Posts
I'm just a regular American citizen, admittedly on the conservative side, and this headlong rush to elect Obama is mystifying to me.
It's not that I don't grasp liberalism - I may not agree, but I "get" it. It's the conservatives supporting Obama that have me flummoxed. I sincerely invite you to tell me why.
I think the discussion is important, and on my part, I promise to be civil about it. That doesn't mean I won't tell you why I think he's wrong for the country, but I'm not inviting you here to flog you mercilessly. I want to hear your reasons.
I want to know why you don't think his associations and alliances matter. I want to know why his record on abortion doesn't bother you. I want to know how, if you are a fiscal conservative, you're voting for a candidate who plans massive increases in entitlements and has had no problem getting pork and earmarks for his state.
I want to know what eclipses the legitimate concerns most conservatives have about him. I don't see it. I'm not a pundit, I'm not an expert on politics - I just don't understand, and it frustrates me.
If you're liberal, I get why he sounds so good to you. It's not that you're not welcome here, but I really want to hear from people who supposedly share my principles.
Anyone? Please comment.
Showing posts with label obama. Show all posts
Showing posts with label obama. Show all posts
Monday, October 27, 2008
Friday, October 24, 2008
Taking "Community Organizing" to the National Level
When Obama takes the stage for his victory speech, will he thank Saul "The Red" Alinsky? Probably not, but he should.
For the unfamiliar, Alinsky's "Rules For Radicals" is the bible of community organizing. Alinsky's ultimate goal was the overthrow of the capitalist system - to take power from the "Haves" and give it to the "Have-Nots". Obama has learned the principles, taught them to others, and he and the left have successfully taken Alinsky's tactics to the national level.
Look at America today. The subprime and foreclosure crisis. Wildly fluctuating oil prices. The meltdown on Wall Street. All gasoline to long smoldering embers. People with grievances against the system have increased exponentially due to the economic crises we're facing. And with the anger is a loss of confidence in the American economy and its institutions - not just the people running things, but the entire system. And according to Alinsky, a country is "ripe for revolution" when “the masses of our people have reached the point of disillusionment with past ways and values. They don’t know what will work but they do know that the prevailing system is self-defeating, frustrating, and hopeless They won’t act for change but won’t strongly oppose those who do.”
Whether by chance or design, circumstances converged to create chaos, just when there happens to be a candidate poised to exploit it. Obama has been given the perfect opportunity to complete a stealth socialist revolution, and he and the Democrats are capitalizing on it.
Consider a few examples of the tactics described in "Rules for Radicals", and their real life application - by no means an all-inclusive list.
"The threat is usually greater than the thing itself." When listening to Obama speak, it'd be a good drinking game to have a shot whenever Obama references the Great Depression. On second thought - forget I said that. I'd hate to be responsible for a slew of alcohol related deaths. Reagan was "Morning in America" - Obama is "Mourning in America".
"Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules." Consider what ACORN is doing with the thousands of fraudulent voter registrations in multiple states. The rule is they must turn in every voter registration, even if potentially fraudulent. They're just following the rules, and in the process, creating chaos in the election system.
"If you push a negative hard and deep enough it will break through into its counterside." Right now, voter registration fraud is a negative. But these irregularities are likely to result in increased vigilance by election personnel. This scrutiny will ultimately be characterized as voter suppression, lawsuits will be filed, and ACORN will have its martyrs.
"Power is not only what you have but what the enemy thinks you have." Obama parades masses of supporters whenever possible, from renting a stadium for his convention speech, gathering 100,000 in St. Louis, or now planning a victory party a million strong in Chicago. What else is this but a display of his power, an essential element to creating fear in his opponents? What if against all odds, it doesn't turn out to be a victory party - what will those million people do then?
"Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it". George Bush, anyone? If there is any clearer example of this tactic, I don't know what it is. The left has maintained a steady drumbeat of accusations against George Bush, but let's get real. In my estimation, Bush is a decent man - not much of a limited government conservative, by any means - but one who wanted to do right by his country. Our soldiers are not dying in Iraq on the whim of a madman bent on world domination. We didn't go into Iraq for oil. Bush didn't lie - he based his decision on faulty intelligence, shared by many other world leaders. 9/11 was not an inside job. The present economic crisis has its roots in events prior to the Bush administration. (Ask a liberal sometime exactly what Bush is supposed to have deregulated that made this crisis inevitable - but don't hold your breath waiting for an answer.) I may disagree with him on policy, but I don't think he's the personification of evil incarnate. But Bush is the target, no question. An easy target - having commenced with an unpopular war and bungled its execution - and he has been effectively "frozen". Hence, the never-ending efforts to tie McCain to Bush. There hasn't been a comparable effort to tie McCain to anyone else. Obama has a panoply of questionable alliances, but the power of attacks is diffused by the numbers. Tying Obama to a Congress even more unpopular than Bush, is again less effective, as the target is an institution - and of course, one with which McCain has a longer tenure.
This isn't to say there haven't been elements of Alinsky's tactics used by the Republicans, but in no way as effectively as Obama and his camp. Rove's got nothing on Obama. Barack's a pro and he's been at it for a long time.
Will understanding how Obama won (assuming he does) give us the key to find a way to take our country back? I don't have an answer for that, but I hope I've provided some food for thought.
(And if McCain ekes out an unlikely win, I'll take my crow with Chardonnay, please.)
For the unfamiliar, Alinsky's "Rules For Radicals" is the bible of community organizing. Alinsky's ultimate goal was the overthrow of the capitalist system - to take power from the "Haves" and give it to the "Have-Nots". Obama has learned the principles, taught them to others, and he and the left have successfully taken Alinsky's tactics to the national level.
