Go ahead Deval, make my day!
(It's not like I have anything better to do than pick up trash on the way to work)
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
Read My Lips....
Many of us remember George Bush's infamous speech where he promised the American public his administration would not raise taxes. Unfortunately, there were new taxes and thus the people decided on a new president after only one term in office.
During President Obama's campaign for the White House he also pledged not to increase any taxes on the middle class, reserving the tax increases for the rich (whatever he meant by that!). However, in an interview on ABC's "This Week" with George Stephanopoulos, the President stumbled when questioned about the new health care reform. As part the Senate bill (which President Obama has repeatedly supported) individuals would be required to purchase health insurance or face a penalty, as high as $3800 per year. Mr. Stephanopoulos asked the President how this proposal wasn't a tax, when you either are forced to buy something or penalized for now buying the insurance. Instead, the President stated:
As Mr. Stephanopoulos pointed out for the president, the definition of tax is "a charge, usually of money, imposed by authority on persons or property for public purposes." Maybe it's me, but it sure sounds like a tax increase. If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck. The President confirmed his rejection of this idea of reform as taxation, stating "I absolutely reject that notion."
Well, Mr. President, you maybe not believe health-care reform is not a tax because you see it as a responsibility issue, however the American public might not agree with you. If middle class people are forced to buy insurance or else, it is undoubtedly a tax, no matter how you slice it. The people don't like being lied to, especially about their taxes. It didn't work out to well for the first President Bush, and when the American people catch on it might not work for you either!
During President Obama's campaign for the White House he also pledged not to increase any taxes on the middle class, reserving the tax increases for the rich (whatever he meant by that!). However, in an interview on ABC's "This Week" with George Stephanopoulos, the President stumbled when questioned about the new health care reform. As part the Senate bill (which President Obama has repeatedly supported) individuals would be required to purchase health insurance or face a penalty, as high as $3800 per year. Mr. Stephanopoulos asked the President how this proposal wasn't a tax, when you either are forced to buy something or penalized for now buying the insurance. Instead, the President stated:
...for us to say that you've got to take responsibility to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax increase. What it's saying is, is we're not going to have other people carrying your burdens for you anymore. In other words, like parents talking to their children, this levy -- don't call it a tax -- is for your own good.
As Mr. Stephanopoulos pointed out for the president, the definition of tax is "a charge, usually of money, imposed by authority on persons or property for public purposes." Maybe it's me, but it sure sounds like a tax increase. If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck. The President confirmed his rejection of this idea of reform as taxation, stating "I absolutely reject that notion."
Well, Mr. President, you maybe not believe health-care reform is not a tax because you see it as a responsibility issue, however the American public might not agree with you. If middle class people are forced to buy insurance or else, it is undoubtedly a tax, no matter how you slice it. The people don't like being lied to, especially about their taxes. It didn't work out to well for the first President Bush, and when the American people catch on it might not work for you either!
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
Health Care Benefits Unions Not Citizens
Both current versions of proposed health-care reform bills are not clear as to who they really benefit and why the Democrats have been shoving it down the American peoples' throats. It has less to do with providing universal health-care and more to do with increasing the rosters of labor unions. President Obama went as far as courting union members at an AFL-CIO convention, stating:
But the administration has to make a tough decision, either they press on with the health-care fight or they give some concessions and fight for greenhouse-gas emissions regulations, they can't have both. The same union members the President solicited for support of health-care reform are the people who stand to lose their jobs if tougher regulations on greenhouse-gases are passed. Places like Ohio and western Pennsylvania would be devastated from the emissions caps where many of the residents are employed in the steel and coal industries, places where union membership runs strong.
Also important to note is the Senate version of the bill which would allow for forced unionization schemes, such as those instituted former Governors Rod Blagojevich in Illinois and Gray Davis of California. In both states, unions received a windfall from this legislation by reclassifying in-home health-care contractors and child-care contractors as state employees, thus forcing them to pay union dues. The Senate bill follows this scheme by creating a "personal care attendants workforce advisory panel" which would likely impose union affiliation to qualify for reimbursement plans.
