Thursday, January 26, 2012

A Bit of Hope and Change Class Warfare

In the wake of the Chosen One's most recent State of the Union performance on Tuesday night, a few points to consider about the Class-Warrior-in-Chief and his platform of redistribution:

  • How about the President's primary stage prop for his State of the Union speech, that poor, abused secretary of Warren Buffet?  Well, it turns out she is making a salary that puts her well within the bounds of "the 1%", and she just purchased herself a second home in Arizona, complete with a swimming pool and a "professional PGA putting green."  The poor dear.
  • As proof that the White House has a fundamental disconnect with those of us who actually pay our taxes, it turns out that of the 437 senior aides to the President on the White House staff, more than 8% owe back taxes to the United States Treasury amounting to the tidy sum of $833,000.00.
  • The Economist has taken the President to task for his zero-sum oratory as he describes a world in which the only way for America to get ahead is by grinding the rest of the world into the dust.  Such oratory should not surprise anyone who has been paying attention, given that the zero-sum game has been a hallmark of Democratic Party class warfare for decades.  After all, the only possible explanation for the fact that some people have more is because they have taken it from those who have less, right?
  • I just spent six days in New Orleans as 2012 began, the first time I have taken away from work in two years.  I paid for trip from my own pocket.  Too bad I was not able to go on the taxpayer-paid plan, like the President and his family during their trip to Hawaii at about the same time I was away.  The Obama Family Vacation cost taxpayers $4 million. I don't think they were driving around in the family truckster at that price.  This follows the First Family's eleven-day trip to Martha's Vineyard in August, during which they stayed in a house that rents for $50,000 per week.  How's that for class warfare?
  • Meanwhile, the President's thin skin, which has been in evidence more times than anyone can count, has begun to get in the way of his ability to project even the most basic level of civility.  When you are The Chosen One, it is just so hard to put up with those pesky people who question you.

Wednesday, September 14, 2011

Wednesday Grab Bag

I fell into an old trap of posting political stuff on Facebook, which is never a good idea.  95% of my Facebook friends ignore it, as is their right, and the 5% who read it uniformly think I am a crazy person and tell me so in their comments to my posts.  But making a quick post to FB is just so darn easy.  I need to have some sort mechanism built into my keyboard that gives me an electronic shock whenever I try to go political on Facebook.

At least for today, I will do my ranting right here where it can be uniformly ignored.

And the Walls Came Tumbling Down:  Republican Bob Turner, a Roman Catholic, defeated Democrat Mark Weprin, an observant Jew, in the special election to fill the seat vacated by the Topless Tweeter (and occasionally bottomless also), Anthony Weiner, in New York's predominately Jewish 9th Congressional District.  A Democrat has held this seat without interuption for 88 years.  But while every cogent person in America understands that President Obama's job-killing, economy-wrecking policies are driving the country over a cliff, the so-called "progressives" are out there saying that the real problem is that the President is not liberal enough.  Keep it up guys, because you are guaranteeing Republican domination in the 2012 elections.

UPDATE:  Denial.  It isn't just a river in Egypt.

Ponzi Schemers:  I posted one of my political links on FB a couple of days ago to an article discussing the long history of use of the term "Ponzi scheme" in reference to Social Security.  The focus for this charge has been on Governor Rick Perry, who made the comparison in his book and in the presidential debates.  Much tut-tutting has resulted with claims of the Governor needlessly scaring seniors and general references to him as a mouth-breathing booger-picker who just doesn't understand.  But it turns out that the man with the biggest soapbox in all of liberal punditry, Paul Krugman of the The New York Times, has made the same comparison himself.  Oops.

Regulatory Hangover:  With Son of Stimulus, the new proposal from President Obama to throw another half trillion of taxpayers' Dollars down the old s***hole because, well, the first three-quarters of a trillion just wasn't enough, the President has shown himself again to be someone who never misses an opportunity to double-down on a stupid bet.  Instead, the President would give his own electoral chances a big boost if he would just clamp down on the avalanche of job-killing regulations that are being churned out by his executive bureaucracy faster than you can say "Federal Register."  The President's regulatory spree is a particularly sore point here in West Virginia, where the entire coal industry--our economic backbone--is being threatened with total shutdown by Lisa Jackson and the Environmental "Protection" Agency.  For some insight, check out this and this.

Thursday, January 27, 2011

Weekend in Blacksburg

How do you write about your only daughter growing up and leaving home without being maudlin?  Probably impossible, at least for me, as someone who tends to have an overly developed sentamental side.

I spent last weekend in Blacksburg with Emily while she took part in the Virginia Tech Honor Band program.  Upon arrival on Friday, she auditioned for her position in the band.  Out of all the trumpets who auditioned, Emily was selected for the best of the three bands (the "Golden Hokie Band"), and she was awarded third chair in the band (out of ten trumpets).  I am pretty proud of her.



Emily loves her music.  She started playing trumpet in 6th grade.  She has had a private trumpet teacher ever since then, and she has excelled.  Since arriving at high school, and despite a lack of support from her own band director (a topic for another day, perhaps), she has been selected for All-County Band all four years and All-State Orchestra twice.  This year, she is first chair in the All-State Orchestra.  She is a member of the West Virginia Youth Symphony and the Youth Symphony Wind Ensemble.  She has participated in the Honor Band and "Brass in the Grass" programs at Alderson-Broaddus College.  At school, she participates in the marching, concert and jazz bands.  She really is good, and I do not begrudge for a moment all the money spent on private lessons and the accoutrements needed for her participation.

As anyone who follows me on Facebook knows, she is seriously considering attending West Virginia University.  I cannot fault her logic:  she can attend WVU on the cheap and then use her college fund to pay for graduate school.  But am I ever having a hard time swallowing the fact that my daughter may be going to "that school."  I have spent a lifetime loathing WVU, and the thought of my little girl attending college in Morgantown really makes my stomach churn.  I was hoping that after a weekend in Blacksburg, she would come home convinced that she needed to beg, borrow or steal her way through Virginia Tech, regardless of the cost.  Fortunately for me, I suppose, she maintains her practical stance on the subject.


Two weeks ago, a package arrived at my office that had been mailed from a clothing store in Morgantown.  The package contained a sweatshirt emblazoned with "WVU Dad" on the front.  Nothing that would have identified the sender was enclosed with the sweatshirt, and so far, no one has stepped forward to take credit (or blame) for the prank.  I have inquired of most of the suspects, and no one has yet admitted to being the sender.  I am dying to know who sent it to me.

A few weeks ago, Emily asked me whether I would make the trek to Morgantown to see her play if she joins the WVU Marching Band.  I told her that I would consider it but that I would not miss a home game in Blacksburg in order to go to Morgantown.  Then she asked if I would wear a WVU shirt to the game.  Of course, I said no.  I do have some pride left.

Regardless of where she goes to school, I will miss her.  Thank goodness for wireless phones, text messaging and social media.  I will probably wear her out.

Friday, November 5, 2010

Missing Duncan


I have not written in this space in quite a while.  In fact, I allowed the entire mid-term election season to pass with not so much as a peep in this space, which seems odd given my nature as a political junkie.

My only explanation is that the death of my Dad back in April seemed to knock the wind out of me.  I wrote about him at the time--about watching him die.  But I never returned to contemplate his actual death or the river of emotions that followed.  I just did not feel like writing after Dad died because everything else seemed so small compared to him.

