Wednesday, July 15, 2009
Health Care Reform Pt. 5
Super Wow!
The Senate health committee cast a milestone vote Wednesday to approve legislation expanding insurance coverage to nearly all Americans, becoming the first congressional panel to act on President Barack Obama's top domestic priority.
House Democratic leaders pledged to meet the president's goal of health care legislation before their August break, offering a $1.5 trillion plan that for the first time would make health care a right and a responsibility for all Americans. Left to pick up most of the tab were medical providers, employers and the wealthy.
"We cannot allow this issue to be delayed. We cannot put it off again," Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., the chairman of the House Energy and Commerce committee, said Tuesday. "We, quite frankly, cannot go home for a recess unless the House and the Senate both pass bills to reform and restructure our health care system."
Two things.
1. You want this done by the August recess? Three weeks? Really? Ever since the Democrats regained control of Congress in three years ago, there has been one aspect of their leadership that is very impressive. They know how to pass bills without actually reading, analyzing, or understanding them. The bank bailout, the stimulus bill, and now the health care overhaul. You cannot begin to imagine my frustration with my own government when I realize that half of the members of the House and Senate will not even have a chance to read over and comprehend a bill that includes trillions of dollars in new spending. The irresponsibility and poor leadership is mind-numbing.
Three weeks is not enough, Representative Waxman. Three weeks is not enough, Speaker Pelosi. Three weeks is not enough Senator Dodd. And finally, three weeks is not enough, President Obama.
2. Are some folks not understanding the depths of the recession that we are mired in right now? Unemployment will reach 10% soon, and yet, who will pay for this health care overhaul?
"Left to pick up most of the tab were medical providers, employers and the wealthy."
I'm sure that after employers pick up a good portion of this $1,500,000,000,000.00 tab, they'll be a great position to expand their workforce. Or unemployment will continue to soar, and the recession will grow deeper.
Tough choices. Should we force through a poorly planned health care overhaul or work together to halt this recession. Unfortunately, many Democrats in Congress are leaning toward the first option.
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
Health Care Reform Pt. 4
Wow!
HOUSE ROLLS OUT PLAN TO MAKE HEALTH CARE A RIGHT
House Democrats on Tuesday rolled out a far-reaching $1.5 trillion plan that for the first time would make health care a right and a responsibility for all Americans, with medical providers, employers and the wealthiest picking up most of the tab.
The federal government would be responsible for ensuring that every person, regardless of income or the state of their health, has access to an affordable insurance plan. Individuals and employers would have new obligations to get coverage, or face hefty penalties.
The liberal-leaning plan lacked figures on total costs, but a House Democratic aide said the total bill would add up to about $1.5 trillion over 10 years. The aide spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss the private calculations. Most of the bill's costs come in the last five years after the 2012 presidential election.
Let's just be clear here.
1. Honesty and competition
When President Obama says that we want to keep the insurance companies honest and create a competitive alternative to achieve this goal, what he really means is that he wishes to spend one trillion dollars to ultimately drive private insurance out of business.
If he truly believed that government is a better, more efficient, and more cost-effective health care option, then it wouldn't need to cost over $1,000,000,000,000.00 would it? Theoretically, it should be self-sustaining, WITHOUT the need for taxpayers' money. But that's not part of the agenda, is it?
Be sure to reread my previous post on Health Care Reform for more information about the agenda of liberal Democrats here.
2. The wealthiest pick up the tab.
Regardless of how you feel about the subject, let's just say what it really means. The upper class is going to pay for inefficient health care for the lower class.
3. "Individuals would have new obligations to get coverage, or face hefty penalties."
Recall the title of the article. Making health care "a right." But this is not what the article is describing. The article outlines how it becomes a criminal act (otherwise, why you face "hefty" penalties) if you do not purchase health insurance. This is not establishing a "right." This is establishing a mandate. Do we have any libertarians out there?
4. Perhaps my favorite line of the article.
"Most of the bill's costs come in the last five years after the 2012 presidential election."
How perfectly convenient....for President Obama.
Now, it should be said, this is not the bill that will reach President Obama's desk. But it should indicate how out-of-control spending dominates the House of Representatives, which should be the house of the people, and not of the iron fist of Speaker Nancy Pelosi.
HOUSE ROLLS OUT PLAN TO MAKE HEALTH CARE A RIGHT
House Democrats on Tuesday rolled out a far-reaching $1.5 trillion plan that for the first time would make health care a right and a responsibility for all Americans, with medical providers, employers and the wealthiest picking up most of the tab.
The federal government would be responsible for ensuring that every person, regardless of income or the state of their health, has access to an affordable insurance plan. Individuals and employers would have new obligations to get coverage, or face hefty penalties.
The liberal-leaning plan lacked figures on total costs, but a House Democratic aide said the total bill would add up to about $1.5 trillion over 10 years. The aide spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss the private calculations. Most of the bill's costs come in the last five years after the 2012 presidential election.
Let's just be clear here.
1. Honesty and competition
When President Obama says that we want to keep the insurance companies honest and create a competitive alternative to achieve this goal, what he really means is that he wishes to spend one trillion dollars to ultimately drive private insurance out of business.
If he truly believed that government is a better, more efficient, and more cost-effective health care option, then it wouldn't need to cost over $1,000,000,000,000.00 would it? Theoretically, it should be self-sustaining, WITHOUT the need for taxpayers' money. But that's not part of the agenda, is it?
Be sure to reread my previous post on Health Care Reform for more information about the agenda of liberal Democrats here.
2. The wealthiest pick up the tab.
Regardless of how you feel about the subject, let's just say what it really means. The upper class is going to pay for inefficient health care for the lower class.
3. "Individuals would have new obligations to get coverage, or face hefty penalties."
Recall the title of the article. Making health care "a right." But this is not what the article is describing. The article outlines how it becomes a criminal act (otherwise, why you face "hefty" penalties) if you do not purchase health insurance. This is not establishing a "right." This is establishing a mandate. Do we have any libertarians out there?
4. Perhaps my favorite line of the article.
"Most of the bill's costs come in the last five years after the 2012 presidential election."
How perfectly convenient....for President Obama.
Now, it should be said, this is not the bill that will reach President Obama's desk. But it should indicate how out-of-control spending dominates the House of Representatives, which should be the house of the people, and not of the iron fist of Speaker Nancy Pelosi.
Friday, July 10, 2009
The Supreme Court: Part 10
Now that President Obama has nominated Judge Sotomayor to the Supreme Court, we can reflect a little more on the Supreme Court.
First, Sotomayor will be confirmed. There is no doubt about it. The real question will be whether she receives the votes of 60, 70, or 80 senators. With the power of 60 in the Senate (see my post earlier this week), Democrats will breeze Judge Sotomayor through confirmation hearings, committee votes, and the full vote of the Senate. She will become part of the Supreme Court by October.
Second, for those conservatives out there, be thankful(ish). Obama could have nominated a person with extremely radical views. I'm not saying that Sotomayor isn't liberal, because she certainly is, but believe me...there are nominations that are far more dangerous.
Third, for those interested in a court that reflects the general population, Obama's pick is just for you. Hispanics are the largest minority in the United States, and the nation's highest court will soon have its first Hispanic member. Also, for the ladies out there, the court will now have two women on the bench, as she will be the third woman in history to serve on the court.
Finally, and most importantly, elections matter. If my feelings are correct, I believe that two more justices (Stevens and Ginsburg) will retire in the next two years. While Obama's appointments will not technically change the ideological balance of the court, he will have replaced older liberal judges, with younger liberal judges who will remain on the court for decades. Had McCain been elected president, this would not have happened.
Elections matter...especially when it comes to lifetime appointments to the highest court in the land.
