"They Still Don't Get It"

Last year the government bailed out the banks and Wall Street with TARP legislation. Since then the public outcry, led by our leaders in Washington, has come down on the executive compensation programs of these companies. The government went so far as to try to limit executive compensation. Now that many of these firms have paid back the money they are no longer subject to the government rules and are rewarding their employees as they see fit.

President Obama invited the heads of major banks to Washington to strong arm them into changing their ways. The president wants these bankers to stop fighting tooth-and-nail against his regulatory reform and to start loaning more money to small businesses so they can start hiring new employees so that Americans will go back to work and the economy will start growing again. On the eve of this meeting the President claimed that these "fat cat bankers" "just don't get it."

Well Mr. President, YOU just don't get it!

The President's hypocrisy extends to many levels with this statement. First, much of our financial crisis what at the direction of the government with their involvement into the workings of the banking industry. Forcing banks to make loans to ones who did not meet the qualifications of the lending institutions led to much of the foreclosures that helped snowball into the economic crisis. Now he wants to "encourage" the banks to start making more loans they are not comfortable with but to small businesses this time. The government just needs to stay out of the private sector.

The reasons the jobs have not come back to the American workforce has less to do with bank loans than it does the uncertainty of the future. While the President wants the small businesses of America to start hiring again he, at the same time, is working on legislation to drive the costs to operate a business in America including working to increase the tax on the payroll he is hoping to expand. The health care legislation Obama and the dems are working to pass in congress will cost every employer more taxes. In addition, the cap and trade the dems are so passionate about due to the "threat of Global Warming" (another subject) will also be on the backs of the American employer.

So why his words are encouraging the small business owner in America to start hiring again, everything his actions are doing is counterproductive to that goal.

Another way the President feels these banks "just don't get it" is their use of large bonuses to compensate their employees. While we are in a tough economic period, these banks have gone back to their practice of lofty bonuses. He compared their performance to that of a professional athlete after a bad season. While he is criticizing Wall Street for paying their employees too much, the government employees have seen sizable pay increases in a period where he has run the largest deficit in American history. So while every other business in America does all the can to reduce expenses during tough economic times, the President thought it is a great time to increase payroll.

As my papa always said, spend it like its your own money. The people in the government know its not their money. Its our money! Actually, they ran out of our money a long time ago and are spending our kid's money, and our grand kid's money and maybe even our great grand kid's money. In my opinion, it is unconscionable how this administration uses our money to take care of their own.

PC - Politically Correct

I usually don't have a problem finding a way to begin my blog but the proper words escape me so I am just going to blurt it out.

This country as gone off the deep end with political correctness!

Political correctness takes many different forms and causes groups and individual to make decisions not based on the most logical data and most of these decisions are to the detriment of the country. I will admit that these people have good intentions but they are misguided. There is always an underlying reason that seems to makes the rule, law or decision appear logical but if the decision is played out to its inevitable conclusion, it ends up hurting more than it helps. Let's start with the most blaring obvious PC decision of the day:

The United States Attorney General is about to put Khalid Sheikh Mohammed on trial in a U.S. federal criminal court. This guy is alleged to mastermind the 9/11 bombing of the world trade center which makes him a terrorist. We are going to give a terrorist the rights granted citizens of the United States in an attempt to show the world we are under a different regime, a more civil society. Now let's take this decision to the next step. The president spent a majority of his campaign telling the world that the U.S. tortured prisoners, including Khalid, giving a defendant the perfect defense to any statements provided. How do we find a jury of his peers? What happens if he is found not guilty? Who is going to believe it is a fair trial if he is found guilty. Mr. Mohammed is a prisoner of war and should be tried in a military court.

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and his cohorts have been imprisoned at the military base at Guantanamo Bay on the Cuban island. Also a result of President Obama campaign, this prison is set to close at the end of January 2010. Gitmo has become a symbol of the "torture" which took place within its walls so an attempt to once again show the world how great a people were are here in the U.S. the President vowed to close the doors of this prison. It was not good enough to just end the practice, we had to close the prison. Now what do we do with these prisoners? There is not a congressman in Washington who wants to go back to their constituents and tell them that these evil men are going to be housed in their district. Now the question has to be asked, what are we going to do with these terrorists? Put them on trial in a U.S. federal court?

PC doesn't allow teacher to divide a classroom into groups so that the more advanced students can be challenged more. Segregating the classroom damages the self esteem of the non-advanced group. This forces teachers to teach to the least common denominator. Wonder why the U.S. schools are falling behind the world?

PC makes it taboo to identify members of certain religious groups who act abnormal or make suspicious statements. So when Major Nidal Malik made comments about Muslims rising up that caused concern among his peers, they were made to feel it would discrimination to report their suspicions. And 12 people were killed by his gun November 6, 2009 at Fort Hood Texas.

It was politically incorrect for VP Dan Quail to point out that the show Murphy Brown glamorized single motherhood. Yet today children born into single parent families are extremely more likely to end up doing time in jail.

Its politically incorrect to profile individuals. So rather than look more carefully at people who are more likely to commit a crime or terrorist act, we are searching old ladies at the airport.

There are many more examples of acting politically correct as opposed to doing what makes sense. Let's put PC aside when it works to the detriment of the country and its people.

US and the World

But first, I must retract the error in judgement I made in my last blog. The president's trip to Geneva was not just a photo op for the president to take credit for bringing the Olympics to the United States. I can admit I misinterpreted the president intentions of the trip but I also question what the trip actually tells us about the president and the world's view of our leader. At the risk of sounding too partisan, I must admit I am quite surprised that a President of the United States would risk his credibility on a trip that resulted in such a disastrous result. Not only was he and his wife unable to win the Olympics for Chicago but they were apparently unable to sway a single vote towards the last place United States. Their narcissistic speeches with included 70 uses of the "I" or "me" became more about the Obamas and only impressed the what house reporters. You wonder what this actually says about the world's view of America?

NOBEL PEACE PRIZE - The list of recipients includes individuals who brought waring nations together, fought for rights of the underprivileged, spent their life caring for the poor, led the fight against world problems and now..."for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples." Even the white house and every news person in the country is asking, "what did he do?" The answer to that question is, he's not George Bush. President Obama has spent the first nine months of his presidency and his entire campaign apologizing to world about the U.S. and promising better relations. The world did not like a super power acting like a super power and flex their muscles in unilateral attempts to protect the country. The world likes a weaker more cooperative superpower and is willing to reward a leader who acts more like themselves. They were willing to even pass over an American president who has accomplished as lot of charitable works around the world with the William J. Clinton Foundation in an attempt to reward soft talk and to attempt to affect future policy decisions of the United States.