This week I have had to contend with the premature death of my canine friend Duncan, whom I had to put down on November 1.  Duncan was only eight years old--he was my 40th birthday gift back in 2002.  While I am not placing Duncan's death on the same level as the death of my Father, the emotions I have felt this week have taken my mind back to the acute pain I felt when Dad died.

I am tired of death.  I am tired of dealing with the sadness and pain.

My daughter took the photo above.  Duncan is lying in Emily's bed with his legs wrapped around Tierney, Emily's favorite stuffed animal.  Duncan LOVED to sleep in human beds.  He would walk around the bed and scratch at the covers before finding the perfect spot.  Then he would manage to occupy a space out of all proportion to his rather modest 25 pound body.  Once he found the spot, he would hardly move until the Sun arose the next morning.

And Duncan loved to chase squirrels.  If a squirrel crossed his path while he was outside, there was no stopping him as he dashed off to chase it up a tree.  And boy would he ever be proud of himself afterwards.  If no real squirrels were available, he was happy to chase stuffed plush squirrels, of which he owned several.

Anyone who has ever owned a pet has had to suffer the pain of the day when the pet dies.  And most every pet owner regards his or her pet as just the best pet ever, I imagine.  But Duncan was truly special.  He was the sweetest little dog I have ever known.  I miss him.

 

Tuesday, June 15, 2010

Virginia's Budget Surplus

At the risk of thoroughly hacking off a friend of mine in Richmond for whom mere mention of the name "Bob McDonnell" causes spasms, I learned today from an article in the Washington Examiner that Virginia's Governor McDonnell expects the Old Dominion to end the fiscal year with a budget surplus for the first time since FY 2008.  Corporate net income tax receipts are up 20% on a year-over-year basis, a sure sign of an economy on the mend.  But most significantly, Governor McDonnell and the Virginia General Assembly were able to close the budget gap through spending cuts and without raising existing taxes or creating new ones.  Our federal government in Washington could learn a thing or two from Virginia.

The Idiocy of Che Idolizers

If you spend any time talking to me, you will eventually hit my "Che" nerve; the one that causes me to convulse at the irrational idolization of Ernesto "Che" Guevara.  Che, the man whose image appears on thousands of t-shirts and posters the world over; Che, the man who led revolutions through butchery and murder; Che, the man who, with Castro, founded one of the most oppresive regimes in the history of the world.  During the last presidential campaign, one of the most popular images of Barack Obama on campaign materials was the one that showed Obama as Che, in the same iconic pose.  I have always wondered whether those who engage in this cult of personality have any idea of the real man behind the icon.  Today, by way of answer to my query, I ran across the following graphic:


Finally, I have my explanation.

[Giving credit where it is due:  I found the graphic above at National Review, which is often my source of conservative sanity in an insane world.]

Monday, June 14, 2010

Rep. Etheridge and the "Gotcha" Video

In a video posted today on YouTube, Congressman Bob Etheridge (D-NC) demonstrates how NOT to react to a kid with a video camera who confronts you on the street.



I have been keeping an eye out for the news of who is behind this escapade, but the fact that the "students" never reveal their names or the name of their school tells me that this encounter was a setup.  However, regardless of the intent of the "students," could Rep. Etheridge possibly have reacted in a worse way?  A simple "contact my office if you wish to conduct an interview" would have been fine.  Coming as it does so soon on the heals of the Helen Thomas incident, you would think that the Congressman would have had a better response than to slap the camera to the ground and physically assualt the guy who asked the question.  I expect that this incident will be widely reported by conservative bloggers and completely ignored by the mainstream media.

Follow up:  Rep. Etheridge has posted an apology for the incident on his website.

Friday, May 21, 2010

Don't Forget Haiti

A bit more than four months have passed since the horrible Haitian earthquake.  Habitat for Humanity International has made a major commitment to the recovery effort in Haiti.  In keeping with its core mission, Habitat has been working to provide temporary and transitional shelter and permanent housing for displaced Haitians.

The rendering below depicts the "core house" that Habitat will be building in Haiti.  The house is made of solid materials and is built to withstand both earthquakes and hurricanes.  The house is small, with only a single room, a porch and separate toilet facilities.  However, and as its name indicates, the house is designed to be the core of a larger home that the family may enlarge over time.


I have been a Habitat for Humanity volunteer through my local Habitat affiliate since 1989. During that time, I have seen at first hand the difference that a decent place to live makes for a family in need. Truly, the earthquake victims of Haiti are in need of shelter.

For quite a while now, I have had a banner ad on the IVM blog that links to a site where anyone may make a donation to support Habitat's relief efforts in Haiti. If you feel moved to help, you may click on the banner ad to make a donation to Habitat's work in Haiti. You may also text "Habitat" to 25383 to make a $10 donation to Habitat's recovery efforts. The donation amount will be added to your phone bill.

More Hidden Costs from Obamacare

The front page of The Charleston Gazette for today details yet another of the invoices that will be coming due as taxpayers continue to be fleeced by Obamacare.  This time, the consequences of the President's fiscal disaster are reaching deep into the pockets of West Virginia taxpayers who will have to pay the additional costs for mandated expansions of coverage to every West Virginia public employee and their dependents covered by the State's health care plan.

Ted Cheatham, the Director of the West Virginia Public Employee's Insurance Agency ("PEIA") broke the bad news to PEIA's Finance Board yesterday.  Because of the coverage mandates under Obamacare, PEIA's expenses will increase by $30.1 million in fiscal year 2012 (which runs from July 1, 2011, to June 30, 2012).  By fiscal year 2015, the estimated cost increases will reach $38 million.  (Sorry, I wasn't able to find a full copy of the report online, but if I do, I will post it.)

So what are these coverage mandates?  Under Obamacare, coverage for mental health issues must be the same as coverage for all other medical conditions (previously, PEIA placed coverage caps and other cost controls on mental health coverage).  In addition, Obamacare requires all insurance plans to cover the children of the insured to age 26 (ahh, the cycle of dependency).  Just the expanded coverage for children alone will cost PEIA $8.6 million per year by fiscal year 2015.

The subsidy provided by West Virginia taxpayers to public employees for the cost of health insurance runs to more than 70% of the total cost of the insurance, so the taxpayers will be hit by these increased costs in a big way.  But the increased costs will hit public employees hard too, as premiums, copays and deductibles are raised to cover the increased costs caused by Obamacare.  The current PEIA Board has taken a lot of hard positions lately and tried its best to hold the line on costs, as the article details.  But no amount of cost-cutting will save West Virginia's public employees, who are not particularly well-paid to begin with, from increased costs:
Projections are that PEIA will finish the current budget year on June 30 with an annual surplus of about $40 million.

Cheatham said he had initially hoped those funds could be used to avoid having to impose any premium increases next year.

"The problem is, it's all going to be offset by the federal health reform," he said.
I wonder what the West Virginia Education Association, which strongly supported Obamacare through its parent the National Education Association, do when Obamacare causes the WVEA's members to go home on payday with less scratch in their pockets?  And how many other states will have to deal with the same issues as PEIA?

Thursday, May 20, 2010

A Muslim Student for Genocide

David Horowitz, who devotes much of his time to exposing the hypocrisy of the culture of political correctness on American college campuses, had an interesting encounter last week with a Muslim student while taking questions following a talk at the University of California at San Diego.  The student identified herself as a member of "MSA" (the Muslim Students Association) at UCSD and asked a question about a statement made in some of Horowitz's literature that connected the MSA with jihadi organizations.  In response, Horowitz asked the student whether she supports Hamas.  The entire exchange may be found in the following video clip:



The leader of Hezbollah to whom Horowitz refers is Sayyid Hassan Nasrallah.  If you are interested in reading more about Nasrallah, his Wikipedia biography may be found here.  I cannot add anything to this exchange; the young woman speaks for herself.