First, Sotomayor will be confirmed. There is no doubt about it. The real question will be whether she receives the votes of 60, 70, or 80 senators. With the power of 60 in the Senate (see my post earlier this week), Democrats will breeze Judge Sotomayor through confirmation hearings, committee votes, and the full vote of the Senate. She will become part of the Supreme Court by October.
Second, for those conservatives out there, be thankful(ish). Obama could have nominated a person with extremely radical views. I'm not saying that Sotomayor isn't liberal, because she certainly is, but believe me...there are nominations that are far more dangerous.
Third, for those interested in a court that reflects the general population, Obama's pick is just for you. Hispanics are the largest minority in the United States, and the nation's highest court will soon have its first Hispanic member. Also, for the ladies out there, the court will now have two women on the bench, as she will be the third woman in history to serve on the court.
Finally, and most importantly, elections matter. If my feelings are correct, I believe that two more justices (Stevens and Ginsburg) will retire in the next two years. While Obama's appointments will not technically change the ideological balance of the court, he will have replaced older liberal judges, with younger liberal judges who will remain on the court for decades. Had McCain been elected president, this would not have happened.
Elections matter...especially when it comes to lifetime appointments to the highest court in the land.
Thursday, July 09, 2009
Health Care Reform Pt. 3
A recent study by John Lott Jr. at the University of Maryland indicates what some Democrats may be trying to hide.
From the abstract:
"The debate over government-provided insurance for Americans frequently makes two assumptions: that the uninsured are unsatisfied with the health care they receive and that government health insurance would improve the quality of care for the uninsured.
This paper finds that the vast majority of uninsured Americans are satisfied with their health care. Indeed, only 2.3 percent of Americans are both uninsured and very dissatisfied with the quality of the medical care that they receive. The paper finds that Canadians are much closer to uninsured Americans than to insured Americans in their satisfaction with their health care.
There is also little difference in the level of Americans' satisfaction with their health care based upon race, marital status, educational attainment, income, or political views. There is some difference in satisfaction based on age and between the most extreme levels of educational attainment."
Now, Dr. Lott is a conservative, and we must take his findings with the appropriate grain of objectivity salt, but his findings are at least worth exploring, are they not?
A big question: Should we align our health care system to look like the one present in Canada?
Dr. Lott would say, "No." I believe that many Democrats would say, "Yes." Which brings me to my next point: transparency.
Why don't we all know precisely what Congress is doing? Instead of hiding in committee rooms, coming up with plans that no Americans even know about at this time, perhaps the Congress (who, according to their campaign strategies of 2006 and 2008, are committed to transparency) should share MORE of what's going on.
After watching Sunday news shows, and hearing Democratic leaders in the Senate and White House talk about health care, I've come to conclusion that they are dancing around the issue, perhaps masking their true intentions.
Frankly, my biggest fear is that Congress will push through a hastily thought out bill that has a lack of common sense and ridiculously wasteful spending. As I said in a previous post, health care reform can not and should not be achieved in a matter of weeks.
From the abstract:
"The debate over government-provided insurance for Americans frequently makes two assumptions: that the uninsured are unsatisfied with the health care they receive and that government health insurance would improve the quality of care for the uninsured.
This paper finds that the vast majority of uninsured Americans are satisfied with their health care. Indeed, only 2.3 percent of Americans are both uninsured and very dissatisfied with the quality of the medical care that they receive. The paper finds that Canadians are much closer to uninsured Americans than to insured Americans in their satisfaction with their health care.
There is also little difference in the level of Americans' satisfaction with their health care based upon race, marital status, educational attainment, income, or political views. There is some difference in satisfaction based on age and between the most extreme levels of educational attainment."
Now, Dr. Lott is a conservative, and we must take his findings with the appropriate grain of objectivity salt, but his findings are at least worth exploring, are they not?
A big question: Should we align our health care system to look like the one present in Canada?
Dr. Lott would say, "No." I believe that many Democrats would say, "Yes." Which brings me to my next point: transparency.
Why don't we all know precisely what Congress is doing? Instead of hiding in committee rooms, coming up with plans that no Americans even know about at this time, perhaps the Congress (who, according to their campaign strategies of 2006 and 2008, are committed to transparency) should share MORE of what's going on.
After watching Sunday news shows, and hearing Democratic leaders in the Senate and White House talk about health care, I've come to conclusion that they are dancing around the issue, perhaps masking their true intentions.
Frankly, my biggest fear is that Congress will push through a hastily thought out bill that has a lack of common sense and ridiculously wasteful spending. As I said in a previous post, health care reform can not and should not be achieved in a matter of weeks.
Wednesday, July 08, 2009
Speaking of Money
My previous post was regarding the lack of money for Health Care Reform. As we continue talking about this issue, I will continually stress that this country is spiraling into the dark oblivion of debt.
However, this problem is not lost on President Obama. In fact, in the first 1/8 of his presidency, he has made a serious commitment towards cutting down our spending.
How much? Take a look at this video, made by a very creative fiscal conservative.
(**UPDATE** Just so we're clear, the pennies on the table are stacks of five pennies)
After viewing this video, you might realize that Obama is simply reducing our amount of spending from "Insanely, ridiculously ludicrous" to a mere "Insanely ludicrous."
Well done Mr. President. I do appreciate the solid effort, but I firmly believe that we need more pennies taken off that table.
However, this problem is not lost on President Obama. In fact, in the first 1/8 of his presidency, he has made a serious commitment towards cutting down our spending.
How much? Take a look at this video, made by a very creative fiscal conservative.
(**UPDATE** Just so we're clear, the pennies on the table are stacks of five pennies)
After viewing this video, you might realize that Obama is simply reducing our amount of spending from "Insanely, ridiculously ludicrous" to a mere "Insanely ludicrous."
Well done Mr. President. I do appreciate the solid effort, but I firmly believe that we need more pennies taken off that table.
Tuesday, July 07, 2009
Health Care Reform Pt. 2
While the discussion continues about Health Care Reform in the Capitol, let's not forget a major problem.
We have no money to pay for this.
Check out the following CNN Article.
"Chairman Max Baucus told reporters that lawmakers still need to come up with $320 billion over the coming decade in taxes to pay for the health care plan."
Great. It looks like President Obama's promise for no new taxes for 95% of the population is going to be broken, barring a major Powerball win for the United States Government.
Perhaps even more concerning is this:
"Sen. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, told the Nevada Democrat that negotiators need more time to write the bill and shouldn't be forced to meet a goal set by Democratic leaders to have the bill off the Senate floor by August 7.
Reid told the lawmakers he would be "flexible" on the time frame, but that he still wants to try to have the bill done by that date, a Reid aide said."
Brilliant, Senator Reid. Let's push it through as quickly as possible!
Again, going back to my previous post: A Republican senator tries to explain that one month is not enough time, and her COMMON SENSE concerns are mostly brushed aside by the Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid, who has to stick to his schedule.
I'm sure than there are many good people working on this problem, but it seems as though Senator Snowe is correct. Overhauling our entire health care system in less than 30 days is the worst idea since government cheese.
We have no money to pay for this.
Check out the following CNN Article.
"Chairman Max Baucus told reporters that lawmakers still need to come up with $320 billion over the coming decade in taxes to pay for the health care plan."
Great. It looks like President Obama's promise for no new taxes for 95% of the population is going to be broken, barring a major Powerball win for the United States Government.
Perhaps even more concerning is this:
"Sen. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, told the Nevada Democrat that negotiators need more time to write the bill and shouldn't be forced to meet a goal set by Democratic leaders to have the bill off the Senate floor by August 7.
Reid told the lawmakers he would be "flexible" on the time frame, but that he still wants to try to have the bill done by that date, a Reid aide said."
Brilliant, Senator Reid. Let's push it through as quickly as possible!
Again, going back to my previous post: A Republican senator tries to explain that one month is not enough time, and her COMMON SENSE concerns are mostly brushed aside by the Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid, who has to stick to his schedule.
