Last night, as my wife was listening to her favorite Christmas song, and trying to relax, I tore open a letter from my employer.
"Dear employee, your contribution to your basic healthcare coverage will be doubled starting january 1."
"What!?" I exclaimed as my wife shushed me and swayed around the kitchen to the music.
Thoughts were swirling around my head like mobile homes in a tornado. We are walking the financial tightrope as it is, will we be able to make it? Energy prices will double in 2011. Our school taxes just went up. What about inflation when the economy starts moving again, and all of this cheap money begins to circulate? The Bush tax cuts will expire next year. The Cap and Trade bill will cost me $1200 additional dollars each year directly, and who knows how much indirectly? And I am sure the government will find other ways to tax me, given we are saddled with record debt. Given the economy, it's not like I can expect a raise any time soon. I am just happy to have a job.
"Maybe a single-payer healthcare system is the answer..........."
"Calm down," my wife exclaimed smiling and brushing up against me,"you are killng my relaxation."
How do you think I feel. My relaxation is pretty much gone. Maybe a single-payer healthcare system is the answer. I said it, and I know I am not the only one.
But wait. Ok. Maybe I should take my wife's advice. Calm Down...Let's think about this.
Energy Prices will double. Why? Because government is mandating expensive "green" technologies and not allowing us to drill for our own natural resources, but even more because they have forced the energy companies to hold their prices down unnaturally for years and now in one fell swoop, all of those increases that should have happened more slowly and organicly will be a huge jolt to the system.
School Taxes have gone , that's government at work.
The potentially ridiculously high inflation rate caused by a Federal Reserve who lowered interest rates to ridiculously low levels so that A: The government could encourage home ownership for everyone (even those who could not afford it) and B: The government would be able to spend all of that cheap money on pet projects in the hopes that they could buy enough votes to stay in power.
The "Bush" tax cuts will expire. Why do tax cuts expire, but tax increases require new legislation to remove?
That Cap and Trade bill will cost me $1200 I don't have, and cause businesses to raise the prices to offset the cost of this legislation, so that will be great.
Is single-payer the answer? That would mean more government mandates, more government control, and more taxes. Isn't that what's shaking the tightrope already?
"Alright honey, what did you want to talk about?" My wife offered, as the last notes of the song trailed off.
"Nothing," I replied, "I have nothing left to say."
Thursday, December 10, 2009
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
Is it Snoweing Already?
Senator Snowe,
I may not be a resident of Maine, but I am a constituent of yours do to the fact that your vote on Healthcare Reform will have severe and detrimental effects on my parents, children, friends, colleagues and myself.
By voting to move the bill out of the Finance Committee you have breathed renewed life into this monstrosity of a bill.
By setting your position as being for a trigger, you have set the debate between a trigger for a public option and just a public option. The debate on that aspect of Healthcare Reform should begin and end with no public option. Let's call the "public option" what it is; a "socialized insurance plan." They don't make bones about using that language in Europe.
Senator Snowe, I would like to give you the benefit of the doubt. I would like to believe that you are interested in helping your constituents attain necessary medical care. If that is your goal, the direction that this bill is going will not make anything easier to attain.
Take the Federal Government out of the health insurance industry as much as possible and trust us, the American People to do what needs to be done for each other. We are the most charitable people in the world.
Do you realize that if all of the organizations that have produced commericials, and done media buys throughout the nation for the last six months had taken that money and put it into a charitable medical fund to help the poor get care, we would not even need to have this debate.
The Federal Government being in the business of Healthcare Insurance Provider does not exist anywhere in the Constitution of our great nation. Nor does the Federal Government's ability to force the American People to purchase a product (health insurance) under penalty of "fines".
Please do not be a party to this obvious Executive power grab. I don't know why your Democratic colleagues in the House and the Senate are so quick to expand the power of the Executive Branch while diminishing their own.
I know the snow ball is rolling down the mountain side, but all it takes is one strong person to generate enough heat to melt it and preserve the lives, the liberty and the ability to pursue happiness in America.
I may not be a resident of Maine, but I am a constituent of yours do to the fact that your vote on Healthcare Reform will have severe and detrimental effects on my parents, children, friends, colleagues and myself.
By voting to move the bill out of the Finance Committee you have breathed renewed life into this monstrosity of a bill.
By setting your position as being for a trigger, you have set the debate between a trigger for a public option and just a public option. The debate on that aspect of Healthcare Reform should begin and end with no public option. Let's call the "public option" what it is; a "socialized insurance plan." They don't make bones about using that language in Europe.
Senator Snowe, I would like to give you the benefit of the doubt. I would like to believe that you are interested in helping your constituents attain necessary medical care. If that is your goal, the direction that this bill is going will not make anything easier to attain.
