Archive for the 'Socialist' Category

Don’t Blink

This Saturday morning, July 23rd, the Senate was originally scheduled to vote on Cut, Cap and Balance, the Republican plan to cut $111 billion out of this year’s deficit, trim $4 trillion over ten years, and present a balanced budget amendment to the states.  Instead, Harry Reid moved the vote up to Friday morning, calling it a waste of time and the worst piece of legislation to ever come to the Senate floor.  It failed to pass on strict partisan lines.

Senator Schumer called the bill “Cut, Cap and Kill” because he insisted that the bill would kill Medicare.  Debbie Wasserman-Schultz declared in the House of Representatives that the bill would kill seniors and that it was the Paul Ryan plan on steroids.   The only problem is that in three different places Cut, Cap and Balance specifically exempted Medicare and Social Security from cuts and caps.  Had Republicans known, some of them might have been a little bit more up in arms about the bill.  It was actually a very good compromise.  It cut and cap wasteful spending on liberal social programs and government bureaucracy, not hot buttons like military, Social Security and Medicare.

Perhaps that is a more reasonable explanation of why Harry Reid went back on his promise to allow debate on Cut, Cap and Balance and instead moved the vote up.  Perhaps someone in the Senate actually read the bill and told Reid what was in it.  And then, as if scripted, suddenly news outlets started declaring a deal between Boehner and Obama that was so close Reid needed to get this bill off the floor and stop “wasting time” on it.  The only problem is there was no such deal.  Somebody was lying to provide the sense of urgency needed to cut off debate on Cut, Cap and Balance before it got out that Democrats were lying about it killing Medicare.

This has become the name of the game in budget talks.  Neither side is willing to give in because both sides know that 2012 elections hang in the balance.  The difference is that Republicans have actually gone so far as to write a good compromise bill.  Democrats can’t vote yes on it, not because it “kills Medicare” or kills seniors.  They can’t vote on it because passing Cut, Cap and Balance would destroy Democrat re-election hopes for 2012.  It would be a huge Republican victory because Republicans came up with it.

On the other hand, Democrats can’t write a plan of their own.  They haven’t submitted a budget in over 800 days, and they can’t submit one now or that will also destroy their chances of getting re-elected in 2012.  Democrats can’t write a bill that says “We want to raise taxes so that we don’t have to cut spending as much” and still win in 2012 because the vast majority of the country doesn’t want Democrats to raise taxes so that they can spend more.  They are spending enough already, and we are taxed enough already.  On the other hand, Democrats can’t write a plan saying “Ok, no higher taxes, just cuts” or they will lose their class warfare base.  The liberal base of the Democrat party does not want a bill that doesn’t raise taxes on the “rich”.  It’s not about raising revenue, it’s about punishing upper classes more.

Republicans submitted a plan and it was a good plan.  Obama has signaled that he is willing to let the country default on its debt rather than compromise with Republicans.  Democrats have proven that they are the party of no on a budget deal.  If Republicans end up caving in order to save our credit rating, I hope Americans get the right message.  It doesn’t mean Republicans are wimps and we need to get rid of them.  It means they can only do so much with just a majority in the House.  We need to give them the Senate and the Presidency in 2012 if we expect anything to get accomplished.

Advertisements

Community Reinvestment “The Healthcare Edition”

I’m sure you’ve heard a common definition of insanity as doing the same thing over and over while expecting different results.  Enter the latest version of the Community Reinvestment Act.  If you remember, the Community Reinvestment Act is what forced lenders to make loans to high-risk individuals at regulated prices.  It was a clear solution for the liberal minded.  As you know, the rest is history.  Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac made loans to people who couldn’t afford them at rates that were unsustainable.  Then they repackaged those loans with other assets and sold them to investors.  When the house of cards collapsed, the government took our tax dollars and bailed them out.

Obama is now working to make Blue Cross Blue Shield the next Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae and Aetna the new AIG.  Consider his healthcare bill.  It forces insurance companies to sell to anyone no matter how high risk while limiting what they can charge.  It makes businesses who can barely afford payroll buy their employees health insurance with one size fits all plans.  In the meantime, Obamacare makes insurance companies too big to fail by limiting competition and forcing everyone to buy.  Insurance companies, who survive on shared risk, will be forced to take on more risk than they can handle while not being allowed to raise the capital they need to cover it.

Imagine what will happen when the next animal flu pandemic hits and every American goes to the doctor, sending the bill to their insurance company.  The doctor bill will be higher because all their billing will be subject to insurance discounts plus Obamacare adds VAT (value added tax) to medical institutions, clinics, and medical supplies.  Insurance companies won’t have the funds to cover these costs because in addition to price controls they will also be paying higher VAT under Obamacare.