Look at America today. The subprime and foreclosure crisis. Wildly fluctuating oil prices. The meltdown on Wall Street. All gasoline to long smoldering embers. People with grievances against the system have increased exponentially due to the economic crises we're facing. And with the anger is a loss of confidence in the American economy and its institutions - not just the people running things, but the entire system. And according to Alinsky, a country is "ripe for revolution" when “the masses of our people have reached the point of disillusionment with past ways and values. They don’t know what will work but they do know that the prevailing system is self-defeating, frustrating, and hopeless They won’t act for change but won’t strongly oppose those who do.”
Whether by chance or design, circumstances converged to create chaos, just when there happens to be a candidate poised to exploit it. Obama has been given the perfect opportunity to complete a stealth socialist revolution, and he and the Democrats are capitalizing on it.
Consider a few examples of the tactics described in "Rules for Radicals", and their real life application - by no means an all-inclusive list.
"The threat is usually greater than the thing itself." When listening to Obama speak, it'd be a good drinking game to have a shot whenever Obama references the Great Depression. On second thought - forget I said that. I'd hate to be responsible for a slew of alcohol related deaths. Reagan was "Morning in America" - Obama is "Mourning in America".
"Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules." Consider what ACORN is doing with the thousands of fraudulent voter registrations in multiple states. The rule is they must turn in every voter registration, even if potentially fraudulent. They're just following the rules, and in the process, creating chaos in the election system.
"If you push a negative hard and deep enough it will break through into its counterside." Right now, voter registration fraud is a negative. But these irregularities are likely to result in increased vigilance by election personnel. This scrutiny will ultimately be characterized as voter suppression, lawsuits will be filed, and ACORN will have its martyrs.
"Power is not only what you have but what the enemy thinks you have." Obama parades masses of supporters whenever possible, from renting a stadium for his convention speech, gathering 100,000 in St. Louis, or now planning a victory party a million strong in Chicago. What else is this but a display of his power, an essential element to creating fear in his opponents? What if against all odds, it doesn't turn out to be a victory party - what will those million people do then?
"Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it". George Bush, anyone? If there is any clearer example of this tactic, I don't know what it is. The left has maintained a steady drumbeat of accusations against George Bush, but let's get real. In my estimation, Bush is a decent man - not much of a limited government conservative, by any means - but one who wanted to do right by his country. Our soldiers are not dying in Iraq on the whim of a madman bent on world domination. We didn't go into Iraq for oil. Bush didn't lie - he based his decision on faulty intelligence, shared by many other world leaders. 9/11 was not an inside job. The present economic crisis has its roots in events prior to the Bush administration. (Ask a liberal sometime exactly what Bush is supposed to have deregulated that made this crisis inevitable - but don't hold your breath waiting for an answer.) I may disagree with him on policy, but I don't think he's the personification of evil incarnate. But Bush is the target, no question. An easy target - having commenced with an unpopular war and bungled its execution - and he has been effectively "frozen". Hence, the never-ending efforts to tie McCain to Bush. There hasn't been a comparable effort to tie McCain to anyone else. Obama has a panoply of questionable alliances, but the power of attacks is diffused by the numbers. Tying Obama to a Congress even more unpopular than Bush, is again less effective, as the target is an institution - and of course, one with which McCain has a longer tenure.
This isn't to say there haven't been elements of Alinsky's tactics used by the Republicans, but in no way as effectively as Obama and his camp. Rove's got nothing on Obama. Barack's a pro and he's been at it for a long time.
Will understanding how Obama won (assuming he does) give us the key to find a way to take our country back? I don't have an answer for that, but I hope I've provided some food for thought.
(And if McCain ekes out an unlikely win, I'll take my crow with Chardonnay, please.)
Thursday, October 23, 2008
Who matters, who doesn't?
Just one citizen's take on Obama's alleged alliances and associations, and whether they're important or not.
Franklin Raines
A Washington Post article quoted Raines saying he was receiving calls from the Obama campaign. Once it became a campaign issue, Obama denied it. In this case, I can easily see Raines as just a disgraced former executive exaggerating his influence, puffing up his importance. I suspect calls were made. His immediate predecessor at Scammie Mae, Jim Johnson, was associated with Obama's campaign. Johnson could have deferred to the more recent experience of Raines and suggested the call (or calls). Ultimately though, based on the flimsy evidence, McCain played overplayed his hand on this issue.
Bill Ayers
Should we care about a washed up old terrorist? Yes.
With Ayers history and radical views, it was at best poor judgment and/or ignorance on Obama's part to let Ayers have any part in his state senate campaign. At worst, Ayers was promoting Obama's campaign because he recognized a kindred spirit. While we can't judge candidates entirely by the people who merely endorse them, it is fair to judge candidates by the people they seek out for support.
Plus there were some very questionable "reforms" promoted and funded by the Annenberg Challenge and the Woods Foundation. The educational press and the campaign dismiss them as perfectly mainstream. But have we not seen, time and time again, educational doctrine that conflicts with our values?
ACORN
Make up your mind, Senator Obama.
On one page of your own website, it says "I've been fighting alongside ACORN on issues you care about my entire career. Even before I was an elected official, when I ran Project Vote voter registration drive in Illinois, ACORN was smack dab in the middle of it, and we appreciate your work.”
Elsewhere on the site:
Fact: Barack was never an ACORN community organizer.
Fact: ACORN never hired Obama as a trainer, organizer, or any type of employee.
Fact: ACORN was not part of Project Vote, the successful voter registration drive Barack ran in 1992.
ACORN "smack dab in the middle of it but "not part of". Obama aligns himself with ACORN and their goals on one page of his own website. On another, he throws them under the bus. Does this remind anyone of ....