Take the Federal Government out of the health insurance industry as much as possible and trust us, the American People to do what needs to be done for each other. We are the most charitable people in the world.
Do you realize that if all of the organizations that have produced commericials, and done media buys throughout the nation for the last six months had taken that money and put it into a charitable medical fund to help the poor get care, we would not even need to have this debate.
The Federal Government being in the business of Healthcare Insurance Provider does not exist anywhere in the Constitution of our great nation. Nor does the Federal Government's ability to force the American People to purchase a product (health insurance) under penalty of "fines".
Please do not be a party to this obvious Executive power grab. I don't know why your Democratic colleagues in the House and the Senate are so quick to expand the power of the Executive Branch while diminishing their own.
I know the snow ball is rolling down the mountain side, but all it takes is one strong person to generate enough heat to melt it and preserve the lives, the liberty and the ability to pursue happiness in America.
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
A Letter to Patrick Murphy Regarding HealthCARE
I believe that we need tort reform. Any discussion of healthcare reform with out this is non-sense. The exorbitant cost of healthcare is due in large part to frivolous law suits which result in unnecessary care being given to patients out of fear of lawsuits, and exhorbitant malpractice insurance costs which are then passed onto the end user.
I believe that individuals should be given the same tax deduction when they purchase their own insurance as their employer gets for purchasing it for them.
I believe that we should be able to choose our insurance plans from among the 1000s that are available throughout the country rather than being limited to the 3 or 4 that we can currently choose from in PA.
I believe doctors who donate their time and services to the poor should be able to deduct this from their Federal Income Taxes as a charitable donation.
I believe that we should be able to buy a term health insurance plan like we do with life insurance.
Regarding the question about what kind of reform we need in order to cover the uninsured: Why is every option for providing health insurance an option that requires the government to provide it? This should be about making sure that the poor, the old and the sick are able to get healthCARE. The idea of insurance is a means to an end. Do some or all of suggestions above and the costs will come down considerably, making it easier for hard working families to afford the care they need, while not robbing us of our most basic freedoms.
As for the question of pre-existing conditions, certainly nobody should be denied coverage because they've been sick. That is why you get health insurance. But we must be responsible in how we approach this. Perhaps I could be open to the idea of subsidizing the risk pool for the insurance companies if they assume the risk of insuring those with pre-existing conditions, but frankly I just don't trust Washington enough right now to handle even that money appropriately. If the money were collected and administered at the township or county level and the Federal Gov were left out of it, that would be ideal.
To sum it up, I believe that no man should be enslaved because another man needs healthcare (not a doctor, nor a "taxpayer"). United States citizens are the most generous people in all the world and yet your colleagues in congress and our President believe that we need to have our money stolen from our pockets, run through the government sausage maker and then dealt out to those who need healthcare. If we were able to keep more of our hard earned money, not only would we be able to better afford our own healthcare, but we could bypass the beaurocracy and have more to give directly to those in need.
Be a true "Blue Dog" Mr. Murphy. Vote "no" on anything that even remotely resembles the non-sense currently running through congress and push for true "Common Sense" reforms that will not cost us money we don't have (have you seen the debt clock?), nor strip us of our individual liberty.
I put a great deal of thought into this, and I would appreciate it if you actually read it and consider it. If you plan on responding to me with a form letter, or the usual platitudes, save your bandwidth as I would only appreciate a personal and reasoned response.
I believe that individuals should be given the same tax deduction when they purchase their own insurance as their employer gets for purchasing it for them.
I believe that we should be able to choose our insurance plans from among the 1000s that are available throughout the country rather than being limited to the 3 or 4 that we can currently choose from in PA.
I believe doctors who donate their time and services to the poor should be able to deduct this from their Federal Income Taxes as a charitable donation.
I believe that we should be able to buy a term health insurance plan like we do with life insurance.
Regarding the question about what kind of reform we need in order to cover the uninsured: Why is every option for providing health insurance an option that requires the government to provide it? This should be about making sure that the poor, the old and the sick are able to get healthCARE. The idea of insurance is a means to an end. Do some or all of suggestions above and the costs will come down considerably, making it easier for hard working families to afford the care they need, while not robbing us of our most basic freedoms.
As for the question of pre-existing conditions, certainly nobody should be denied coverage because they've been sick. That is why you get health insurance. But we must be responsible in how we approach this. Perhaps I could be open to the idea of subsidizing the risk pool for the insurance companies if they assume the risk of insuring those with pre-existing conditions, but frankly I just don't trust Washington enough right now to handle even that money appropriately. If the money were collected and administered at the township or county level and the Federal Gov were left out of it, that would be ideal.