I'm sure than there are many good people working on this problem, but it seems as though Senator Snowe is correct. Overhauling our entire health care system in less than 30 days is the worst idea since government cheese.
Monday, July 06, 2009
The 60
I was in Europe during a large portion of the last month, so I apologize for the lack of posts. Let's get this started again.
The Election of 2008 has finally come to an end. Minnesota has a new senator. And the Democrats in Congress now have 58 senators in the United States Senate. Throw in Joe Lieberman, the independent Democrat from Connecticut, and Bernie Sanders, the socialist from Vermont, and you have 60 senators that caucus as Democrats...which means that they can easily overcome any common sense that Republican senators throw at them.
The National Republican Senatorial Committee (the dudes in charge of financing Republican candidates for the Senate around the country) created this video, titled "60," in response to the dominant position that the Democrats have obtained in the White House and Congress.
I would say it's a bit over the top (and certainly not very flattering to Al Franken), but their point is certainly driven home. Blaming Bush can no longer work. Blaming Republicans can no longer work. The ball is completely in your court.
Obviously, if the country does turn around completely, the Democrats will be taking credit for said turn-around, but frankly, I'm not so sure that their policies will be successful.
I guess we'll just have to wait and see, because the Democrats are going to implement them anyway.
The Election of 2008 has finally come to an end. Minnesota has a new senator. And the Democrats in Congress now have 58 senators in the United States Senate. Throw in Joe Lieberman, the independent Democrat from Connecticut, and Bernie Sanders, the socialist from Vermont, and you have 60 senators that caucus as Democrats...which means that they can easily overcome any common sense that Republican senators throw at them.
The National Republican Senatorial Committee (the dudes in charge of financing Republican candidates for the Senate around the country) created this video, titled "60," in response to the dominant position that the Democrats have obtained in the White House and Congress.
I would say it's a bit over the top (and certainly not very flattering to Al Franken), but their point is certainly driven home. Blaming Bush can no longer work. Blaming Republicans can no longer work. The ball is completely in your court.
Obviously, if the country does turn around completely, the Democrats will be taking credit for said turn-around, but frankly, I'm not so sure that their policies will be successful.
I guess we'll just have to wait and see, because the Democrats are going to implement them anyway.
Thursday, May 21, 2009
Federalism and Health Care
It’s fantastic to live in a government that is federalist in nature.
What is federalism exactly? It is a “system of government in which power is divided between a central authority and constituent political units” or state and local governments.
Bottom line? The federal government takes care of some nationwide issues, but state and local governments are the ones that really do most of the legwork. I support this system because it gives We, the people, better access to leaders and governmental entities that affect our daily lives the most. Plus, Massachusetts is dissimilar to Alabama and Arizona is very different than Iowa (although both states apparently have large canyons, if you’ve seen the new Star Trek movie).
Thus, in a system of federalism, it is no surprise that 50 different states have 50 different ways of running their governments. Personally, I think this is fantastic, because it gives local governments more control. Plus, it offers the federal government the unique opportunity to see what’s working in the states, and what’s not working in the states.
For example:
“Hey! This tort reform law is working really well in Oregon. Perhaps we should make it a federal law.”
Great! Federalism!
Our system of government gives Congress the chance to look at state programs, agencies, laws, and regulations and determine whether or not they would be appropriate at the federal level.
Therefore, what DOESN’T work at the state level should NOT be tried at the federal level. However, there are some in Congress who seemingly don’t understand how federalism works.
The following Wall Street Journal article discusses how statewide healthcare is currently failing in Massachusetts. Unfortunately, this is the kind of system that President Obama wishes to implement nationwide. I encourage you to peruse the entire article.
The best line comes at the very end of the article.
“The real lesson of Massachusetts is that reform proponents won't tell Americans the truth about what "universal" coverage really means: Runaway costs followed by price controls and bureaucratic rationing.”
If it doesn’t work in one small state of 6 million people, it’s not going to work in a huge country of 300 million people. Period.
What is federalism exactly? It is a “system of government in which power is divided between a central authority and constituent political units” or state and local governments.
Bottom line? The federal government takes care of some nationwide issues, but state and local governments are the ones that really do most of the legwork. I support this system because it gives We, the people, better access to leaders and governmental entities that affect our daily lives the most. Plus, Massachusetts is dissimilar to Alabama and Arizona is very different than Iowa (although both states apparently have large canyons, if you’ve seen the new Star Trek movie).
Thus, in a system of federalism, it is no surprise that 50 different states have 50 different ways of running their governments. Personally, I think this is fantastic, because it gives local governments more control. Plus, it offers the federal government the unique opportunity to see what’s working in the states, and what’s not working in the states.
For example:
“Hey! This tort reform law is working really well in Oregon. Perhaps we should make it a federal law.”
Great! Federalism!
Our system of government gives Congress the chance to look at state programs, agencies, laws, and regulations and determine whether or not they would be appropriate at the federal level.
Therefore, what DOESN’T work at the state level should NOT be tried at the federal level. However, there are some in Congress who seemingly don’t understand how federalism works.
The following Wall Street Journal article discusses how statewide healthcare is currently failing in Massachusetts. Unfortunately, this is the kind of system that President Obama wishes to implement nationwide. I encourage you to peruse the entire article.
The best line comes at the very end of the article.
“The real lesson of Massachusetts is that reform proponents won't tell Americans the truth about what "universal" coverage really means: Runaway costs followed by price controls and bureaucratic rationing.”
If it doesn’t work in one small state of 6 million people, it’s not going to work in a huge country of 300 million people. Period.
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
Health Care Reform?
The talk about health care reform is in the air. Now that the Democrats have firm control of the White House, the House of Representatives, and the Senate, they are certainly going to try and get the ball rolling for their health care agenda.
While I disagree with much of this agenda, I feel it’s especially important to understand that this entire debate that we’re about to have is part of a mostly covert strategy (by some folks’ own admission) that is designed to bring about exactly what the Democratic Party desires: socialized medicine within a single-payer health care system. Here's the playbook:
Step 1: Establish that a problem exists
Step 2: Debate several solutions to the problem
Step 3: Create a compromise
Step 4: Laud the compromise as the beginning of a new era
Step 5: Gradually transform the compromise plan into exactly what you wanted in the first place
The compromise in this situation is a public plan, which is what the President has been talking about as of late. He uses many words which are pleasing to some people’s ears: “Competition. Options. Freedom.”
His stated goal as President is to create a government run health care option, so that people can choose either their private plan or choose the new government plan. You have the freedom to choose your plan! Friendly competition! Free markets!
However, the President is very intelligent. Obama realizes that when private companies attempt to compete with the federal government, those companies will lose. I learned a similar lesson from The Shawshank Redemption: Public labor can always undercut private labor.
Because of this, private insurance will cease to exist, and a single payer health care system will emerge. This is the strategy…there’s no doubt about it.
We can debate the merits/fundamental flaws of single payer or the public option (and Congress will be doing this A LOT over the next year). However, I’m not going to talk about this right now. I’m simply here to criticize the Democrats for dishonesty. Watch the following three clips, and you’ll understand better.
Secretary Sebelius simply states that there is no strategy. However, this next clip demonstrates that the President is being disingenuous at best, and deceitful at worst.
Market competition? It’s all part of your strategy, President Obama. Why don’t you just tell us? Senator Feingold (Democrat-Wisconsin) feels free to let us know what’s actually going on.
I mentioned this in an earlier diary about gay marriage, but in general, I will respect those who want to have an honest, open, and genuine debate about issues. We may disagree in every conceivable way, but at least I’ll probably respect you.
