Just when you thought Joe Biden couldn’t get any lower he finds a new bottom to scrape. In an act of desperation to save the sorry state of this administration Joe Biden introduces rape and murder as justification to pass their latest job bill and implies that if you oppose the jobs bill you are in favor of more rape and murder.

First of all, police, firefighters and teachers are not employees of the federal government. They are employees of and paid for by local government. So any money that comes from Washington to help pay their salaries will at some point end and then what? Either the state or locality comes up with the funding to maintain those positions or they have to lay them off. The Republicans accurately called that measure temporary.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fxxotkX9ZOo

So Biden says increases in crime that have happened in Flint, Michigan, specifically rape and murder will increase if the Republicans continue to oppose this second stimulus package. It is not temporary to the crime victim, Biden says.

Let me provide Vice President Biden some scenarios, not hypothetical, but a true stories.

Sherry Rives, of Bear Creek, North Carolina, emerged from her shower to see a knife-wielding man coming towards her. When he threatened to rape her, she ran into her bedroom and got her 9 mm pistol. The two wrestled for the pistol and Rives was wounded in the thigh. She then gained control of the pistol and shot her tormentor several times, forcing him to flee. She then locked herself in the bathroom and called police. When police arrived, they found the would-be rapist dead with four bullet wounds to the chest. The woman’s father said she kept the pistol in the house for protection and she knew how to use it.– The Herald, Sanford, NC, November 12, 1997

The burglar ransacked 81-year-old Alberta Nicles’ Muskegon, Michigan, home before waking her up and ordering her around the house to search for money. Ending up back in her bedroom, the intruder–a suspected crack addict with a long history of criminal activity–removed the widow’s pajama bottoms and was preparing to rape her when she informed him that she knew where there was some money. Her assailant let her up and followed her to a closet where the woman instead retrieved her late husband’s .38. She turned and shot her tormentor to death. Nicles then went to a neighbor’s home to call police because her own lines had been severed by the intruder prior to his breaking in. “This was not just a random breaking and entering. …He was planning on taking advantage of the vulnerability of an elderly person. …She was clearly acting in self-defense,” Muskegon County Prosecutor Tony Tague said.– The Chronicle, Muskegon, MI, January 2, 1997

A Stockton, California, real estate agent put an end to an attempted rape, after a man posing as a potential home buyer attacked her in a model home. Crumpling to the floor, the realtor drew a .380 from her purse, forcing the man to flee. Pursuing him outside, the woman fired several shots at the man, missing him as he jumped in his car. She halted his escape by shooting out one of his tires and with the help of some nearby construction workers, held the thug for police. The would-be rapist is being investigated in connection with a similar 1993 attack on a female real estate agent. — The Record, Stockton, CA, February 18, 1995

Those of us who defend the Second Amendment have a saying, “When seconds count, the police are only minutes away.” I would like to ask Vice President Joe Biden where in each of the scenarios above the victim, or potential victim, could stop the action, call 911, and then wait patiently with their attacker until the police arrive? I would guess that Vice President Biden would say, gee that’s a tough situation, you should probably submit to the rape so that you are not killed, of which there is no guarantee, and then call 911 as soon as you can afterward.

Joe Biden has been an outspoken supporter of gun control. He doesn’t grasp the fact that police rarely stop crimes, they investigate crimes. It is the deterrent effect of certain punishment that may prevent crimes. What can stop a crime in progress is a citizen with the right to carry a gun. Other than that it is picking up the pieces. So to come full circle in the analogy, by his advocacy of gun control Joe Biden is responsible for more rapes and murders than anyone who votes for this new round of stimulus. I could, once again, say shame on Joe Biden, but what would be the point?

That’s my opinion; I’d like to know yours. Please comment below.

Photo by Pargon

We need a vibrant and growing economy, but we are being led by someone who believes in all things that make America mediocre.

We’ve seen it all, “don’t keep score of the game or someone will be sad if they lose”; Pass/fail grading systems; schools banning dodge-ball, kickball, monkey bars and tag because someone might get hurt. Does anyone get excited watching such a contest, or would you rather watch the Packers? We seem to be stuck in a union mindset of propping up the incompetent workers and holding back the good ones.

The Union Mindset

In a union all workers are supposed to act like a uniform group. I can’t tell you the number of people I met in business who quit being in a union because of a common theme. “Hey, slow down, you’re making everyone else look bad!’ I knew one guy working construction at JFK Airport in New York. He wanted to keep busy doing his work because it made the day go by quickly. The shop steward told him to slow down, but he just didn’t get it. So, one day, the shop steward took the time to explain it to him. He called him down off the scaffold and took him outside to walk around the hanger. Around and around they slowly walked as the union guy explained the facts of union life to him. He finally understood. He quit and started his own business.

Progressives have the union mindset. Don’t let competition break out it’s bad. So let’s roll everything up to Washington to run the country. We can’t have Texas going competitive on us and tempting people to move there from Michigan, now can we? Whose going to pay for all the social programs back in Michigan if all the productive workers leave. So let’s add ObamaCare and we’ll latch onto those productive workers no matter where they move.

There are roads and bridges that need repair. Don’t trust the states to handle that, what if they don’t have enough money after paying for all their public sector retirees who retired at 42 years of age? What we need is a national infrastructure bank. That’s it, and we can model it after Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, so that every state can get their roads and bridges repaired and everyone across the country will pay for it.

While we’re at it, let’s have another round of stimulus (what’s that, Nancy? You’ve banned the word stimulus? Okay, okay), er, another round of investment for shovel ready construction jobs. And while it’s true the jobs created by this new round will only last as long as the money does, just like the last time, so we’ll have to do it again. But by that time Obama hopes to be reelected so he won’t care any more.