The House version goes even further. H.R. 3200 Section 225(A) grants the Secretary of Health and Human Services discretionary authority to regulate workers under the public health insurance option. If this doesn't scare you then you probably shouldn't be reading this article in the first place. Under this authority, the Secretary could, through her own discretion, require thousands of doctors and nurses throughout the country to pay union dues. These dues could be made mandatory in order to participate in the program, thus effectively blackballing those who choose not to affiliate from providing care under this program.
Additionally, Sen. Max Baucus has suggested the government could pay for health-care reform by taxing workers' existing health-care benefits, but would exempt union-negotiated health-care plans. This plan could impose costs of up to $20,000 per employee on non-union businesses. The President called out to union members saying:
“We’ve been hearing a lot of stuff from folks who aren’t that friendly to me, or the union movement...So let’s just take a stroll down memory lane. Let’s just remember where we were when I took the oath of office.”Well, I'm waiting for you to tell me Mr. President, where were we then and where are we now? As most people can see things have not changed, other than the size of the federal deficit which, if I remember correctly, was a selling point on the campaign trail that the Bush administration put the American people in a hole. If your argument Mr. President is that your administration has made significant improvements on the quality of life for the American public it is one you've lost.
But the administration has to make a tough decision, either they press on with the health-care fight or they give some concessions and fight for greenhouse-gas emissions regulations, they can't have both. The same union members the President solicited for support of health-care reform are the people who stand to lose their jobs if tougher regulations on greenhouse-gases are passed. Places like Ohio and western Pennsylvania would be devastated from the emissions caps where many of the residents are employed in the steel and coal industries, places where union membership runs strong.
Also important to note is the Senate version of the bill which would allow for forced unionization schemes, such as those instituted former Governors Rod Blagojevich in Illinois and Gray Davis of California. In both states, unions received a windfall from this legislation by reclassifying in-home health-care contractors and child-care contractors as state employees, thus forcing them to pay union dues. The Senate bill follows this scheme by creating a "personal care attendants workforce advisory panel" which would likely impose union affiliation to qualify for reimbursement plans.
The House version goes even further. H.R. 3200 Section 225(A) grants the Secretary of Health and Human Services discretionary authority to regulate workers under the public health insurance option. If this doesn't scare you then you probably shouldn't be reading this article in the first place. Under this authority, the Secretary could, through her own discretion, require thousands of doctors and nurses throughout the country to pay union dues. These dues could be made mandatory in order to participate in the program, thus effectively blackballing those who choose not to affiliate from providing care under this program.
Additionally, Sen. Max Baucus has suggested the government could pay for health-care reform by taxing workers' existing health-care benefits, but would exempt union-negotiated health-care plans. This plan could impose costs of up to $20,000 per employee on non-union businesses. The President called out to union members saying:
"As long as you've got an ounce of fight in you, I've got a ton of fight in me...I've said it before: I'm skinny, but I'm tough. So give it to me guys."I say the American people take the President up on his offer; let's give it to him. He said it, he's tough, he can take it. So when you write, email, or call your elected representative remember the President's challenge. This is not just another political debate, it is a fight for values, American values. If you want big government to take control of another portion of your life, then by all means stand behind the President, Ms. Pelosi, and Mr. Reid. But, if you have had enough of this debacle it's time to stop being spectators on the sidelines and answer this call to arms. It's your country and only you can protect it; every vote and every voice counts, don't waste yours!
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
A Lesson in Leadership
Good leaders lead from the front, they charge ahead and yell "follow me." Bad leaders, or at least failed leaders, sit back and tell others what to do and how to do it. Their followers might carry out those tasks, at least for a little while, but eventually they realize, "hey, if this guy's not going to do it, why should I?" That's where the American people are today, they followed their leaders down this path, backing them up along the way, but now times have changed. They want to know why they are being forced to accept socialized health care, why their lives must "change" while these same "leaders" sit back and enjoy the same benefits they have always had. The American people aren't stupid, eventually they are going to stop and ask "hey wait a minute, we have to take this health care plan, but you don't because your an elected official?" If those officials don't change their tune quick, they will fail not only as leaders, but they will fail the people who put them in office in the first place.