AFGHANISTAN - To prove to you I am not an anti-Obama person who opposes everything he does I am going to agree on his action/inaction in Afghanistan. Afghanistan is a very complicated situation and quite different than Iraq. The reason the Surge was successful in Iraq was , in part, because they were able to gain the support of many of the Iraqi people through the religious leaders But Afghanistan is a much more sparse country with a lot of little communities or tribes and to win the support of the Afghan people is a much more difficult task. They have seen the Soviets occupy their country and eventually left, unable to accomplish their goal and do not see the Americans as much different. I like to compare this to the American Revolution. The British had all the military might but were unable to extinguish the rebellion and this had a lot to do with an inability to win the support of the American people. I believe, and I may be giving President Obama too much credit here, he is waiting to see how the election comes out and to get assurances from the new leader that the U.S. will be supported before he commits more Americans lives. The goal of victory in Afghanistan will be difficult enough with the support and next to impossible without. This will be a tough sell to the American people with either decision. I hope I interpret his motives correctly and that he is not "dithering" with American lives at stake in "a war of necessity."

RUSSIA: This summer President Obama took the missile defense program of Poland and Czech Republic off the table to appease the Russians, much to the dismay of those two countries who watched their Russian neighbors all but destroy the American ally of Georgia. This was another olive branch the Obama administration was extending this time offering to sway the Russians into supporting sanctions against the Iranians for their nuclear ambitions. Although this did bring the Russians more actively to the table, Putin refuses to bring any sanctions upon their strategic partner. Russia claims that sanctions are counterproductive and has offered their own solutions. It appears that the president sold out more of our allies in a vein effort to unite the world against this common threat.

The President has a philosophy that the U.S. cannot work with other countries if they are seen as the big bully so he has spent the first 9 months of his administration showing and telling the world we are just another nation seeking the same peaceful solutions to the world's problems. The problem is there is a more effective philosophy that says it is a lot easier to negotiate from a position of strength than from a position of weakness. So as the president goes around the world offering unilateral concessions he may be making friends of other countries but he is also weakening the U.S's position and reducing the effectiveness he has in negotiating solutions to these same problems. When the chips are down and it is time for the president to ask for help from these countries, they will do what they think is best for their people at that particular time and it very well may not be on the same page as the president. We have already seen this in recent news reports where leaders are vowing NOT to send any more troops to the war.

Miscellaneous Issues

Former President Bill Clinton has joined former President Jimmy Carter to explain the resistance to President Obama's agenda. He agrees that part of the problem is the American public who voted Obama into office is now racist but he went back to an old Clinton tried and true explanation, the same reason he had "sexual relations" with Monica Lewinsky's mouth, the "vast right-wing conspiracy." Do all these democrats forget the last eight years and the abuse and resistance President Bush faced throughout his presidency? I am sure they can explain that as just a ground swell of public opinion against everything he did while opposition to a democratic policy must be a conspiracy.

The Middle East continues to be the most volatile place on the globe and with the "re-election" of Iranian leader Mahmoud Ahmadinejad it will continue to be unstable. Here is my take on Iran's nuclear program. Ahmadinejad has made it abundantly clear that he wants to eliminate Israel but if he is to go it alone and launch nuclear missiles into Tel Aviv or some other Israeli city the wrath of the world will come down upon Iran and even with the help of neighboring Muslim states they will face extremely tough times or even world military actions. But, by testing the long range missiles and keeping the world discreetly aware of his nuclear capabilities he hopes to provoke Israel to make the first move. Israel is unwilling to accept a nuclear Iran. They cannot afford to wait until Iran makes the first move, the results could be devastating. So they will eventually launch a preemptive strike of Iran's nuclear facilities which will give Iran permission do launch a missile into Israel and the world will be split on how to react and with this indecisiveness nothing will be done. Ahmadinejad is betting his psychotic ass on it.

The President took time off from his busy schedule to go Copenhagen and make a last minute pitch to get the Olympic Games in Chicago in 2016. This is nothing more than an attempt to put another feather in his cap and claim he brought the Olympics to the U.S.A. I feel confident that he already knows the results and is making the trip for a photo op. Even the Today Show thought this sounded a little fishy. Merdith Vierra made the comment that "Don't you think they already made their decision". If we do not get the Olympics I will retract this statement.

Sen. John Kerry has joined with Sen. Barbara Boxer on a new Climate Bill that will help curb the global warming the globe used to experience. I think this goes under the category of "You can put lipstick on a pig and its still a pig." First, unilateral global warming initiatives by the U.S. will produce minimal if any change. Second, let's get a true consensus that man made global warming is real. The list of skeptics is rising much faster than the surface temperature of the earth. I have done my research and I am convinced there is nothing to it. All the other nations of the G20 Summit are strongly pushing the U.S. to get on the ball and pass some legislation but any legislation can only weaken the U.S. economy and allow these other nations a competitive advantage. Meanwhile the man behind one of the largest carbon footprints, Al Gore, has backed a company and received over half a billion dollars of the government money to makes hybrid sports cars. This global warming gig has "truth"fully been very profitable for Al Gore and "inconvenient" for the American tax payers.

What Happened?

As we get further and further into this health care debate the democrats seem to be losing the battle. At least by objectively looking at the poll numbers, support for what has been nicknamed "Obamacare" has dwindled to under 50%. From the right it is obvious why this is happening but the left is baffled. The right understands that the American people are just sick and tired of the government intrusion into our lives. They see a government who has taken over the banking industry, the auto industry and is now trying to take over the health care industry. The right sees an administration that has accumulated more debt than the sum every other preceding administration. The left is at a loss to explain how their message of helping the American people has gotten lost in the translation.

Former President Jimmy Carter has been able to rationally explain the opposition's position. It's racism. The people who oppose what President Obama has proposed do so because the color of his skin. It cannot be the plan so it must be whitey's way of holding the man down. Let's ignore the fact that just 10 months ago the same American public who now oppose him were the very same people who elected him to the office. Apparently, Americans elected him just so they could cut him down. I personally believe this goes under the heading of. "If you can't win the argument, change the argument." The debate over how to fix health care is not going well so let's change the debate to racism. This same argument has empowered so-called black leaders and has actually resulted in suppression of afro-Americans by giving them an excuse for failure.

I think the democrats response to the American people's rejection of the plan shows an arrogance among the leadership. How can people oppose such a plan meant only to help these same people? Its like the old Benny Hill Show where he is trying to help the old lady across the road who doesn't want to be helped and she hits him the whole time with her purse. Most Americans realize the health insurance system needs some help but do not believe that a government take over is the answer. Even White House senior advisor David Axelrod is ignoring the polls and states that the protesters do not represent the mood of the country.