Never mind the free market working this all out by itself, we need the really, really smart people who only seem to turn up in Washington to generate more great ideas, like “Cash for Clunkers,” “Making Home Affordable,” “Green jobs,” and stimulus dollars for union teachers.

So is it any surprise that Jimmy Hoffa blames the Tea Party and tries to rally the mob to get those “sons of bitches”? What else do they have but the mob? Fire up the crowd with simple slogans, “Racists”, “Terrorists”, “Homophobes”, “Hitler”, while the Tea Partiers quote the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Federalist Papers.

The Way Out of this Mess

There is a way out of this mess and it will take bold action. By bold action I don’t mean to make the same mistakes as what this administration has already done but three times bigger. I mean applying tough medicine like Reagan did to break the back of skyrocketing interest rates he inherited from Jimmy Carter. At the ten month mark of Reagan’s presidency the economy was growing at 9.3% compared to 1% under Obama.

In fact, the economy grew during Obama’s first full year in office, peaked, and started declining steadily. How do you hang that one on Bush?

What is meant by a bold plan is along the lines of the plan put forth by Rand Paul, that would cut spending by $500 billion in the first year. Make no mistake about it, federal worker unemployment will increase, but the government in Washington will get smaller. Some departments that are not authorized by the Constitution would be eliminated; not capped, not trimmed, but gone. The states or local government can decide if they want to continue these programs on the state or local level. States can compete for businesses and citizens rather than just chant, “tax the rich,” and grow government. If a state doesn’t get its house in order, it’s citizens will flee and there will be no bailouts. It is time for responsible and accountable government.

It’s simple, really. Every government program, every regulation has a cost. Government has no money other than what it gets from taxing the people, either directly through income and sales taxes, or indirectly through corporate taxes. Each one taps the brakes on the economy, slowing it down. More and more programs, regulations, taxes, taps and taps and taps on the brakes. As any driver knows, if you tap the brakes enough times eventually you will slow to a crawl. If we want to put America to work again, we need to bust up some of the Washington establishment and use it to fuel the fire of the free market. Do that and stand back, and America will be just fine.

That’s my opinion; I’d like to know yours. Please comment below.

Long Island’s own Peter King (R) plans to introduce legislation that would make it illegal for someone to knowingly carry a gun within 1,000 feet of certain high-ranking federal officials, including members of Congress.  Before I take on the nuttiness of the law itself, I have to ask, “What makes them so special?” 

Have we reached an epidemic of attacks on Congressmen that warrants special protection?  In the history of the United States Congress only five incidents where members have been severely hurt or killed, which is five too many, but it hardly calls for setting all members apart as a specially protected class of citizens.  The five were:

1. Representative Jonathan Cilley of Maine was killed in a duel with Representative William Graves of Kentucky after accusing Graves of bribery on the House floor (1838).
2. Senator Charles Sumner of Massachusetts was beaten with a walking stick by Representatives Preston Brooks and Laurence Keitt, both of South Carolina (1856).
3. Puerto Rican Nationalists stormed the capital on March 1, 1954 and fired from the gallery to the floor of the House, five Congressmen were wounded, Alvin Bentley o f Michigan, Ben Jensen of Iowa, Clifford Davis of Tennessee, George Fallon of Maryland, and Kenneth Roberts of Alabama.
4. Representative Leo Ryan of California traveled to Guyana to investigate the goings on in Jonestown, where cult leader Jim Jones set up shop.  They were ambushed and killed by Jones’ followers and the entire community soon committed mass suicide (1978).
5. Gabrielle Giffords, who we pray will have a speedy recovery (2011).

Looking at this history, being a member of Congress looks to be a lot safer than a number of other occupations.  Try to relax, people.  And if you can’t, remember the words of Harry Truman, “If you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.”

King’s Law

A few years ago, I worked for a small consulting firm advising small businesses.  I am going to present one of my days at that firm with the hypothetical assumption that I was licensed to carry a concealed weapon and was so armed on this day.  Everything else in my hypothetical story actually happened.

After a busy morning I felt the urge for a coffee break.  I was working at the firm’s main office and there was a Starbucks about two blocks away, down a hill.  It was a nice day so I took a stroll down.  Upon arriving at the Starbucks I got on line to order a venti black coffee.  I thought it odd to see a dog in the store so my eyes followed the leash to see who’s dog it was.  Standing about six feet to my left, perusing the CD rack in the store was none other than William Jefferson Clinton, 42^nd President of the United States with, I assume, Buddy the dog.  Did I just walk myself into a felony, as I was certainly within 1,000 feet of a certain high ranking official, and within about fifteen feet of at least one Secret Service agent at the door of the store.  Okay, I didn’t know he was in there so, technically, I didn’t knowingly get within 1,000 feet of him while armed, but I certainly knew he was there and I was six feet away and armed.  Do I make a fast break for the exit to sprint until I am at least 1,000 feet away?  Would that alarm the Secret Service agent?  Would someone get shot or go to jail for no good reason?

Is the law reciprocal?  Can we demand that no politician can knowingly approach within 1,000 feet of anyone who is armed?  That might have been one way to stop ObamaCare.  Ring the Capital building with law abiding armed citizens no more than 1,000 from each other and presto!  Congress can’t cross the line and go into session.

Seriously, folks, the best thing that Congress can do is pass a law that they will not pass any laws related to what happened in Tucson, for at least 90 days.  By then we might actually have more facts of what happened and what broke down, before trying to fix something.  By the way, what are the odds that Loughner would obey a 1,000 foot limit, or whatever gun restrictions Congress can dream up?  This was a very disturbed individual who had his behavior on full display for about six years and nothing what done to either help him or institutionalize him.