Leadership is also about trust. People won't follow you as a leader if they don't have faith in your judgment to do the right thing. Trust is not a right that comes with your title or position, it is something you earn. Over the weekend, Peggy Noonan addressed this in her article:
In tonight's speech to congress, the President is expected to push for a government-run insurance option in the proposed overhaul of the health care system. This is not surprising to me, nor do I believe to many. However, I don't think many will be listening, which this early in his presidency is really quite surprising. The average American person worries more about their job, will it be there tomorrow, will I be able to pay the bills, than universal health care. They also worry more about the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, whether their loved ones will come home alive, or will they have to deploy for another tour, more than health care. If people weren't losing jobs left and right and we weren't fighting a war, then maybe people would be more receptive to the health care debate.
Now is not the time or place to have this debate, maybe our elected leaders should step back and take a moment to listen to the people, what they are concerned with and what they want done. Anybody can make a speech, it's a skill that can be taught and learned and one that many leaders possess, however the ability to listen is what makes a leader great. Maybe the President, Ms. Pelosi, and Mr. Reid should step back and try it, at least once.
Leadership is also about trust. People won't follow you as a leader if they don't have faith in your judgment to do the right thing. Trust is not a right that comes with your title or position, it is something you earn. Over the weekend, Peggy Noonan addressed this in her article:
The past 10 months, the president has lessened and not increased the trust of the big center. He did a number of things wrong, but one has not been noticed much, or noted. He moved too quickly, before he'd earned the right to change a big chunk of American life. You earn that right by establishing trust. Absent crisis, leaders have to show, over a certain amount of time and through a series of actions, that they're sober, sound, farsighted, looking out for the middle.Ms. Noonan is right, it takes time to earn peoples trust, they have to feel comfortable with your actions and decisions before they are willing to trust you; it doesn't happen over night, nor should it.
In tonight's speech to congress, the President is expected to push for a government-run insurance option in the proposed overhaul of the health care system. This is not surprising to me, nor do I believe to many. However, I don't think many will be listening, which this early in his presidency is really quite surprising. The average American person worries more about their job, will it be there tomorrow, will I be able to pay the bills, than universal health care. They also worry more about the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, whether their loved ones will come home alive, or will they have to deploy for another tour, more than health care. If people weren't losing jobs left and right and we weren't fighting a war, then maybe people would be more receptive to the health care debate.
Now is not the time or place to have this debate, maybe our elected leaders should step back and take a moment to listen to the people, what they are concerned with and what they want done. Anybody can make a speech, it's a skill that can be taught and learned and one that many leaders possess, however the ability to listen is what makes a leader great. Maybe the President, Ms. Pelosi, and Mr. Reid should step back and try it, at least once.
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
Take away my liberty and give me ObamaCare!
It has been a long time since one of the great orators of American history, Patrick Henry, uttered the words "Give me liberty, or give me death," but those words still ring true today. Henry gave this speech to the Virginia delegates, imploring them to put the Virginia militia on standby to defend their land against the tyranny of the British, expressing his desire to face death instead of living in a world without freedom. But in contrast today, the current administration supports the opposite result; government control of individual lives while restricting personal liberties.
The Boston Sunday Globe proposed two steps to change health care: drive down costs while taking steps to cover the uninsured. The first step requires large employers to provide coverage, while the second step requires anyone who can afford insurance to buy it. First, what happened to our economic liberties? Just because many large corporations already provide insurance it doesn't mean the federal government should require all corporations to follow suit. Not every business conducts their business the same way: some make computers, some sell insurance, some drill for oil. Each business has a different model and a different strategy to achieve their goals. Some have decided to provide insurance as part of their employee compensation package, some have decide to compensate their employees through other methods. Since when does a capitalist society dictate how employers can structure employee compensation? It doesn't and it shouldn't because then it's not a capitalist society anymore, but a quasi-socialist society.
