Saturday, September 21, 2013

Obamacare Analogy to Homelessness


The purpose of Obamacare is to provide health care coverage to millions of people in the country that don't otherwise have it. Obamacare addresses the problem by forcing everyone to buy health care or face a penalty - and the health care plans that everybody will be on are at a considerably comprehensive level.  In other words, we aren't just talking catastrophic care here, we're talking free contraception and access to all sorts of services.

So I got to thinking about homelessness as an analogy.  Admittedly, it's a smaller problem - the homeless population in this country is only between 600,000 and 700,000 (link).  But you if you count all of the people that aren't homeless, but live in complete squalor, I'm sure this number would be in the millions, too.  Like those who lack health care coverage, those who lack a decent home evoke profound levels of sympathy and numerous charities do God's work everyday to provide what comfort they can.  Maybe you or your church have contributed.

Now imagine if the government addressed homelessness in the same way Obamacare addresses health care.  First, everyone would be forced to buy or rent a home.  Those who couldn't afford to would be subsidized.  Second, everyone's home would mostly be the same and there would be no preference in buyers, but probably a long line.  I don't think people would be very happy about that second part - about living in a place not much different from the less productive or even non-productive members of society around them.

The ironic thing is that I did a quick web search to see what homeless / Obamacare analogies might already have been made out there.  Guess what I found??  None other than Candidate Obama himself in 2008 distinguishing his plan from Hillary's, which had a mandate.  He said that was like solving homelessness by forcing everyone to buy a home.  Link.

Wednesday, September 18, 2013

We Can't Afford Star-Studded Defenses for Obvious Killers and Crooks

85-year-old former Alcatraz alum and Boston mobster Whitey Bulger was recently caught and tried for the murder of 17 people.  There wasn't much doubt that he was guilty (of at least a few).  After all, you hear of the occasional wrongful conviction, but I don't think any innocent people have spent 12 years on the FBI's 10 Most Wanted List.  Yet we still had to finance a public defense to the tune of $2.6M and counting.  Assuming the prosecution cost a similar amount, that's like $5M for a trial that was less about whether Whitey Bulger was guilty and more about whether he was a "rat".  What a waste of money.  I kid you not - we have an appeal to look forward to as well. 



Boston bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev will undoubtedly rack up a pretty penny in public defense funds as well.  Unless some radical Islamist group picks up the tab, I can't imagine who else will, besides you and me.  Multiple death penalty lawyers are being eyed for his dream defense team (link).



Given the endless littany of Sequestration cuts, including air traffic controllers, meat inspectors, national parks and on and on, let's think about redefining what a public defense should entail.  I'm thinking it should be limited to a newly minted law school graduate looking to accumulate some experience and build a resume.  If that were the case, I think more people would reconsider that automatic not-guilty plea or pony up some of their own money towards their defense.  A prime example would be our esteemed Speaker of the House here in Massachusetts who was recently tried and convicted for taking a kickback from a corporate crony - all on the public dime.  I suspect he was far from destitute, though.  A rock solid public defense is one of those expenditures, though, that I think our government representatives will take a long time to come around to reforming.  After all, 95% of them are lawyers themselves and these trials are a cash cow for their buddies.

Wednesday, September 11, 2013

The Only Leadership Left in DC - The Tea Party Conservatives



You may have seen Rand Paul's response to President Obama's address to the nation on Syria.  If you didn't, check it out - it's just 5 minutes or so.  He basically says that the US has no national interest in the Syrian civil war and that striking would only destabilize where the remaining chemical weapons are and in whose hands they're in.  He also argues that despite Obama's claim, he does not have the authority to strike without Congressional approval and he explains the Constitutional reasoning behind that statement.  One interesting thing is that this response by Rand Paul was not "endorsed" by the Republican Party.  There was no GOP response to President Obama's address to the nation, because the GOP power structure (Boehner, McCain, ...) are pretty much on board with whatever the President decides to do.  Rather, Rand Paul gave the Tea Party Conservative response and the media picked it up.  My guess is that the response resonates with you more than Obama's speech based on polling that show only about 36% of Americans in support of an attack on Syria.