How long will doctors work for free when the insurance reimbursement backlog reaches six months?  A year?  And what does Obama do when insurance company shareholders read their company’s financials?  I think we’ve seen what happens with AIG, Citigroup, GM and Chrysler.  In addition to being forced to buy insurance, we will be forced to own the too big to fail insurance companies.

When the government owns all the insurance companies, already regulates what they can charge, and has assumed by “necessity” all of their risk, Obama will finally have what he set out for in the beginning: a socialist, single-payer tax funded solution.  It will cover abortion, and it will be a system just as efficient, viable, and fair as Social Security.

GDP on loan from China

Although the economy shrank overall in 2009, plenty of media outlets and Democrats are overjoyed to point out that the economy grew at a rate in the last quarter that was higher than we’ve seen since all the way back in, well, the Bush years.  The 5.7% GDP growth in the fourth quarter of 2009 was more than a lot of economists expected.  Economists who know what happens when you throw trillions of debt spending at the economy weren’t too surprised.

Once again, debt does not equal wealth.  Obama increased spending by 33% his first year while revenues fell.  This year he is doing the same, even without unplanned stimulus spending.  Every jobs bill Obama thinks up is nothing more than borrowing hundreds of billions more and throwing it at short-term government infrastructure projects.  I still haven’t found out how many times you have to repave the same stretch of road before the government counts as a job saved or created.

If you lend a homeless man a million dollars at a high interest rate, he buys a house, and then the house drops in value to $800k, is his wealth growing?  He does have an $800,000 house that he didn’t have before.  I hate to say it, but our growth in the fourth quarter of 2009 is no different.

In the fourth quarter of 2009 the market value of our domestic product increased by $221 billion.  That’s not bad.  It’s not quite as good as the 7.2% GDP growth Bush’s tax cuts produced, but it’s definitely better than the economic retraction we saw in the first half of 2009.  At the same time though, debt spending increased by $260 billion in the fourth quarter.

So we borrowed $260 billion and the value of our domestic product increased by $221 billion.  Meanwhile more than 600,000 jobs were lost in the fourth quarter.  And lots of roads got repaved again.  Oh yeah, and plenty of Democrat congressional districts got new duck ponds, skate parks, and honey bee insurance.

Now we have to pay for our borrowed growth.  Someone finally read my blog and figured out that Obama is going to raise taxes by not renewing the Bush tax cuts.  Obama has already written Cap and Trade (which would increase energy costs by thousands for each American family) into his budget.  The sad thing is that with all these tax increases we still are expecting a $1.6 trillion deficit for 2011.  This is only twice what Obama was projecting for 2011 when he took office.  For the record, Bush’s worst deficit was just over $400 billion after a year of Democrat control of the Congress.  Bush even inherited the tech bubble, loose fiscal policy, and a decimated terror intelligence community (who couldn’t stop 9/11) from the previous administration.  By the way, if you think Bush inherited a surplus you haven’t been reading my blog.

Obama kept telling us that only government can fix the economy.  Many believed him.  Hopefully we have learned our lesson.  The government doesn’t make money.  The government doesn’t produce goods and services that people want at prices they are willing to pay.  The government cannot produce growth.  All the government can do is beg, borrow, and steal from some and benevolently hand out to others while calling it growth.  If Obama has caused anything to change, hopefully it’s that we finally know better.

Dear Sen. Nelson, Pt 2

Sen. Nelson,

I tried calling, but your voicemail box is full. Please vote no on this healthcare bill. I know you probably haven’t had a chance to read the final bill yet and may not get to before you vote on it, but according to Obama’s own Health and Human Services department this bill will increase the cost of healthcare by more than $234 billion. I can’t afford that, I know my boss can’t afford that and I can’t afford to lose my job because he can’t afford my healthcare.

In addition, I have friends who have healthcare coverage through a Christian Co-op that has always worked well for them. The Democrat health plan would penalize them for not buying corporate insurance and going through this co-op instead. Isn’t that a violation of our first amendment protections?

The deals made to secure this bill also violate the constitution. Our founders never envisioned a Medicaid program, but they certainly would never have accepted 49 states paying the bill for 1 in order to secure a Senator’s vote on a massive unconstitutional healthcare bill that forces us to buy from government approved corporations. Senator Nelson, that is Fascism, pure and simple. It is also indicative of how socialist governments work. Whoever does a favor for the people in power, gets favors from the people in power. That is not America and I am ashamed of your party.