In light of the protests and falling polls over the summer the president decided to hold a press conference and rumor had it he was going to work for a compromise. Although he stated he wanted to work with republicans to solve the problem, the rest of his words did nothing less than draw a line in the sand. He reaffirmed his position and implied that the only reason he is getting opposition is for political reasons. I guess this sounds better than racism but the end result is the same, arrogance that his vision for America is correct and disagreement must be rooted in some evil. So instead of a compromise, we now get to see him on every talk show peddling his goods. In addition, the president is pressuring the Massachusetts legislation to pass a bill allowing the governor to appoint Sen. Kennedy's successor when they just passed in 2004 the law preventing then governor, R-Mitt Romney, from appointing a successor to presidential hopeful John Kerry's.

I recently wrote a letter to the pastor of my church in disagreement with his apparent position on the health care issue. Although he has never officially stated his position, the words form the pulpit and references from his news letter made it quite obvious (to me) where he stood on the issue yet I did not feel he understood the other side. I expressed my concerns and did my best to explain the opposition to the proposed plan. I don't believe most would argue we need health insurance reform we just object to his plan. His homily the following Sunday seemed to me to contain his response. I took two things from the homily in which I think he directed towards me. 1) We need to look to solve the issue with "doing God's will" in mind. Fair enough but that same mindset is what drove the 9/11 hijackers into the World Trade Center. So that is a double edged sword. 2) If you go to the table thinking you know the answer, you may be the problem. This got me thinking a bit. What am I willing to concede? Where am I willing to compromise? After very much contemplation, I have been unable to come up with an idea that comprises components of both plans that are workable for both sides. The reason is simple. The debate is a fundamental difference in theology, not differences in implementation. The political landscape in America has become so divisive that it is very hard to find common ground. I have put a call into a liberal friend of mind to see if he will sit down to discuss the issue. I will let you know if any light shines.

Health Care
(Solution)

The described problem with health care is: 1) Availability to all 2) Coverage for Pre-existing conditions 3) Rising Costs.

We cannot eliminate pre-existing condition clauses on policies as long as everyone has the option to be buy coverage or not. It cannot be an option to buy coverage only after a condition arises. That allows people to go without coverage until a major condition arises and that makes the entire system unmanageable. The true problem here is people who have done the right thing all their lives and all of a sudden are without insurance due to retirement, downsizing, company eliminating group coverage (or any variety of reasons) and then the individual is unable to buy an individual policy covering the condition.

Here are the changes that need to be made:

1. Allow for continuity of coverage on individual policies. If people have had continuous coverage they should not be subject to pre-existing condition clauses when forced to go to an individual policy.


2. Promote HSA - An HSA is basically a high deductible plan coupled with an account the individual/family can put tax free money into to pay for any out of pocket medical expenses. Any money not used is kept by the individual and treated as an IRA for their retirement. This makes people more responsible for their health care expenses vs. a 3rd party paying for all their bills. (See examples below)


3. Require doctors, hospitals and all providers to publish their prices. Now, providers over bill the insurance companies to max out the reimbursement or have agreed prices with the insurance companies. If patients can compare prices from difference providers and are responsible for part of the bill (see HSA) then competition is built into the system. Better providers will be able to charge higher prices and others will try to compete with more competitive rates.


4. Allow companies to write coverage across state lines. Their are plenty of health insurance companies in the U.S. but laws prohibit them from writing coverage in other states. More companies = more competition = lower premiums. We do not need the government in the health insurance business in order to have competition.


5. Tort Reform - Part of the problem with medical care costs in the U.S. is the high costs of lawsuits. The providers pay high premiums for their medical malpractice insurance or they run excessive procedures practicing defensive medicine. Any honest attempt to control costs must find a way to control the costs of these lawsuits.


6. Medicare & Medicaid Reform - The government pays such a small percentage of the costs for medicare and medicaid patients that the other patients must make up the costs with higher prices. If the government paid more of their bill the doctors, hospitals and other providers would not have to charge the paying customers as high of prices to make up the difference.
   
7. Immigration Reform - There are estimated 11 million illegal immigrants in the U.S. who can go to most hospitals in the U.S. and receive medical treatment with no ability to pay at a conservative estimated cost of over 10 billion dollars a year. Each time they use the system without paying someone else must make up the difference. True health care reform must deal with the ones illegally in the country using the system yet not paying.


8. Good for the Goose - Make Congress and the rest of the government live by the same system they develope for the rest of the country. Why would they design a plan that they are not even subject to?

Greatest Health Care System in the World - Proponents of the president's health care reform have put some doubt put into the fact that our medical system provides the greatest level of care of any in the world. I think we need to address this.

The World Health Organization ranks the U.S. 37th best health care system of the world. The major criteria used to degrade our system is the number of uninsured. Quality of care is not the primary factor but the number of people who choose to not buy health insurance or cannot afford health insurance. This ranking cannot be used to judge the quality of care of the people who receive treatment.

From top to bottom, America is the richest nation in the world We have all the luxuries and conveniences not afforded poorer nations. These luxuries and conveniences have also made us the laziest nation. We do not need to go the the grocery to buy food to cook, we just go out to eat. We do not even need to get out of our cars. When we do decide to cook at home we can buy prepackaged meals. We don't walk or ride to work, we drive everywhere. Americans have more cars per capita than any other country in the world. Technology has made us very efficient yet is has made less healthy. Just go to the pool or to an amusement park or any public event. America is fat! We have an unhealthy life style, we have an unhealthy diet and it puts an extra strain on our health care system. You cannot compare the statistics of a country where the people are thinner, eat better and have more exertion in their everyday life to the stats of Americans.

We do not need to re-invent a new system when the current system provides the highest level of care of any in the world. The goal of this plan is to be the first step towards a single payer system. I say this because: a) the president said that he prefers a single payer system but it might take 10-15 years, b) The current House Bill makes it illegal to add new individual enrollees after the law takes effect. (If he just wanted competition that clause would not be there.) After a few years he will declare the government plan helped but did not go far enough and will attempt to go further until the government has taken over another aspect of the American economy.

Examples of responsible health care with HSA: (Just my experiences!)

1. I had an incident where I thought I was having a heart attack. The hospital ran some tests and saw no signs of heart attack. Ran another test and thought it was maybe just an anxiety attack but wanted to run another test. After questioning the last test the doctor agreed she wasn't going to learn much more and was comfortable with the diagnosis.

2. I hurt my ankle in a sporting event. The doctor did the x-rays and say no break but wanted to have an MRI for a better look. I told him I have an HSA and it basically was out of my pocket and he said he was going to treat it the same way if he found a fracture of it was just a bad sprain so we did not do the MRI.

3. I had some breathing test done due to some asthma symptoms. The bill included a $20 charge to demonstrate how to use an inhaler. I complained and the office told me they just put that on there and some insurance companies pay it but was happy to take it off.