Many Independents and those in the GOP are slow to back to the Tea Party, but it's becoming more and more apparent that they are not the far-right fringe element they are billed to be by the mainstream media.  Rather, they simply follow the Constitution as they swore to do.  They base all of their positions on the Constitution versus Obama who merely claims to be a scholar of it, which is not the same as upholding it.  Meanwhile, the GOP stands for nothing.  They refuse to prosecute the incompetence and fraud behind the Benghazi lies, the IRS scandal, and NSA snooping.  They will not block Obamacare or impose significant limits to Obama's deficit spending.  They will go along with amnesty for tens of millions of illegals without insisting on any actual border security - which will be their demise.  It makes you wonder what the heck the NSA has on these guys.

The Tea Party needs many more in their ranks in 2014.  Please take notice of their message in the interim if you're just tuning in - the establishment GOP is not a viable solution to the problems of overspending and government authoritarianism that we face today.  Besides, the Tea Party stars are full of class - see how Ted Cruz acknowledged Obama for abiding by the overwhelming will of the people with respect to Syria (link).  It's encouraging to see the Tea Party tent grow.  Drudge just slammed the GOP last week!  My Ron Paul friend may have been right not to vote for Romney - a second Obama term may be the awakening that didn't quite happen during the first.  Let's hope!

Monday, September 9, 2013

Who Was the Leader of the Free World Today


If you chose A, then you're delusional.  Putin provided some much welcome on-the-job training for President Obama today with his diplomatic breakthrough on America's Syria crisis.  Thanks to Putin's intervention, military strikes by the U.S. on behalf of radical Islamist rebels, including al Qaeda, in the Mid East are on hold.  Obama will claim credit for intensifying this crisis over the last two weeks to the point where Assad may be ready to surrender his chemical weapons arsenal, but the reality is that Putin deserves the credit for talking our egotistical President off the ledge he put himself on.

It feels like today's outcome was a little too tidy and maybe orchestrated given that Obama and Putin had some time in person at the G-20 summit recently.  If this was prearranged, then God knows what Obama must've had to trade Putin in exchange for bailing him out of his promise to strike Syria.  If it was orchestrated, it was definitely designed to make Kerry, Obama, and even Hillary Clinton all appear to literally stumble into a Russian rescue.  At this point, I don't care, though.  I feel a bit rattled and am just glad it's over.  I doubt many Americans appreciated this little misadventure.

Check out the final vote tally from the House and Senate on authorization for the strike.  If only the amnesty tally looked as promising.  Our immediate threat is not the Mid East, but our own out-of-control, self-destructive government.  I wish Putin would do something to save us!

Saturday, September 7, 2013

My Two Mark Levin Favorites

For a dose of reality, sample these two audio clips of Mark Levin's radio show.  I think you'll appreciate the historical perspective he brings to these issues.  Each clip is one segment, or a little over 15 minutes.  Wait a few seconds for the audio to start after you push play.

May 9, 2013 Monologue on Illegal Immigration / Amnesty


Aug 22, 2013 Monologue on Voter ID


I admit - Mark tends to get overly animated at times.  He's just passionate.  Even if you're a Dem through and through, hear him out and remember your mantra: be tolerant of other viewpoints.  Hopefully the most reasonable one will carry the day.

Friday, September 6, 2013

The NFL Must Have Agreed to Help with Obamacare After All


You might be surprised to know that Obamacare officially kicks off in less than four weeks, on October 1st.  Technically, there's still a way to stall its implementation if Congress resolves not to fund it first, but that would require quite a battle that clearly isn't happening .  With the Syria debacle, there's no time to talk about anything else.