I know your mind is made up. I wish you were up for election this coming year. Somehow we need change. We need to change course from this current administration’s goals.

Sincerely,

One voice in favor of a return to the Constitutional Democracy we once enjoyed

Let the Democrats Have the Moderates

Democrats continue every election cycle to try to tell Republicans how to win elections. When your arch enemy starts giving you tips on how to defeat him, you should be suspicious. Yet Democrats keep offering friendly advice. No, thanks.

Democrats keep telling Republicans that we need to make our tent bigger. We need more liberals in our party. We need to get away from issues that kill our party like smaller government, the right to live, and, of course, family values. Americans don’t want that. As long as we stay the party of small government, focused on that 200 year old constitution and this crazy idea that men are born equal, not that they need to be made equal by the government, we will remain the minority party.

But who are the moderates anyway? One thing is for sure: they are not reliable. For example, take Dede Scozzafava. After spending months telling everyone she is a conservative and a die-hard Republican despite her liberal record, she finally drops out of the race and endorses the liberal Democrat over the Conservative party candidate. Or how about Colin Powell and a number of other moderate Republicans who begged the Republicans to put forth a moderate/liberal candidate for President and then proceeded to endorse the liberal Democrat when they did.

Moderates are people who think the government should provide every social service imaginable, while still thinking the government should spend less and tax less. They think abortion on demand is terrible and tragic, but should be safe and legal. They think partial birth abortion should be illegal because it is the murder of a living baby, except in the case of rape, danger to the mother’s life, poverty, or a real good sob story. They vote for the incumbents if their life is going good and they are generally happy. They vote against the incumbent if they’ve had a bad day, or if the opponent has a strong chin and more rugged facial features.

They vote based on color, gender, negative advertising, popular fads, and shiny lights. They support short wars, aid for Africa (even if it’s borrowed from China) and environmental reform, whether it actually helps the environment or not. They love federal grants and then complain about how the government wastes so much money. Generally, they are incompetent and uninformed.

But they still vote. Why don’t I want them? Think about it. When Republicans stuck to their conservative principles and presented them eloquently, they won. When conservatives won, Democrats ran blue-dog conservatives to compete with Republican conservatives. When Democrats started winning again was when Republicans started going after liberal moderates and Democrats ran conservative blue dogs. Then in 2008, Democrats ran socialists and ultra-liberals while Republicans ran liberals and wishy washy, unreliable moderates. Republicans were killed in a landslide.

Democrats weren’t trying to broaden their tent in 2008. They ran on a genius graphic design team, color, good looks, discontent and fluff. It had nothing to do with them being pro-big government, pro partial birth abortion, pro overseas abortion funding, pro debt, and anti-military. It had everything to do with advertising, discontent, and the fact that we were involved in two wars that had lasted longer than a year each. Now, because Democrats have stuck to their principles, the entire Washington Republican movement is stuck on this stupid idea that they need to broaden their base and become more liberal if they are going to win elections.

What Newt Gingrich and other Washington Republicans don’t understand is that when you pick up your tent and move it to the other side of the field, you leave your base out in the cold and they stop voting for you. And when you get to the other side of the field, they don’t vote for you either because they already have a tent. As for all the people in the middle, whether they go right or left has absolutely nothing to do with values or issues.

Think about it. If you truly believed that the thing growing in a pregnant woman has the intrinsic value of a wart, then how could you ever vote for anyone who would suggest that a woman’s right to remove that wart should be limited? Yet, Democrats won the majority on the backs of pro-life blue dogs. If you truly believed that the constitution should be the basis of our government and that politicians should uphold their vow to uphold and implement the constitution, then you would never vote for a big government candidate who borrows $1.5 trillion from China to buy local infrastructure projects and subsidize or buy private industries.

Moderates are going to continue to look for the next shiny thing that looks good and talks sweetly. Run and vote on principle. If both sides ran on principle, Conservatives would get 40% and Liberals would get 20%. I would rather have them coming over to our side to get votes while losing their 20% base than the other way around.

Euthanizing Jobs

Democrats have received plenty of negative press when it comes to certain provisions in their healthcare system that will create rationing.  In fact, we are already seeing rationing of the new H1N1 flu vaccine.  We have plenty of Tamiflu (stockpiled by the Bush administration), but to get an H1N1 shot you must fall into specific categories of government priority.  This is not a different concept from what Sara Palin called “death panels” because Washington bureaucrats will decide who gets treatment and who doesn’t.