Health Care II

To accomplish anything politically you must have a villain. Justified or not, you need the American people to hate someone, some group, some company or some industry. Bush had Sadam, Reagan had the federal government and the current democrats have the health insurance industry. (It used to be the oil companies but as prices came down the anger subsided so did that political card.)

Here's some number:

Number of people in the United States - 306 million
Number Americans without health insurance - 47 million
Percentage of uninsured who are illegal - 20% * Do we want to pay for their insurance?
Percentage of uninsured making $50,000+ - 40% * These people are making a value judgement.
Percentage of uninsured eligible for Medicare - 30%

Leaves 10% or roughly 5 million Americans - The President and the democrats want to totally overhaul the entire health care industry to cover the 5 million Americans who don't have and cannot get health insurance. It makes more sense to target these Americans and find a way to provide them the coverage they need.

Some Heath Insurance Myths:

1. Insurance companies cancel policies when claims get excessive - By law, all health insurance policies are guaranteed renewable.

2. Insurance companies reject groups with excessive claims - By law, they cannot reject a group but can "rate up" but the max increase is around 2 times.

3. Insurance companies don't compete - Companies are constantly changing their models and rates to try to take business from other companies

I watched the Sunday news programs and it seems the theme that the proponents of this health insurance bill is "insurance companies discriminate against people with pre-existing condition." Let's set the record straight, the system does not work without excluding pre-existing conditions. Otherwise people could wait until they got sick to buy coverage. That would be like buying insurance after an accident or after your house burns down. In addition, discrimination is what insurance do! They put people in discriminate groups so they can assign the proper rate. Otherwise everyone pays the same rate and their is no incentive to act responsible. If they did not, the person with 3 DUIs pays the same as the perfect driver, the person with a brick home next to a fire hydrant pays the same as the wooden shack in the middle of the woods or the 21 year old healthy man pays the same as the 85 year old diabetic smoker. If that was the case the 21 year old would not buy the coverage and the system does not work. A better solution would be to count both group AND individual health insurance policies towards the continuity of coverage. If someone has maintained coverage then no pre-existing exclusion would apply. If the individual had coverage prior to illness through any policy, the pre-existing condition clause would not apply. This way they could not buy coverage after the illness was present.

If you really want to honestly address the problems in the health care industry you need to look at ALL the problems. I will admit that there are problems but, just as the the mortgage crisis, there is more than one problem and they all need to be addressed. Tort reform must be part of any health care reform in the U.S. Either the medical malpractice rates are driven up or the provider practices defensive medicine and runs excessive tests to cover themselves due to excessive lawsuits. Juries can feel for the loss by the patient, see a big bad insurance company with unlimited funds on the other side and find for the patient regardless of the facts. To ignore this aspect of the problem is protecting the politician's supporters at the cost of all Americans.

When I listened to the President in his prime time press conference the one thing that caught my ear was when he said people "will get the care that works." What bothers me in this statement is who will determine what works for any given situation? Every case is different and doctors and hospitals use every bit of information they have to determine the correct course of action. Is this going to be taken out of the providers hands? Is the government going to say, "No, this is the procedure that needs to be followed"? I don't know about you but I hear the first step to rationing which is an inevitable outcome of this legislation in order to control the spiraling cost.

I am by no means an expert on Health Care reform and even if I read the bill I would not be able to understand everything it says but there are people out there who have read the bill and have interrupted the legal jargon and here is the link to the one such ANALYSIS. Here is also a link to the actual bill if you want to reference the analysis HR 3200. What I am confident of is that the President and democrats do plan on taking over the health care in this country over time. The current bill does not dissolve insurance companies but it does make it illegal to start a new plan from an insurance company after the bill is enacted. The President even stated this goal in an interview. I find this idea quite bold for a government who has never balanced the budget. I just never trust their number. When they originally passed Medicare, the actual costs were 600% higher than estimated. (I cannot confirm this figure)

MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS

(Cash for Clunkers, Congress, N. Korea)

I have been working on the 2nd part of my health care blog but I just had to address some unbelievable issues that has developed.

Cash for clunkers - The ideal has some merit but it also has some problems including showing the ineptness of this current congress. The idea is to give people incentive to trade in old gas guzzlers for new cars which will stimulate the American auto makers. Here's the problems: 1) Why are my tax dollars going to help my neighbor buy a car? (Common problem of liberal politics.) 2) The majority of the cars being sold are foreign. Although many foreign cars are made in the U.S., the U.S. auto makers are the ones who need the boost. 3) The list of the cars available include the Hummer H3 with an average of 16mpg. Not very "Green". 4) If I was in the market for a car I would just go out and buy a junker to trade in. Not really stimulating anything. Finally, the billion dollars budgeted for this program was gone in 2 1/2 weeks. This is the same body of people who want to take over 17% of our economy with health care reform. Makes me nervous.

Congressional Traveling - Times are tough. Everyone is cutting back. I run a business and when income is down I cut back. Not our congress! We have the largest budget deficit in the history of this nation. Individual income tax revenue is down 22% and corporate is down 57%. "This is the worst financial crisis since he depression!" So what does our congress do? They buy 3 Gulfstream Jets to taxi our Congressional leaders around the country and around the world. The order was originally for one but congress recently added another $130 million dollars to the defense budget to purchase two more of these elite aircraft. These are the same leaders who chastised the auto makes for flying corporate jets to Washington to make their case for federal bailout money. The congress thinks spending money is their duty and they will not neglect their duty!

North Korea - Now this item will not get the support of all who read it. To be honest, I have not totally settled this in my mind. Two reporters were recently captured and convicted by the N. Korean government of illegally entering the country and sentenced to 12 years hard labor. President Clinton was asked to make a trip to meet N. Korean leader Kim Jong Il and negotiate for their release. Remember, Kim Jong Il is a part of the "axis of evil" and had been defying the UN and the world with his nuclear ambitions. Also, when Clinton was president he had a deal with the N. Koreans only to have them renege on their end of the deal. So Clinton did not get on a plane unless he already had a deal in place before he left. I know these two American women were released unharmed but we have a policy that we do not negotiate with terrorists because it only promotes more terrorism. The N. Koreans treated these women very well because they were just using them as bargaining tools to get what they wanted and that was world recognition to gain more favor among his people and that is exactly what he got. Just look at his face in the picture with President Clinton. Its great they are now free and hopefully the end cost will be small.

HEALTH CARE - part I

• "Without the stimulus package unemployment will exceed 8%"; it is fastly approaching 10%.
• "A new era of fiscal responsibility"; National debt will double in 5 years and triple in 10
• "Net spending cut after targeting earmarks and wasteful spending"; budget has over 9,000 earmarks and trimmed $100 million in spending (.0003%)
• "No new taxes on 95% of Americans"; cigarette tax affects Americans in all tax brackets.
• "I do not want to take over GM"; said the day he took it over GM
• "The public option is a tool to discipline insurance companies"; It is actually the first step in taking over health care.