To sum it up, I believe that no man should be enslaved because another man needs healthcare (not a doctor, nor a "taxpayer"). United States citizens are the most generous people in all the world and yet your colleagues in congress and our President believe that we need to have our money stolen from our pockets, run through the government sausage maker and then dealt out to those who need healthcare. If we were able to keep more of our hard earned money, not only would we be able to better afford our own healthcare, but we could bypass the beaurocracy and have more to give directly to those in need.
Be a true "Blue Dog" Mr. Murphy. Vote "no" on anything that even remotely resembles the non-sense currently running through congress and push for true "Common Sense" reforms that will not cost us money we don't have (have you seen the debt clock?), nor strip us of our individual liberty.
I put a great deal of thought into this, and I would appreciate it if you actually read it and consider it. If you plan on responding to me with a form letter, or the usual platitudes, save your bandwidth as I would only appreciate a personal and reasoned response.
Monday, August 24, 2009
Who is Misinformed?
Upon reading a recap of Senator Specters appearance on one of the Sunday shows and once again hearing about how I am the victim of misinformation, I immediately went to the esteemed Senators website and sent him the letter below. I don't feel any better.
Senator Specter,
I will not take up your valuable self promotion time with a lengthy e-mail. I have heard you on the circuit talking about misinformation. You seem to believe that by reading the bills that are under discussion, analysing their content and reviewing the positions of those crafting the bills, that we the people are somehow misinformed. Perhaps this is a misconception you have derived from your lack of experience in actually reading the bills you vote on. I understand Mr. Specter, you have to act fast sometimes.
I am not a member of a mob, I certainly do not where Brooks Brothers. I am a working man who is now forced by your actions to take time away from work, and family to direct my energy toward making sure that the self serving children in Washington grow up and realize that theft is wrong, extortion is wrong, bribery is wrong. Such basic lessons that as a former prosecuter I would think you would have learned. Healthcare is not a magic bullet Senater. Perhaps you have been misinformed.
Senator Specter,
I will not take up your valuable self promotion time with a lengthy e-mail. I have heard you on the circuit talking about misinformation. You seem to believe that by reading the bills that are under discussion, analysing their content and reviewing the positions of those crafting the bills, that we the people are somehow misinformed. Perhaps this is a misconception you have derived from your lack of experience in actually reading the bills you vote on. I understand Mr. Specter, you have to act fast sometimes.
I am not a member of a mob, I certainly do not where Brooks Brothers. I am a working man who is now forced by your actions to take time away from work, and family to direct my energy toward making sure that the self serving children in Washington grow up and realize that theft is wrong, extortion is wrong, bribery is wrong. Such basic lessons that as a former prosecuter I would think you would have learned. Healthcare is not a magic bullet Senater. Perhaps you have been misinformed.
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
In Response to Bruce
http://www.phillyburbs.com/news/local/the_intelligencer/the_intelligencer_news_details/article/27/2009/july/19/conservative-activism-on-the-rise-1.html#tx_pbcomments_comment163939
Bruce Wrote:
I am a Democrat but I am not the type of liberal Democrat to whom a few of you refer. I expect no handouts and have not received a nickel of help for 30 years and never asked for help. I work full time and am seeking a second job to pay the basics. That's real life.
Some observations: I see that our property taxes are too high and the cost of living here in CB is just too high. Whether the Dems or the GOP are in power, they spend too much, they keep our military over funded, spread out all over the world, places where we should not be. That's part of our federal debt as well. I thought we were supposed to be funding defense. When did the Feds decide to go on all out offense as a permanent strategy? What do you think that is costing each American working family? On that strategy, both partiees are to blame. By the way, I have traveled to three continents and every one I met loves Americans...but they dislike our foreign policy. That's significant when you think about developing a money saving strategy for foreign policy. Yes to protection but no to unnecessary wars. Obama should know this. Perhaps he is getting bad advice and will wake up soon. I see no difference between Obama and Bush on bloating the military budget.
I stated that I never received money from the feds. Now I have to tell all of you that I do need help with my family's health care. If I lose our plan due to it's high cost, then I suppose I have to walk into the emergncy room...I cannot even go to the clinic as I make $5000 a year over the criteria for use of the clinic. This is not a conservative or liberal problem.
Perhaps the readers on this board need to take a step back and think about what are the issues to vote for in 2010. How about no more funding the rich; reduce unnecessary offensive military action; provide basic universal health care; stop giving money to other countries to bribe their friendship and compliance; reduce public funding for free housing; expand jobs at home in green energy; stop funding teacher and state workers' pensions...you see where I am going. If we are to have a federal government, make every dollar count and use the money wisely to benefit the hard working folks who try. No freebies. Neither the Dems or the GOP have exhibited that type of judgment in the last 30 years.