Reverend Wright
Crop Circles. Missing socks in the dryer. Area 51. Those multiplying wire hangers in my closet. McCain's dismissal of Wright as an issue in this campaign. All mysteries we may never be able to explain.
Since McCain won't do it, allow me.
Twenty years.
Twenty years.
Twenty years.
Reverend Wright paints America as an ugly, racist, evil society, bent on oppressing minorities at every turn. He has made vile and fantastically paranoid accusations against our government. For twenty years, Obama sat in the pews. Damn right I care that Obama soaked in Wright's hatred and divisiveness on a regular basis for twenty years.
I simply cannot fathom how the despicable rhetoric spewed by Wright is compatible with being a spiritual mentor and advisor to a future President of the United States. But Obama left Wright's church, you say? No amount of eloquence summoned up by Obama now erases twenty years of absorbing the hate and bile.
Did I mention Obama and Wright go back twenty years?
Others?
I don’t know enough yet about some of the other names tossed around. I’m working on learning what I can. But for those who don’t have the time, I strongly suggest at least keeping up on the Investor’s Business Daily editorials. I opened my blog asking everyone to read these and pass it on, and I think it bears repeating. We really need to think about what we’re getting into with Obama. I happen to be an unabashed free-market loving fiscal conservative, but even if you are not – maybe you just always vote for the Democrat – think long and hard before pulling the lever next to the D this year. Please.
Besides - trust me on this - with McCain, you’re pretty close to getting a Democrat anyhow. He wasn’t my choice in the caucus this year. Not my second choice… Not even my third. I liked him better than Huckabee though. McCain has driven us conservatives up a wall for the last few years – Try him, you’ll probably like him.
Franklin Raines
A Washington Post article quoted Raines saying he was receiving calls from the Obama campaign. Once it became a campaign issue, Obama denied it. In this case, I can easily see Raines as just a disgraced former executive exaggerating his influence, puffing up his importance. I suspect calls were made. His immediate predecessor at Scammie Mae, Jim Johnson, was associated with Obama's campaign. Johnson could have deferred to the more recent experience of Raines and suggested the call (or calls). Ultimately though, based on the flimsy evidence, McCain played overplayed his hand on this issue.
Bill Ayers
Should we care about a washed up old terrorist? Yes.
With Ayers history and radical views, it was at best poor judgment and/or ignorance on Obama's part to let Ayers have any part in his state senate campaign. At worst, Ayers was promoting Obama's campaign because he recognized a kindred spirit. While we can't judge candidates entirely by the people who merely endorse them, it is fair to judge candidates by the people they seek out for support.
Plus there were some very questionable "reforms" promoted and funded by the Annenberg Challenge and the Woods Foundation. The educational press and the campaign dismiss them as perfectly mainstream. But have we not seen, time and time again, educational doctrine that conflicts with our values?
ACORN
Make up your mind, Senator Obama.
On one page of your own website, it says "I've been fighting alongside ACORN on issues you care about my entire career. Even before I was an elected official, when I ran Project Vote voter registration drive in Illinois, ACORN was smack dab in the middle of it, and we appreciate your work.”
Elsewhere on the site:
Fact: Barack was never an ACORN community organizer.
Fact: ACORN never hired Obama as a trainer, organizer, or any type of employee.
Fact: ACORN was not part of Project Vote, the successful voter registration drive Barack ran in 1992.
ACORN "smack dab in the middle of it but "not part of". Obama aligns himself with ACORN and their goals on one page of his own website. On another, he throws them under the bus. Does this remind anyone of ....
Reverend Wright
Crop Circles. Missing socks in the dryer. Area 51. Those multiplying wire hangers in my closet. McCain's dismissal of Wright as an issue in this campaign. All mysteries we may never be able to explain.
Since McCain won't do it, allow me.
Twenty years.
Twenty years.
Twenty years.
Reverend Wright paints America as an ugly, racist, evil society, bent on oppressing minorities at every turn. He has made vile and fantastically paranoid accusations against our government. For twenty years, Obama sat in the pews. Damn right I care that Obama soaked in Wright's hatred and divisiveness on a regular basis for twenty years.
I simply cannot fathom how the despicable rhetoric spewed by Wright is compatible with being a spiritual mentor and advisor to a future President of the United States. But Obama left Wright's church, you say? No amount of eloquence summoned up by Obama now erases twenty years of absorbing the hate and bile.
Did I mention Obama and Wright go back twenty years?
Others?
I don’t know enough yet about some of the other names tossed around. I’m working on learning what I can. But for those who don’t have the time, I strongly suggest at least keeping up on the Investor’s Business Daily editorials. I opened my blog asking everyone to read these and pass it on, and I think it bears repeating. We really need to think about what we’re getting into with Obama. I happen to be an unabashed free-market loving fiscal conservative, but even if you are not – maybe you just always vote for the Democrat – think long and hard before pulling the lever next to the D this year. Please.
Besides - trust me on this - with McCain, you’re pretty close to getting a Democrat anyhow. He wasn’t my choice in the caucus this year. Not my second choice… Not even my third. I liked him better than Huckabee though. McCain has driven us conservatives up a wall for the last few years – Try him, you’ll probably like him.
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
Positively Clintonian Parsing
On one page of Obama's website, association with ACORN is a smear to be fought.
Fact: Barack was never an ACORN community organizer.
Fact: ACORN never hired Obama as a trainer, organizer, or any type of employee.
Fact: ACORN was not part of Project Vote, the successful voter registration drive Barack ran in 1992.
Yet, elsewhere on BarackObama.com... Senator Obama said, "I've been fighting alongside ACORN on issues you care about my entire career. Even before I was an elected official, when I ran Project Vote voter registration drive in Illinois, ACORN was smack dab in the middle of it, and we appreciate your work.”