What makes anyone think Obama does not want to take over the health care industry in the U.S.? Obviously, just because he says something doesn't mean he actually means it.

If you still doubt the intention of our government see what the BILL actually says. (Check out page 16) After the bill is put into law no private insurer will be able to enroll a new individual on a plan with a starting date prior to the law. Eventually the private insurers will be driven out of the market and all that is left is Socialized Medicine. It is goal of the democrats of the federal government. It is there in black & white in the bill on page 16.

Why not Socialized Medicine?

What does the government run more effective than the private sector? What is more efficient when there is an absence of competition? We have federal monopoly laws to prevent markets without a competitive environment because the general public gets taken advantage. Why would we want to expose 17% of our GNP to a system without competition? Just look at their track record of the federal government. Social security bankrupt. Medicare bankrupt. Actually, the federal government is so far into debt to China it is virtually bankrupt.

Let's break this down: the government plans to add coverage for 47 million uninsured Americans, increase the scope of coverage, eliminate pre-existing condition and reduce the costs. I am sorry, but that just does not add up! The only cost savings idea discussed is requiring providers to electronically store records to avoid mistakes and add efficiencies but the savings (if any) will not make up the difference. My Senator has said that insurance companies "slow pay" claims and deny coverages to save money. There may be an instance of bad faith here or there but insurance companies are obligated contractually to pay claims and do so within the scope of the contract but some things do fall outside the contract and those are the items people complain about and the government sites. Did you ever wonder if insurers (allegedly) do these things to save money and the government will not, how can they save money? No pre-existing condition? The purpose of pre-existing conditions is to keep people from buying coverage AFTER they become sick. Its not to keep from paying legitimate claims. If people only bought insurance after the onset, the system cannot work.

Let's put on our thinking caps and take a look at this. The only way to save money is to cut some of the benefits paid or to pay the providers less for what they provide. Yet they are going to cover more? If they cut what they pay doctors and hospitals and drug companies than they will make less money. High cost of education, less return on that investment means fewer people entering the medical profession. Hospitals will have to cuts expenses and quality of care will have to decline. Drug companies will invest less into R&D and fewer new drugs will be invented. But, how do they cover more conditions yet still cut benefits? They will review what procedures are provided for each condition and dictate what benefits will be paid. The government will determine who gets the care and what care they get NOT THE DOCTOR. Older Americans or ones with conditions that will not extend the life for very much longer will get denied certain procedures. It is inevitable. If you doubt it, get on the Internet and search for your self. Care is rationed. If it is not cost effective, it will not be covered. The President all but said this in his (media softball throwing questions) press conference he said the proper treatment "based on what works." Who will determine "what works" in any given situation? Each situation is different and only the doctor, with all his training and experience, can make the best decisions.

There are several countries that have national healthcare. The ones that are mostly used as model are Canada and Great Britain because their economic models are similar to the U.S. Both of these plans have rationed care. It is the only way to control the costs while still providing the standard care. The World Health Organization ranks the the U.S. #1 in quality of care although our costs are 30% higher. (It also ranks U.S. 37th overall only because not everyone is insured.) The President prices his plan at $50 to $65 billion a year. Everything costs more than the government estimates. We can rest assured that whatever the government predicts this universal plan will cost, it will cost much more. Who will pay? The President promised not to burden the middle class so that means small business and the wealthy. Sounds good to the middle class until their employer shuts the door or reduces their pay to compensate for the increased burden put on their profitablity.


** soon to come ** part II - Healthcare Solution

Press Conference

I have been working on my blog on Healthcare reform so I watched the President's press conference the other night to get more information. Healthcare was the subject and he had the nation's ear, a great opprotunity to persuade America in the face of falling poll numbers but he missed the target and now everyone is talking about something else. The President was so passionate at one point, in an otherwise bland and too rehearsed pressor, he now has America talking about (not healthcare) but Race in America.

The subject came up about a police officer arresting a friend of his, a black professor from Harvard, Professor Henry Lewis Gates. Most of the facts of the case are undisputed. A neighbor called police after watching two men with backpacks struggling to enter the house. The officer responded and found one man in the house who would not come to the door. The officer entered the house where the man identified himself as the owner. The officer asked for proof and the man went into the kitchen followed by the officer. After the officer was satisfied he attempted to leave only to be followed out to the porch expressing his discontent and demanding the officer's badge number. The entire episode aggitated the professor who after several warnings to stop his behavior continued badgering the officer and was finally arrested.

In my estimation and by the police protocal, the officer acted properly. Prof. Gates was probably tired from a long trip and frustrated by the struggle to open his front door that he failed to understand the officer's duty. If the Professor was one of the invaders or if he was being threatened by one of the invaders and the officer left after being told he was the owner the officer would have been persecuted. In telling of the incident, Professor Gates emphasized he did not invite the officer in the house and did not invite him to follow him into the kitchen. Once again, if he would have come outside the officer would know he was not being threatened or when he went into the kitchen if he was an intruder he could be going for a weapon. This house call was handled by the book and the non-incident became an incident by the Professor's actions.

When the President weighed in on the incident he admittly did not know all the facts but was eager enough to pass judgement on the officer who was a hand selected instructor from his African-American commander to instruct other officers on how to avoid racial profiling. To this day the President stands by his assessment of the incident. The President stated that anyone would understandable be upset in this situation. I wouldn't! I appreciate the police doing what they do to protect my family. On top of that I learned a long time ago if you just respond with respect the problem can be easily resolved. The President reverted back into his community organizer days where race was THE problem. When things go wrong you just call "Racism" and the black leaders jump in and grab a microphone and put their face in front of a camera and call out the authority figure and the media obliges.

The President, as he admitted in his pressor, that the U.S. has made tremendous advances on the subject of race relations and he is the prime example. There will always be bigots and most people will still have some prejudices they still own but for the most part this country can look beyond the color and look at the character. We elected an Afican-American to the highest office in the land, what more can be done to prove it. The problem is the black leaders are not willing to let go of the power they derive from minorites thinking they are discriminated against and the head community leader is our current President of the United States. He denied ever hearing Reverend Wright spew his discourse of white hatred yet he has demonstrated twice now that he is a loyal disciple. First, he nominates a Supreme Court Justice who has made a ruling based on the color of a man's skin over the facts of the case and now he sides with a man who incited an incident by his reprehensible behavior. When asked about this situation the President had an opprotunity to wait until he knew all the facts or at the very least take a politically neutral stance but he chose to offend the officer involved, police around the country as well as many Americans including many who voted for him. In other words, he responded Stupidly.