My Response
Bruce, I am with you on many of your points. As far as your health care issue goes, Your local or State government should increase the income limit for going to the clinic. Every State should do that and then the Fed can stop taxing us for Medicare, etc. This would offset the inevitable, but necessary cost increase at the State level. At least then we would know that our money is going to help our fellow Pennsylvanians instead of going to bailout less responsible States with whom we have no representation.
I agree that our military is spread out on too many fronts, and our military budget is bloated. There must be a common sense solution to balancing our security with fiscal responsibility and adherence to the Constitution.
As for funding the rich, what seems to be happening in Washington, on both sides of the aisle is an enormous money laundering scheme. Large corporations like Goldman Sachs, and GE give huge donations to candidates to help get them elected. Once elected, these politicians return the money with interest. It used to be in the form of favorable regulations, etc. Now there is no pretence anymore. They just handover huge checks to these corporations.
This is why we need to return to the Constitutional form of having our Senators voted into office by our State legislatures. So our Senators will be beholden to nobody but our State governments and consequently the people represented by it.
Bruce Wrote:
I am a Democrat but I am not the type of liberal Democrat to whom a few of you refer. I expect no handouts and have not received a nickel of help for 30 years and never asked for help. I work full time and am seeking a second job to pay the basics. That's real life.
Some observations: I see that our property taxes are too high and the cost of living here in CB is just too high. Whether the Dems or the GOP are in power, they spend too much, they keep our military over funded, spread out all over the world, places where we should not be. That's part of our federal debt as well. I thought we were supposed to be funding defense. When did the Feds decide to go on all out offense as a permanent strategy? What do you think that is costing each American working family? On that strategy, both partiees are to blame. By the way, I have traveled to three continents and every one I met loves Americans...but they dislike our foreign policy. That's significant when you think about developing a money saving strategy for foreign policy. Yes to protection but no to unnecessary wars. Obama should know this. Perhaps he is getting bad advice and will wake up soon. I see no difference between Obama and Bush on bloating the military budget.
I stated that I never received money from the feds. Now I have to tell all of you that I do need help with my family's health care. If I lose our plan due to it's high cost, then I suppose I have to walk into the emergncy room...I cannot even go to the clinic as I make $5000 a year over the criteria for use of the clinic. This is not a conservative or liberal problem.
Perhaps the readers on this board need to take a step back and think about what are the issues to vote for in 2010. How about no more funding the rich; reduce unnecessary offensive military action; provide basic universal health care; stop giving money to other countries to bribe their friendship and compliance; reduce public funding for free housing; expand jobs at home in green energy; stop funding teacher and state workers' pensions...you see where I am going. If we are to have a federal government, make every dollar count and use the money wisely to benefit the hard working folks who try. No freebies. Neither the Dems or the GOP have exhibited that type of judgment in the last 30 years.
My Response
Bruce, I am with you on many of your points. As far as your health care issue goes, Your local or State government should increase the income limit for going to the clinic. Every State should do that and then the Fed can stop taxing us for Medicare, etc. This would offset the inevitable, but necessary cost increase at the State level. At least then we would know that our money is going to help our fellow Pennsylvanians instead of going to bailout less responsible States with whom we have no representation.
I agree that our military is spread out on too many fronts, and our military budget is bloated. There must be a common sense solution to balancing our security with fiscal responsibility and adherence to the Constitution.
As for funding the rich, what seems to be happening in Washington, on both sides of the aisle is an enormous money laundering scheme. Large corporations like Goldman Sachs, and GE give huge donations to candidates to help get them elected. Once elected, these politicians return the money with interest. It used to be in the form of favorable regulations, etc. Now there is no pretence anymore. They just handover huge checks to these corporations.
This is why we need to return to the Constitutional form of having our Senators voted into office by our State legislatures. So our Senators will be beholden to nobody but our State governments and consequently the people represented by it.
Monday, June 15, 2009
Thursday, May 14, 2009
What Laws Are For in Todays Government
I have been racking my brain lately. I have been trying to figure out why the government would want so much control of the minutia of our daily lives. From controlling the electricity in our homes, to how much cola we can drink to which doctor we can see. If you break one of their laws, look out!.
But why? Sure there is that abstract idea of power, but power to what end?
As I am currently reading "Atlas Shrugged" by Ayn Rand, I have come across a quote from a character named Dr. Ferris that brings some clarity to my concerns on this subject. When I read them, I imagine Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, Nancy Pelosi or Rahm Emanual speaking them. Please read below:
"Did you really think that we want those laws to be observed?" said Dr. Ferris [government]. "We want them broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against - then you'll know that this is not the age for beautiful gestures. We're after power and we mean it. You fellows were pikers, but we know the real trick, and you'd better get wise to it. There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted - and you create a nation of law-breakers - and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Rearden, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with."