The Globe rebuts the premise that such a requirement would hamper the competitiveness of American companies by arguing that many overseas competitors come from countries where health care is covered by high taxes. The flaw in this argument is that the United States already has one the highest corporate tax rates in the western industrialized world and many of the countries the Globe bases their argument upon are in the process of or have already cut their corporate tax rates while still providing insurance. This administration wants their cake and to eat it too; they want to raise the corporate rates and require corporations to provide insurance as well. The Globe and this administration need to think before they act. This will undoubtedly hurt our businesses and our economy, leaving us in a worse place than we already are.
Second, the Globe argues people who can afford insurance should be forced to buy it. Are you kidding me? How does this proposal fit into a free society? They state:
As a college student and early in my professional career I took a risk and decided not to buy insurance, mostly because I couldn't afford it. If I got sick or hurt I paid out of my own pocket to see a doctor. That was my choice and the risk I took. I did get hurt and I did get sick, but it was a calculated risk I decided to take. Once you take the freedom of choice away, you have taken away a fundamental liberty from our citizens. The Bill of Rights guarantees individuals the right to personal autonomy, meaning that a person's decisions regarding his or her personal life are none of the government's business. By forcing people to purchase insurance, the administration would infringe upon this liberty, something our President, a former constitutional attorney, should recognize. No matter how you spin it, no matter what words you place on the proposed government plan, it doesn't work. Socialized health care is socialized health care.
The Boston Sunday Globe proposed two steps to change health care: drive down costs while taking steps to cover the uninsured. The first step requires large employers to provide coverage, while the second step requires anyone who can afford insurance to buy it. First, what happened to our economic liberties? Just because many large corporations already provide insurance it doesn't mean the federal government should require all corporations to follow suit. Not every business conducts their business the same way: some make computers, some sell insurance, some drill for oil. Each business has a different model and a different strategy to achieve their goals. Some have decided to provide insurance as part of their employee compensation package, some have decide to compensate their employees through other methods. Since when does a capitalist society dictate how employers can structure employee compensation? It doesn't and it shouldn't because then it's not a capitalist society anymore, but a quasi-socialist society.
The Globe rebuts the premise that such a requirement would hamper the competitiveness of American companies by arguing that many overseas competitors come from countries where health care is covered by high taxes. The flaw in this argument is that the United States already has one the highest corporate tax rates in the western industrialized world and many of the countries the Globe bases their argument upon are in the process of or have already cut their corporate tax rates while still providing insurance. This administration wants their cake and to eat it too; they want to raise the corporate rates and require corporations to provide insurance as well. The Globe and this administration need to think before they act. This will undoubtedly hurt our businesses and our economy, leaving us in a worse place than we already are.
Second, the Globe argues people who can afford insurance should be forced to buy it. Are you kidding me? How does this proposal fit into a free society? They state:
This would make sure subsidized care goes to those who really need it, cleansing the system of any freeloaders.They argue this would expand the pool of the insured by forcing the young and healthy to buy insurance to subsidize the old or sick and make it more affordable for them. So what they are really saying to the young and healthy is buy something you don't want or need so others can get a better deal, or in other words, "spread the wealth around." Sound familiar?
As a college student and early in my professional career I took a risk and decided not to buy insurance, mostly because I couldn't afford it. If I got sick or hurt I paid out of my own pocket to see a doctor. That was my choice and the risk I took. I did get hurt and I did get sick, but it was a calculated risk I decided to take. Once you take the freedom of choice away, you have taken away a fundamental liberty from our citizens. The Bill of Rights guarantees individuals the right to personal autonomy, meaning that a person's decisions regarding his or her personal life are none of the government's business. By forcing people to purchase insurance, the administration would infringe upon this liberty, something our President, a former constitutional attorney, should recognize. No matter how you spin it, no matter what words you place on the proposed government plan, it doesn't work. Socialized health care is socialized health care.
Thursday, September 3, 2009
The Race Myth: Liberals and the Media's lies!
The most revealing instance of Massachusetts politicians disconnection to the people they represent was right around the time I moved to Massachusetts; when Professor Gates was arrested by the Cambridge Police. From what I read in the newspapers and heard on the T.V., the people of Massachusetts were up in arms over the way this police officer treated the visiting Harvard professor. The race card was thrown out there, even the President stated the police department acted "stupidly." But again, this was not the case.