Palin

Alaskan Governor Sarah Palin was thrust onto the national spotlight with her introduction as the republican running of Sen. John McCain. Her grass roots conservative resume' ignited the republican base and vaulted the republican ticket to the same heights as the media darling democratic ticket. That very same media spent the next few months destroying the enthusiasm generated by her arrival. Even since the election the media, the democratic party, comedians and even members of her own party have exposed her to a kind of scrutiny and attack never seen in American politics. Why?

It has always been an unwritten rule that the family of politicians is off limit. Have we ever heard a story about Malia or Sasha Obama? Maybe they are not as news worthy as the Palin pregnancy but who knows? What about Biden's son's hedge fund scandal? Or how about Al Gore's son drug arrest? Ever hear anything about those juicy tidbits? Even the Bush daughters were somewhat left alone except for a drinking incident. Late night comedians regularly joke about the Palin family until Letterman stepped over the line with an off-color joke about their minor daughter. The family issues overshadow the personal attacks on her person which go beyond the normal candidate jokes. The "slutty stewardess" remarks makes you think that the only woman acceptable in American politics is an ugly one in a pants suit.

As soon as Sarah Palin was announced as VP candidate a herd of attorneys were beseeched upon the great northwest to find any incriminating evidence against the Governor. This is a typical vetting process of most candidates but they went to far and have not left. She has had to defend herself against 15 ethics charges which have all been dismissed. Have you ever heard of such a determined attempt to discredit an individual in American politics before?

I love Sarah Palin's politics. I am a true conservative and her values match my beliefs almost universally, but I am not convinced she is the right person to lead the republican resurgence. I like the idea of her using her popularity to energize the base and to help candidates fund raise and gather crowds but I do not believe she has the national appeal to win a presidential election. I do not claim to understand all the reasons for this recent move to resign but if she plans a run at the Presidency in 2012 I will support her. If resigning early plays to her advantage is yet to be seen but it certainly can be spun to her advantage and let's face it, the spin is more important thatn the truth in politics.

Here is my problem: Sarah Palin is everything the democratic party claims they represent. The democrats always champion the cause of the average Joe, the guy who did not come from a wealthy family and does not have the benefit of an Ivy League education. They are always making policy to promote the cause of the discriminated, minorities and women. Sarah Palin is exactly the type of American they say their policies are meant to protect. BUT, the difference is she did it without their help. She is proof that the policies of the left are not needed to succeed in this country, she proves that people can achieve without the help of government and that is what scares them. If people do not believe that they need the government, that "the man" is not what is holding them back then the liberals are powerless. Republicans tell the voters that the government is not the solution but is the problem while the Democrats promise to fix all their problems. If the government is not needed for an individual to ascend above their own hurdles then the government needs to get out of the way and that just does not sound good the the left.

Climate Change Bill

HEALTH CARE, HEALTH CARE, HEALTH CARE, CLIMATE CHANGE, HEALTH CARE

While the death of Michael Jackson dominated the news headlines, the House of Representatives passed a Climate change bill that will have dramatic effect on every American.

I'm not sure if it was intended or just worked out that way but the democrats in the House did a little sleight-of-hand on Friday and passed the largest tax bill in American history. ABC hosted what amounted to Obama Care infomercial last week (disguised as a news show) and health care has dominated the talk shows and news programing so it went somewhat under the radar that Pelosi tried to pass the largest energy tax bill that America has ever seen. And she succeeded!

This Climate Change Bill is touted as the first measure to reverse man made climate change on the planet. If you go back and read my first blog you will find I am not sold on the idea that man has caused the climate to change. Quick recap: The primary component of greenhouse gases is water vapor. CO2 comprises less than 10% of all greenhouse gases. Man made CO2 comprises less than 10% of the total CO2 emissions. So, man made green house gases is less than 1% of total green house gases. In addition, Al Gore's charts shows a parallel between increased CO2 and the surface temperature of the planet. A closer look shows that the increased CO2 levels FOLLOW the increased temps so they cannot have caused the change.

CAP-AND-TRADE: This bill is essentially a cap-and-trade bill. What that means is each company is allotted a certain amount of CO2 emissions. If the company goes over that limit they must purchase more, resulting in basically a tax. The thought behind the plan is that the largest polluters will have to pay more and this will entice them the adopt "greener" energy solutions. Basic supply and demand. Price goes up so the demand goes down.

IMMEDIATE EFFECT: The largest polluters are the energy companies. Burning of fossil fuels to create electricity creates a lot of pollution. This will immediately cause the cost of energy to increase. Also subject to this bill are oil refiners, natural gas producers and any company that produces energy on-site. So virtually all our energy will cost more money. Every manufacturer will now have higher energy costs, higher transportation costs and will have to increase their prices. So now we are paying more for every goods and services we purchase. The democrats estimate the initial cost is approximately $175 per household but independent studies estimate $436 initially and $1,241 in 2035.

LONG TERM EFFECT: It does take much foresight to see that in a world economy if one country increases the cost of production on all their manufacturers and the rest of the world does not, that one company will have a disadvantage and the world will purchase their goods and services from the other countries. This will either cause U.S. manufacturers to close down or move more of their operations to other countries. Either way, this will cost American jobs. Since farming is energy intensive that sector will be hit the hardest costing food costs to rise.

This tax does not hit people evenly. Lower income people spend a higher percentage of their budget on energy costs so this will be a regressive tax. In addition, rural Americans spend more on energy than urban Americans so it will hit them harder. (Rural America typically vote overwhelmingly for conservatives, coincidnce?) Candidate Obama kept telling us only the top 5% of American wage earners are going to pay more taxes under his plan. Maybe, technically, that may be true but EVERY SINGLE AMERICANS WILL BE PAYING MORE TO THE GOVERNMENT either directly or indirectly through higher energy costs.

America is the second largest polluting country in the world next to China. Even though, per capita our carbon footprint is much higher, we also produce twice as much as China. Approximately 25% of the world CO2 is produced in the U.S. Let's say we can cut or CO2 emissions by 20%, the world is still putting 95% of the pollutants into the air. Is a worldwide 5% reduction going to save the planet? Unless we can get the rest of the world to put the same restrictions onto their producers all this bill will do is give the government a much larger income and cause more of the world production to be produced outside the U.S. borders.

This was an 1,100 page bill with 300 pages of that added at 3:00am the night before yet they felt compelled to vote on the bill the following day. Al Gore, President Obama and Nancy Pelosi spent the day on the phone making deals and pressuring congressmen(women) to pass the largest income generating bill in the history of the U.S. No one could have read and comprehended all aspects of the bill but that was probably the plan. If the bill is such a great idea, if it will save the planet, if it put America ahead of the world then why didn't they sell the case to the American people? Why was this snuck through the back door when no one was looking?

