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.

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.

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!

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!

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.

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.

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.