Friday, May 7, 2010

Obamacare and the Law of Unintended Consequences

In an article published on May 6 in the online version of Fortune magazine, we get a good look at the manner in which capitalism works.  The article details how several large corporations have responded to the passage of Obamacare by performing analyses of the cost of continuing to pay for health care for employees versus the cost of paying the penalties provided in the Obamacare bill for not providing health care.  We learn that Verizon, AT&T and other large companies performed cost/benefit analyses of the Obamacare provisions and found that they will be able to save significant amounts of money if they simply cut their employees loose and instead pay the penalties:
AT&T revealed that it spends $2.4 billion a year on coverage for its almost 300,000 active employees, a number that would fall to $600 million if AT&T stopped providing health care coverage and paid the penalty option instead.
Corporations exist to make money for their shareholders.  If you were on the board of directors of AT&T and you learned that you could save $1.8 billion per year by cutting off health care benefits for your employees and instead turn those employees over to the government-run health care "exchanges" that will be created under Obamacare, don't you think you would owe a duty to your shareholders to give the matter serious consideration?  In fact, under the fiduciary responsibility laws that apply to corporate directors, those AT&T directors are probably required by law to consider turning the employees over to the exchanges.  What would be the downside to the company?  Certainly, in the marketplace for employees, AT&T would have to compete for employees with other companies that do not make the switch.  Potential employees might choose a different job over an AT&T job in order to avoid the government-run insurance exchanges.  But the Fortune article explains how a company like AT&T could cut off health care benefits and still compete for employees:
So what happens to the employees who get dropped?
And why didn't these big employers drop employee coverage a long time ago? The Congressional Budget Office, in its crucial cost estimates of the bill, projected that company plans will cover more employees ten years from now than today. The reason the bill doesn't add to the deficit, the CBO states, is that fewer than 25 million Americans will be collecting the subsidies the bill mandates in 2020.

Those subsidies are indeed big: families of four earning between $22,000 and $88,000 would pay between 2% and 9.5% of their incomes on premiums; the federal government would pay the rest. So policies for a family making $66,000 would cost them just $5,300 a year with the government picking up the difference: more than $10,000 by most estimates.

As bean counters know, that's not a bad deal for a company's rank-and-file, and it's a great deal for the companies themselves. In a competitive labor market, the employers that shed their plans will need to give their employees a big raise, and those raises could be higher, even after taxes, than the premiums the employees will pay in the exchanges.
So what does all of this mean for taxpayers?  According to the article, if 50% of the employees who are currently covered by employer-sponsored health care plans are instead turned over to the Obamacare exchanges, the cost to the taxpayers of the subsidies to the insurance exchanges will be $160 billion per year by 2016.  Ouch.  And guess what?  None of these costs show up anywhere in the budget projections for Obamacare.

The ultimate irony from this story is that none of this information would have been made public but for the grandstanding of Congressional Democrats.  After the passage of Obamacare, many large corporations subject to SEC regulation issued earnings restatements, which those companies are required by law to issue when events occur that will cause a significant change in expected earnings.  According to The New York Times, forty companies issued earnings restatements because of Obamacare reflecting total earnings reductions of $3.4 billion.  Congressman Henry Waxman then demanded that AT&T, Verizon, Deere and Caterpillar appear before his Congressional committee and explain themselves.  Rep. Waxman was just certain that the companies were involved in a grand conspiracy to discredit Obamacare.  But after reviewing thousands of pages of documents submitted by the companies, Rep. Waxman changed his tune and cancelled the hearings.  It turns out those earnings restatements were proper after all.  And among all of the pages of documents submitted by the four companies to Congress were those pesky cost/benefit analyses referenced in the Fortune article.  Ah, embarrassment.

And what of all this mess?  The law of unintended consequences will leave taxpayers to pay the bill for the outrageous costs of Obamacare, costs that were concealed and obfuscated in the course of the debate by every Democrat from the President on down.

Moving Forward

I have not posted here since April 2, when I wrote about my emotions as I watched my Father die.  On April 4, which was Easter, Dad died in his hospital bed at about 4:30 in the morning.  He was 83 years old.  Not one day has passed since he died that I haven't thought about him.  I miss him.

Friday, April 2, 2010

The Process of Dying

 I have been struggling with the emotions of watching my Father die.  I have spent a lot of time with him recently, late at night, sitting next to his hospital bed.  And I have wanted to write about the experience, but I have not been able to bring myself to do it, until now.

I started this blog last year as a means to liberate from my head some of the thoughts I have about politics and current events and to spend some of my writing energy on something other than the asset purchase agreements and credit facility documents that occupy most of my time in my life as a lawyer.  I have posted links to this blog on my Facebook page, and I have been surprised, and honored, that some of my friends have taken the time to read what I have to say.  But other than a brief entry about my daughter, I have not spent too much effort writing about my personal life.


I don't know when this photograph of my Father was taken, but I would guess it was sometime in the late 1950's or early 1960's, somewhere near our home in Berea, Kentucky, where I was born, the third and final son, in 1962.  I can remember my Father vividly when he was young and I was a child, which may explain in part why seeing him now is so hard.  The man lying on the hospital bed, struggling through the last days of this life, is but a shadow of my Father.  His face is pinched and drawn.  His hands, which I remember from my childhood as big and strong and perpetually covered with the bruises and scars of his life as a working man, are now shriveled and purple and shaking.  He can no longer speak beyond some barely perceptible mumbles that cannot be interpreted.  He holds his hands to his head as if to contain the evil forces that dwell inside his skull:  the Alzheimer's Disease that started his decline, and the cancerous tumor that has pushed him toward his death.

Both my Father and Mother were born into poverty that is hard for me to fathom.  Dad was the youngest of eight children growing up on a hardscabble farm at the back of beyond in Kentucky.  Dad finished all of the schooling that was available to him at home, and then he moved to live in Berea with one of his sisters and her husband while he attended high school.  After graduation, he volunteered for the Army and served at the tail end of World War II in the Pacific.  Thanks to the GI Bill, he was able to attend Berea College, where he met my Mother, who had found her way to Berea because it offered a way for poor students to work their way through school.  They married in 1952 and lived in Berea until two years after I was born, when they moved near Mom's family in Lewisburg.  Dad worked for his father-in-law in the construction business until my Grandfather died, and then Dad took over the business.  He carried it along for the remainder of his working life.


Even after Dad retired and sold his business some twenty years ago, he remained active.  He worked in his garden in the Summer, planting and nurturing half-runner beans and Summer squash and tomato plants by the dozen.  When harvest time would come, he would sit with my Mother on the front porch stringing and breaking up green beans so she could can them.  When Mom and Dad would visit me in Charleston, Dad helped me with countless home improvement projects, including climbing a ladder 25 feet into the air to help me install storm windows on the back side of my Carroll Road home.  He volunteered his time with the Lion's Club to work the ticket booth at high school football games and to sell Christmas trees on the coldest days of late November and December in Lewisburg.  He was the man who was counted on by a stream of little old widow ladies who needed to have jobs done around their homes or rides to doctor appointments.  He drove children from Greenbrier County to Lexington, Kentucky, to the Shrine Hospital, where they could receive free treatment for any number of orthopedic problems.