But why? Sure there is that abstract idea of power, but power to what end?
As I am currently reading "Atlas Shrugged" by Ayn Rand, I have come across a quote from a character named Dr. Ferris that brings some clarity to my concerns on this subject. When I read them, I imagine Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, Nancy Pelosi or Rahm Emanual speaking them. Please read below:
"Did you really think that we want those laws to be observed?" said Dr. Ferris [government]. "We want them broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against - then you'll know that this is not the age for beautiful gestures. We're after power and we mean it. You fellows were pikers, but we know the real trick, and you'd better get wise to it. There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted - and you create a nation of law-breakers - and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Rearden, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with."
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
A More Transparent Government?
After 8 years of secrecy, behind the scenes machinations, Dick Cheney, Haliburton, and bills passed in the cover of night, we are finally free.
As of January 20, 2009, change has come to Washington, and with it the promise of a more transparent government.
Thank goodness!!
I am a teensy bit confused however. Since President Obama's administration is, at least, as secretive as the Bush Administration, and making secret deals with large financial institutions while rapidly usurping private enterprise and our liberties, I am not sure what is meant by a more transparent government.
Does this mean that we will soon be governed by parents who move from family to family. Well let's see..."Trans" means "across" and "parent" means "the source" so a more "Transparent" government could mean that for more things "across" the board the government will be the "source". Would it be a surprise to anyone if a politician parsed words in such a way?
Oh no, wait, that's crazy talk. The truth is that "transparent" government just means that there will be more "transgendered" people in government. Yes, that's it. That sounds much more likely.
As of January 20, 2009, change has come to Washington, and with it the promise of a more transparent government.
Thank goodness!!
I am a teensy bit confused however. Since President Obama's administration is, at least, as secretive as the Bush Administration, and making secret deals with large financial institutions while rapidly usurping private enterprise and our liberties, I am not sure what is meant by a more transparent government.
Does this mean that we will soon be governed by parents who move from family to family. Well let's see..."Trans" means "across" and "parent" means "the source" so a more "Transparent" government could mean that for more things "across" the board the government will be the "source". Would it be a surprise to anyone if a politician parsed words in such a way?
Oh no, wait, that's crazy talk. The truth is that "transparent" government just means that there will be more "transgendered" people in government. Yes, that's it. That sounds much more likely.
Monday, March 23, 2009
The Science is Settled???
I came across this amazing link. Is it from some kook, right wing organization? No, it is actually from the U.S. Senate. That's right, apparantly there is now some acknowlegement that perhaps man's use of carbon may not be the cause of the global warming that is now global cooling, or is it global climage change.
Whatever you call it, this should be enough to give you pause when talks begin for "Cap and Trade" and other heavy handed Global regulations that will further cripple our economy and our stature in the world.
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=2158072e-802a-23ad-45f0-274616db87e6
Whatever you call it, this should be enough to give you pause when talks begin for "Cap and Trade" and other heavy handed Global regulations that will further cripple our economy and our stature in the world.
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=2158072e-802a-23ad-45f0-274616db87e6
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
PC World: New, Misguided Online Child-Safety Laws Will Hurt Business
I found this blog post by David Coursey to be very interesting. Big brother is watching....
http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/159958/article.html?tk=nl_bpxblg
Ahhh, we're all just paranoid. We need the Federal government to save us from ourselves. We're all NUTS!
http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/159958/article.html?tk=nl_bpxblg
Ahhh, we're all just paranoid. We need the Federal government to save us from ourselves. We're all NUTS!
Saturday, February 21, 2009
Friday, February 13, 2009
Oh Geithner!
Something tells me that the United States didn't get the best side of this deal.
Weren't the Russians supposed to be excluded from the G-7 for attacking Georgia? That's why they are the G-7 now and not the G-8. What is the Russian Finance Minister doing there?
Washington, DC – U.S. Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner met today with Russian Finance Minister Alexei Kudrin in Rome, Italy, the site of the G-7 Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors meeting.
Washington, DC – U.S. Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner met today with Russian Finance Minister Alexei Kudrin in Rome, Italy, the site of the G-7 Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors meeting.
Thursday, February 12, 2009
Barack Oprahma
Did anyone else get the feeling that President Obama's townhall was staged like an episode of Oprah Winfrey. Ironic due to their affiliation.
It was a charismatic African American host discussing the subject of the day; so far so good.
The oddball audience members asking for giveaways; we're getting warmer.