Muslim World

(Follow Up)

Since President Obama's "epic" speech a few weeks ago in Cairo where he addressed the Muslim world in an attempt to ease tensions, we have had a few events that have shown how the Middle East accepted his olive branch.

1. A major part of his speech addressed not only what the U.S. and the Muslim community need to do to move towards peace in the Middle East but also put pressure on Israel to accept a Palestinian state and to stop the settlements in the West Bank which the President labeled as "illegal". Israel, once again, extended their hand by accepting a Palestinian state with conditions that this state be non-militarized and that they recognize the Israeli state. This demand is not only reasonable but key due to the fact that Hamas, the Palestinian terrorist group (and now elected leaders) have launched over 7,000 missiles and rockets into Israel over the last three years. That averages out to over 6/day for three years!

Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, one of the more reasonable of the Muslim leaders in the Middle East, attempted to respond to Israel for the Muslim community, stated that they will never recognize Israel as the Jewish state. The response to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's vision for peace in the region was to refuse to even recognize Israel as an independent state. Now, where does Israel go from there? If the Muslim world will not even recognize Israel right of sovereignty how can they even begin to negotiate peace?

2. The most notorious of all the Muslim leaders has to be Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad who term of power came up for reelection this past week. He was challenged by a more moderate contender who has gained the support of the youth of the country, similar to what provided Obama's victory. After a day long paper ballot vote, it took just a few hours for these paper ballots to be counted and to declare Ahmadinejad the Landslide victor.

We can interrupt this result in two different ways but either ways shows that Iran has no intention to work with the U.S. and they cannot be trusted. First, we can trust the accuracy of this election and accept that the people of Iran like the way the country is being run by the President who continually lies about his country's nuclear intentions and has on many occasions called for the annihilation of Israel. Or, secondly, we can question the overwhelming discrepancies of an election facilitated by the incumbent who a) won by a landslide in a highly contested race, b) counted millions of paper ballots in a few hours and c) carried his challenger's home city by a large margin. If it is in fact a "stolen election" then how we can trust a leader who cheats his own people out a basic right to have their vote counted. He has proven time and time again that he cannot be trusted so what can be gained out of working on a peaceful solution to problems with this man. He will just say what we want to hear and do exactly as he wants.

I do agree with President Obama that we cannot get involved with this election. We are not trusted or liked by these people and nothing can be gained by meddling into their internal affairs.

Both of these situations show that the Middle East is not a place that wants peace. No matter what efforts we make and what ally we throw to the wolves we will not be able to negotiate peace with these people. The Middle East is a unique part of the world where the radical extremists have too much power. I don't believe our relations with the Muslim world changed significantly or in any important way under President Bush nor do I believe things have or will change under President Obama. The speech in Cairo was, in my opinion, neither good nor bad. It may have eased some feelings with the moderate Muslim people but it did nothing to make our country safer or bring an overall peace to the region and if anyone believed it did, I think that is nieve.

Obama/Muslims

"Throughout our history, people of different faiths have shaped the character of our Nation. Islam is a peaceful religion, and people who practice the Islamic faith have made great contributions to our Nation and the world. As Americans, we cherish our freedom to worship and we remain committed to welcoming individuals of all religions. By working together to advance freedom and mutual understanding, we are creating a brighter future of hope and opportunity."

President Obama realized that we needed to break away from the Bush years and acknowledge that Muslims have made many contributions to the world and that Islam is a peaceful religion. This premise of the President's speech is nothing new. The quote above is from a speech made by President Bush in 2003 on the Muslim religious holiday of Ramadan.

The ideal of building a better relationship with the Muslim people is good, who could argue that. The problem is the media's drooling over everything this man does no matter how insignificant or non-original it may be. I do, however, take exception to a few items:

1. The President is going out of his way to make friendly with the Arab world. Once again, he apologized for all the evils the U.S. has perpetrated upon the world but apparently he has forgotten all the times the U.S. has gone to bat for Muslims. Americans have gone to war and died protecting Muslims, Kuwait, Kosovo are all examples of this.

2. Radical extremist Muslims are at war with the western world. This was not as the result of anything the Bush administration has done. "Death to America" has been a common chant of Muslim extremists since before the Carter administration. There is no way to make friendly with these people. They have taken a position that leaves no room for negotiation. They want the destruction of Israel. How do you negotiate with that? Kill only some Jews? No, you cannot make friendly with these people no matter how much you apologize and try to "start anew."

3. We have one alley in the Middle East, other than the new Iraqi government, and that is Israel, although Obama threw the Israeli people under the bus. He is basically siding with the Muslim world at the expense of our relationship with Israel. Obama feels strongly that Israel needs to give up any settlements in Gaza but it has been proven that this will not appease the extremists. He calls the settlements in violation to peace agreements but so are the bombing by the Palestinians but that won't stop. The Palestinians were given 95% of what they wanted in peace talks in 1999 but Arafat walked away because the hatred of Israel is how these leaders maintain their power. Without the conflict they would have no purpose. Basically, Obama is trying to appease a people who have no desire for peace and the general Muslim world has no power over the extremists. This has been proven time and time again.

He compared the holocaust, the slaughtering of 6 million Jews to the suffering of the Palestinians wandering without a homeland. His point was to try and show both sides have been wronged but to compare the holocaust to Palestinians can do nothing but incite ill feelings with the Israelis and is just plain wrong.

4. Obama reached out to the Iranian leaders and made it known he is willing to forget the past and look to the future. Build a new relationship with the leaders of Iran. These are the same leaders who denied the holocaust ever happened. Claims Israel will be annihilated. Israel is "doomed" to collapse. This is also the leaders who claim their nuclear program is peaceful and for energy purposes only while tests long range ballistic missiles that can reach Israel. The leader of Iran cannot be trusted especially by the Israeli leaders. What if we trust them and they prove, once again, to be lying? Israel cannot take that chance and as an ally and only world superpower nor can the U.S. Sounds good but impractical. Maybe the new Iranian elections will change the tone but they still must answer to their people and their neighbors who feel the same.

5. Women's rights. He credits several Muslim countries for electing women leaders but discusses the troubles of women's right in America. Are you kidding me? In some Muslim countries women can be stoned to death for being raped. I know what his point was but to compare the rights of women in America to women of the Middle East is absurd.

President Obama started by acknowledging all the accomplishments of the Muslim world. Crediting them with algebra, compasses and navigation tools, pens and printing, understanding how disease spreads and how to heal as well as praising them for their contributions to the arts with poetry and architecture. Just a whole lot of very nice (although sometimes exaggerated) thing to say about the Muslim culture. Wouldn't it be nice to hear him occasionally say some nice things about his own country?

