Further, he turned reality upside down by slowly, over decades, teaching people to want a big refund, rather than owe the government money. Since it's your money, overpaying all year is wrong and foolish. But Roosevelt conned Americans into thinking they are fortunate to get their own money back after April 15th.
Murray is spot on when he insists that only by making every taxpayer write four quarterly checks for their taxes, including FICA, will we ever bring home the true, large scale of governmental cost to each voter and taxpayer.
Clearly, this Congress and administration won't even consider these ideas. Maybe a new Republican President and Congress will.
Let's hope so, because I believe time is running out for America to recover its fiscal rectitude.
Murray provides a lot of interesting and compelling statistics. Among them,
"Turn to the bottom three-quarters of the families who filed income tax returns in 2007—not just low-income families, but everybody with family incomes below $66,500. That 75% of families paid just 13% of all personal income taxes. Scott Hodge of the Tax Foundation has recast these numbers in terms of a single, stunning statistic: The top 1% of American households pay more in federal taxes than the bottom 95% combined.
My point is not that the rich are being bled dry. The taxes paid by families in the top 1% amounted to 22% of their adjusted gross income, not a confiscatory rate. The issue is that it is inherently problematic to have a democracy in which a third of filers pay no personal income tax at all (another datum from the IRS), and the entire bottom half of filers, meaning those with adjusted gross incomes below $33,000, have an average tax rate of just 3%.
This deforms the behavior of everyone—the voters who think they aren't paying for Congress's latest bright idea, the politicians who know that promising new programs will always be a winning political strategy with the majority of taxpayers who don't think they have to pay for them, and the wealthy who know that the only way to get politicians to refrain from that strategy is to buy them off."
Murray is correct, of course. It's not so much the tax rate on higher-earnings, as it is the existence of a large number (i.e., those that cause the so-called "tipping point" to be reached) of voters who don't think more government costs them anything.
Murray offers two simple ideas by way of solving this mess,
"For once, we face a problem with a solution that costs nothing. Most families who pay little or no personal income taxes are paying Social Security and Medicare taxes. All we need to do is make an accounting change, no longer pretending that payroll taxes are sequestered in trust funds.
Fold payroll taxes into the personal tax code, adjusting the rules so that everyone still pays the same total, but the tax bill shows up on the 1040. Doing so will tell everyone the truth: Their payroll taxes are being used to pay whatever bills the federal government brings upon itself, among which are the costs of Social Security and Medicare.
The finishing touch is to make sure that people understand how much they are paying, which is presently obscured by withholding at the workplace. End withholding, and require everybody to do what millions of Americans already do: write checks for estimated taxes four times a year."
Murray does something that I've seen nobody else do. He observes, and states, the truth- that Social Security is a shell game, in which taxes buy government IOUs, so that the net result is that the "program" doesn't really have any sequestered assets of its own. It's really just another tax program, the payments from which go into the general Treasury fund, though indirectly, through the purchase of that department's instruments.
Second, Murray touches on a point that only my late father, to my personal knowledge, understood. As a youth, I listened to him lecture my brother and I on how FDR had stripped from every citizen their right to not pay taxes. Further, he turned reality upside down by slowly, over decades, teaching people to want a big refund, rather than owe the government money. Since it's your money, overpaying all year is wrong and foolish. But Roosevelt conned Americans into thinking they are fortunate to get their own money back after April 15th.
Murray is spot on when he insists that only by making every taxpayer write four quarterly checks for their taxes, including FICA, will we ever bring home the true, large scale of governmental cost to each voter and taxpayer.
Clearly, this Congress and administration won't even consider these ideas. Maybe a new Republican President and Congress will.
Let's hope so, because I believe time is running out for America to recover its fiscal rectitude.
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
Louisiana Democrat William Jefferson Found Guilty
With all the excitement over Wonderboy's stimulus spending, healthcare and associated big government plans, Louisiana's 'ice box' Willy Jefferson's conviction seems to have slipped from the front pages of the nation's newspapers and other media.
As this webpage noted on August 5,
"Former Democratic Congressman William Jefferson was found guilty of 11 of 16 corruption charges today by a federal jury.
The jury of eight women and four men returned a guilty verdict following five days of deliberation.
In the 16-count indictment, Jefferson was charged with soliciting bribes and other crimes for a series of schemes in which he helped American businesses broker deals in West African in exchange for payments or financial considerations to companies controlled by members of his family, including his brother Mose, his wife, Andrea, their five daughters and a son-in-law.
Jefferson, 62, who represented the New Orleans-based 2nd Congressional District for nine terms, will now face sentencing by Judge T.S. Ellis III, who earlier meted out stiff sentences for lesser figures in the case. According to the U.S. attorney's office, Jefferson faced 235 years in prison if convicted on all counts, and will still face substantial prison time."
Nice to know justice triumphed. Too bad the same bullhorn that the nation's liberal-leaning media used to announce various Republican scandals hasn't informed voters about Jefferson's conviction.