"Part of" and "smack dab in the middle of" are two entirely different things, don't you understand?
I suppose accusing Obama of being "hired" by ACORN is vicious and dishonest beyond words, when the truth is, he was just a volunteer. I suppose when you're a dedicated radical... pardon me, community organizer... the real shame is in taking a paycheck from those noble people at ACORN. They could be using that money for toner and ink so they can copy some more phony voter registrations.
Are we such patsies for Obama that he's not even trying to hide the lies?
Fact: Barack was never an ACORN community organizer.
Fact: ACORN never hired Obama as a trainer, organizer, or any type of employee.
Fact: ACORN was not part of Project Vote, the successful voter registration drive Barack ran in 1992.
Yet, elsewhere on BarackObama.com... Senator Obama said, "I've been fighting alongside ACORN on issues you care about my entire career. Even before I was an elected official, when I ran Project Vote voter registration drive in Illinois, ACORN was smack dab in the middle of it, and we appreciate your work.”
"Part of" and "smack dab in the middle of" are two entirely different things, don't you understand?
I suppose accusing Obama of being "hired" by ACORN is vicious and dishonest beyond words, when the truth is, he was just a volunteer. I suppose when you're a dedicated radical... pardon me, community organizer... the real shame is in taking a paycheck from those noble people at ACORN. They could be using that money for toner and ink so they can copy some more phony voter registrations.
Are we such patsies for Obama that he's not even trying to hide the lies?
Monday, October 20, 2008
Digging Deeper Into Healthcare
Obama's healthcare plan sounds so benign on the surface. You keep your doctors, you keep your insurance with your employer, but if you need help buying insurance, we're there for you. But after looking over the details of his plan, I feel a little sick. His plan effectively puts an end to free market solutions in healthcare.
Obama's proposed National Health Insurance Exchange will eliminate our choices. Every company joining the Exchange will be required to offer comprehensive, kitchen-sink policies.
Why is this a problem? Don't we all want great coverage?
This kind of policy, covering routine expenditures at lower out of pocket costs, has created an enormous disconnect in consumers minds between cost and value. Virtually no one with insurance knows or cares what their doctor is charging anymore - their only concern is their co-pay. "What do I care? Insurance covers it." This has contributed to increasing medical costs. They charge so much because they can. Insurance companies have the motive and ability to get costs down, but that only works for their customers, not the uninsured. The uninsured, should they be so unfortunate to have any assets or income beyond the poverty level, are on the hook for substantially more than what an insurance company would cover as "reasonable and customary" contracted costs.
Obama's mandated gold-plated policies will further distort the marketplace and contribute to further increases in costs. We don't need medical coverage for our hangnails, and we certainly don't need the Federal government subsidizing it. But the Exchange "will require that all the plans offered are at least as generous as the new public plan." Every company will have to cover pre-existing conditions, mental health, maternity and preventive care.
If we, as consumers and taxpayers, have choices, maybe we won't want to pay for the kitchen sink. Maybe we'd rather take our chances with a higher deductible, and handle our routine medical issues out-of-pocket. That would certainly reconnect us as individuals to the value of medical services relative to costs. But we won't have those options. Plus, innovations like convenient, cost-effective, retail clinics - where you see a nurse for minor matters instead of waiting for hours and paying more to see a doctor - will fall by the wayside. Our ever-competent, ever-wise Federal government has everything handled. Why does that not comfort me?
Obama will have more than a little to say about how healthcare providers and insurance companies run their business.
In markets that don't meet standards for "competition", the Obama's plan will dictate what insurance companies can spend on administration or keep in profit. And everywhere, insurance companies may only charge Federally approved "fair and stable" premiums.
While all insurance companies may not be required to participate in the Exchange, not having Comrade Obama’s approval will hurt them in the marketplace. They won’t realistically be able to compete against federally subsidized care.
Obama's plan imposes new reporting and regulatory requirements on providers, including standards on "diversity" and "culturally effective" care, and "holding [providers] accountable for any differences found" in care provided to "disparate" patients.
Obama will prevent insurers from "overcharging" physicians for malpractice insurance.
Government telling business what to sell and how much to charge and how much they can profit, all the while mandating cultural sensitivity for their disparate customers? And that's only the beginning.
It takes some serious doublethink to get your mind around what Obama says is "allowing flexibility for state health reform plans." States can "continue to experiment, provided they meet the minimum standards of the national plan." States rights? Anyone? Hello? Is Obama using the Constitution for anything other than toilet paper?
More doublethink is needed to get around expanding eligibility for the Medicaid and SCHIP programs, yet ensuring "these programs continue to serve their critical safety net function". Wait a second. If it's truly a safety net, eligibility should be limited. Expand too far, and it's not a safety net, it's an entitlement.
Obama's plan would reimburse some small employer health plans for a portion of catastrophic costs, but only if they guarantee such savings are used to reduce the cost of workers' premiums.
And it wouldn't be an Obama program if it didn't have a sliding scale of tax credits, so that the "rich" are left holding the bag.
Contrast this with the relative simplicity of McCain’s plan, McCain would provide a tax credit of $2,500 to individuals or $5,000 for families, as long as you can prove you're covered. It doesn't matter whether the plan is privately purchased or received through an employer. A partial offset to the tax credit is ending the Federal income tax exclusion for the employee on employer provided insurance. But despite Obama's phony lamentations to the contrary, McCain’s plan proves to be a net tax cut to most people.