I will NOT respect you if you are being untruthful. I find this most disheartening that the President clearly believes in the more radical single payer idea, but he does not want to use his political capital (he’s in the midst of his reelection campaign after all) to support it. Rather, he is stating his support for the more “moderate” idea of the public option, which stands a better chance of passing through Congress and public opinion. However, we all know the eventual goal that he has.
To attempt to stop Democrats from being disingenuous, I've crafted the following letter.
Dear Democrats:
You've been a party for a long time. Since 1828, you've been keeping it real in American politics...except during the times when you haven't had good policies or when you haven't been as honest as you should, such as right now.
If you wish to gain my respect:
Then and only then, will I respect you. And then and only then, will you find that your ideas might be a little out of the mainstream.
Sincerely
ghbraves
While I disagree with much of this agenda, I feel it’s especially important to understand that this entire debate that we’re about to have is part of a mostly covert strategy (by some folks’ own admission) that is designed to bring about exactly what the Democratic Party desires: socialized medicine within a single-payer health care system. Here's the playbook:
Step 1: Establish that a problem exists
Step 2: Debate several solutions to the problem
Step 3: Create a compromise
Step 4: Laud the compromise as the beginning of a new era
Step 5: Gradually transform the compromise plan into exactly what you wanted in the first place
The compromise in this situation is a public plan, which is what the President has been talking about as of late. He uses many words which are pleasing to some people’s ears: “Competition. Options. Freedom.”
His stated goal as President is to create a government run health care option, so that people can choose either their private plan or choose the new government plan. You have the freedom to choose your plan! Friendly competition! Free markets!
However, the President is very intelligent. Obama realizes that when private companies attempt to compete with the federal government, those companies will lose. I learned a similar lesson from The Shawshank Redemption: Public labor can always undercut private labor.
Because of this, private insurance will cease to exist, and a single payer health care system will emerge. This is the strategy…there’s no doubt about it.
We can debate the merits/fundamental flaws of single payer or the public option (and Congress will be doing this A LOT over the next year). However, I’m not going to talk about this right now. I’m simply here to criticize the Democrats for dishonesty. Watch the following three clips, and you’ll understand better.
Secretary Sebelius simply states that there is no strategy. However, this next clip demonstrates that the President is being disingenuous at best, and deceitful at worst.
Market competition? It’s all part of your strategy, President Obama. Why don’t you just tell us? Senator Feingold (Democrat-Wisconsin) feels free to let us know what’s actually going on.
I mentioned this in an earlier diary about gay marriage, but in general, I will respect those who want to have an honest, open, and genuine debate about issues. We may disagree in every conceivable way, but at least I’ll probably respect you.
I will NOT respect you if you are being untruthful. I find this most disheartening that the President clearly believes in the more radical single payer idea, but he does not want to use his political capital (he’s in the midst of his reelection campaign after all) to support it. Rather, he is stating his support for the more “moderate” idea of the public option, which stands a better chance of passing through Congress and public opinion. However, we all know the eventual goal that he has.
To attempt to stop Democrats from being disingenuous, I've crafted the following letter.
Dear Democrats:
You've been a party for a long time. Since 1828, you've been keeping it real in American politics...except during the times when you haven't had good policies or when you haven't been as honest as you should, such as right now.
If you wish to gain my respect:
- Keep it real! Say what you mean and mean what you say!
- Don’t say that you support the moderate public health option, when you really want single payer.
- Don’t say that you support marriage between a man and a woman, when you really want gay marriage and polygamy (or as you have been calling it, equal marriage for all)
- Don’t try and trick the public. Stand up for your beliefs! Shout them from the rooftops!
Then and only then, will I respect you. And then and only then, will you find that your ideas might be a little out of the mainstream.
Sincerely
ghbraves
Saturday, May 16, 2009
Saturday Morning Musings
As the 2010 elections are merely 18 months away, the campaign for governor will begin shortly. Some might say it has already begun.
As such, we Republicans are looking to ensure that Governor Chet Culver will not be reelected. Fortunately, the tides may be beginning to turn against the governor.
Let’s take a look at the most recent poll from late April.
Do you approve or disapprove of the job Chet Culver is doing as Governor?
Approve: 42%
Disapprove: 50%
Net Popularity: -8%
Generally speaking, if you sit below that 50% mark in a poll, you’re in trouble. Culver sits well below that line.
In his defense, the economy is not terribly strong, jobless claims have increased, and some people across the country are saying that this is the next Great Depression. With all of the negative talk that has been permeating this nation, it’s not really that surprising that Iowans feel as though the leadership of this state and nation is problematic. With strong feelings of discontent among Iowans evident, one would expect to see our other three leaders who have been elected statewide to feel the popularity pinch. However, we don’t really see evidence of this.
Let’s take a look at Senator Grassley, Senator Harkin, and President Obama.
Do you approve or disapprove of the job Chuck Grassley is doing as Senator?
Approve: 59%
Disapprove: 32%
Net Popularity: +27%
Do you approve or disapprove of the job Harkin is doing as Senator?
Approve: 51%
Disapprove: 38%
Net Popularity: +13%
Do you approve or disapprove of the job Obama is doing as President?
Approve: 59%
Disapprove: 35%
Net Popularity: +24%
It appears that these three are not as harmed by the economic downturn as our poor governor. It also demonstrates that Senator Grassley remains more popular than Tom Harkin (and President Obama).
Why is this? I’m guessing it’s because Chuck Grassley is a better United States Senator.
As such, we Republicans are looking to ensure that Governor Chet Culver will not be reelected. Fortunately, the tides may be beginning to turn against the governor.
Let’s take a look at the most recent poll from late April.
Do you approve or disapprove of the job Chet Culver is doing as Governor?
Approve: 42%
Disapprove: 50%
Net Popularity: -8%
Generally speaking, if you sit below that 50% mark in a poll, you’re in trouble. Culver sits well below that line.
In his defense, the economy is not terribly strong, jobless claims have increased, and some people across the country are saying that this is the next Great Depression. With all of the negative talk that has been permeating this nation, it’s not really that surprising that Iowans feel as though the leadership of this state and nation is problematic. With strong feelings of discontent among Iowans evident, one would expect to see our other three leaders who have been elected statewide to feel the popularity pinch. However, we don’t really see evidence of this.
Let’s take a look at Senator Grassley, Senator Harkin, and President Obama.
Do you approve or disapprove of the job Chuck Grassley is doing as Senator?
Approve: 59%
Disapprove: 32%
Net Popularity: +27%
Do you approve or disapprove of the job Harkin is doing as Senator?
Approve: 51%
Disapprove: 38%
Net Popularity: +13%
Do you approve or disapprove of the job Obama is doing as President?
Approve: 59%
Disapprove: 35%
Net Popularity: +24%
It appears that these three are not as harmed by the economic downturn as our poor governor. It also demonstrates that Senator Grassley remains more popular than Tom Harkin (and President Obama).
Why is this? I’m guessing it’s because Chuck Grassley is a better United States Senator.
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Bye Bye Specter
"Light weight "Lefty" Republican switches party."
After years of stabbing Conservatives in the back, the RINO goes home. Don't let the door hit you on the way out. The party of the Democrats sounds like a good home for you. Arlen sees how the wind is blowing and decides to bail.
Let’s see how this works out for you since you don't seem to be too concerned about your new Party in spending our children and grandchildren’s future. You will quite helpful in prosecuting the Bush administration. I can't wait until 2010. Let’s see what happens then, Arlen. Glad to see that this Flushing of the Party will be far better for us in the long term.
~Jeff
Statement by Sen. Arlen Specter:
I have been a Republican since 1966. I have been working extremely hard for the Party, for its candidates and for the ideals of a Republican Party whose tent is big enough to welcome diverse points of view. While I have been comfortable being a Republican, my Party has not defined who I am. I have taken each issue one at a time and have exercised independent judgment to do what I thought was best for Pennsylvania and the nation.Since my election in 1980, as part of the Reagan Big Tent, the Republican Party has moved far to the right.