But more than anything else, my Father loved and cared for my Mother and for his three sons.  As his dementia slowly robbed him of his cognition, he could always be comforted simply by having his family gathered around him.  He might not say anything--my Father was never a man to waste words--but he was happy just knowing that all of us were close by and safe.

I have come back to this post after a couple of days away.  I was not able to finish it the first time around, so I am going to give it another go now.  I am in Dad's hospital room on Friday night, April 2, and he is slipping away.  His breaths come slowly, three or four at a time, separated by a long period of apnea, where he does not breathe at all.  He receives morphine every two hours for pain, but I have no idea what he is feeling.  He has worn sores onto the pressure points of his knees and ankles and hips from lying in bed now, uninterrupted, for almost six days.  Those sores must hurt terribly.  I recall my own time in the hospital when I had heart surgery and how sore I felt from lying in bed so long.  But I was able to reposition myself, and I was able to walk in less than 48 hours.  Dad will never walk again.


I have experienced the death of many family members and friends with whom I was close.  I can remember attending the funeral of my Grandfather, Walter Lewis, when I was six.  He died at about this same time of year, on April 15, 1968.  And I have attended a steady flow of funerals since then.  But I have never been present when someone passed away.  I have never so closely observed the process of dying.

Three weeks ago, my Father's prospects appeared so different to me.  He suffered from Alzheimer's Disease, having been diagnosed with it over a year ago.  He had a lot of trouble with his short-term memory, and he experienced what his health care providers call "sundowner's syndrome", the worsening of his symptoms as each day drew to a close.  In the mornings, though, he was almost his same old self.  He would get up and make breakfast, one of his favorite things to do.  He would read the newspaper and sort the mail and watch news shows on television.  I knew he was deteriorating, and I knew that some hard times would come to our family, but I had no idea how soon.

Since Christmas, Dad had lost a lot of weight.  His appetite, always strong, diminished.  He had less energy.  But I was able to set those things aside.  I chose to see him as he had always been.  But then, on Wednesday, March 17, he had a seizure while still in bed in the morning.  I was not present, but my Mother and my brother Don both describe the scene with horror.  He was taken to the hospital by ambulance and admitted to ICU.   Only then, after a CT scan of his head, did we learn of the cancerous tumor that had taken hold of him.  It had not been there six months ago when a previous scan had been done, and in that short span of time, it had grown to the point that it was compressing his brain, thus causing the seizure.  He spent the next six days in ICU before being discharged from the hospital.  I spent the week of March 22-26 in Charleston, and I returned to Lewisburg to be with him on Friday.  On Saturday morning, he was feeling well enough to go out to breakfast with family at Bob Evans in Lewisburg.  He ate like his old self:  a three-egg omelette and biscuits with gravy.  It was the last meal of any consequence that he would eat.


I spent a sleepless weekend with him, staying up all night to run to my Mother's aid when Dad would try to get out of bed, completely unaware of his surroundings.  I returned to Charleston late on Sunday night, but less than four hours after I left, Dad was back at the hospital.  He had gotten out of bed unnoticed by Mom or his caregiver, and he had walked all the way to the basement steps before he was stopped.  He was completely disoriented and barely able to speak.  They called the ambulance to take him to the hospital.  On Tuesday morning, March 30, while I was at the office, I received the call that Dad had taken yet another turn for the worse.  His hospice nurse saw signs that he did not have long.  And indeed here we are, on Friday night, and the signs are clearer than ever.

My Dad lived honorably. He loved my Mother with all his heart.  He worked hard, and he provided for his family.  He served others.  He was a thankful recipient of God's grace.  He was my model for how I should live my own life.  I know I fall far short, but I also know that he never saw it that way.  As with my brothers and his grandchildren, he was proud of me beyond measure.  I love him so much.  I will miss him more than I can say.

Tuesday, March 16, 2010

Obamacare Without a Vote

As I have addressed in several posts below, Speaker Pelosi and the Democratic leadership in Congress appear intent on approving the massive Obamacare entitlement program without even having the House of Representatives vote on the bill.  In an article today in The Washington Post, the Speaker is quoted as follows:
"It's more insider and process-oriented than most people want to know," the speaker said in a roundtable discussion with bloggers Monday. "But I like it," she said, "because people don't have to vote on the Senate bill" [emphasis added].
She likes it because the House does not have to vote?  Truly, this whole process makes my stomach churn.  The Congress of the United States, under the control of the Democratic Party, plans to take over seventeen percent of our national economy without even subjecting the matter to a vote on the floor of the House of Representatives.  Are the supporters of Obamacare so wedded to the idea of the federal nanny state that they are willing to flout the Constitution of the United States in order to put their social policies into effect?

Senator Byrd and the Use of "Reconcilliation"



The video above has come to light featuring our very own Sen. Robert C. Byrd (D-WV) addressing the use of the "reconcilliation" process to force controversial legislation through Congress.  In the speech, made on the floor of the Senate in 2001, Senator Byrd explains how he opposed President Clinton's plan to use reconcilliation to pass Hilarycare.  I have not been able to determine the context of the speech, which was made when George W. Bush was President, but I would assume that he was using his opposition to President Clinton's plan to illustrate why he was opposing some Republican plan to use reconcilliation in 2001.  I seldom agree with Sen. Byrd, but I certainly do agree with him that reconcilliation should never be used to force passage of a controversial bill that does not have the support in Congress to pass by the normal set of parliamentary rules.  I checked Sen. Byrd's website and found nothing regarding Speaker Pelosi's current parliamentary manuevers.  I wonder if he will make the same floor speech this time around.

Monday, March 15, 2010

Notes from Here and There

Watching Sausage Being Made.  Want to understand the parliamentary mechanics required for Speaker Pelosi to get the Senate's Obamacare bill passed in the House of Representatives?  An explanation of the ugly process may be found here and here (if you have the stomach for it).

Debunking More Obamacare Myths.    How often have you heard that the uninsured drive up the cost of health care by using hospital emergency rooms as their source of primary care?  How about the one where the overall health of the nation's populace will improve if we just implement universal care?  Robert J. Samuelson, economist and columnist for The Washington Post, provides proof to the contrary.

Obama the Messianic President?  In case you have ever had any doubts about how The New York Times views President Obama, check out this photo illustration of the President with halo and cross.  I have no words for this one.

Mapping America's Future

Do you want to see a rational alternative to the nanny-state liberalism of the Obama Administration?  Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI), who stood up to President Obama at the so-called "Health Care Summit" discussed in the IVM post below, has presented a plan to put America on the road to a secure financial future while still addressing the important issues of health care availability and runaway entitlement spending.  Unlike Obamacare, which will increase the cost of health care for every single American while driving the nation into financial ruin, the health care proposals within Rep. Ryan's Roadmap for America's Future would:
  • Provide a refundable tax credit to every single American to be used to pay the cost of health insurance coverage.  (Hmmm, where have I heard this before?  Oh yeah, I said it.)
  • Break the current connection between employment and health insurance, thus creating a system of true insurance portability.
  • Provide individuals with choices in health insurance by leaving the decision-making about what is the best fit to the individual rather than to employers.
  • Get rid of the current health insurance tax subsidy that benefits large companies at the expense of small employers and self-employed individuals.
  • Make health insurance universally available to every single American regardless of age or medical history.
  • Encourage competition within the marketplace of health services, thus driving down costs.
So, are you ready to sign on now?  I certainly am.  Too bad that Congress seems intent on driving all of us off the cliff behind the wheel of Obamacare.