That’s my opinion; I’d like to know yours.  Please comment below.

Comments submitted in response to a previous post, “The Progressive War on Federalism,” focused on the Electoral College and a movement called the National Popular Vote (http://www.nationalpopularvote.com) bill.  Rather than argue against my point it only seemed to reinforce it.  The objective of this movement, which before this commenter’s contribution I was unaware of, is to abolish, or should I say neuter, the Electoral College and replace it with the direct election of the president.  This movement looks to further weaken the states and move us away from federalism and toward a strong monolithic central government.  Here is my analysis.

The Case in Favor of Direct Election of the President

The commenter and the website for the National Popular Vote (NPV) bill make several points in favor of the change.  In my view it boils down to the following:

1. In the current system, after the primaries, candidates only campaign in a handful of competitive states and ignore the rest where one candidate is either far ahead or far behind.
2. The Electoral College that we have today, was not designed, anticipated or favored by the Founding Fathers
3. This does not abolish the Electoral College
4. It does not require a Constitutional Amendment
5. The power of states are neither increased nor decreased
6. The National Popular Vote bill would end the influence of the “mob” in a handful of closely divided battleground states
7. The current system does not provide a check on the “mob”

This seems pretty compelling.  Most polls show that this idea is strongly favored over the Electoral College that we have today.  However, who is being asked the question?  In the federal system of government that the Founders designed, the people did not have the power to directly elect the president, so asking someone who doesn’t have power if they would like it, is like asking someone who is hungry if they would like some food.  Let me present my case against it.

The Case against the Direct Election of the President

The first argument that somehow having the direct election of the president would compel candidates to actively campaign across the country is stated but not proven.  If the outcome of the election is determined based on who has the most votes, what would compel a candidate to campaign in Montana or Alaska?  There just aren’t that many people in  those states and are we to believe that if a candidate does not show up in a state to campaign that the citizens there are going to stay home and not vote? That is absurd.

The more likely scenario is that candidates will focus on major media markets.  If you take Boston, New York, Philadelphia and Washington, D.C., not the cities but the media markets, you will cover about 25% of the population of the U.S.  Add Chicago, LA, San Francisco, Houston, Dallas, and Miami, and you probably don’t have to campaign anywhere else to have a shot at reaching enough of the popular vote to win.  Those in favor of this proposal make no compelling argument otherwise.

The second argument that the Electoral College that we have today was not designed, anticipated or favored by the Founding Fathers is a myth.  They created the Electoral College, they left the method of choosing the electors up to the states.  “The Framers not only rejected the direct popular election of the President, but also left it to the state legislatures to determining how the states’ electors were to be appointed.” (Heritage Guide to the Constitution, p.185).  This raises several points.

If the Founders specifically rejected the direct election of the president how can the supporters argue that this will pass Constitutional muster without an Amendment?  Also the argument that it does not abolish the Electoral College may be true, but it renders it meaningless, which is the same as abolishing it.  If the NPV bill is adopted by all the states, the outcome of every presidential election going forward would be a vote of 538-0.  Anyone who thinks that is more than a rubber stamp is deluding themselves.

The argument that this does not require a Constitutional Amendment, which I believe I have refuted, is based on the argument that states can band together in compacts and agree on the all for one selection of electors.  The supporters point to Article I, Section 10 of the Constitution in support of this.  However, this clause states that the approval of Congress is required.  Furthermore in “United States Steel v. Multistate Tax Commission (1978), the Supreme Court declared that state compacts require congressional approval only if they ‘encroach upon the supremacy of the United States.’”  (Heritage, p. 179).  What could be more of an encroachment than the states banding together to effectively nullify the Electoral College without a Constitutional amendment?

Federalism recognized the national government and each of the state governments as sovereign entities.  Therefore the voters in one state determining the electors in another state would also likely draw constitutional challenge.  If all the voters in Texas chose candidate A, but the national popular vote chose candidate B, under NPV the electors from Texas would vote for candidate B against the wishes of the people of Texas.

The Cato Institute studied the NPV proposal and found that about an equal number of states would garner more candidate attention from this proposal as would lose attention.  It looked at the electoral power of the states under both systems.  Under the current system it considered each state’s power as the current electoral votes as a percentage of the total number of electoral votes.  Under the NPV system it looked at the population of eligible voters as a percentage of the total number of eligible voters.  In their analysis twenty states would have greater influence under NPV among them Pennsylvania, New York, Michigan, Ohio, Indiana and Illinois; thirty states would lose influence among them Wyoming, the District of Columbia, Alaska, Rhode Island, Connecticut and Louisiana; one state, Alabama would be unchanged.  So the argument that smaller “flyover” states would suddenly garner more attention is not borne out by the analysis.

The last argument is a check on “mob rule,” which oddly was the purpose behind the design of the Electoral College in the first place.  The argument against this is best illustrated by a hypothetical example.

Let’s say over the next six years there is a massive migration to California and at the same time NPV is approved in every state.  Maybe California finally gets marijuana legalized and maybe they even declare it a fundamental right that every Californian is entitled to a free pound of the stuff every year.  The migration results in 51% of the population living in California.  Now in 2016, governor Jerry Brown decides to run for president.  On Election Day, everyone in California lights up a spliff and heads to the polls to vote for Jerry Brown.  The vote in California is unanimous.  Elsewhere in the country everyone is shocked at what is taking place in California and votes for another candidate, say, Marco Rubio.  The popular vote is 51% for Jerry Brown, 49% for Marco Rubio.  Rubio carries 49 out of 50 states plus the District of Columbia.  Jerry Brown carries one state, California.  In the system we have today, Brown would get 54 Electoral votes and Rubio would get 484 and easily win the presidency over the “mob rule” in California.  But under NPV, Brown wins 538 -0.