Last year, more than 200,000 Republicans in Pennsylvania changed their registration to become Democrats. I now find my political philosophy more in line with Democrats than Republicans.When I supported the stimulus package, I knew that it would not be popular with the Republican Party. But I saw the stimulus as necessary to lessen the risk of a far more serious recession than we are now experiencing.Since then, I have traveled the state, talked to Republican leaders and office-holders and my supporters and I have carefully examined public opinion. It has become clear to me that the stimulus vote caused a schism which makes our differences irreconcilable. On this state of the record, I am unwilling to have my twenty-nine year Senate record judged by the Pennsylvania Republican primary electorate. I have not represented the Republican Party. I have represented the people of Pennsylvania.
I have decided to run for reelection in 2010 in the Democratic primary.I am ready, willing and anxious to take on all comers and have my candidacy for reelection determined in a general election.I deeply regret that I will be disappointing many friends and supporters. I can understand their disappointment. I am also disappointed that so many in the Party I have worked for for more than four decades do not want me to be their candidate. It is very painful on both sides. I thank specially Senators McConnell and Cornyn for their forbearance.I am not making this decision because there are no important and interesting opportunities outside the Senate.
I take on this complicated run for reelection because I am deeply concerned about the future of our country and I believe I have a significant contribution to make on many of the key issues of the day, especially medical research. NIH funding has saved or lengthened thousands of lives, including mine, and much more needs to be done. And my seniority is very important to continue to bring important projects vital to Pennsylvania's economy.I am taking this action now because there are fewer than thirteen months to the 2010 Pennsylvania Primary and there is much to be done in preparation for that election. Upon request, I will return campaign contributions contributed during this cycle.While each member of the Senate caucuses with his Party, what each of us hopes to accomplish is distinct from his party affiliation. The American people do not care which Party solves the problems confronting our nation. And no Senator, no matter how loyal he is to his Party, should or would put party loyalty above his duty to the state and nation.
My change in party affiliation does not mean that I will be a party-line voter any more for the Democrats that I have been for the Republicans. Unlike Senator Jeffords' switch, which changed party control, I will not be an automatic 60th vote for cloture. For example, my position on Employees Free Choice (card check) will not change.Whatever my party affiliation, I will continue to be guided by President Kennedy's statement that sometimes party asks too much. When it does, I will continue my independent voting and follow my conscience on what I think is best for Pennsylvania and America.
After years of stabbing Conservatives in the back, the RINO goes home. Don't let the door hit you on the way out. The party of the Democrats sounds like a good home for you. Arlen sees how the wind is blowing and decides to bail.
Let’s see how this works out for you since you don't seem to be too concerned about your new Party in spending our children and grandchildren’s future. You will quite helpful in prosecuting the Bush administration. I can't wait until 2010. Let’s see what happens then, Arlen. Glad to see that this Flushing of the Party will be far better for us in the long term.
~Jeff
Statement by Sen. Arlen Specter:
I have been a Republican since 1966. I have been working extremely hard for the Party, for its candidates and for the ideals of a Republican Party whose tent is big enough to welcome diverse points of view. While I have been comfortable being a Republican, my Party has not defined who I am. I have taken each issue one at a time and have exercised independent judgment to do what I thought was best for Pennsylvania and the nation.Since my election in 1980, as part of the Reagan Big Tent, the Republican Party has moved far to the right.
Last year, more than 200,000 Republicans in Pennsylvania changed their registration to become Democrats. I now find my political philosophy more in line with Democrats than Republicans.When I supported the stimulus package, I knew that it would not be popular with the Republican Party. But I saw the stimulus as necessary to lessen the risk of a far more serious recession than we are now experiencing.Since then, I have traveled the state, talked to Republican leaders and office-holders and my supporters and I have carefully examined public opinion. It has become clear to me that the stimulus vote caused a schism which makes our differences irreconcilable. On this state of the record, I am unwilling to have my twenty-nine year Senate record judged by the Pennsylvania Republican primary electorate. I have not represented the Republican Party. I have represented the people of Pennsylvania.
I have decided to run for reelection in 2010 in the Democratic primary.I am ready, willing and anxious to take on all comers and have my candidacy for reelection determined in a general election.I deeply regret that I will be disappointing many friends and supporters. I can understand their disappointment. I am also disappointed that so many in the Party I have worked for for more than four decades do not want me to be their candidate. It is very painful on both sides. I thank specially Senators McConnell and Cornyn for their forbearance.I am not making this decision because there are no important and interesting opportunities outside the Senate.
I take on this complicated run for reelection because I am deeply concerned about the future of our country and I believe I have a significant contribution to make on many of the key issues of the day, especially medical research. NIH funding has saved or lengthened thousands of lives, including mine, and much more needs to be done. And my seniority is very important to continue to bring important projects vital to Pennsylvania's economy.I am taking this action now because there are fewer than thirteen months to the 2010 Pennsylvania Primary and there is much to be done in preparation for that election. Upon request, I will return campaign contributions contributed during this cycle.While each member of the Senate caucuses with his Party, what each of us hopes to accomplish is distinct from his party affiliation. The American people do not care which Party solves the problems confronting our nation. And no Senator, no matter how loyal he is to his Party, should or would put party loyalty above his duty to the state and nation.
My change in party affiliation does not mean that I will be a party-line voter any more for the Democrats that I have been for the Republicans. Unlike Senator Jeffords' switch, which changed party control, I will not be an automatic 60th vote for cloture. For example, my position on Employees Free Choice (card check) will not change.Whatever my party affiliation, I will continue to be guided by President Kennedy's statement that sometimes party asks too much. When it does, I will continue my independent voting and follow my conscience on what I think is best for Pennsylvania and America.
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
Interrogation methods helped nation in terrorism fight
From MSNBC:
"President Obama’s national intelligence director told colleagues in a private memo last week that the harsh interrogation techniques banned by the White House did produce significant information that helped the nation in its struggle with terrorists.
“High value information came from interrogations in which those methods were used and provided a deeper understanding of the al Qa’ida organization that was attacking this country,” Adm. Dennis C. Blair, the intelligence director, wrote in a memo to his staff last Thursday.
Admiral Blair sent his memo on the same day the administration publicly released secret Bush administration legal memos authorizing the use of interrogation methods that the Obama White House has deemed to be illegal torture. Among other things, the Bush administration memos revealed that two captured Qaeda operatives were subjected to a form of near-drowning known as waterboarding a total of 266 times.
Some parts of memo deleted Admiral Blair’s assessment that the interrogation methods did produce important information was deleted from a condensed version of his memo released to the media last Thursday. Also deleted was a line in which he empathized with his predecessors who originally approved some of the harsh tactics after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.
“I like to think I would not have approved those methods in the past,” he wrote, “but I do not fault those who made the decisions at that time, and I will absolutely defend those who carried out the interrogations within the orders they were given.”
A spokeswoman for Admiral Blair said the lines were cut in the normal editing process of shortening an internal memo into a media statement emphasizing his concern that the public understand the context of the decisions made in the past and the fact that they followed legal orders."
Isn't it amazing how this administration could care less about keeping this country safe?
Democrat's are now in a race to prosecute former Bush officials, while releasing cherry picked memos to make the US look bad while ignoring those that show the true of info learned and plots stopped.
Jimmy Carter must be loving this. If this keeps up, he may be freed of the title "Most incompetent President ever."
~Jeff
"President Obama’s national intelligence director told colleagues in a private memo last week that the harsh interrogation techniques banned by the White House did produce significant information that helped the nation in its struggle with terrorists.
“High value information came from interrogations in which those methods were used and provided a deeper understanding of the al Qa’ida organization that was attacking this country,” Adm. Dennis C. Blair, the intelligence director, wrote in a memo to his staff last Thursday.