The Speech: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NaxZPiiKyMw

Gitmo

The Former Vice President, Dick Cheney recently was scheduled several weeks prior to speak on our nation's security at the American Enterprise Institute. President Obama decided to preempt that speech with one of his own in front of the National Archives, that houses the Bill of Rights and the Constitution. (He has always been known for his theatrics) In the President's speech he defended his position for closing the at Guantanamo saying it should never had been opened in the first place. Why not? Many of these prisoners plotted to kill Americans as well as many are considered prisoners of the war on terror. Where are these prisoners to be housed? The answer to that question is exactly the problem the President faces in trying to close the prison. No one wants these prisoners in their backyards. There is not one Congressman who wants to go back to their constituents and say these dangerous people are going to be kept in a prison in their district and that is why they voted overwhelmingly not to fund the move.

The whole debate over Gitmo goes back to politics. Candidate Obama made the country outraged over the enhanced interrogation practices employed by the military during the Bush administration. (This is not surprising, most everything the President has attempted to accomplish has been predicated by enraging the public over something his predecessor did or something that happened during his term.) Whether these techniques are "torture" is debatable but the reason they were termed "torture" was for political staging. Lawyers cleared the techniques by the constitution and all treaties the country is engaged as well as approved by leaders of the House & Senate of both parties (contrary to what Speaker Pelosi says). Even after being elected the President continued to play politics by releasing some of the documents regarding water boarding but not the ones that showed the resulting intelligence that thwarted terrorist attacks. Since making this a campaign issue the President had to attempt to follow through but gave himself a year to figure out a solution. That is the difference between selling an idea as a candidate and governing with the actual knowledge.

The President pointed out that he wants to move forward yet 28 times he referenced what he was left to contend with when he took office. White House advisor David Axelrod said they wanted to process these prisoners and move them through the system. They want to treat them as criminals and to apply the rule of American law to prisoners of war. This would afford them all the rights of an American citizen but they are not. They are enemies of state and although this administration doesn't want to use the word, they are "terrorists". They need to be treated as prisoners of war and not released back into the world community where they can continue their plots. There is also a distinct difference between terrorists and criminals. Terrorist do not plan to survive their act. They are willing to sacrifice their lives for their cause. The rights afforded under American jurist prudence cannot apply to these individuals.

The President has made the case that the enhanced interrogation methods have made the country less safe than without. These practices recruit more terrorists than were ever housed in Gitmo so closing the prison was a symbol of the new regime in American policy. Although this might get a "nice round of applause in Europe" it lacks substance. The war itself, the taking the fight back to the terrorist, putting the enemy on the defensive created all the future terrorists needed. I am sure the interrogation methods used was little more than a battle cry. Even if the use of this type of interrogation is used as a recruiting tool, then why is the President passing out their recruiting fliers by releasing some of the memos detailing the technigues? Bottom line, the proof is in the pudding in this case and 7 1/2 years of being terrorist attack free out trumps any political rhetoric.

I have not come to complete resolution regarding the use of "water boarding" and whether it is truly torture especially considering the form of turture the enemy uses on our soldiers. What I do extremely object to is the politicizing of the nation's security. Closing Gitmo is strictly a symbolic gesture to the world in an attempt to regain their love. It does not make us safer. It does not answer the question of what to do with these prisoners of war and the captured enemies of state. I find it hard to question the underlining motive of President Bush's decisions. Even if you take the stance he broke the law, the reason was to protect the nation. I cannot make that argument for the decisions of President Obama. Obama has employed a strategy that the more outraged he can keep America the easier it is to pass his agenda, all of his agenda. By claiming the Bush administration used torture and releasing memos to prove it he has angered America to distract them while he reshapes the government as he chooses and that is playing politics with the security of the United States and it's citizens.

OBAMA (Not Bush)

The US wanted "Change" but what did they really want and what did we really get?

Over the past 6 years of George Bush's presidency the democrats and the media raged a pretty serious negative campaign against him. Was it just a political strategy or did they actually hate the President and his policies that much is debatable but they did (with the help of the economy)help drop the President's approval rating and caused many of Americans to have a negative felling about him and the whole Republican party. Even I was not totally happy with the end of the presidency but I cannot find too many policies in which I disagreed other than his inability to stop the spending. No matter what the specific reason, America wanted a new leader.

Americans felt dirty. The economy was going in the wrong direction, we experienced more casualties than expected in the war and we were no longer loved around the world. All that was put at the feet of the President, George W. Bush so we wanted a new President (fair or unfair.) The democrats candidate did a very good job as painting the republican and John McCain as just another George Bush so Barack Obama walked a pretty easy path to the presidency.

America wanted a President who wasn't W. and Barack Obama was really all they were given. He was the anti-Bush. They did not want anything that had to do with George W. Bush so any policy that contradicted his was alright. No one ever really cared what these policies would do for or to the country as long as it was going in a different direction, it had to be good. Even today his supporters are giving him a pass. He cares and he's trying is all that matters. The problem is by the time America wakes up and starts to CARE about the effects of his policies it won't MATTER anymore because it will be too late.

The President is a smart man and he realizes that he gets a free pass as long as he can keep America mad and blame everything wrong with America on the past administration. That is why he always reminds the country of something the Bush administration did just before he announces a new policy or a new strategy. Need to pass the stimulus ball that does little to stimulate the economy but stimulates his supporters, remind everyone that he inherited the problem (although congress definitely shares some of the blame and he was a member of the Senate). Need to pass a new radical budget that will spend our children's children's inheritance, create a firestorm over a company who received bailout money giving bonuses to their executives (although the congress and the White House approved these payments). Need to defend his international policies and errors he made on his world apology tour, release some memos of the Bush Administration authorizing some torture techniques.

America is asleep while the master of political seduction is driving the bus. Should we believe the oratorically gifted or do we believe his actions? Do we believe him when he is outraged over the AIG bonuses or do we believe him when he approved of the same bonuses? Do we believe him when he says they will pass a bill with no earmarks or the action of actually passing the bill with over 7,000 earmarks? Do we believe the man who say he does not want to run an auto company "he has enough on his plate" or do we believe his actions of setting Chrysler's advertising budget or telling GM they must cut so many dealers? Do we believe the man who tells us he does not want to grow the federal government or do we believe the facts that he has created the largest budget in history and plans to add 600,000 new government jobs?

To emphasize the desire of the American populace to find "Change We Can Believe In" they are willing to buy into the congressional leaders. With overwhelming evidence that Speaker Pelosi knew of the advanced interrogation methods being used on the prisoners of Gitmo, she turned the table and accused the CIA of lying, although they have absolutely no incentive to do so, and a large potion of Americans are buying it. 43% believe she is lying while 41% believe the CIA is lying. This is a direct result of the media's blitz against the past administration.

The worst problem with our current government structure is there are no checks and balances. Welcome to the world of un fettered liberalism! (Remember, anytime the government tries to fix a problem it creates more problems in its place.)