Okay, forward to 2024 and let’s say the population has remained the same as have the voter sentiments, but another census has come and gone so the House of Representatives and subsequently the electoral votes are reapportioned.  If you take 51% of 435, gives California 222 plus 2 electoral votes for a total of 224 electoral votes.  Now the same election is held with Bill Maher running for president from California and Alan West from Florida running against him.  When the smoke clears the results are the same, Maher with 51% of the popular vote and West with 49%.  In the Electoral College, as it exists today, West would win 314 to 224, again carrying 49 out of 50 states plus the District of Columbia, while Maher carries one state.  However under NPV, Maher would win 538-0.  Therefore NPV enforces mob rule rather than preventing it.

The Wisdom of the Founding Fathers

The Founding Fathers designed our form of government out of a mistrust of power.  They designed the system so that the people would directly elect the House of Representatives and they also gave control of the purse to that body.  They designed the Senate to represent the interests of the sovereign states, until the progressives abolished that with the seventeenth amendment.  They designed the system where the Electoral College would choose the president, but left it to the individual states how they would choose their electors.  They designed the system where judges would be chosen by the president with the advice and consent of the senate.

The Electoral College was a way to protect the voice of small states from the tyranny of the majority.  What the progressives want to do is to follow up what they did with the seventeenth amendment.  Instead of having fifty-one election districts for president, represented by the states and the District of Columbia, they want to have one election district consisting of the entire nation.  Why not then abolish the state boundaries and the states themselves?  State capitals can then become district offices of the federal government carrying out the directives that come down from Washington. 

This is not the great country our Founders gave us.  It is moving this country to a omnipotent federal government where the individual has no voice of consequence and no liberty either.

That’s my opinion. I’d like to know yours. Please comment below.

President Obama, during his 2010 State of the Union address, did the unprecedented, which I suppose should surprise no one.  He called out the Supreme Court, whose members were seated in front of him, and lambasted them on a recent decision called Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission.  The outcome of the case was that free speech was not limited only to individuals but could include corporations, groups of individuals, etc.  As Justice Scalia pointed out in his concurring opinion, the First Amendment refers to speech not speakers.

Protocol suggests that you do not invite guests to your event and then mock them, to the standing ovation of fellow uncouth Democrats.  In the video of the event Justice Samuel Alito can be seen mouthing the words “untrue”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k92SerxLWtc

The law President Obama urges Congress to pass became known as the DISCLOSE act.  Democrats only like free speech for their special interest groups and to bar those who might campaign against them.  Liberty’s Lifeline has always advocated for anyone, except foreigners,  to give any amount to any candidate as long as it was published on the Internet within a reasonably brief period of time, say, 48 to 96 hours.  Tim Bishop voted for the DISCLOSE act but who has been giving money to Tim Bishop?

Charlie Rangel the disgraced Congressman from Harlem who was chairman of the House Ways and Means committee that writes the tax laws, gave $15,000 to Mr. Bishop over the years.  It seems that the head of the tax writing committee has problems remembering to pay his own taxes and he also has not one, not two, not three, but four rent controlled apartments, despite having a base salary of $174,000 per year.  He says failure to pay his taxes was an honest mistake.  Try that defense with the IRS if you forget to pay your taxes.  When the scandal became more pronounced and calls came for Mr. Bishop to return the tainted funds, did he do it?  Not exactly.  Mr. Bishop made a decision.  He could have given back the funds, but what mileage could he have gotten out of that?  Instead he donated the funds to two veterans associations.  That would be a noble gesture if Mr. Bishop donated his private funds for that purpose.  In July, 2010 Mr. Bishop’s campaign blasted one of his challengers Christopher Cox for saying that Mr. Bishop pocketed the funds, when the campaign said it had already returned them.  However in the same article it says it gave the funds to the veterans group.  Well, which is the truth and which is the lie?  Did he give it back or did he give it away, to garner favor with another potential voting block?

Bishop has also been called upon to return contributions from Michael Malik, a Michigan resident who contributed the maximum amount to Bishop’s campaign, but who has been fined in the past for illegal campaign contributions, is a partner with the Shinnecock Indians in their efforts to build a casino, and was also involved in a ponzi scheme in Florida, according to Newsday.

Also listed as a contributor to Mr. Bishop is far left billionaire George Soros.  Recently Mr. Soros donated $1.8 million to National Public Radio and shortly after that donation, long time NPR employee and contributor, Juan Williams was fired for expressing his personal views on The O’Reilly Factor.  This is despite Williams having appeared on Fox regularly for a long time.  We will have to see if Mr. Bishop gets behind pulling NPR’s public funding.

It seems Tim Bishop wants to put limits on campaign funding provided it does not affect who funds his campaigns.  Liberty’s Lifeline agrees with full disclosure without picking and choosing who can and cannot contribute.

It was the rally we were all waiting for.  The left was going to show Glenn Beck a thing or two about how union and community organizers could make things happen.  And organize they did; some 300-400 organizations sponsored the rally.  While the New York Times said tens of thousands attended the rally they later in the article compared it to the August 28^th rally held by Glenn Beck, describing the crowds at Beck’s event as enormous.

Though they hoped to draw an even larger crowd than Mr. Beck, the Times wrote, “Significant areas of the National Mall that had been filled during Mr. Beck’s rally were empty.”  Mr. Beck in a broadcast the Thursday prior criticized the rally saying that his supporters paid their own way to attend while for Saturday’s rally the unions and the 300-400 organizations chartered busses to ferry the people to the event, and still they fell short.