Admiral Blair sent his memo on the same day the administration publicly released secret Bush administration legal memos authorizing the use of interrogation methods that the Obama White House has deemed to be illegal torture. Among other things, the Bush administration memos revealed that two captured Qaeda operatives were subjected to a form of near-drowning known as waterboarding a total of 266 times.
Some parts of memo deleted Admiral Blair’s assessment that the interrogation methods did produce important information was deleted from a condensed version of his memo released to the media last Thursday. Also deleted was a line in which he empathized with his predecessors who originally approved some of the harsh tactics after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.
“I like to think I would not have approved those methods in the past,” he wrote, “but I do not fault those who made the decisions at that time, and I will absolutely defend those who carried out the interrogations within the orders they were given.”
A spokeswoman for Admiral Blair said the lines were cut in the normal editing process of shortening an internal memo into a media statement emphasizing his concern that the public understand the context of the decisions made in the past and the fact that they followed legal orders."
Isn't it amazing how this administration could care less about keeping this country safe?
Democrat's are now in a race to prosecute former Bush officials, while releasing cherry picked memos to make the US look bad while ignoring those that show the true of info learned and plots stopped.
Jimmy Carter must be loving this. If this keeps up, he may be freed of the title "Most incompetent President ever."
~Jeff
Monday, April 20, 2009
Budget Cuts, Mr. President?
President Obama in campaign mode:
“I mean, Senator McCain has been talking tough about earmarks, and that's good, but earmarks account for about $18 billion of our budget.”
Bottom Line: $18 billion is nice to cut, Sen. McCain, but it’s not terribly important.
President Obama after becoming President:
On Tuesday evening, when President Barack Obama declared before a joint session of Congress that "we passed the recovery plan free of earmarks," House Democrats, led by Speaker Nancy Pelosi, popped out of their seats like jackrabbits for a standing ovation. On Wednesday, those same House Democrats, led by Pelosi, passed a budget with, by some counts, nearly 9,000 earmarks, worth an estimated $7.7 billion.
Bottom Line: Nearly $8 billion in earmarks is fine by me.
President Obama today:
"None of these savings by themselves are going to solve our long-term fiscal problems. But taken together, they can make a difference, and they send a signal that we are serious about how government operates."
Bottom Line: I was kidding earlier. Every little bit DOES count.
I welcome your cut today, Mr. President. However, I ultimately question your budget trimming sincerity, mainly because of your comments during the campaign AND during your first address to the Congress.
However, your own estimates on budget deficits are pretty sad, evident by the chart below.
One of my biggest criticisms of President George W. Bush and the Republicans in charge of Congress from 2002-2006 and the Democrats in Congress from 2006-2008 is the lack of intelligence when it came to fiscal responsibility.
However, if we stay on this road President Obama, we will go WAY beyond lack of intelligence. By 2020, we will achieve utter lunacy. And I’m sure that’s not what you want to be remembered by.
“I mean, Senator McCain has been talking tough about earmarks, and that's good, but earmarks account for about $18 billion of our budget.”
Bottom Line: $18 billion is nice to cut, Sen. McCain, but it’s not terribly important.
President Obama after becoming President:
On Tuesday evening, when President Barack Obama declared before a joint session of Congress that "we passed the recovery plan free of earmarks," House Democrats, led by Speaker Nancy Pelosi, popped out of their seats like jackrabbits for a standing ovation. On Wednesday, those same House Democrats, led by Pelosi, passed a budget with, by some counts, nearly 9,000 earmarks, worth an estimated $7.7 billion.
Bottom Line: Nearly $8 billion in earmarks is fine by me.
President Obama today:
"None of these savings by themselves are going to solve our long-term fiscal problems. But taken together, they can make a difference, and they send a signal that we are serious about how government operates."
Bottom Line: I was kidding earlier. Every little bit DOES count.
I welcome your cut today, Mr. President. However, I ultimately question your budget trimming sincerity, mainly because of your comments during the campaign AND during your first address to the Congress.
However, your own estimates on budget deficits are pretty sad, evident by the chart below.
One of my biggest criticisms of President George W. Bush and the Republicans in charge of Congress from 2002-2006 and the Democrats in Congress from 2006-2008 is the lack of intelligence when it came to fiscal responsibility.
However, if we stay on this road President Obama, we will go WAY beyond lack of intelligence. By 2020, we will achieve utter lunacy. And I’m sure that’s not what you want to be remembered by.
Friday, April 17, 2009
Des Moines Tea Party 4-15-09
Wednesday April 15th, 2009. On this Tax Day, more than four thousand gathered at State Capital to protest the government’s out of control spending, tax increases, and judicial activism. There were over a dozen American speakers, and not one elected politician speaker. This was a day for everyday Americans to talk amongst ourselves and listen to others speak.
The media was present, trying to make it look as though we were just a bunch of misfits each with our own personal gripe with the government. Not that we all came together against a Government out of control at all levels: State, Federal, and Local. The Government solution is "We just need More Government and all of our problems will be solved." Today, we were saying "NO!" Stop spending our children and grandchildren’s money. Stop taking over our lives. Stop telling us that YOU know what is correct, ignoring the Constitution.
Eighty percent of the people there had never protested or been politically active before. We have lives we want to live and we do not want to take time to protest, but DEMOCRATS have gone too far and many Republicans are not standing and fighting for us. We aren't exactly sure what to do but we’re “mad as hell, and we’re not going to take it anymore," stealing a phrase.
Today, Ronald Reagan’s speeches were played over the loud speakers between live speeches. Making us all wonder: When will we find a true leader for us again? Who will be the Next Reagan to lead us out of the wilderness????
Saturday, April 04, 2009
The Big Ruling
The simple issue at question was this: Is marriage only between a man and woman?
In Iowa, seven people said no.
Yesterday, the Supreme Court of Iowa ruled that the Iowa’s existing Defense of Marriage law was unconstitutional. As such, one of the major social questions that permeates American politics has been answered, forcefully I might add, by the seven members of Iowa’s highest court.
One day later, we have heard the celebrations on the left and the statements of disappointment from the right and center. As such, Republicans will begin work to restore traditional marriage to Iowa. And Democrats, will begin side-stepping the issue as much as they can.
Let’s start with the Iowa House and Senate. After reading the joint statement from the Democratic House Speaker Pat Murphy and Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal, I’m rather surprised that they haven’t ever tried to pass a same-sex marriage law in the House and Senate. After all according to them, “Iowa has always been a leader in the area of civil rights.” Then why the wait?
Oh, I know. It’s straight from a Democratic playbook. Sidestep the issue, put it on the backburner, fail to show leadership, and then let the court do the hard work for you. Gronstal and Murphy know that passing such a bill would hurt them at the ballot box. They aren't stupid. But they sure aren’t leaders. Their press statement also asks “why it took so long.” Well, Mike and Pat, clearly you weren’t passionate enough about the issue to use your majority in the legislature to do anything about it, so you should probably blame yourselves. As for your passion, I’m relieved that it’s returned now that the Supreme Court has done your work for you.
What about the other biggest Democrat in Iowa, Senator Harkin? His statement:
"My personal view has been that marriage is between a man and a woman, and I have voted in support of that concept…”
but same-sex marriage is fine with me. I guess I'm having a little trouble with the Senator's logic.
It seems as though Harkin is saying a couple of things here.
Honestly, it is reminiscent of Vice President Biden’s position on abortion.
“My position is that I am personally opposed to abortion…”
but abortion is fine with me. Biden is basically saying two things:
To conclude, when it comes to the Democrats in this state and in this country dealing with controversial social topics, the popular thing is to sidestep the issue so that they won’t get into trouble at the ballot box.
We’ll see what Governor Culver does in the coming days and weeks as he prepares to sidestep the issue as well.