Currently, people in higher tax brackets benefit more from the health insurance tax exclusion. If you're in the 15% bracket, and your employer pays for a $5,000 health insurance policy for you, it's worth $750 to you. The 28% bracket? It's worth $1,400, and so on. Assuming your employer keeps your plan when McCain's tax credit went into effect, if you're in the lower bracket, your net tax change is a reduction of 4,250. The 28% bracket - $3,600. While the net benefit of the plan is progressive in nature, everyone is eligible for the credit.
While Obama throws around the claim that his plan provides three times the amount of tax relief to middle-class families, the studies he cites exclude the effect of their health care plans. Mighty convenient to leave hundreds of billions of McCain’s tax credits out of the equation, Senator Obama. Do you think that skewed the numbers just a little?
Obama also tries to paint McCain’s plan as the end of employer-based coverage. Realistically, few employers will drop insurance coverage without increasing base pay, not if they want to retain good employees. And, is increased portability as a result of less linkage to the employers necessarily a bad thing?
McCain’s plan with regard to the difficult to insure, people with pre-existing conditions, is to work with Governors on guaranteed coverage, not command how it will be done nationwide.
McCain is at least leaving us with more choices in the market, even if those choices will be heavily subsidized. McCain’s plan is no conservative dream, but Obama’s healthcare takeover is waking-in-a-cold-sweat screaming night terrors.
Obama's proposed National Health Insurance Exchange will eliminate our choices. Every company joining the Exchange will be required to offer comprehensive, kitchen-sink policies.
Why is this a problem? Don't we all want great coverage?
This kind of policy, covering routine expenditures at lower out of pocket costs, has created an enormous disconnect in consumers minds between cost and value. Virtually no one with insurance knows or cares what their doctor is charging anymore - their only concern is their co-pay. "What do I care? Insurance covers it." This has contributed to increasing medical costs. They charge so much because they can. Insurance companies have the motive and ability to get costs down, but that only works for their customers, not the uninsured. The uninsured, should they be so unfortunate to have any assets or income beyond the poverty level, are on the hook for substantially more than what an insurance company would cover as "reasonable and customary" contracted costs.
Obama's mandated gold-plated policies will further distort the marketplace and contribute to further increases in costs. We don't need medical coverage for our hangnails, and we certainly don't need the Federal government subsidizing it. But the Exchange "will require that all the plans offered are at least as generous as the new public plan." Every company will have to cover pre-existing conditions, mental health, maternity and preventive care.
If we, as consumers and taxpayers, have choices, maybe we won't want to pay for the kitchen sink. Maybe we'd rather take our chances with a higher deductible, and handle our routine medical issues out-of-pocket. That would certainly reconnect us as individuals to the value of medical services relative to costs. But we won't have those options. Plus, innovations like convenient, cost-effective, retail clinics - where you see a nurse for minor matters instead of waiting for hours and paying more to see a doctor - will fall by the wayside. Our ever-competent, ever-wise Federal government has everything handled. Why does that not comfort me?
Obama will have more than a little to say about how healthcare providers and insurance companies run their business.
In markets that don't meet standards for "competition", the Obama's plan will dictate what insurance companies can spend on administration or keep in profit. And everywhere, insurance companies may only charge Federally approved "fair and stable" premiums.
While all insurance companies may not be required to participate in the Exchange, not having Comrade Obama’s approval will hurt them in the marketplace. They won’t realistically be able to compete against federally subsidized care.
Obama's plan imposes new reporting and regulatory requirements on providers, including standards on "diversity" and "culturally effective" care, and "holding [providers] accountable for any differences found" in care provided to "disparate" patients.
Obama will prevent insurers from "overcharging" physicians for malpractice insurance.
Government telling business what to sell and how much to charge and how much they can profit, all the while mandating cultural sensitivity for their disparate customers? And that's only the beginning.
It takes some serious doublethink to get your mind around what Obama says is "allowing flexibility for state health reform plans." States can "continue to experiment, provided they meet the minimum standards of the national plan." States rights? Anyone? Hello? Is Obama using the Constitution for anything other than toilet paper?
More doublethink is needed to get around expanding eligibility for the Medicaid and SCHIP programs, yet ensuring "these programs continue to serve their critical safety net function". Wait a second. If it's truly a safety net, eligibility should be limited. Expand too far, and it's not a safety net, it's an entitlement.
Obama's plan would reimburse some small employer health plans for a portion of catastrophic costs, but only if they guarantee such savings are used to reduce the cost of workers' premiums.
And it wouldn't be an Obama program if it didn't have a sliding scale of tax credits, so that the "rich" are left holding the bag.
Contrast this with the relative simplicity of McCain’s plan, McCain would provide a tax credit of $2,500 to individuals or $5,000 for families, as long as you can prove you're covered. It doesn't matter whether the plan is privately purchased or received through an employer. A partial offset to the tax credit is ending the Federal income tax exclusion for the employee on employer provided insurance. But despite Obama's phony lamentations to the contrary, McCain’s plan proves to be a net tax cut to most people.
Currently, people in higher tax brackets benefit more from the health insurance tax exclusion. If you're in the 15% bracket, and your employer pays for a $5,000 health insurance policy for you, it's worth $750 to you. The 28% bracket? It's worth $1,400, and so on. Assuming your employer keeps your plan when McCain's tax credit went into effect, if you're in the lower bracket, your net tax change is a reduction of 4,250. The 28% bracket - $3,600. While the net benefit of the plan is progressive in nature, everyone is eligible for the credit.
While Obama throws around the claim that his plan provides three times the amount of tax relief to middle-class families, the studies he cites exclude the effect of their health care plans. Mighty convenient to leave hundreds of billions of McCain’s tax credits out of the equation, Senator Obama. Do you think that skewed the numbers just a little?