Obama approached the NFL earlier this summer to ask for their help in promoting Obamacare, but the NFL declined.  Now I'm wondering if they really did decline to help after all.  It could be that Obama wasn't looking for help promoting Obamacare so much as just looking for some help with strategy.  It's working, too - what's happening now is Obama running out the clock to get Obamacare over the line.


If Obama ultimately bombs Syria without Congressional approval, that'd cause such an uproar, Obama and the big government Dems and GOP in Congress might get amnesty for illegals over the line, too, before the conversation finally turns away from Syria.  The debt ceiling also comes up in October, but that's just going to be raised without any meaningful debate because we're just too busy.  Drifting from one crisis to the next is the way of the Obama tenure as quarterback.

Wednesday, September 4, 2013

The Goal Is To Get Everyone on the Dole.


Next time you hear someone complain about the Sequester making funding tight for some worthwhile function of the government, just keep this story in mind.  Boston and other cities around the country are taking part in a new program this year where every student will get free lunch - and the Federal government is funding the program.  Link.   They say the reason is that it will get more needy kids on the program by eliminating the paperwork needed to apply (probably a real hassle for the illegals) and by removing the stigma of being low-income.  What a profound waste of money!  Just try to speak out against it, though, and I'm sure you'll be blasted for taking food from kids' mouths.

I think there's another reason for this program, though - it gets everyone onto government support.  You know how else most of us will be on government support next year?  Obamacare!  Did you know that a family of four will have to earn over $94,000 not to qualify for health insurance subsidies??  If you have a self-reliant fiber in your body, then take that!  This government is legislating us into a bunch of part-time-working government dependents.

Everyone knows there's no such thing as a free lunch (or free health care, or free college, or free Obamaphones, or free EBT cards, or free on and on and on).  Despite all the failures documented in history, Socialists always think that this time, it going to work!  No it's not.  It's not like this country has some surplus that it's using to pay for these handouts.  No, they're getting tacked onto the debt and it's going to break the back of our economy and our society.  The only question is how soon reality is going to slap us in the face.

I always had a fear growing up in the '80s that the US could one day be forced into Socialism (Communism, actually) and that it would be because of a lost struggle with the Soviet Union.  It never occurred to me that it would come from within instead, but here we are.  Of course, collapse is a far more common demise of nations than being conquered (link).  Again, if you want something constructive to think about, check out Mark Levin's new book - The Liberty Amendments.


Tuesday, September 3, 2013

Time to Pivot Away from the Economy Again

Win or lose on the vote to attack Syria, Obama's going to be needing yet another blank check from the American people during the upcoming Sept and Oct showdowns for reauthorization of the gravy train that keeps Obama's fundamental transformation of America going.  The debt will hit the current ceiling of $17T in Oct, but that will no doubt take a back seat to our new war.  Keep in mind the debt (not counting the other $70T we've already pledged in the form of social security, Medicaid/Medicare, etc.) is more than 4 times the approx. $3.5T the government spends in total each year.  Imagine if your credit card were 4x what you spent last year, more like 6x what you earn in a year (based on revenues, not GDP), and you had an additional mortgage for about 25 times your salary.  Reckless government spending was a big deal when Bush was President and it should be a big deal now, too!



About six weeks ago, right after his $100-million dollar visit to Africa, where he pledged $7B in aid for green energy initiatives (which is coincidentally the amount we can't afford for a double-layer fence along our Southern border, based on an average cost of $4M per mile), the President gave a big speech about how he wanted to take the spotlight off the "phoney" IRS and NSA scandals plaguing the White House and instead focus again on the economy.  The push more-or-less fizzled out during his family's annual vacation to Martha's Vineyard.  Now, it's clear the economy will have to wait once more.  And I'll bet that once Syria is decided, they'll want to figure out immigration next.  So, clearly, another couple years of limitless spending seems the most likely result.