In Iowa, seven people said no.
Yesterday, the Supreme Court of Iowa ruled that the Iowa’s existing Defense of Marriage law was unconstitutional. As such, one of the major social questions that permeates American politics has been answered, forcefully I might add, by the seven members of Iowa’s highest court.
One day later, we have heard the celebrations on the left and the statements of disappointment from the right and center. As such, Republicans will begin work to restore traditional marriage to Iowa. And Democrats, will begin side-stepping the issue as much as they can.
Let’s start with the Iowa House and Senate. After reading the joint statement from the Democratic House Speaker Pat Murphy and Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal, I’m rather surprised that they haven’t ever tried to pass a same-sex marriage law in the House and Senate. After all according to them, “Iowa has always been a leader in the area of civil rights.” Then why the wait?
Oh, I know. It’s straight from a Democratic playbook. Sidestep the issue, put it on the backburner, fail to show leadership, and then let the court do the hard work for you. Gronstal and Murphy know that passing such a bill would hurt them at the ballot box. They aren't stupid. But they sure aren’t leaders. Their press statement also asks “why it took so long.” Well, Mike and Pat, clearly you weren’t passionate enough about the issue to use your majority in the legislature to do anything about it, so you should probably blame yourselves. As for your passion, I’m relieved that it’s returned now that the Supreme Court has done your work for you.
What about the other biggest Democrat in Iowa, Senator Harkin? His statement:
"My personal view has been that marriage is between a man and a woman, and I have voted in support of that concept…”
but same-sex marriage is fine with me. I guess I'm having a little trouble with the Senator's logic.
It seems as though Harkin is saying a couple of things here.
- I don't care for same-sex marriage
- I know that nearly a super-majority of Iowans do not believe in same-sex marriage
- Therefore, I have no problem with this ruling.
Honestly, it is reminiscent of Vice President Biden’s position on abortion.
“My position is that I am personally opposed to abortion…”
but abortion is fine with me. Biden is basically saying two things:
- I’m pro-life, but that’s just me personally. I’m pro-choice for the other 6.5 billion people on the planet.
- Abortion is bad, but it should not be illegal. It's not as though you stole $147 from the local gas station.
To conclude, when it comes to the Democrats in this state and in this country dealing with controversial social topics, the popular thing is to sidestep the issue so that they won’t get into trouble at the ballot box.
We’ll see what Governor Culver does in the coming days and weeks as he prepares to sidestep the issue as well.
Wednesday, April 01, 2009
A Light-Hearted April Fool’s Day...
With the United States’ strongest ally in this world today.
Now, we all know that President Obama is still in his honeymoon phase, but when he disrespects both the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and Queen Elizabeth II, shouldn’t we take some notice?
When PM Gordon Brown came to the U.S. last month, he presented President Obama with several excellent gifts. The most impressive gift may have been this:
The British PM presented our president with a carved ornamental penholder from the timbers of the anti-slavery ship HMS Gannet. A perfect gift to place on his desk in the Oval Office which just happened to have been made from the sister ship of the Gannet — the HMS Resolute.
Think of it this way: 129 years after Queen Victoria presented President Rutherford B. Hayes with the desk made from the Resolute, Prime Minister Brown reunited the ships with this exquisite offering.
Excellent. Kudos PM Brown, for a well-thought out gift from the UK.
I do ponder if President Obama felt a little sheepish after he presented Brown with America’s gift. Apparently:
the British press took high exception to the modest presents the Obamas gave Gordon Brown and wife on their visit to the White House last month: a box set of DVDs, allegedly in the wrong format.
Although movies such as Star Wars and Psycho are American classics, it seems as though a more appropriate gift would be one that could not be purchased on Amazon.
So, President Obama arrived in Europe today to meet with the Queen of the United Kingdom, Her Majesty Elizabeth II. It’s a wonderful chance to make up for the so-so gift that he gave Gordon Brown! What does he bequeath her? An iPod.
The president gave the Queen an iPod with footage of her 2007 state visit to the U.S. already downloaded.
An iPod. Amazon must be the homepage for the Oval Office. However, with the footage of the Queen’s visit to the United States, it does become “more” thoughtful than before. And now the Queen has joined the iPod digital music revolution. Except that she joined it four years ago. Tough break, Mr. President.
Now, some might believe this story to be superficial, and to a certain extent it is. But it’s April 1st. I only wish that our President’s foolish gifts were a joke. Alas.
Now, we all know that President Obama is still in his honeymoon phase, but when he disrespects both the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and Queen Elizabeth II, shouldn’t we take some notice?
When PM Gordon Brown came to the U.S. last month, he presented President Obama with several excellent gifts. The most impressive gift may have been this:
The British PM presented our president with a carved ornamental penholder from the timbers of the anti-slavery ship HMS Gannet. A perfect gift to place on his desk in the Oval Office which just happened to have been made from the sister ship of the Gannet — the HMS Resolute.
Think of it this way: 129 years after Queen Victoria presented President Rutherford B. Hayes with the desk made from the Resolute, Prime Minister Brown reunited the ships with this exquisite offering.
Excellent. Kudos PM Brown, for a well-thought out gift from the UK.
I do ponder if President Obama felt a little sheepish after he presented Brown with America’s gift. Apparently:
the British press took high exception to the modest presents the Obamas gave Gordon Brown and wife on their visit to the White House last month: a box set of DVDs, allegedly in the wrong format.
Although movies such as Star Wars and Psycho are American classics, it seems as though a more appropriate gift would be one that could not be purchased on Amazon.
So, President Obama arrived in Europe today to meet with the Queen of the United Kingdom, Her Majesty Elizabeth II. It’s a wonderful chance to make up for the so-so gift that he gave Gordon Brown! What does he bequeath her? An iPod.
The president gave the Queen an iPod with footage of her 2007 state visit to the U.S. already downloaded.
An iPod. Amazon must be the homepage for the Oval Office. However, with the footage of the Queen’s visit to the United States, it does become “more” thoughtful than before. And now the Queen has joined the iPod digital music revolution. Except that she joined it four years ago. Tough break, Mr. President.
Now, some might believe this story to be superficial, and to a certain extent it is. But it’s April 1st. I only wish that our President’s foolish gifts were a joke. Alas.
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
The Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research Debate
Last week, President Obama rolled back former President Bush's executive ban on the federal funding of Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research.
You may have read the CNN Headline: Obama overturns Bush policy on stem cells
Reading the headline alone might make you believe that President Bush was against all stem cell research, which is inaccurate at best, and intentionally deceptive at worst. But I digress.
With strong feelings on both sides of the issue, the mainstream media has been struggling in their reporting of Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research. Unfortunately, this reporting has omitted many important details that are not only important, but critical in the national discourse over the topic.
Josh Brahm over at Right to Life of Central California writes a lengthy response about the details that were left out of various news stories from the past several weeks.
I encourage you take a look at it.
Perhaps my favorite quote.
"Naturally we want to see people afflicted with painful diseases treated or even cured, but IF these embryos are individual living human beings, as science says they are, THEN we should not kill them for their body parts. Of course, if it can be proven scientifically that these embryos are not human beings then I will promptly withdraw my objection and put my full support behind this research."
A bold statement. However, President Obama's insistence of instituting taxpayer funded human embryonic stem cell research was a bold move also.
You may have read the CNN Headline: Obama overturns Bush policy on stem cells
Reading the headline alone might make you believe that President Bush was against all stem cell research, which is inaccurate at best, and intentionally deceptive at worst. But I digress.
With strong feelings on both sides of the issue, the mainstream media has been struggling in their reporting of Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research. Unfortunately, this reporting has omitted many important details that are not only important, but critical in the national discourse over the topic.
Josh Brahm over at Right to Life of Central California writes a lengthy response about the details that were left out of various news stories from the past several weeks.