The Roadmap addresses other important issues too:  fixing the unfair and incomprehensible tax code; reforming the Federal budget system; and dealing with the looming disaster of entitlement debt to programs such as Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.  And the next time you hear that the Republicans do not have a plan to address the issues important to average Americans--or worse yet, that Republicans are heartless beasts that don't care about the plight of average Americans--file it away as just the dying gasps of the beast that is the liberal nanny-state.

Thursday, March 4, 2010

Debunking the Administration's Claims About the Cost of Obamacare

Representative Paul Ryan of Wisconsin's 1st Congressional District served as the lead-off batter for the GOP at President Obama's Healthcare Summit last week, and he hit it out of the park.  While the President continues to lie about the true cost of his healthcare plan, Rep. Ryan did an outstanding job explaining how the President's numbers simply do not add up:
"The bill has ten years of tax increases and ten years of Medicare cuts to pay for six years of spending. The true ten year cost when subsidies kick-in? $2.3 trillion. . . Does this legislative effort bend the health care cost curve?  It does – but in the wrong direction. It bends the cost curve up, not down.  Essentially, this bill chases ever higher spending with ever higher taxes. The taxes never catch up, resulting in ever higher deficits."
Despite the President's relentless focus on his health care plan, the American people are not buying it.  The lastest polling from Rasmussen shows that 52% of American's oppose the President's plan, while only 44% favor it.  Of the 52% who are oppposed, 43% say that they strongly oppose the plan, while only 22% of those in favor of the President's healthcare agenda say that they strongly support it. 

The American people are much smarter than the President appears to believe.  They understand that you cannot create a vast new government entitlement program without spending a vast amount of money--money that we simply do not have.  The President seems to be telling us to "pay no attention to that man behind the curtain" while the great and powerful Oz uses smoke and mirrors to disguise the insanely high cost of his healthcare agenda.
 
Take the time to listen to Rep. Ryan's complete opening remarks, and pay attention as the camera occasionally flashes to the President's face.  Notice that pained, pinched expression?  It is the expression of a man confronted by the truth, and the truth hurts.
 

How much is $100 Million?

First of all, I know that this is an old video, and some of you may have seen it already, but it provides a good visual reference point when trying to wrap your head around really big numbers.  The video refers to the $100 Million in budget cuts that President Obama promised last year when he was pushing Congress to pass his so-called "stimulus package."  I like not only the way this guy explains the numbers, but also the general piled-up nature of his apartment.  A man who thinks about the budget obviously has to give up time that would otherwise be devoted to housework.

Monday, February 15, 2010

Global Warming? Nevermind . . .

In an interview with the BBC, British climate scientist Phil Jones, the man at the center of the University of East Anglia e-mail kerfuffle (also known as "Climategate"), made some startling admissions that run opposite of the "settled" conclusion that global warming exists and is the result of human activity.  The statements made by the professor include:
  • There has been no statistically significant global warming since 1995.
  • The so-called "Medieval Warming Period" may have been just as significant as the current warming period.
  • The issue of whether global warming currently exists is NOT settled according to the professor, who said, "I don't believe the vast majority of climate scientists think this. This is not my view."
I wonder if the High Priest of Global Warming, Al Gore, will now retract the statement he made to Congress in 2007 that the science of global warming is settled and that carbon emissions from human activity is the cause.  I doubt he will.  After all, he is making too much money from this enormous bamboozle.

Admittedly, Professor Jones spends a good part of the interview in academic double-speak as he attempts to salvage what is left of his reputation.  But other sources can be mined to support the implosion of the global warming thesis.  Professor John Christy of the University of Alabama in Huntsville (aside:  UAH was the location of last week's shooting by deranged Professor Amy Bishop) is now stating that “temperature records cannot be relied on as indicators of global change.”  Why should Professor Chisty's opinion matter?  Because he is a former lead author of the reports issued by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change ("IPCC").  And what does the IPCC have to do with Professor Jones at the University of East Anglia?  The Climactic Research Unit at the UEA, which serves as the data repository for the IPCC, was formerly headed by Professor Jones until he was forced to resign in the wake of the Climategate e-mail scandal.  You may recall the IPCC from the recent revelation that it deliberately overstated the evidence to support a conclusion that Himalayan glaciers will disappear by 2035.  According to the lead author of that IPCC report, the inaccurate statement was made because, "We thought that if we can highlight it, it will impact policy-makers and politicians and encourage them to take some concrete action."  In other words, the report's authors lied in an attempt to exert political pressure.  Wow.

I have only scratched the surface of all the revelations that are now coming out as the global warming house-of-cards comes tumbling down.  Yet at a time when the Federal budget is totally out-of-control, the Obama Administration continues to push for action to address the climate change phantom menace, action that will cost the taxpayers of America trillions of dollars.  It is time to bury this issue and get to work on putting Americans back to work and bringing the budget under control.

Friday, February 12, 2010

Iraq a "Great Achievement" for President Obama?

Here's a jaw-dropper for you:  according to Vice President Biden, Iraq represents a "great achievement" for President Obama.  From the transcript of the Vice President's appearance on The Larry King Show on February 10:
I am very optimistic about -- about Iraq. I mean, this could be one of the great achievements of this administration. You're going to see 90,000 American troops come marching home by the end of the summer. You're going to see a stable government in Iraq that is actually moving toward a representative government.
I spent -- I've been there 17 times now. I go about every two months -- three months. I know every one of the major players in all of the segments of that society. It's impressed me. I've been impressed how they have been deciding to use the political process rather than guns to settle their differences.
I agree with the Vice President that the current situation in Iraq is a "great achievement" given the state of affairs on March 20, 2003, when the United States, the United Kingdom, Poland, Denmark, Austrailia and others launched the invasion of Iraq that resulted in the ouster of Sadam Hussein's tyrannical, murdering regime.  Iraq now has a democratically elected parliament and prime minister, a free press, and the beginnings of an economic system based on free enterprise.  Yes, it has been quite an achievement.

But a great achievement for President Obama?  The same man who voted against the invasion while serving in the Senate?  The same man who opposed the massively successful troop surge?



Umm, yeah.  That guy.

Quote for Today

"The essence of contemporary liberalism is the illiberal conviction that Americans, in their comprehensive incompetence, need minute supervision by government, which liberals believe exists to spare citizens the torture of thinking and choosing."  George F. Will.

Tuesday, February 9, 2010

Why are liberals so condescending?

In an excellent opinion piece from Sunday's Washington Post, University of Virginia professor Gerard Alexander asks the question, "Why are liberals so condescending?"  The piece gives voice to a question I have pondered for years.  Please take a moment to give it some thought.

Wednesday, February 3, 2010

More on the Budget

In an excellent article prepared for The Heritage Foundation, Brian M. Riedl provides yet more detail about the unsustainable levels of spending proposed by President Obama in in 2011 Federal budget.

The article points out that in FY 2007 during the Bush Administration, the Federal budget deficit was a (relatively) modest $162 Billion.  Only during FY 2008 and 2009 did the Bush deficits skyrocket as a result of measures taken in response to the recession and the banking crisis.  Now that the recession appears to be over and the massive stimulus and bailout spending is no longer needed, the Federal deficit should return to pre-recession levels, right?  Wrong!  Under the Obama spending plan, deficits remain at staggering levels through 2020, with almost all (90%) of the deficits resulting from increased spending.  Even when compared with President Obama's budget from last year for FY 2010, the FY 2011 budget reflects $2 Trillion in additional deficits through 2020 (see table).