The irony was lost on some who attended. 

“Jerry Richards, a worker at a Chrysler plant, was carrying a sign saying “Good Jobs Now,” after having grabbed a seat on a caravan of nine buses that left Warren, Mich., at 9 p.m. Friday.”

Good jobs now?  Didn’t we just bail his company out and hand most of the ownership over to the auto unions?  What else does he want, to get the concessions the union gave up reinstated?  This also follows close on the heels of the news story about the Chrysler workers rushing out to drink and smoke pot on their lunch break at the same Chrysler plant President Obama visited to receive his adulation.

Ben Jealous, president of the NAACP, said, “This is a big tent. Anyone who wants to stand up to create jobs and defend the jobs of teachers, police officers, nurses, firefighters — I say come on and join us.”  Translation: we need to stand together to defend the jobs of teachers (public sector unions), police officers (public sector unions), nurses (public and private sector unions), and firefighters (public sector unions).  He also said, “Right now, a lot of Tea Party folks are pushing for tax cuts for the top 1 percent.”  So let me put it all together for you, they want to take a larger share of the earnings of the most productive workers, so that those productive workers can pay for all the public sector union jobs, and they call that “One Nation Working Together.”  Every time they talk about working together, you can bet the next breath will contain class warfare rhetoric.

It is the stated goal of all unions to have their members get paid more to work less.  So to be able for their members to do that, they want everyone else to work more and earn more so they can take it away for “justice” and give more jobs to their brothers and sisters.  It’s no wonder that one of the sponsoring organizations was the Communist Party USA.

Jealous went on to say, “the rally’s sponsors welcomed groups that endorsed their goals, including a higher minimum wage, immigration reform, improved public education and an end to the wave of foreclosures.”  Let’s take a closer look at those goals:

• Higher minimum wage – proven to increase unemployment , particularly among African American teens.  That’s quite a goal for the NAACP
• Improved Public Education – teachers unions are the biggest impediment to improving public education
• End to the wave of foreclosures – these foreclosures never would have happened if not for these same groups pushing hard to get more people who could not afford homes to buy them with risky mortgage products.
• Immigration Reform – illegal immigration drives down wages for legal residents and citizens.   Cesar Chavez, the leader of the United Farm Workers Union had this to say

In 1979 testimony to Congress, Chavez complained, “… when the farm workers strike and their strike is successful, the employers go to Mexico and have unlimited, unrestricted use of illegal alien strikebreakers to break the strike. And, for over 30 years, the Immigration and Naturalization Service has looked the other way and assisted in the strikebreaking. I do not remember one single instance in 30 years where the Immigration service has removed strikebreakers. … The employers use professional smugglers to recruit and transport human contraband across the Mexican border for the specific act of strikebreaking…”

It’s really all about power.  Their stated goals fall apart under the slightest scrutiny.  It is about getting out the vote to save the Democrats’ hides.  If they can do that, then they hope to get their paybacks and the union presidents, the Ben Jealouses, the Al Sharptons, La Raza and even the Comunnist Party USA, can stay in power and continue to use their constituency to enrich themselves while those constituents continue to suffer and believe in these charlatans.

Michigan Democrat Bart Stupak stood next to Greta Van Susteren on her program last night with several small stacks of paper.  Each one of those stacks represented an existing federal law that banned using public money for abortion.  He said anyone of them, pick one, is acceptable to him to get him to vote for the Senate version of the health care bill.  He said President Obama signed a law, just ten weeks ago that had similar language.  He was baffled as to why he could not get an answer from the President or his committee chairman, Henry Waxman, why they would not just continue existing federal law.  Let me put forth my hypothesis.

The Real Healthcare Objective

President Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and the rest of the statists have as their goal one, national health care provider, and that is the federal government.  I know that the “public option” has been in and out of the bill, and that the stated plan is for private insurers to continue to provide heath care insurance, but here is what I see as the real game plan:

1. Do whatever it takes to cajole health insurance companies to sign on or at least shut up.
2. Make sure that individuals do not take control over their health care purchasing decisions through high deductable plans and Health Savings Accounts.  Keep the 3rd party payer as the primary choice, which will allow health care costs to continue to rise.
3. Put in a federal oversight panel to make sure health insurance providers do not make “excessive” profits.  In other words, price controls.
4. With steps 2 and 3 in place health insurance providers will eventually leave the business or go bankrupt.  The federal government will have no choice but to step in so that all Americans continue to be covered.
5. Eventually, the federal government is the last man standing and the de facto public option, or should I say, public mandate is in place. Voila.

The Stupak Problem

If the scenario unfolds as I have described, then the only way to pay for an abortion is through your federal health care insurance provider.  If the language Mr. Stupak wants is in the bill, abortions will be near impossible and Roe v. Wade will be dead.  Do you think President Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, NOW, or other pro-abortion groups are going to stand for that?  Not a chance.

So the Democrats have to find a way to either hoodwink Stupak into voting for the bill without the language he wants or find a way to peel off the 29 or so other Democrats who agree with Stupak.  Watch closely what happens.

Who doesn’t love a freebie?  Who does not get a thrill of good fortune by finding money in the street, no matter how insignificant the amount?  We may not believe in the Tooth Fairy, but many of us believe we have a rich benevolent uncle, Uncle Sam, who is willing to lavish upon us his wealth if only we would ask.  The sad truth is that Uncle Sam is not rich, but penniless and is running a ponzi scheme that would make Bernie Madoff blush.