Obama also tries to paint McCain’s plan as the end of employer-based coverage. Realistically, few employers will drop insurance coverage without increasing base pay, not if they want to retain good employees. And, is increased portability as a result of less linkage to the employers necessarily a bad thing?
McCain’s plan with regard to the difficult to insure, people with pre-existing conditions, is to work with Governors on guaranteed coverage, not command how it will be done nationwide.
McCain is at least leaving us with more choices in the market, even if those choices will be heavily subsidized. McCain’s plan is no conservative dream, but Obama’s healthcare takeover is waking-in-a-cold-sweat screaming night terrors.
Sunday, October 19, 2008
No, Really, You Can't
Obama crowds chanting “Yes, we can” is positively Orwellian. What Obama’s platform really tells the American people is “No, you can’t”.
No, you can’t handle your own healthcare decisions properly. The Feds can do it better.
No, private enterprise can’t develop renewable energy solutions on its own. The Feds need to subsidize it.
No, states can’t balance their budgets anymore. The Feds are here to rescue you from your irresponsible fiscal policies.
No, Americans can’t overcome prejudice and discrimination. The Feds will make you.
No, employees can’t be trusted with secret ballots in union elections. You can’t do the right thing unless you have a union representative looking over your shoulder.
No, American communications companies can’t provide broadband for all by themselves. The Feds can better determine how our wireless facilities are best utilized.
No, employers can’t pay their employees a fair wage. The Feds will decide for you what an unskilled, inexperienced worker should be paid.
No, you can’t possibly comprehend credit card disclosures or the terms of a home mortgage. You’re too stupid. The Feds are there to make sure it gets dumbed down for you.
No, employers can’t fairly consider employee requests for time off. The Feds are there to make sure you get the time for anything the Feds consider fair.
No, you can’t provide appropriate pre-school and other learning opportunities for your child. The Feds have to help you.
No, states and local school districts can’t solve their own problems. No, the Feds know best, from hundreds or thousands of miles away, their bureaucrats can solve the problems in your child’s classroom.
No, you can’t provide for retirement on your own. The Feds are there to make you do it.
I don’t think Obama gives the American people and American business nearly the credit they deserve.
No, you can’t handle your own healthcare decisions properly. The Feds can do it better.
No, private enterprise can’t develop renewable energy solutions on its own. The Feds need to subsidize it.
No, states can’t balance their budgets anymore. The Feds are here to rescue you from your irresponsible fiscal policies.
No, Americans can’t overcome prejudice and discrimination. The Feds will make you.
No, employees can’t be trusted with secret ballots in union elections. You can’t do the right thing unless you have a union representative looking over your shoulder.
No, American communications companies can’t provide broadband for all by themselves. The Feds can better determine how our wireless facilities are best utilized.
No, employers can’t pay their employees a fair wage. The Feds will decide for you what an unskilled, inexperienced worker should be paid.
No, you can’t possibly comprehend credit card disclosures or the terms of a home mortgage. You’re too stupid. The Feds are there to make sure it gets dumbed down for you.
No, employers can’t fairly consider employee requests for time off. The Feds are there to make sure you get the time for anything the Feds consider fair.
No, you can’t provide appropriate pre-school and other learning opportunities for your child. The Feds have to help you.
No, states and local school districts can’t solve their own problems. No, the Feds know best, from hundreds or thousands of miles away, their bureaucrats can solve the problems in your child’s classroom.
No, you can’t provide for retirement on your own. The Feds are there to make you do it.
I don’t think Obama gives the American people and American business nearly the credit they deserve.
Saturday, October 18, 2008
Debate Catharsis
My intentions here are two-fold. One, if I do some ranting here, I am less likely to throw a brick at the TV screen. Two, speaking to a larger audience than just talking back to the TV - it's kind of like expecting a football team to hear me screaming "block that kick" from a thousand miles away.
There is value in going back to the written transcript, and thinking about what the candidates were really saying.
[Obama] I want to end the tax breaks for companies that are shipping jobs overseas...
Am I the only one who ever wonders just what tax breaks he's referring to? I've never heard of an outsourcing tax credit or anything else I'd consider a tax break for shipping jobs overseas.
[Obama] What I've said is I want to provide a tax cut for 95 percent of working Americans, 95 percent.
The faulty math in this assertion doesn't say much for Obama's Harvard education, not when almost a third of tax filers pay no income tax at all. You can't cut something that doesn't exist. You can't refund something that hasn't been paid. What Obama will do is increase taxes on the top 5% and use a substantial portion of the proceeds to send checks to people who don't pay any income taxes at all. It's not a tax cut, it's income redistribution. He's playing Robin Hood and trying to obscure it by calling it tax cuts.
[Obama] So, look, nobody likes taxes. I would prefer that none of us had to pay taxes, including myself. But ultimately, we've got to pay for the core investments that make this economy strong and somebody's got to do it.
Newsflash, Senator Government. Government "investments" are not what make the economy strong. American businesses are our economic strength.
[McCain] I oppose subsidies for ethanol because I thought it distorted the market and created inflation; Senator Obama supported those subsidies.
Glory glory hallelujah! Thank you, Senator McCain. Ethanol is a fraud - it not only ends up producing more greenhouse gas than gasoline, it has caused a spike in prices that has had a huge impact on the poor, and especially starving people overseas.
[McCain] Senator Obama, I am not President Bush. If you wanted to run against President Bush, you should have run four years ago.
About time! Why they couldn't think of this for the first debate is beyond me.
[McCain] But it's very clear that I have disagreed with the Bush administration. I have disagreed with leaders of my own party. I've got the scars to prove it.