My experience began when I needed to get a haircut. I didn't know the area well so I walked around until I found a barber. I was the only white person in the shop, there were four black males sitting around, but it didn't bother me in the slightest. I grew up in a city and served in the Marine Corps, so I was accustomed to being around people of different races, ethnicities, religions, and nationalities. In my experience the people who get up in arms about race issues are the elite people of color who hold rallies and claim everyone and their brothers are racists, and the white suburbanites afraid to call anyone black ("you mean African-American," I've been corrected many times by the people who are too afraid to have any minority live next door to them).
It doesn't matter what I say, but what does matter is what the people of Massachusetts have told me. In this same barbershop the topic of Mr. Gates came up and unlike the WSJ/NBC poll (where 4% of blacks found the professor at fault versus 30% who found the officer at fault; 11% of Democrats found Mr. Gates at fault compared to 47% of Republicans who found him at fault) the four black men in the shop all thought the professor acted poorly and should not have treated Sergeant Crowley in the manor in which he did. See: Teachable Moment. This was quite the opposite of the numbers reported in the polls.
Moreover, all four men said the President made a huge mistake by commenting on the situation, that he overstepped the bounds of his office and should not have commented publicly on the issue. These guys aren't right-wing fanatics or "crazy Christians", they are regular people, working people. Next time I want to learn what the people of Massachusetts want I will ask the people of Massachusetts, not some loyal fanatics who show up in support at my stacked-deck town hall. It would be nice to see some of our elected officials hit the streets some time and meet the people who cast the ballots.
My experience began when I needed to get a haircut. I didn't know the area well so I walked around until I found a barber. I was the only white person in the shop, there were four black males sitting around, but it didn't bother me in the slightest. I grew up in a city and served in the Marine Corps, so I was accustomed to being around people of different races, ethnicities, religions, and nationalities. In my experience the people who get up in arms about race issues are the elite people of color who hold rallies and claim everyone and their brothers are racists, and the white suburbanites afraid to call anyone black ("you mean African-American," I've been corrected many times by the people who are too afraid to have any minority live next door to them).
It doesn't matter what I say, but what does matter is what the people of Massachusetts have told me. In this same barbershop the topic of Mr. Gates came up and unlike the WSJ/NBC poll (where 4% of blacks found the professor at fault versus 30% who found the officer at fault; 11% of Democrats found Mr. Gates at fault compared to 47% of Republicans who found him at fault) the four black men in the shop all thought the professor acted poorly and should not have treated Sergeant Crowley in the manor in which he did. See: Teachable Moment. This was quite the opposite of the numbers reported in the polls.
Moreover, all four men said the President made a huge mistake by commenting on the situation, that he overstepped the bounds of his office and should not have commented publicly on the issue. These guys aren't right-wing fanatics or "crazy Christians", they are regular people, working people. Next time I want to learn what the people of Massachusetts want I will ask the people of Massachusetts, not some loyal fanatics who show up in support at my stacked-deck town hall. It would be nice to see some of our elected officials hit the streets some time and meet the people who cast the ballots.
Senator Kerry's Town Hall in Somerville, MA
The only living Senator in Massachusetts spoke last night at a town hall meeting in Somerville. The lines were long, but expected. Of course this was not a town hall like many others we have seen on the news of late, after all this was Somerville! Following Cambridge, the crowds couldn't get much more friendly for a left-winged politician.
The Senator asked the crowd during his speech:
When has the government ever run anything "efficiently?" The one thing the government does do well is run the military, that I will concede needs to remain in the public sector. Other than that, what our track record? Social Security? Medicare? And as for "allow(ing) us choice" in this mythical system, you obviously haven't spent much time talking to Veterans who use the VA as their health care providers, have you?! There is no such thing as choice in the VA system and I doubt this program will provide for much of any either. The VA buys specific drugs for particular ailments, too bad if those drugs don't work for you because that's all they have. In addition, if you want a particular procedure for an illness/injury you have, but it isn't authorized until you try the other cheaper procedures first (sometimes more than once), it's too bad for you! You get what they serve, no if's, and's, or but's allowed!