Health Care for $20

One of the major reasons that health care costs are rising out of control is that no one is minding the store.  While Washington twists itself in knots to rearrange deck chairs on the Titanic of health care, we have little to no say in how our health care dollars are spent.  Our health care “insurance” system is not really insurance.  Insurance is meant to protect us from a financial catastrophe.  Going to the doctor for a checkup is not a catastrophe.  Paying a $20 co-pay for that checkup is like finding money on the street.  There is no way anyone can get a physical exam, except by a hooker, for $20.  It is a good idea to get a physical checkup every year?  Yes, then pay the bill and ask what you are paying for and make sure you need it.  You take your car in for service don’t you?  Do you file an insurance claim when you do?  Can you get it done for $20.  Let’s get real.  What we have is called third party payer and when someone else is picking up the tab, do we care what it costs?  Really?  But someone is picking up the tab.  Look in your other pocket, because you are.  If you are generally healthy and you get your annual checkup, your insurance premium (here in New York at least) will probably run around $10,000 per year.  But, hey, you only paid $20 for that physical!  What if you paid the full amount for the physical, say, $500.  What if your insurance premium was cut to $5,000 because you would pay most routine medical costs out of your pocket and what if you could put the $4,500 left over ($10,000 original premium, minus $5,000 current premium, minus $500 cost of checkup), into a tax free account that can be used for future medical expenses or retirement if you don’t use it?  If you are a young person and stay healthy into your mid-40s, you would have accumulated over $90,000 in your medical savings account and you still have catastrophic insurance coverage and the government stays out of the picture.

Retirement for Free

Like many well intentioned Government programs, Social Security, enacted during the Great Depression, seemed like a good idea at the time.  When enacted there was about 15 workers paying in for each recipient drawing out.  Today there are about a little over 3 workers paying in for each beneficiary.  Bernie Madoff would blush at the audacity of it.  On top of that the money that is paid into Social Security can only be “invested” in Treasury Securities so the return is lousy, but safe.  People reacted to Social Security by saving less because the government safety net was there.  Had people been encouraged to save for their own retirement, they would not be leaving their children this legacy of a ticking time bomb.  So today, many young people feel the government’s hand in their pocket when they look at the FICA line on their pay stub, but don’t believe they will ever get a penny back.  Nice concept.

Bring Home the Bacon!

What’s the measure of a good Congressman or Senator?  Bringing home pork for the district, no?  If you are like me, you get flyers every year or several times per year, touting how Congresswoman Jones obtained federal funding for that pier at the amusement park.  With 435 Congressmen you can count on this, for each $1 that your Representative brings home $434 leaves the Treasury for each of the other Congressional districts and probably more, depending on the power and seniority of your Representative.  Guess who’s paying for that Turtle Crossing in Florida?  that bridge to nowhere in Alaska? that airport in Johnstown, PA that no one uses?  That’s right, you are.  What if we decided locally if we really needed a pier at the amusement park, and if we did, pay for it ourselves?  Then we could let the people of Florida decide if they want to build a turtle crossing, the people of Alaska decide if they wanted a bridge to nowhere and the people of Pennsylvania decide if they wanted an airport that no one used.  Then we could cut federal taxes by an equal amount to keep them out of mischief and help us pay for these projects if we really wanted them.

Let’s Get Organized

There was a time in our history where labor unions performed a valuable service.  In those times when many industrial jobs were unskilled or semi-skilled, employers could dismiss someone on a whim and replace them within the hour.  Unions gave those workers some counterbalancing power and fairer treatment.  Today, we have a much more sophisticated economy and workers have more skills and mobility.  Union membership has declined accordingly, in the private sector at least.  Why is union membership still growing in the public sector?  What is different about workers in the public sector that they still need unions?  Are we suggesting that all government workers are unskilled?  Why do teachers need a union?  Are they not skilled such that they could sell their services to the highest bidder?  Why do unions fight merit pay for teachers?  Why are school principals, the de facto CEO of the school and who in New York easily make six figures, unionized?  Do you get an idea why our K-12 public school system is trailing the world in performance?

In Michigan, privately owned small businesses that provided day-care services suddenly discovered that they were part of a union and union dues were being withheld from their government contractual payments.

Ms. Berry owns her own business—yet the Michigan Department of Human Services claims she is a government employee and union member. The agency thus withholds union dues from the child-care subsidies it sends to her on behalf of her low-income clients. Those dues are funneled to a public-employee union that claims to represent her. The situation is crazy—and it’s happening elsewhere in the country.

Ms. Berry, runs “The Berry Patch” a private day care center she operates from her home catering to low income clients.  The money that was once paid to her, now goes to a union that does little for her.  She is “self employed and wants nothing to do with the union.”  Don’t you think we need more of these tactics in America?  Card Check anyone?

Going Postal

And let’s not forget the Postal Service.  As postal rates are again scheduled to increase on January 4, let’s look at this paragon of efficiency, that is actually authorized by the Constitution.  In 2008, the Postal Service lost $3 billion, and the Postmaster General John Potter pulled down $800,000 in compensation including $135,000 in incentive bonuses.  What do we have to pay this guy if he actually breaks even?  Also, let us not forget this is also a very heavily unionized operation.

Don’t Worry, You Won’t Feel a Thing

During World War II, FDR needed to raise more revenue to pay for the war.  Fearing a backlash, his team hit upon the idea of payroll withholding.  Knowing the potential backlash that would result when taxpayers had to write that big check on April 15th, he rightly figured that if he took a little bit each week, he could take a lot more in total.  Statists in Washington have never looked back.  It’s like the tax that was imposed on telephone service to pay for the Spanish American War that is still in place today.  Instead of picking our pockets every week, what do you think most Americans would say about the size of the federal government if they had to write one big check on April 15th?  There would be no tax rebates, because there would be no tax withheld.  Do you think Americans would force Congress to sharpen their pencils and scale back the size of government?