Whether it be bringing climate change to the floor of the Senate for the first time. Whether it be opposition to spending and earmarks, whether it be the issue of torture, whether it be the conduct of the war in Iraq, which I vigorously opposed. Whether it be on fighting the pharmaceutical companies on Medicare prescription drugs, importation. Whether it be fighting for an HMO patient's bill of rights. Whether it be the establishment of the 9/11 Commission.
I have a long record of reform and fighting through on the floor of the United States Senate.
I wish this were a campaign commercial.
[McCain] Every time there's been an out-of-bounds remark made by a Republican, no matter where they are, I have repudiated them. I hope that Senator Obama will repudiate those remarks that were made by Congressman John Lewis, very unfair and totally inappropriate.
That he has, pissing off lots of conservatives in the process. He inexplicably will not call out the Democrats on many of their outrageous claims. His comments about Lewis were a rare exception.
[Obama] And 100 percent, John, of your ads -- 100 percent of them have been negative.
[McCain] It's not true.
[Obama] It absolutely is true.
No matter how many times you say it, it still isn't true. For a period of one week, almost all of McCain's ads were negative, but he has done positive ads as well. And as part of having more money to spend overall, Obama has outspent McCain on negative ads.
[Obama] But when people suggest that I pal around with terrorists, then we're not talking about issues.
It's a legitimate issue to me. It's less the terrorism forty years ago than the anti-capitalist, black separatist school "reform" you worked with Ayers on, though.
[Obama] Let me tell you who I associate with. On economic policy, I associate with Warren Buffett and former Fed Chairman Paul Volcker. If I'm interested in figuring out my foreign policy, I associate myself with my running mate, Joe Biden or with Dick Lugar, the Republican ranking member on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, or General Jim Jones, the former supreme allied commander of NATO.
Those are the people, Democrats and Republicans, who have shaped my ideas and who will be surrounding me in the White House. And I think the fact that this has become such an important part of your campaign, Senator McCain, says more about your campaign than it says about me.
Those aren't really the people "who shaped your ideas", Senator. Why don't you mention the communist Frank Marshall Davis, Saul "The Red" Alinsky, the Marxist professors you sought out in college, or Reverend Wright? Isn't the title of your second book evidence that Wright has indeed "shaped your ideas"?
And what it says about McCain is that he also sees the significance of your anti-capitalist radical worldview and what it means to America if elected.
[Obama] Just yesterday, I was in Toledo shaking some hands in a line. Two women, both of them probably in their mid- to late-50s, had just been laid off of their plant. Neither of them have health insurance.
And they were desperate for some way of getting coverage, because, understandably, they're worried that, if they get sick, they could go bankrupt.
It's called COBRA, Senator. Sometimes I don't think Obama could get a clue if he slathered himself in clue musk and danced naked in a field of horny clues in the middle of clue mating season.
[Obama] If you don't have health insurance, then what we're going to do is to provide you the option of buying into the same kind of federal pool that both Senator McCain and I enjoy as federal employees, which will give you high-quality care, choice of doctors, at lower costs, because so many people are part of this insured group.
Are you going to subsidize this insurance the way it is for Federal employees? Doesn't that throw a wrench in the free market, tempting people to give up private plans and run to the subsidized government plan?
[Obama]We're going to make sure that insurance companies can't discriminate on the basis of pre-existing conditions. We'll negotiate with the drug companies for the cheapest available price on drugs.
We are going to invest in information technology to eliminate bureaucracy and make the system more efficient.
And we are going to make sure that we manage chronic illnesses, like diabetes and heart disease, that cost a huge amount, but could be prevented. We've got to put more money into preventive care.
This will cost some money on the front end, but over the long term this is the only way that not only are we going to make families healthy, but it's also how we're going to save the federal budget, because we can't afford these escalating costs.
We, we, we, Kemosabe? Read his comments carefully. It sounds like a government takeover of healthcare is indeed in the works, no matter how much he denies it now.
[Obama] I exempt small businesses from having to pay into a kitty. But large businesses that can afford it, we've got a choice. Either they provide health insurance to their employees or somebody has to.
Right now, what happens is those employees get dumped into either the Medicaid system, which taxpayers pick up, or they're going to the emergency room for uncompensated care, which everybody picks up in their premiums.
There he goes again, with the "because they can afford it" business.
And he left out a third option, which doesn't surprise me. Democrats often forget about personal responsibility - i.e. responsible people who buy their own health insurance if their employer doesn't offer it.
I could go on. But I'm sure you've had enough for now.
There is value in going back to the written transcript, and thinking about what the candidates were really saying.
[Obama] I want to end the tax breaks for companies that are shipping jobs overseas...
Am I the only one who ever wonders just what tax breaks he's referring to? I've never heard of an outsourcing tax credit or anything else I'd consider a tax break for shipping jobs overseas.
[Obama] What I've said is I want to provide a tax cut for 95 percent of working Americans, 95 percent.
The faulty math in this assertion doesn't say much for Obama's Harvard education, not when almost a third of tax filers pay no income tax at all. You can't cut something that doesn't exist. You can't refund something that hasn't been paid. What Obama will do is increase taxes on the top 5% and use a substantial portion of the proceeds to send checks to people who don't pay any income taxes at all. It's not a tax cut, it's income redistribution. He's playing Robin Hood and trying to obscure it by calling it tax cuts.
[Obama] So, look, nobody likes taxes. I would prefer that none of us had to pay taxes, including myself. But ultimately, we've got to pay for the core investments that make this economy strong and somebody's got to do it.
Newsflash, Senator Government. Government "investments" are not what make the economy strong. American businesses are our economic strength.
[McCain] I oppose subsidies for ethanol because I thought it distorted the market and created inflation; Senator Obama supported those subsidies.