The cheers of the crowd when the odd audience member acts ridiculous, like the 4 year Mcdonalds' employee and his heavy, breathy praises to G-d for President Obama.
I half expected Mr. Obama to hand out a ham and an issue of "O Magazine" to all of the guests.
I just hope our next President doesn't go all "Jerry Springer" with his townhall meetings. Oh no! Our next President could actually be Jerry Springer. Aye Carumba!
It was a charismatic African American host discussing the subject of the day; so far so good.
The oddball audience members asking for giveaways; we're getting warmer.
The cheers of the crowd when the odd audience member acts ridiculous, like the 4 year Mcdonalds' employee and his heavy, breathy praises to G-d for President Obama.
I half expected Mr. Obama to hand out a ham and an issue of "O Magazine" to all of the guests.
I just hope our next President doesn't go all "Jerry Springer" with his townhall meetings. Oh no! Our next President could actually be Jerry Springer. Aye Carumba!
Letters to the Senators
To Senator Bob Casey(D):
Senator Casey please do not choose your party over your country. You are a public servant and as such it is your constitutional obligation to defend the Constitution, not to destroy it.
Where in the Constitution does it validate the enormous burden that you are about to place upon the shoulders of my children and grandchildren?
I implore you to vote no on the stimulus bill and then sit down with your colleagues, Democrat and Republican, and craft a bill that is more focused in it's scope.
It should remove Mark to Market accounting rules.
If you want people to open their pockets and invest, cut capital gains taxes, wage taxes, and corporate taxes.
Why not try these solutions before jumping the gun and doing something so incredibly drastic and intrusive as the stimulus in its current form obviously is.
I implore you Mr. Casey; VOTE NO.
To Senator Arlen Specter(R):
Senator Specter I do not know what to say to you at this point. You obviously have nothing but disdain for your constituants. You may have had power over us through your government career for many many years, but one would think that your health problems, horrible as they must have been, would have humbled you and reminded you that you are only human just like the rest of us.
You are a public servant; a very noble career choice. As such it is your constitutional obligation to defend the Constitution, not to destroy it.
Where in the Constitution does it validate the enormous burden that you are about to place upon the shoulders of my children and grandchildren?
I implore you to vote no on the stimulus bill and then sit down with your colleagues, Democrat and Republican, and craft a bill that is more focused in it's scope.
It should remove Mark to Market accounting rules first and foremost.
If you want people to open their pockets and invest, cut capital gains taxes, wage taxes, and corporate taxes.
Why not try these solutions before jumping the gun and doing something so incredibly drastic and intrusive as the stimulus in its current form obviously is.
In fact, after the 2 ideas listed above, please encourage President Obama, your Congressional colleagues, and the Fed to put a moratorium on government action regarding the economy for at least 6 months, and put out a public statement to that effect.
Give the free market a chance. You and I both know that the system is bottled up with anxiety wondering what the government is going to do next. With the moratorium, you can relieve that anxiety and allow things to start moving again.
I am not an economist, but I do pay attention.
I implore you Mr. Specter; VOTE NO.
"G-d I hope I don't get audited because of these."
A New Way for a Green Government
In honor of the, now 1000 page plus, "stimulus" (spending) bill making its way through congress I suggest a new "green governing" bill should be proposed in Congress as well. In keeping with the theme of this bill, it will be limited to one page. In fact it could be boiled down to one sentence:
"No bill written in either house of congress, or negotiated in a conference committee shall exceed 10 pages."
Think of all of the trees that could be saved by eliminating more than 990 pages from a bill like the "stimulus" bill.
Think of all of the electricity that could be saved by writing a mere 10 pages on the computer and then shutting down the computer and turning off the lights.
Think of the decrease in staffing necessary for the legislative branch that eliminating all of those pages could facilitate. They could significantly cut our taxes with the money saved by not paying all of those attorneys and typists.
Think of all of the eye strain that could be avoided by our new President having to spend late nights reading all 1000+ pages.
In all seriousness, we have Congressman and Senators voting on a bill that they could not possibly have read cover to cover. A bill that includes so many things that are anethema to the goals that were set out to be achieved. It gives the appearance of something sinister.
If bills were limited to 10 pages or less, we could assure the ability of our representatives to know exactly what they are voting for or against, and prevent the bill writers from offering pork for votes or inserting unintended provisions, because there would not be any room for them.
But most importantly, we would be decreasing the carbon footprint of our government and that is really much more important than our liberty anyway. Isn't it?
"No bill written in either house of congress, or negotiated in a conference committee shall exceed 10 pages."
Think of all of the trees that could be saved by eliminating more than 990 pages from a bill like the "stimulus" bill.