As this webpage noted on August 5,
"Former Democratic Congressman William Jefferson was found guilty of 11 of 16 corruption charges today by a federal jury.
The jury of eight women and four men returned a guilty verdict following five days of deliberation.
In the 16-count indictment, Jefferson was charged with soliciting bribes and other crimes for a series of schemes in which he helped American businesses broker deals in West African in exchange for payments or financial considerations to companies controlled by members of his family, including his brother Mose, his wife, Andrea, their five daughters and a son-in-law.
Jefferson, 62, who represented the New Orleans-based 2nd Congressional District for nine terms, will now face sentencing by Judge T.S. Ellis III, who earlier meted out stiff sentences for lesser figures in the case. According to the U.S. attorney's office, Jefferson faced 235 years in prison if convicted on all counts, and will still face substantial prison time."
Nice to know justice triumphed. Too bad the same bullhorn that the nation's liberal-leaning media used to announce various Republican scandals hasn't informed voters about Jefferson's conviction.
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
Wonderboy's Healthcare Plan Begins To Fade
The verdict on Wonderboy's attempt to win over voters with his ambitious town hall meeting campaign.
He's failed.
The many video clips of his carefully staged meetings have convinced many of the obvious liberal plants in the front rows of his events. Then there are the softball questions and borderline-abusive use of children asking leading questions about signs saying 'mean things.'
True, over the weekend, the First Rookie's HHS secretary floated a trial balloon of a healthcare bill with no government option. But no less a respected conservative than former House Majority Leader Dick Armey warned that the public option is not off the table at all. Not by a long shot.
If anything, he cautioned, this is a feint by Wonderboy to get people relaxed and pacified, while his Congressional minions ram through the complex bill without any Republican votes.
It's been eye-opening for me to see a voter lift the entire, wrist-bending bill in his hand and demand from his Senator to know why the healthcare 'solution' must be so complicated, long and incomprehensible.
I think we are at the point that, if such a bill does pass, it will mark the imminent end of Democratic majorities in either Congressional chamber, more likely the House, first.
Of course, after that will probably come Wonderboy himself. He's really lost his cover on this, judging by the many, angry town hall meetings held by various Congressional Democrats.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid added fuel to the fire when he castigated those voters objecting to Wonderboy's plans as 'evil.'
Good job, Harry. Word has it your own approval rating is below 50%. Maybe you won't be getting another term, either. You can join Tom Daschle in that free limousine of Leo Hindry's.
This long, hot recessionary summer has galvanized opposition to the junior Senator-cum-naive president's omnibus health sector takeover, and it doesn't look like things will calm down any time soon.
Sure, hardcore liberals and Democrats will fawn over the damn thing. And Republicans continue their principled, expected opposition.
But the key is and will be how the independents who put Wonderboy and his party in power in Congress swing between those two positions. I'm betting they'll be for change on the scale Congress is trying to cram down the country's throat.
Then, perhaps, the media will actually report on the many sensible, free-market alternatives advanced by Congressional Republicans.
He's failed.
The many video clips of his carefully staged meetings have convinced many of the obvious liberal plants in the front rows of his events. Then there are the softball questions and borderline-abusive use of children asking leading questions about signs saying 'mean things.'
True, over the weekend, the First Rookie's HHS secretary floated a trial balloon of a healthcare bill with no government option. But no less a respected conservative than former House Majority Leader Dick Armey warned that the public option is not off the table at all. Not by a long shot.
If anything, he cautioned, this is a feint by Wonderboy to get people relaxed and pacified, while his Congressional minions ram through the complex bill without any Republican votes.
It's been eye-opening for me to see a voter lift the entire, wrist-bending bill in his hand and demand from his Senator to know why the healthcare 'solution' must be so complicated, long and incomprehensible.
I think we are at the point that, if such a bill does pass, it will mark the imminent end of Democratic majorities in either Congressional chamber, more likely the House, first.
Of course, after that will probably come Wonderboy himself. He's really lost his cover on this, judging by the many, angry town hall meetings held by various Congressional Democrats.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid added fuel to the fire when he castigated those voters objecting to Wonderboy's plans as 'evil.'
Good job, Harry. Word has it your own approval rating is below 50%. Maybe you won't be getting another term, either. You can join Tom Daschle in that free limousine of Leo Hindry's.
This long, hot recessionary summer has galvanized opposition to the junior Senator-cum-naive president's omnibus health sector takeover, and it doesn't look like things will calm down any time soon.
Sure, hardcore liberals and Democrats will fawn over the damn thing. And Republicans continue their principled, expected opposition.
But the key is and will be how the independents who put Wonderboy and his party in power in Congress swing between those two positions. I'm betting they'll be for change on the scale Congress is trying to cram down the country's throat.
Then, perhaps, the media will actually report on the many sensible, free-market alternatives advanced by Congressional Republicans.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