Glory glory hallelujah! Thank you, Senator McCain. Ethanol is a fraud - it not only ends up producing more greenhouse gas than gasoline, it has caused a spike in prices that has had a huge impact on the poor, and especially starving people overseas.
[McCain] Senator Obama, I am not President Bush. If you wanted to run against President Bush, you should have run four years ago.
About time! Why they couldn't think of this for the first debate is beyond me.
[McCain] But it's very clear that I have disagreed with the Bush administration. I have disagreed with leaders of my own party. I've got the scars to prove it.
Whether it be bringing climate change to the floor of the Senate for the first time. Whether it be opposition to spending and earmarks, whether it be the issue of torture, whether it be the conduct of the war in Iraq, which I vigorously opposed. Whether it be on fighting the pharmaceutical companies on Medicare prescription drugs, importation. Whether it be fighting for an HMO patient's bill of rights. Whether it be the establishment of the 9/11 Commission.
I have a long record of reform and fighting through on the floor of the United States Senate.
I wish this were a campaign commercial.
[McCain] Every time there's been an out-of-bounds remark made by a Republican, no matter where they are, I have repudiated them. I hope that Senator Obama will repudiate those remarks that were made by Congressman John Lewis, very unfair and totally inappropriate.
That he has, pissing off lots of conservatives in the process. He inexplicably will not call out the Democrats on many of their outrageous claims. His comments about Lewis were a rare exception.
[Obama] And 100 percent, John, of your ads -- 100 percent of them have been negative.
[McCain] It's not true.
[Obama] It absolutely is true.
No matter how many times you say it, it still isn't true. For a period of one week, almost all of McCain's ads were negative, but he has done positive ads as well. And as part of having more money to spend overall, Obama has outspent McCain on negative ads.
[Obama] But when people suggest that I pal around with terrorists, then we're not talking about issues.
It's a legitimate issue to me. It's less the terrorism forty years ago than the anti-capitalist, black separatist school "reform" you worked with Ayers on, though.
[Obama] Let me tell you who I associate with. On economic policy, I associate with Warren Buffett and former Fed Chairman Paul Volcker. If I'm interested in figuring out my foreign policy, I associate myself with my running mate, Joe Biden or with Dick Lugar, the Republican ranking member on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, or General Jim Jones, the former supreme allied commander of NATO.
Those are the people, Democrats and Republicans, who have shaped my ideas and who will be surrounding me in the White House. And I think the fact that this has become such an important part of your campaign, Senator McCain, says more about your campaign than it says about me.
Those aren't really the people "who shaped your ideas", Senator. Why don't you mention the communist Frank Marshall Davis, Saul "The Red" Alinsky, the Marxist professors you sought out in college, or Reverend Wright? Isn't the title of your second book evidence that Wright has indeed "shaped your ideas"?
And what it says about McCain is that he also sees the significance of your anti-capitalist radical worldview and what it means to America if elected.
[Obama] Just yesterday, I was in Toledo shaking some hands in a line. Two women, both of them probably in their mid- to late-50s, had just been laid off of their plant. Neither of them have health insurance.
And they were desperate for some way of getting coverage, because, understandably, they're worried that, if they get sick, they could go bankrupt.
It's called COBRA, Senator. Sometimes I don't think Obama could get a clue if he slathered himself in clue musk and danced naked in a field of horny clues in the middle of clue mating season.
[Obama] If you don't have health insurance, then what we're going to do is to provide you the option of buying into the same kind of federal pool that both Senator McCain and I enjoy as federal employees, which will give you high-quality care, choice of doctors, at lower costs, because so many people are part of this insured group.
Are you going to subsidize this insurance the way it is for Federal employees? Doesn't that throw a wrench in the free market, tempting people to give up private plans and run to the subsidized government plan?
[Obama]We're going to make sure that insurance companies can't discriminate on the basis of pre-existing conditions. We'll negotiate with the drug companies for the cheapest available price on drugs.
We are going to invest in information technology to eliminate bureaucracy and make the system more efficient.
And we are going to make sure that we manage chronic illnesses, like diabetes and heart disease, that cost a huge amount, but could be prevented. We've got to put more money into preventive care.
This will cost some money on the front end, but over the long term this is the only way that not only are we going to make families healthy, but it's also how we're going to save the federal budget, because we can't afford these escalating costs.
We, we, we, Kemosabe? Read his comments carefully. It sounds like a government takeover of healthcare is indeed in the works, no matter how much he denies it now.
[Obama] I exempt small businesses from having to pay into a kitty. But large businesses that can afford it, we've got a choice. Either they provide health insurance to their employees or somebody has to.
Right now, what happens is those employees get dumped into either the Medicaid system, which taxpayers pick up, or they're going to the emergency room for uncompensated care, which everybody picks up in their premiums.
There he goes again, with the "because they can afford it" business.
And he left out a third option, which doesn't surprise me. Democrats often forget about personal responsibility - i.e. responsible people who buy their own health insurance if their employer doesn't offer it.
I could go on. But I'm sure you've had enough for now.
Adding my voice
Up until the election, I hope to provide links and well-reasoned arguments to deter people from voting for Obama. After the election, I may be drinking heavily.
I'll begin with this series at Investor's Business Daily:
The Audacity of Socialism
While there are most certainly hyperbolic elements to these editorials, I think the facts contained bear serious consideration.
I'm perfectly open and forthcoming about who and what shapes my political worldview, and I think Obama has been less than honest. And no wonder.
I'll begin with this series at Investor's Business Daily:
The Audacity of Socialism
While there are most certainly hyperbolic elements to these editorials, I think the facts contained bear serious consideration.
I'm perfectly open and forthcoming about who and what shapes my political worldview, and I think Obama has been less than honest. And no wonder.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