President Obama must act to curb these massive spending increases and to reign in uncontrolled entitlement spending.  Every year that passes without these issues being addressed just sends our nation deeper into a financial hole.

Tuesday, February 2, 2010

Habitat for Humanity's Work in Haiti

I have been a Habitat for Humanity volunteer for more than 20 years, during which time I have served on the board of directors and as an officer of our local Habitat for Humanity affiliate and as a founding member of the board of directors of Habitat for Humanity of West Virginia.  I know first hand the good work that is being done all over the world by Habitat and its volunteers, and I have seen the joy in the faces of the families who have partnered with Habitat to obtain a simple, decent place to live.

Habitat for Humanity International is on the ground in Haiti bringing its resources to the millions of people there who need shelter (in the short term) and a simple, decent home (in the long term).  But the cost of these efforts is great.  I urge you to consider making a gift to Habitat's work in Haiti by clicking here or on the banner at the top of the site.  Like my other favorite relief charity, the United Methodist Committee on Relief (UMCOR), Habitat for Humanity International is a four-star rated charity.

The Obama Budget

Yesterday, President Obama presented his fiscal year 2011 budget to Congress.  Since then, every news organization and every pundit on every side have tried to parse the text to determine what it all means.  For certain, when The New York Times, which never wastes an opportunity to serve as cheerleader for Team Obama, calls the President's spending and debt levels unsustainable, they certainly must be so.

Shall we consider the numbers?  Here are a few to ponder:
  • A deficit in the Federal budget of $1,270,000,000,000 (that is $1.27 Trillion) for the coming year, which is on top of the deficit of $1.56 Trillion during President Obama's first year in office.
  • According to the President's own projections, after a short period of leveling off from 2014 to 2018, the Federal budget deficit will begin another cycle of dramatic increases beginning in 2019.
  • The President's projected budget deficits over the next ten years cumulatively total $8.53 Trillion (and remember, these are just the deficits, not the total national debt).
  • Total Federal revenues for FY 2011 will exceed $2.57 Trillion, an increase of 18.6% over Federal revenues for the preceding year.
In the President's remarks, linked above, he blames George W. Bush for the budget problems, continuing a trend that is growing old.  For example, he placed part of the blame for the current budget deficit on the passage of Medicare Part D (the drug benefit) during the Bush Administration.  However, he conveniently leaves out the fact that Part D was strongly supported by BOTH parties in Congress and that the version favored by the Democrats was actually much more costly than the version that was ultimately adopted.  And if Part D entitlement is to blame for a large part of the Federal budget shortfall, then why doesn't President Obama simply urge the repeal of the benefit?  The current budget belongs to President Obama, not President Bush, and he needs to take the blame for his own runaway spending rather than blaming it on the previous Administration.  And just so you know, I am not now, nor have I ever been, a supporter of the free-spending of President Bush and Congressional Republicans when they controlled the budget.  The same rules apply to all, and there is plenty of blame to go around.

We should not lose sight, either, that all of the numbers being pushed around by the Administration and others regarding the budget fail to consider the consequences of Federal unfunded budget liabilities, which add Trillions and Trillions more to the national debt.  According to David Walker, former Comptroller General of the United States, the current national debt figure of $12.3 Trillion that is quoted by politicians and news sources should actually be $45 to $50 Trillion more to account for unfunded liabilities from Medicare, Social Security and other Federal programs.  And you can also add to the bottom line the $6 Trillion or so that taxpayers are on the hook for as a result of the Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac takeovers.

Our government cannot continue to bury us under mountains of debt.  If the current trend continues, we will become a client state of China, to whom we owe all of that money.  (Do you think the Chinese know this fact?  I'm betting they do.)  Someone must step up and speak the truth:  entitlement spending must be brought under control.  We must stop borrowing our way out of economic hard times.  Creation of a massive new entitlement program in the form of Obamacare cannot be justified in the face of our current budget crisis.

Monday, January 25, 2010

Latest Poll Results on Obamacare and the 2010 Elections

The latest polling by Rasmussen Reports, conducted January 20 and 21, 2010, finds that only 30% of respondents believe that Congress should continue to pursue passage of Obamacare.  Yet, over in the swamps of DailyKos, the left continues to call for Congress to push the Senate version of the bill down America's throat.  It is no wonder, then, that Larry Sabato of the University of Virginia's Center for Politics (yes, I am actually citing to a Wahoo) currently predicts a GOP pickup of seven seats in the Senate, twenty-seven seats in the House of Representatives and four governorships.  Among the Senators to fall:  none other than Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV).

Jon Stewart Slams Keith Olbermann

Not much I can add to this one.  Jon Stewart, on The Daily Show broadcast on January 21, slams Keith Olbermann for the latter's rants about Senator-elect Scott Brown of Massachusetts.  Very funny.

The Daily Show With Jon StewartMon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Special Comment - Keith Olbermann's Name-Calling
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show
Full Episodes
Political HumorHealth Care Crisis

Wednesday, January 20, 2010

Senator 41



Scott Brown's victory in the race to fill the Senate seat previously occupied by the brothers Kennedy (first Jack, then Ted) from 1953 to 2009 (but for a brief interlude from 1961 to 1962) is the political equivalent of pigs flying.  Republicans make up less than 12% of all registered voters in Massachusetts.  In the 2008 Presidential election, Barack Obama outpolled John McCain by more than 26% in Massachusetts.  Yet Scott Brown defeated his Democratic challenger, Martha Coakley, by a margin of 52% to 47%.

Brown's victory gives the Republican Party 41 seats in the Senate.  So long as those 41 Senators stick together, they can use the Senate's rules to block cloture on any debate (which requires 60 votes), thus preventing legislation from being placed before the Senate for a vote.  The seating of Senator-elect Brown in the Senate will place portions of  President Obama's agenda in jeopardy since all 40 current Republican Senators voted against Obamacare and will likely vote against any plan to pump more "stimulus" dollars into the economy.  Brown ran on a platform that emphasized the need to continue the war on terror, to provide tax relief and to control Federal spending. On Obamacare, Brown promised to vote against cloture in the Senate. The voters of Massachusetts understood that a victory by Brown would be a major roadblock to the agenda of the President and the Democrats in Congress, and yet they voted for Brown anyway.

My liberal friends have been harping all day that Brown's victory does not reflect overall discontent with the Democratic Party's agenda for America.  They argue that Coakley was a weak candidate who ran a poor campaign.  They argue that the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee did not come through with any support.  They argue that the Coakley defeat represents disillusionment by the Democratic base because President Obama and the Democrats who run Congress have not been "progressive" (read that as ultra-liberal) enough.  But the polling numbers tell a different story:
  • 78% of Brown voters strongly oppose the health care legislation before Congress
  • 61% of Brown voters say deficit reduction is more important than health care reform
  • 88% of Brown voters say it’s better to pass nothing at all than to pass the health care legislation pending in Congress
  • 76% of Brown voters said that they were voting "for Brown" and not "against Coakley" 
In other words, the push by President Obama and the Democrats who control Congress for bloated and ineffective health care "reform" defined the Massachusetts election, and the person who vowed to stand in the way of the Democrat's plan won the race in convincing fashion.  In the face of the evidence from the Massachusetts race, coming as it does on top of the recent GOP victories for the governorships of Virginia and New Jersey, how can President Obama, Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid be so tin-eared at to believe that they should now double-down their efforts to pass Obamacare at all costs?