I encourage you take a look at it.
Perhaps my favorite quote.
"Naturally we want to see people afflicted with painful diseases treated or even cured, but IF these embryos are individual living human beings, as science says they are, THEN we should not kill them for their body parts. Of course, if it can be proven scientifically that these embryos are not human beings then I will promptly withdraw my objection and put my full support behind this research."
A bold statement. However, President Obama's insistence of instituting taxpayer funded human embryonic stem cell research was a bold move also.
Thursday, February 19, 2009
Salute to Congressman Latham
I’ve recently been thinking more about the Election of 2008, and our very own Tom Latham.
In 2008, Congressman Latham had a lot going against him. Here’s a few things:
1. Barack Obama was at the top of the ticket. He earned 54% of Iowa’s vote
2. Tom Harkin was next to the top of the ticket. He earned 63% of Iowa’s vote
3. The Republican Party was as unpopular as it has ever been in 2008.
4. Becky Greenwald was not a poor Democratic opponent.
5. The Cook Partisan Voting Index (PVI) of Iowa’s 4th Congressional District is R+0/D+0, which basically means that the number of Republicans and Democrats in the district is generally the same.
Even with all of these things pushing against him, Tom Latham was able to win by more than 20 points.
As such, we Republicans in Dallas County thank you all for supporting a solid conservative to represent us in the House of Representatives. Congressman Latham…we salute you for a very impressive victory.
In 2008, Congressman Latham had a lot going against him. Here’s a few things:
1. Barack Obama was at the top of the ticket. He earned 54% of Iowa’s vote
2. Tom Harkin was next to the top of the ticket. He earned 63% of Iowa’s vote
3. The Republican Party was as unpopular as it has ever been in 2008.
4. Becky Greenwald was not a poor Democratic opponent.
5. The Cook Partisan Voting Index (PVI) of Iowa’s 4th Congressional District is R+0/D+0, which basically means that the number of Republicans and Democrats in the district is generally the same.
Even with all of these things pushing against him, Tom Latham was able to win by more than 20 points.
As such, we Republicans in Dallas County thank you all for supporting a solid conservative to represent us in the House of Representatives. Congressman Latham…we salute you for a very impressive victory.
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
Bad idea
Here’s how the conversation goes:
“Hey, let’s get rid of the Electoral College”
“All right. Let’s pass a constitutional amendment”
“Hmmm…that’s too difficult. So I guess we can’t get rid of it.”
“Wait a second. Maybe we don’t have to change the constitution.
“What? How are we supposed to get around the Constitution of the United States”
“Oh… I have a plan for that. The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact.”
The Register:
“Iowa lawmakers are considering changing the way the state's presidential votes are counted as part of a national effort to break from the Electoral College system.”
Is it December of 2000?
Democratic Senate Majority Leader Michael Gronstal certainly has a strong opinion on the matter. "If states that represent a majority of electoral votes in the country pass this compact, we can get a national popular vote without Congress, without a constitutional amendment, without any of those folks."
There are several serious problems with this statement.
1. I assume Gronstal believes it to be a fantastic idea. If this is such a wonderful idea, why has it not been implemented through a Constitutional Amendment during the past 220 years?
2. As of right now, the nature of our federalist system of government gives Iowa a good amount of power (proportionally) when it comes to the Electoral College. The present system benefits smaller states, like Iowa. Why would one of our leaders want to give our state less power?
3. The essence of federalism is more power for the states. For example, if the Democratic candidate won 70% of the vote in the state of Iowa, but the Republican candidate won 53% of the vote nationwide, I firmly believe that the people of Iowa want their electoral votes to go to the Democrat, and that candidate should receive them. Why let the rest of the nation usurp our electoral rights? I’ve always felt that the candidate Iowa votes for should automatically earn our votes from Iowa.
4. If I’m not mistaken, Senator Gronstal’s statement suggests that he desires to make an end run around the Constitution of the United States. Perhaps I’m an old-fashioned pro-constitution man, but frankly, I don’t think we should ever be attempting to make an end run around our Constitution. The only reason that people don’t want to do a constitutional amendment is because they wouldn’t be able to pass it.
We already know that many ideas that are coming from the Democratic side of 1007 E. Grand are not exceptional. However, this idea is particularly unfortunate because it attempts to give the rest of the nation what we alone should have: our votes.
“Hey, let’s get rid of the Electoral College”
“All right. Let’s pass a constitutional amendment”
“Hmmm…that’s too difficult. So I guess we can’t get rid of it.”
“Wait a second. Maybe we don’t have to change the constitution.
“What? How are we supposed to get around the Constitution of the United States”
“Oh… I have a plan for that. The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact.”
The Register:
“Iowa lawmakers are considering changing the way the state's presidential votes are counted as part of a national effort to break from the Electoral College system.”
Is it December of 2000?
Democratic Senate Majority Leader Michael Gronstal certainly has a strong opinion on the matter. "If states that represent a majority of electoral votes in the country pass this compact, we can get a national popular vote without Congress, without a constitutional amendment, without any of those folks."
There are several serious problems with this statement.
1. I assume Gronstal believes it to be a fantastic idea. If this is such a wonderful idea, why has it not been implemented through a Constitutional Amendment during the past 220 years?
2. As of right now, the nature of our federalist system of government gives Iowa a good amount of power (proportionally) when it comes to the Electoral College. The present system benefits smaller states, like Iowa. Why would one of our leaders want to give our state less power?
3. The essence of federalism is more power for the states. For example, if the Democratic candidate won 70% of the vote in the state of Iowa, but the Republican candidate won 53% of the vote nationwide, I firmly believe that the people of Iowa want their electoral votes to go to the Democrat, and that candidate should receive them. Why let the rest of the nation usurp our electoral rights? I’ve always felt that the candidate Iowa votes for should automatically earn our votes from Iowa.
4. If I’m not mistaken, Senator Gronstal’s statement suggests that he desires to make an end run around the Constitution of the United States. Perhaps I’m an old-fashioned pro-constitution man, but frankly, I don’t think we should ever be attempting to make an end run around our Constitution. The only reason that people don’t want to do a constitutional amendment is because they wouldn’t be able to pass it.
We already know that many ideas that are coming from the Democratic side of 1007 E. Grand are not exceptional. However, this idea is particularly unfortunate because it attempts to give the rest of the nation what we alone should have: our votes.
Monday, February 16, 2009
Stimulus Thoughts
The Stimulus:
It's been a pretty big topic these past few weeks. However, one major concern is the continual and reckless expansion of the already huge federal government.
This Op-ed link outlines a couple of concerns.
First, when they say $800 billion, we should probably double it in our minds, because the Congressional Budget Office believes that, if renewed, the cost will eventually be over $1.5 trillion over 10 years.
But will it be renewed? As the author contends, it will be difficult to dismantle programs once they are firmly embedded in the massive infrastructural monstrosity that is the United States Federal Government. Which is probably why most Republicans voted against the package. Although Republicans clearly lost this battle of the bill, Congressional Republicans, by voting no, clearly realize that expanding the federal government at this particular time is not the wise move to make.
Alas...at least the effort was there.
It's been a pretty big topic these past few weeks. However, one major concern is the continual and reckless expansion of the already huge federal government.
This Op-ed link outlines a couple of concerns.
First, when they say $800 billion, we should probably double it in our minds, because the Congressional Budget Office believes that, if renewed, the cost will eventually be over $1.5 trillion over 10 years.
But will it be renewed? As the author contends, it will be difficult to dismantle programs once they are firmly embedded in the massive infrastructural monstrosity that is the United States Federal Government. Which is probably why most Republicans voted against the package. Although Republicans clearly lost this battle of the bill, Congressional Republicans, by voting no, clearly realize that expanding the federal government at this particular time is not the wise move to make.
Alas...at least the effort was there.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