The Obama admin's new refrain is that they won't accept any more debt ceiling fights.  Afterall, Congress approved the spending, it's up to them to pay the bills.  See, the new entitlement costs of Obamacare, the endless increases in food stamps and other handouts, and whatever it would cost America to absorb tens of millions of illegal immigrants into this welfare state - none of that is Obama's fault - it's Congress's fault for being stupid enough to go along.  The debt accrued by the Bush tax cuts and the Iraq War were Bush's fault - but the debt accrued by Obama is Congress's fault.  This could have some bearing on why Obama suddenly wanted Congress's authorization before kicking off a new war.


Sunday, September 1, 2013

Green Shoots of a Constitution Comeback


Obama's aboutface yesterday on seeking Congressional approval for an attack on Syria was a victory for the Constitution.  Never mind for a moment Obama's anti-Constitutional caveat that he might attack even if they say no.

One poll shows that America is pretty evenly divided on whether we should take military action against Syria (42% yes vs 50% no), but are overwhelmingly (80%) in support of Congress making that decision rather than our authoritarian President.  (The notion that Obama would attack despite a Congressional no vote is outrageous.)  This poll gives me hope that Americans across the political spectrum at the very least agree that our government should act within the confines of our Constitution, even in times of a popular President and a very unpopular Congress.  As examples of extra-Constitutional power grabs by previous administrations, this administration, and future administrations pile up, I hope more and more people will gradually come to the conclusion that order needs to be restored - I highly recommend Mark Levin's new book detailing how the Constitution provides for its framework to one day be reaffirmed:  The Libery Amendments.  Like Obama, Mark Levin is a Constitutional scholar, but he looks for ways to restore our liberties that are enshrined in it rather than ways to sidestep checks and balances to the various branches and effect "fundamental transformation".

The only reason the Constitutional limits of the President's power with regards to military action on other countries are controversial and ambiguous today is not that the Constitution is unclear, but that legal precedents over time have eroded how the Constitution is interpreted.  The Constitution basically says that only Congress has the power to declare war and then it's the President's job to orchestrate it.  The President is only authorized without Congressional approval when national security is at stake.  It is obvious that the Founders intended for Congress to decide matters of war except in situations where America was under attack and waiting for Congress to decide would put the nation or our national interests in danger.  That includes situations where our allies are under attack.  To see a time when Obama failed in his role as President, just look at Benghazi.  In that situation, our sovereignty was literally attacked when our consulate was stormed and our ambassador was killed.  The lack of any military response to defend against the attack or retaliate against the perpetrators is hard to reconcile.

Instead, you'll hear the official interpretation of Obama's authority as basically being whatever he wants to do for 60 days plus another 30 days to pull out.  Well, you know what gives him that authority?  It's not the Constitution - it's the War Powers Resolution of 1973!  Just because a law has 40 years of legal precedence does not make it Constitutional.  You frequently hear about how the Bill of Rights is under attack - same thing.   Anyway, these same people will say that raining cruise missiles on Syria is not a declaration of war even though it's abundantly clear that if anyone rained cruise missiles on us, it most certainly would be.

And through all this, during this sideshow, Obama continues to unilaterally dictate fundamental policy. He just released a new executive order giving legal amnesty to the parents, or primary caregivers, of U.S. citizen children, e.g. anchor babies.  I'm sure the burden of proof is on us to prove that someone claiming to be a "caregiver" isn't.  Talk about a loophole.  I don't see why "undocumented" nannies who are caregivers for the kids of US citizens wouldn't apply, too.  The Constitution does not give him the power to unilaterally define and preferentially enforce laws!  Obama flaunts the authoritarian powers he has assumed, Congress and the judiciary stand idly by, and the people who re-elected him apparently are onboard - for now.  I think a big reason is because the "reputable" mainstream media is, too.  If an intellectual on NPR with a British accent says it's the right thing to do, then it's more or less accepted as fact.  You've gotta read the Liberty Amendments.  Don't worry, it doesn't make you a Tea Party extremist - after all, it's #1 among Non-Fiction books on the New York Time's Bestsellers list.