On the other side of the aisle, the Senate GOP should take advantage of this situation to propose health care reform that makes sense.  I agree with my liberal friends that health care needs attention, but why does that have to translate into swallowing either the Democratic House or Senate bills that are now being considered?  Why can't we address the glaring problems that everyone agrees on rather than making secret backroom deals and passing out boxes of goodies to constituencies like Big Labor just so it can be said that something has been done?  To this end, I would propose that the Republicans in the Senate, with the enlisted help of some Democrats such as Blanche Lincoln, Ben Nelson and Mary Landrieu, propose legislation that will address the following narrow issues:
  • Place significant restrictions on pre-existing condition exclusions
  • Restructure Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement rates
  • Provide reimburseable tax credits to low and lower-middle income individuals and families to be used to purchase health insurance
  • Place limits on exemplary damages in medical malpractice tort cases
  • Permit insurance companies to sell health insurance across state lines
Republicans could use this opportunity to take the lead on health care.  A limited debate focused on these issues would not have to detract from the serious work that needs to be done to foster job creation in the current economy and to protect American citizens from the curse of Islamic terrorism.

Friday, December 11, 2009

Surprise! Dept. of Health and Human Resources Reports that Obamacare Will Increase Costs

Care for a bit of light reading for a Friday evening?  Then check out the report issued yesterday by the Chief Actuary for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services of the Department of Health and Human Resources.  The report addresses the version of Obamacare that has been presented by Sen. Harry Reid as a complete amendment (i.e., a replacement for) H.R. 3590 (the so-called "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2009").  In a development that should not come as a surprise to anyone who has given the matter any thought, the Chief Actuary tells us that the Reid version of Obamacare will increase the cost of health care over the period from 2010 to 2019 to the tune of $234 Billion (see page 4).  Egads.

Senators Reid and Baucus, among others, have been telling us that their version of Obamacare will save money.  The Chief Actuary's report puts the lie to these statements.  And the report also brings to light some other matters that Sen. Reid doesn't want us to know, including:
  • Certain components of the plan would produce expenditures so far in excess of receipts that the programs would not be sustainable.
  • Additional demand for health services under the expanded Medicare component of the plan could not be met in the short term.
  • The proposed reductions in Medicare reimbursement rates would also not be sustainable.
The Chief Actuary's report comes on top of the latest CNN/Gallup polling data which shows that an astounding 61% of Americans are now opposed to Obamacare, and only 22% of poll respondents believe that their families will personally receive any benefit if Obamacare becomes law.

Sen. Reid and Speaker Pelosi need to abandon this mess now.

Wednesday, December 9, 2009

Opposition to Obamacare = Support for Slavery?



Yesterday on the floor of the United States Senate, Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) said that Republican opposition to Obamacare equates with opposition to the abolition of slavery during the 19th century.  I kid you not.  An excerpt from Reid's speech, as reported in The Boston Globe
"Instead of joining us on the right side of history, all Republicans have come up with is this slow down, stop everything, let's start over," said Reid. "You think you've heard these same excuses before, you're right. When this country belatedly recognized the wrongs of slavery, there were those who dug in their heels and said, 'Slow down, it's too early. Let's wait. Things aren't bad enough.' When women spoke up for the right to speak up, they wanted to vote, some insisted, 'Slow down, there will be a better day to do that. The day isn't quite right," Reid said on the Senate floor.
"When this body was on the verge of guaranteeing equal civil rights to everyone, regardless of the color of their skin, some senators resorted to the same filibuster threats that we hear today," he continued. "History is repeating itself before our eyes. There are now those who don't think it is the right time to reform health care. If not now, when, madam president? But the reality for many that feel that way, it will never, never be a good time to reform health care."
Sen. Reid failed to mention in his remarks that he has a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate and that the Republican minority could not stop the Democratic majority from passing Obamacare if they presented a united front.  But they do not.  The reason Sen. Reid is attacking Republicans is because he cannot attack the members of his own party who refuse to go along with the creation of this massive government takeover of health care. 

Sen. Reid's comments are also interesting because, as so often has been the case, his own Democratic Party was the force behind the opposition to the historical initiatives to which he referred.  The Republican Party was formed in the 19th century primarily as an anti-slavery party in opposition to the pro-slavery Democratic Party.  The Republican Party was the first of the major parties to include a plank in its national platform in favor of universal women's suffrage, which it did all the way back in 1872.  And of course, our own Democratic Sen. Robert C. Byrd led the filibuster in the Senate that sought to stop passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  In fact, Republicans, as a percentage of total membership in both the House of Representatives and the Senate, supported passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 in far greater numbers than Democrats.  In the House, Republicans suppported passage by 80% to 20%, compared to only 63% to 37% among Democrats.  In the Senate, Republicans supported passage by 82% to 18%, compared to 69% to 31% by the Democrats.

The next time Sen. Reid resorts to history for support of his agenda, he might want to come up with some better examples.

Monday, November 23, 2009

A Mountain of Debt, and Other Thoughts for a Monday

When the The New York Times begins to care enough to write about it, the Obama debt situation must really be getting out of control.    Of course, conservative commentators, including me, have been sounding the alarm bells for a long time (IVM discussed the President's money troubles from its founding back in September).  The Times actually sounds like it is concerned today when it notes that an increase in interest rates above the current unheard-of levels will cause Federal debt service payments to skyrocket:
Even a small increase in interest rates has a big impact. An increase of one percentage point in the Treasury’s average cost of borrowing would cost American taxpayers an extra $80 billion this year — about equal to the combined budgets of the Department of Energy and the Department of Education.
But that could seem like a relatively modest pinch. Alan Levenson, chief economist at T. Rowe Price, estimated that the Treasury’s tab for debt service this year would have been $221 billion higher if it had faced the same interest rates as it did last year.
The national debt now tops $12 Trillion.  Increased debt service payments will continue to eat away at available Federal dollars unless the size of the United States' economy grows dramatically.

IVMIVMIVMIVMIVMIVMIVMIVMIVMIVMIVMIVMIVMIVMIVMIVMIVMIVMIVMIVMIVMIVMIVM

Yet another recent event highlights an issue of enormous concern to me:  when will the Obama Administration stand up to the Iranians?  I have written a number of times about the President's unilateral decision to withdraw SDI from Poland and the Czech Republic, a decision that has direct implications to the Iranian situation.  And the President has utterly failed to address Iran's nuclear ambitions, a fact that creates security concerns for Israel, Eastern Europe, Iraq and India.  But why would a "progressive" American President ever want to abandon the moral high ground with respect to human rights and fostering democratic governmental institutions?  Yet the President has done exactly that, in a statement issued, of all times, on the 30th anniversary of the Iranian takeover of the American Embassy in Tehran:
I have made it clear that the United States of America wants to move beyond this past, and seeks a relationship with the Islamic Republic of Iran based upon mutual interests and mutual respect.  We do not interfere in Iran’s internal affairs.
Beyond the basic fact that this statement was issued on a date commemorated by Iranian's mad mullahs as a great victory by Iran over "The Great Satan", a couple of things jump out at me.  First, the President says in the statement that he seeks a relationship with "the Islamic Republic of Iran."  The "Islamic Republic" is the same government that is now run by the madman Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who bullied his way to re-election by intimidation and murder.  Why could not the President simply have said that he seeks a relationship with the people--the ordinary citizens--of Iran?  And second, while the President was reaching out to a government run by institutional terrorists, the streets of Tehran were filled with thousands of protesters who risked their very lives to challenge the government of the "Islamic Republic."  Yet the President offered not one single word of encouragement to those brave souls.  Instead, he made it clear that Ahmadinejad should feel free to continue to beat, torture, imprison and kill his domestic challengers because the United States will "not interfere in Iran’s internal affairs."  How can the United States assert any sort of moral superiority when our leader refuses to utter a word of support for those who only want to enjoy the same rights of free speech, free assembly and free association that we enjoy here?