Help is On the Way

Ronald Reagan said, “The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help!’”  But perhaps the best example of how far from our founding principles our government has strayed comes from Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro of Connecticut as she spoke during a House End of Year Wrap Up Session:

“This House–we understand, we’re there,” she said.  “You can count on us because we believe that it’s our moral responsibility to make sure that you and your family need our help.” 

I don’t know about you, but I don’t need the House of Representatives making sure I need their help.  I need as little interference as possible from them.  Their meddlesome intrusions in our lives is killing what made this country great.  It is a point we cannot make often enough.

The New York Times had some, what was to me, shocking news today.  The article said that there was now consensus that the Obama stimulus plan was working.  Is this the same kind of consensus that man-made global warming was settled science, despite the glaring evidence that carbon dioxide emissions continue to grow while the globe stopped warming ten years ago?  This is also close on the heels of breaking stories of extraordinary misinformation if not outright deceit on how the $787 billion is being spent.

Smoke and Mirrors

Early on in the article we have this gem:

“The legislation, a variety of economists say, is helping an economy in free fall a year ago to grow again and shed fewer jobs than it otherwise would. Mr. Obama’s promise to “save or create” about 3.5 million jobs by the end of 2010 is roughly on track, though far more jobs are being saved than created, especially among states and cities using their money to avoid cutting teachers, police officers and other workers.”

There is no mechanism that exists to measure a job saved. None.  So how do they do it?  It goes something like this:

“Here, Mr. Stimulus Funds applicant, I have this check for you for $642,000.  No can you tell me, if I give this to you, how many jobs would you create or save?”

“Create? Er, none.”

“Hmmm,” the bureaucrat mutters, staring down at the check in his hand, “what about jobs you would save?  You know, if I don’t give you this nice, rather large check, how many of your people would you be forced to lay off?”

“Oh, I get it,” the potential recipient says with a wink and a smile, “probably all of them!”

The bureaucrat scribbles down a number, and hands over the check, walking away shaking his head.

That’s about how it’s done.  The government surveys the people getting the money and asks them what would have happened if they didn’t get the stimulus.  And what would you expect them to say?  Keep the check?

Revenue Starved States

What a concept, “Revenue Starved States.”  The article complains that not enough money was provided to “Revenue Starved States.” Does he mean states like California and New York?  I believe the correct term is states where spending is out of control.  It means states where taxes are so high that people are moving out in droves, and among them the “wealthy” people they love to tax to the eyeballs, meaning a dramatically shrinking revenue base.  After all, if one of the wealthiest people in the state, who is part of the group that pays 70% of the taxes, moves out of the state or (out of the country when it gets bad enough), that means a lot of people are going to see their taxes raised to make up for it.  So the statists seem to think a stimulus package that keeps these bloated bureaucracies fat, dumb and happy is the way to go, until when exactly?

The Multiplier Fallacy

The other great fraud being foisted on us is the multiplier effect, where for each dollar of stimulus money spent more than a dollar of economic activity results:

That sort of impact is what makes federal aid to state governments rank high in economists’ reckoning of the stimulus value of various proposals. Every dollar of additional infrastructure spending means $1.57 in economic activity, according to Moody’s, and general aid to states carries a $1.41 “bang” for each federal buck.

Even more effective are increases for food stamps ($1.74) and unemployment checks ($1.61), because recipients quickly spend their benefits on goods and services.

Okay, then how is this for a solution.  Let’s spend $10 trillion on infrastructure, food stamps and unemployment checks, since they will result in $15 trillion or so in economic activity, because of the multiplier, right?  For that matter, let’s have the government spend $100 trillion and we’ll really be rocking.

Where’s the So Called Consensus

From what I read in the article, there was only one economist that could be called a conservative, Martin Feldstein, that they were willing or able to quote, and this was his take on the stimulus.

While some conservatives remain as skeptical as ever that big increases in government spending give the economy a jolt that is worth the cost, Martin Feldstein, a conservative Harvard economist who served in the Reagan administration, said the problem with the package was that some of its tax cuts and spending programs were of a variety that did little to spur the economy.

“There should have been more direct federal spending that would have added to aggregate demand,” he said. “Temporary tax cuts and one-time transfers to seniors were largely saved and didn’t stimulate spending.”

That’s it?  That’s the consensus?  It seems to me that he is pointing out what was wrong with the package rather than what was right.  He was in the Reagan administration and he knows what works: permanent cuts in marginal tax rates. Those dreaded tax cuts for the “rich.”  The thing is that when the people above the subsistence level get to keep more of what they earn, yes it does belong to them and not to the government, they tend to invest it, which means the provide capital to businesses that grow and create jobs.  Yes, capitalism.  What the stimulus does is take money away from these people, or borrows it and steals it from future generations, and gives that money, as in the example above, to highway projects, food stamps and unemployment checks.  The first of these may create jobs until the road project is completed, but the latter two only increase the dependency of those recipients on the government.  So how exactly does the stimulus plan that puts money into a highway project and unemployment benefits, help a banker who got laid off?  How does it help the unemployed executive from United Technologies?  It doesn’t.  It’s like a drug fix.  You may feel good for a while, but then it wears off and you need another fix.

The Genius of Government

You would think that with all the examples of government planning lying on the waste heap of history, the statists will finally catch on that they can’t successfully pick the winners and losers in an economy.  Government has to get out of the way and let the market work.

Government must be drastically cut down to size.  Think of the popular TV show “The Biggest Loser.” Picture the governments of the United States, California, New York, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Michigan, Nevada, for starters, as contestants.  Let’s see who can lose the most weight.  Ready? Go.