Think of all of the electricity that could be saved by writing a mere 10 pages on the computer and then shutting down the computer and turning off the lights.
Think of the decrease in staffing necessary for the legislative branch that eliminating all of those pages could facilitate. They could significantly cut our taxes with the money saved by not paying all of those attorneys and typists.
Think of all of the eye strain that could be avoided by our new President having to spend late nights reading all 1000+ pages.
In all seriousness, we have Congressman and Senators voting on a bill that they could not possibly have read cover to cover. A bill that includes so many things that are anethema to the goals that were set out to be achieved. It gives the appearance of something sinister.
If bills were limited to 10 pages or less, we could assure the ability of our representatives to know exactly what they are voting for or against, and prevent the bill writers from offering pork for votes or inserting unintended provisions, because there would not be any room for them.
But most importantly, we would be decreasing the carbon footprint of our government and that is really much more important than our liberty anyway. Isn't it?
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
Stimulus Quick Facts
January 15th, 2009 - -
Stimulus Quick Facts
"A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have." - Thomas Jefferson
Total Cost of Stimulus Legislation: $825 billion
How does this compare?
- In 1993, the unemployment was virtually the same as the rate today (around 7%). Yet, President Clinton’s proposed stimulus legislation *only* contained $16 billion in spending
- The total cost of this one piece of legislation is almost as much as the annual discretionary budget for the entire federal government.
- This legislation nears a trillion dollars. President Reagan said the best way to understand a trillion dollars is to imagine a crisp, new stack of $1000 bills. If you had a stack four inches high, you’d be a millionaire. A trillion-dollar stack of $1000 bills would measure just over 63 miles high.
- In $20 bills, a trillion dollar stack would be 3150 miles high. That’s about the distance between DC and Trujillo, Peru.
President-elect Obama has said that his proposed stimulus legislation will create or save 3 million jobs. This means that this legislation will spend about $275,000 per job. The average household income in the U.S. is $42,000 a year.
This bill provides enough spending to give every man, woman, and child in America $2,700.
This bill will cost each and every household $6,700 in additional debt, paid for by our children and grandchildren.
Although this legislation has been billed and described as a transportation and infrastructure investment package, but only three percent ($30 billion) of this package is for road and highway spending.
Much of the funding within the proposed stimulus package will go to programs which already have large, unexpended balances. For example, the draft bill provides $1 billion for Community Development Block Grants (CDBG), which already has $16 billion on hand. And, this year, Congress has plans to rescind $9 billion in highway funding that the states have not yet used.
Deficit spending will not expand the economy. If that were true, then the current $1.2 trillion deficit -- the largest in history -- would already be rescuing the economy. $800 billion more will not change that.
Trade groups state that every $1 billion in highway “stimulus” can be spent creating 34,779 new construction jobs. But Congress must first borrow that $1 billion out of the private sector. The private sector then loses or forgoes roughly the same number of jobs.
Japan responded to a 1990 recession by passing 10 “stimulus” bills over 8 years (building the largest national debt in the industrialized world). Their economy remained stagnant and their per capita income went from the second highest in the world to the tenth highest.
[Source: QUICK FACTS ON THE DEMOCRAT STIMULUS PROPOSAL; January 15, 2009]
Stimulus Quick Facts
"A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have." - Thomas Jefferson
Total Cost of Stimulus Legislation: $825 billion
How does this compare?
- In 1993, the unemployment was virtually the same as the rate today (around 7%). Yet, President Clinton’s proposed stimulus legislation *only* contained $16 billion in spending
- The total cost of this one piece of legislation is almost as much as the annual discretionary budget for the entire federal government.
- This legislation nears a trillion dollars. President Reagan said the best way to understand a trillion dollars is to imagine a crisp, new stack of $1000 bills. If you had a stack four inches high, you’d be a millionaire. A trillion-dollar stack of $1000 bills would measure just over 63 miles high.
- In $20 bills, a trillion dollar stack would be 3150 miles high. That’s about the distance between DC and Trujillo, Peru.
President-elect Obama has said that his proposed stimulus legislation will create or save 3 million jobs. This means that this legislation will spend about $275,000 per job. The average household income in the U.S. is $42,000 a year.
This bill provides enough spending to give every man, woman, and child in America $2,700.
This bill will cost each and every household $6,700 in additional debt, paid for by our children and grandchildren.
Although this legislation has been billed and described as a transportation and infrastructure investment package, but only three percent ($30 billion) of this package is for road and highway spending.
Much of the funding within the proposed stimulus package will go to programs which already have large, unexpended balances. For example, the draft bill provides $1 billion for Community Development Block Grants (CDBG), which already has $16 billion on hand. And, this year, Congress has plans to rescind $9 billion in highway funding that the states have not yet used.