IVMIVMIVMIVMIVMIVMIVMIVMIVMIVMIVMIVMIVMIVMIVMIVMIVMIVMIVMIVMIVMIVMIVM

Ah, the liberal dream that is socialized medicine appears to be dying on the vine of many branches that is the Democratic Party.  To please "progressives" in the Party, any plan must provide coverage for abortion and must include a government-run option.  To the so-called "Blue Dogs" of the Party, the public option is a non-starter, and the final version must show some fiscal restraint.  And while all of the Democrats want to raise our taxes--Democrats LOVE to raise taxes--the Democrats in the House cannot agree with the Democrats in the Senate over which taxes to raise.  So while Harry Reid was able to muster enough votes to move the bill to floor debate in the Senate, he is a looooooong way from herding the cats of his party into the same pen.

My biggest issue:  the pathological lying by Democrats in both houses of Congress over the actual cost of their health care "reform" proposals.  They continue to trumpet that health care reform will actually reduce the deficit over the next ten years.  And how could a Trillion Dollars in new spending possibly reduce the deficit?  Because the Democrats play a parlor trick with the accounting by counting ten years of revenue against only six years of expenses, thus hiding the true cost of their "reform."

And while the Democrats are wasting all of this time and effort on a "reform" proposal that will either (1) fail; or (2) doom the American people to a massive debt burden for as far as the eyes can see, unemployment is reaching higher and higher and higher.  It truly is hard to believe that a gifted politician like Barack Obama can be so tone-deaf when it comes to the actual concerns of the American people.  As his poll numbers continue to slip, he and the Democratic Party-controlled Congress are doing nothing--NOTHING--about the economy.

Ryan. Williams. Is. Awesome.

I attended the Virginia Tech beatdown of the North Carolina State Wolfpack on Saturday, and I got to witness a lot of spectacular plays: Tyrod Taylor tossing a completion while falling backwards to the ground with three defenders hanging off him; Cody Grimm forcing three fumbles by NC State on their first four plays; and Jarrett Boykin making a beautiful diving catch in the end zone for a 38-yard TD. But nothing could match Ryan Williams' third quarter run where he literally dragged an NC State defender ten yards into the end zone. Williams is the sort of special player who just doesn't come along very often. Almost every time he touches the ball, he makes big things happen. And to think: he is only a Freshman. Alas, he probably will not be around for three more years; the big money of the NFL will call him away. But man, it surely is wonderful to be here to see him while the Hokies have him on the roster.

Wednesday, November 4, 2009

Election Day +1

Today the airwaves and the Web are filled with opinions about "what it all means."  In general, the opinion you get is based upon where you go to seek it out.  Democrats and lefties?  The elections were "local issues" and did not have anything to do with the Obama agenda or his performance in office to date.  The GOP'ers and conservatives?  The results signal that the Obama agenda is under seige and everything from Cap'n Trade to Obamacare will be laid waste.  I suppose my opinion is as worthy as any of those, so a few thoughts from out of the hills:
  • Virginia:  Other than Fairfax County and environs and certain parts of metro Richmond and the Tidewater area, Virginia is now what it has always been:  deeply conservative.  Without Obama at the top of the ticket to excite all of the crazy liberals (or "progressives", as they like to call themselves) and get them out to the polls, the ordinary Virginians who are concerned about high taxes and big government came out in force to vote for their own.  The GOP won from the top to the bottom of the ticket.  The Republican candidates won all three of the statewide offices of Governor, Lt. Governor and Attorney General, and picked up five seats in the House of Delegates, giving them a 60% to 40% majority.  It was a GOP beatdown of the Democrats.
  • New Jersey:  I don't know anything about local New Jersey politics, but I do know that they change governors like they change clothes.  In the past ten years, and including the new governor, Chris Christie, who will take office in January, six different people have held the title of governor in New Jersey.  An additional three people have served as "acting governor."  Five of the nine have been Republicans, and four have been Democrats (I am counting Codey twice; a Democrat, he served as both governor and acting governor).  Jon Corzine, the Democrat who was defeated yesterday by Christie, was formerly the head of Goldman Sachs, which may have made him rich but which doesn't look so great to the average blue collar Democrat.  During his short tenure in office, he utterly failed to do anything about New Jersey's outrageous taxes and bloated government.  He tried to claim the Obama magic by bringing the President on board for campaign appearances, but it didn't work.  At least part of the defeat has to be attributed to Corzine's failures, and part has to be attributed to the national economy, where the public's patience with the President is stretching thin.  Neither the people of New Jersey, nor the American public as a whole, have much patience with a weak economy.
  • New York 23:  The lone bright spot for the Democrats, who managed to elect Bill Owens in a district that is as red as red can be.  I do not think that Owen's victory represents any sort of Democratic surge in upstate New York.  The Republican dropped out of the race, and the remaining candidate, Doug Hoffman, who ran under the third party Conservative label, was polling in single digits just three weeks prior to election day before the Republican dropped out.  Dede Scozzafava, the Republican candidate who had been selected by county executive committee chairmen rather than as the winner of a primary, is more liberal than two-thirds of the current Democrats in the House of Representatives (the New York Times, the Huffington Post and other liberal outlets insisted on calling her a "moderate Republican"; apparently, they think that being pro-abortion, pro-Obamacare and pro-stimulus spending constitutes moderation).  The real reason for the overwhelming joy amongst the liberal set is that Hoffman was endorsed by Sarah Palin, who ranks second only to Dick Cheney as favorite boogeyman of the liberals.  Apparently, they believe that Hoffman's loss represents a rebuke of Palin, which could not be less true.  Palin stepped up to the plate and said what needed to be said:  that Scozzafava does not represent Republican values and interests and should not be supported.  Good for her.  If Hoffman had had enough time and money to mount a real campaign, Owens would not have had a chance.
This election comes as the nation deals with an unemployment rate approaching 10%, tight credit and a Federal budget deficit topping $1 Trillion.  Yet with all of the problems with our economy, the Democrats in Congress have wasted the past 3 months debating which form of a government takeover of the health care industry they should enact.  The American people know that now is not the time (if such a time would ever exist) to increase the size of the Federal government by $1.3 Trillion per year for a total approaching 25% of GDP.  Obamacare has been in trouble for a while now, and with 2010 being an election year, the Democrat's dream of having the government make all of our health care choices for us may well disappear until 2011, at the earliest.  Sometimes, doing nothing at all is a very good thing.

I have enjoyed a couple of belly laughs today at the claims by the "progressives" that yesterday's elections actually showcase a need for Democrats to be, hold on now, more liberal!  The examples of this school of thought may be found all over the Web today, but I particularly enjoyed this one, which claims that Deeds would have won in Virginia if only (if only!) he had wholeheartedly supported Cap'n Trade, Obamacare, the Employee Lack of Free Choice Act and unlimited benefits for illegal immigrants.  Heh, heh.  I hope the Democrats take the advice to heart, because if they do, it will ensure a Republican majority for years to come.