In an op-ed piece in the New York Times, entitled, “What You Might Not Know About the Recovery,” that might more appropriately be entitled, “What I Don’t Know About the Recovery,” Joe Biden educates us on the stimulus.  It’s typical after the fact political obfuscation to try to convince people that they are not really seeing what they see with their own two eyes.

He begins in typical fashion going back to when he and Barack Obama took office, but avoids mentioning President Bush by name:

We still have a long way to go, but clearly we are closer to recovery today than we were in January.

This is a true statement, but I would argue that this is in spite of the $787 billion of our money squandered on the stimulus plan, while Mr. Biden says it is because of it.  It is instructive to see how someone begins their defense of an issue and Mr. Biden begins by saying that not all of our $787 billion is being spent on pork barrel projects.

Notwithstanding this progress, the nature of the Recovery Act remains misunderstood by many, and misconstrued by others: critics have suggested that the entire $787 billion is being spent on pet programs. As the person leading the administration’s efforts to put the Recovery Act into effect, I want to set the record straight.

He takes up the position that the statists typically do, that we are too stupid to understand.  This is complex stuff, America, way over your head.  You need us in the political class to take care of this for you.  Notice he didn’t say there was no pork barrel spending.  He says that not the entire $787 billion is being spent on pet projects. (Don’t forget the $30 million for Nancy Pelosi’s salt marsh harvest mouse).  Feel better?

Tax Cuts?

He says the single largest part of the recovery act is tax cuts, more than one third.  Huh?  Does he mean the $8 per week in lower payroll taxes?  That’s going to stimulate the economy?  At the same time they are finding trillions, TRILLIONS, in new taxes and spending through Cap and Trade, Heath Care reform, allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire, that will dwarf the paltry $8 per week that people are probably saving, rather than spending, if they even notice it at all.

Transfer Payments

The second largest chunk, Mr. Biden tells us, is for transfer payments.  In other words, money from the federal government given to state and local governments. Where do all governments get their money from?  Us.  So taking our money in federal taxes and giving it to state and local governments helps us exactly how?  Don’t forget the portion of each dollar that gets lost along the way as each bureaucracy handles it.

What are these transfer payments going to be used for?  Uncle Joe tells us:

The money is allowing state governments to avoid laying off teachers (14,000 in New York City alone), firefighters and police officers and preventing states’ budget gaps from growing wider.

The dictionary defines recovery as returning to health, consciousness, etc.  This part of the stimulus does nothing to stimulate the economy.  It’s another one of the Obama administration’s wonderful fictions about saving jobs.  As the economy continues to shed jobs even above the level that the Obama administration told us it would go without the stimulus Biden boasts that they saved the jobs of government workers; union workers; Democratic voters.  Also it helps bloated state governments that have mismanaged their finances from having to make fiscally responsible decisions but keeping them fat, dumb, and happy.  By the way, which states seems to be in the most financial trouble?  California, New York, New Jersey, Michigan?  Aren’t those all “blue” states?  So is the Obama adminisitration helping America or helping themselves?

On Track?

Mr. Biden says that we are on track and that 25% of the funds have been committed.  What exactly does that mean, committed?  If you go to Recovery.gov, you will see that as of this week, only 8.5% of the money has actually been spent.  Give Mr. Biden a calculator, please.  With the three chunks that the Vice President says comprise the stimulus: tax cuts, transfer payments, and infrastructure projects, and that signs of recovery are due to the stimulus, how can the stimulus have that kind of affect when only 8.5% of the money has been spent?

The Resiliency of the American Economy

The American economy is the envy of the world.  It is resilient beyond description.  It is recovering on its own, despite government interference, and the government meddling that caused this recession.  The American people are no longer being fooled by the smooth talking Barack and Joe Show.  A Rasmussen poll shows that only 25% of the American people believe that the stimulus has helped the economy.  If that’s not bad enough 31% say that the stimulus has actually hurt the economy.  On top of that 45% say the rest of the stimulus should be cancelled.

The Stupid American People

With 92% of the stimulus yet to be spent 9% more Americans say cancel the rest than say to keep going.  So Mr. Biden grabs the op-ed page of the New York Times to, sigh, lecture the American people once again on how they misunderstand, and misconstrue what your benevolent, socialist leaning government is trying to do for you.  How ungrateful can you be?  If you people don’t get it, then the president and vice president will just have to take over the rest of the economy and set you all straight.  They will tell you how much you can earn, what cars to buy, what food to eat, what kind of light bulbs to put in your house, control how much energy you can use in your house through the smart grid, what medical treatment you can have, and when you have to die.

The Sleeping Giant Awakes

The American people have been charmed by Barack Obama as he is a very charming man.  He is an historic president.  But they are starting to notice the tea parties, the abdication of the main stream media to do their job, the warnings about what is happening to their country and they are starting to pay attention.  The more they see and hear the more Obama’s approval ratings drop.  So he pushes harder and faster.  It will be a close race to see if President Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid can ram through their agenda and slam the door behind them, or if we can wrestle back control of our liberties and send these people packing.

It’s time to brush off the Constitution, read the 10th amendment, and start stripping the federal government back down to the size the founders envisioned.  That will give more power to the states and the people and make government more accountable.  Face it, when your Congressman represents several hundred thousand constituents and their voice is only one of 435 in the House of Representatives, is it any wonder that the founders gave them only the powers spelled out in the Constitution.  They believed that effective government has to be responsive to the people.  That is impossible in Washington.  It is too big.  It is run by too many unelected career bureaucrats.  It has too much power to tax us, regulate us, spend our tax dollars on things to which we are morally opposed, and interfere with our liberties.

This is a critical time in our history and time to roll back the unrelenting growth of government and shrink it down to size.