Deficit spending will not expand the economy. If that were true, then the current $1.2 trillion deficit -- the largest in history -- would already be rescuing the economy. $800 billion more will not change that.
Trade groups state that every $1 billion in highway “stimulus” can be spent creating 34,779 new construction jobs. But Congress must first borrow that $1 billion out of the private sector. The private sector then loses or forgoes roughly the same number of jobs.
Japan responded to a 1990 recession by passing 10 “stimulus” bills over 8 years (building the largest national debt in the industrialized world). Their economy remained stagnant and their per capita income went from the second highest in the world to the tenth highest.
[Source: QUICK FACTS ON THE DEMOCRAT STIMULUS PROPOSAL; January 15, 2009]
Monday, January 26, 2009
Manmade Global Warming Theory 'Arrogant'
Since I couldn't have said it better myself, I decided not to. Below is a link to the article. The title says it all, except for the fact that, despite what Al Gore and the United Nations say, apparently, "The debate is not over."
http://businessandmedia.org/articles/2008/20081218205953.aspx
http://businessandmedia.org/articles/2008/20081218205953.aspx
Thursday, January 8, 2009
Pay to Play
A few weeks back, at the gym. The television in front of me was tuned to CNN. After a commericial for Medicare and a commericial for "Green Collar Jobs" (odd that there were 2 government commercials in a row), the lead story when the "news" returned was "should the first lady be paid." I nearly let the arm of the Elliptical machine smack me in the head when I heard this. The first lady get paid!?
They went on to describe how this poor woman is going to have to give up her lucrative career as an attorney.
They didn't continue with the rest of what she is going to have to do. She is going to have to travel around the world eating delicacies and meeting foreign dignataries. She is going to have to live in a huge mansion with servants at her beckon call. She is going to have to force herself to eat, wear and use only the finest of everything. She may have to make a commericial from time to time to let us know that "reading is fundamental", or "drugs are bad." She may have to make a speech or give an interview from time to time. And, oh yes, she would have to sleep with the President of the United States (ooohhh those pecs).
To her credit, Laura Bush's response to this question was "ofcourse the first lady should not get paid".
My first thought was that this is a trial balloon floated by the Obama administration because Michelle wants to get paid, but I shook my head and took a deep breath, slowing my pace on the elliptical as I realized that my heart rate was now pushing 4 digits. That couldn't be it. This must be an isolated goofy story that CNN has decided to throw out ther for no apparent reason. We will never hear anything about this again.
Boy was I wrong. Just today, Barack Obama is talking about how we will have Trillion Dollar deficits for the forseeable future because we have to spend our way out of this complete economic collapse. And suddenly the media is talking about Michelle Obama's salary again. Didn't the Obamas discuss what being a First Lady entails before Barack ran for office? We didn't vote for Michelle.
It is great that "for the first time in her life she is proud of her country" (now that her husband is President.) Perhaps she should, for the first time in her life, exhibit that pride and SERVE her country...as so many have done before her. Is it the good of our country or the good of the Obamas that is important to her?
They went on to describe how this poor woman is going to have to give up her lucrative career as an attorney.
They didn't continue with the rest of what she is going to have to do. She is going to have to travel around the world eating delicacies and meeting foreign dignataries. She is going to have to live in a huge mansion with servants at her beckon call. She is going to have to force herself to eat, wear and use only the finest of everything. She may have to make a commericial from time to time to let us know that "reading is fundamental", or "drugs are bad." She may have to make a speech or give an interview from time to time. And, oh yes, she would have to sleep with the President of the United States (ooohhh those pecs).
To her credit, Laura Bush's response to this question was "ofcourse the first lady should not get paid".
My first thought was that this is a trial balloon floated by the Obama administration because Michelle wants to get paid, but I shook my head and took a deep breath, slowing my pace on the elliptical as I realized that my heart rate was now pushing 4 digits. That couldn't be it. This must be an isolated goofy story that CNN has decided to throw out ther for no apparent reason. We will never hear anything about this again.
Boy was I wrong. Just today, Barack Obama is talking about how we will have Trillion Dollar deficits for the forseeable future because we have to spend our way out of this complete economic collapse. And suddenly the media is talking about Michelle Obama's salary again. Didn't the Obamas discuss what being a First Lady entails before Barack ran for office? We didn't vote for Michelle.
It is great that "for the first time in her life she is proud of her country" (now that her husband is President.) Perhaps she should, for the first time in her life, exhibit that pride and SERVE her country...as so many have done before her. Is it the good of our country or the good of the Obamas that is important to her?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Subscribe To Distraction Culture
Posts
All Comments