To add to the absurdity of the night, Rep. Michael Capuano showed up to give his two cents:
That's really the big issue here in the health care debate. It's the politicians who are so out of touch with the people they represent, they don't even listen to their own people. When is the last time you saw Senator Kerry sitting down in a barber's chair shooting the breeze with his constituents? What about Rep. Capuano, when is the last time you saw him in East Cambridge grabbing a sub at a local pizza shop? You probably haven't, and I know I haven't (even though Rep. Capuano's office is in the Cambridge Side Galleria, right down the street from countless numbers of struggling small business owners).
I have sat down at these barbershops, the local bars and coffee shops, and I was surprised what I heard. I didn't hear the sediment that I read in the Boston Globe or aired repeatedly on CNN, actually I heard quite the opposite. The people I talked to are not lawyers, or doctors, or college professors, or otherwise well-to-do. They are working people, the backbone of the American society. People who work hard for what they have and are proud of their accomplishments. Sure everyone would love to hit it big, but that just isn't going to happen for most. These people, people lumped into the same Massachusetts that Rep. Capuano claims to speak for, are not beating the drum for health care reform. For the most part they don't even support the programs put forth as of yet by this administration. Before you speak at one of these things again, maybe ask the people of Massachusetts what they want instead of speculating.
The Senator asked the crowd during his speech:
"What do we know about the system in America that works for us? Makes us healthier, treats us well, allows us choice, gives us freedom, all the things we appreciate. And how do we take those things and work them into a system that also becomes more efficient." http://tinyurl.com/nfne79Well, Senator, for starters don't let the government become involved in running the system. Do you really believe a government provided health care system would "allow us choice" or become "more efficient" than the system we already have? If you do, then you have your head buried in the sand.
When has the government ever run anything "efficiently?" The one thing the government does do well is run the military, that I will concede needs to remain in the public sector. Other than that, what our track record? Social Security? Medicare? And as for "allow(ing) us choice" in this mythical system, you obviously haven't spent much time talking to Veterans who use the VA as their health care providers, have you?! There is no such thing as choice in the VA system and I doubt this program will provide for much of any either. The VA buys specific drugs for particular ailments, too bad if those drugs don't work for you because that's all they have. In addition, if you want a particular procedure for an illness/injury you have, but it isn't authorized until you try the other cheaper procedures first (sometimes more than once), it's too bad for you! You get what they serve, no if's, and's, or but's allowed!
To add to the absurdity of the night, Rep. Michael Capuano showed up to give his two cents:
"Every person in Massachusetts wants to do everything we can to make sure every single American has a decent, affordable health care plan." http://tinyurl.com/m2c7gxReally? Who have you asked, Representative? I live in your district and I sure as hell don't want to make sure everyone in America has health care. Why don't you talk to some real Massachusetts people, maybe outside your closed little universe before you speak for the entire state.
That's really the big issue here in the health care debate. It's the politicians who are so out of touch with the people they represent, they don't even listen to their own people. When is the last time you saw Senator Kerry sitting down in a barber's chair shooting the breeze with his constituents? What about Rep. Capuano, when is the last time you saw him in East Cambridge grabbing a sub at a local pizza shop? You probably haven't, and I know I haven't (even though Rep. Capuano's office is in the Cambridge Side Galleria, right down the street from countless numbers of struggling small business owners).
I have sat down at these barbershops, the local bars and coffee shops, and I was surprised what I heard. I didn't hear the sediment that I read in the Boston Globe or aired repeatedly on CNN, actually I heard quite the opposite. The people I talked to are not lawyers, or doctors, or college professors, or otherwise well-to-do. They are working people, the backbone of the American society. People who work hard for what they have and are proud of their accomplishments. Sure everyone would love to hit it big, but that just isn't going to happen for most. These people, people lumped into the same Massachusetts that Rep. Capuano claims to speak for, are not beating the drum for health care reform. For the most part they don't even support the programs put forth as of yet by this administration. Before you speak at one of these things again, maybe ask the people of Massachusetts what they want instead of speculating.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