Most Democrats have fled from or mocked the idea of death panels.  But one Democrat Congressman is embracing the phrase whole-heartedly.  Rep. Barney Frank, who is one of the major players responsible for the failure of our housing industry in 2007 and our banking industry in 2008, is endorsing the idea of Government euthanasia.  But he isn’t talking about death panels for individuals who the government thinks are too old for free healthcare; Frank is talking about putting down large, bloated and un-popular Wall Street giants who the government deems to be no longer financially sustainable.

It’s the big government alternative to un-popular bailouts.  With bailouts, the government took hundreds of billions of our dollars and used them to prop up companies who would probably have failed without them.  It was an unconstitutional usurpation of public funds to keep private industry afloat.  Frank’s alternative is a panel that would identify struggling companies and then take the guess work out of whether they might fail or not by simply mandating a government shut down.   Rep. Frank has said himself, “There will be death panels enacted by this Congress, but they will be for nonbank financial institutions.”

Barney Frank realizes that announcing death panels to euthanize citizens for being too old or too sick is not a popular idea.  However, government killing off bloated Wall Street corporations who are a drag on the system gives liberals chills up and down their leg and makes most ignorant consumers feel all warm and fuzzy inside.

What Frank and Democrats don’t realize is that the CEO of AIG is not the only employee of AIG.  AIG had 116,000 employees in 2008.  Now, I understand that is only a third of the jobs Obama’s economy has lost every month on average since he took office, but that is 116,000 lives affected.  In addition, AIG has thousands of stockholders.  Warren Buffet is not representative of the majority of stockholders in the US.  The majority of stockholders in the US are middleclass working families who have savings accounts such as 401k plans, IRAs, college savings plans and so on.

When a company fails, it is bought by a stronger company or it declares bankruptcy and re-organizes or shuts down.  But that is the natural course of the free market.  It is not a decision made by a bureaucrat in Washington DC, probably based on political contributions received, to liquidate 116,000 jobs and turn people’s retirement into toilet paper.  When exactly would the government decide that a company is no longer viable?  When it starts to look bad?  When it is in bankruptcy?  Tell that to Delta Airlines, Winn Dixie, United Airlines, Texaco, and other US companies who have survived bankruptcy.

I am not a proponent of bailouts.  I don’t believe in too big to fail.  But I also don’t believe in capital punishment for private industry.  When it comes down to it, euthanizing America’s employers to ease the shock of major corporate failures is just as unconstitutional as taking up a collection from the tax paying public to keep those corporations on life support.    When you have a party in control that deals in earmarks, lobbyists, corporate contributions, and big government involvement in private industry, corporate death panels are fundamentally dangerous to our free society.

Now, I know the argument that will be pushed here.  Non-bank financial institutions affect the very foundation of our monetary system.  An unexpected collapse could destroy our economy, send society back to the stone age, and leave a billion Americans unemployed and roaming the streets like zombies.  America’s economy is not resilient because the federal government rescues it.  America’s economy is resilient when those unemployed Americans wandering the streets have the freedom and opportunity to market, make and sell goods and services that people want and need.  America’s economy is resilient when Americans can take risks and expect to be rewarded exponentially for those risks.  Corporate death panels belong in a Fascist country, not America.

If AIG’s failure would destroy America’s monetary system, then that sound more like a failure of the semi-constitutional Federal Reserve system than of free market capitalism.

Moore’s Socialist Gospel

“In my new film I speak for the first time in one of my movies about my own spiritual beliefs. I have always believed that one’s religious leanings are deeply personal and should be kept private. After all, we’ve heard enough yammerin’ in the past three decades about how one should “behave,” and I have to say I’m pretty burned out on pieties and platitudes considering we are a violent nation that invades other countries and punishes our own for having the audacity to fall on hard times.

I’m also against any proselytizing; I certainly don’t want you to join anything I belong to. Also, as a Catholic, I have much to say about the Church as an institution, but I’ll leave that for another day (or movie).”

Thus begins Michael Moore’s letter to Christians at the Huffington Post.  He then proceeds to tell you exactly what he believes about Christianity in relation to Capitalism, why Capitalism is a sin, why we should join him in ending it and why Christianity should dictate how Americans spend and invest their money.  Sounds a little to me like proselytizing.

First of all, if Michael Moore is truly a Catholic but believes that proselytizing is wrong, then he is either a liar or an evil person.  How could someone who believes in heaven, hell and salvation through Jesus Christ be opposed to evangelism?  That would be like a Global Warming believer driving a dumptruck full of leaking radioactive materials everywhere.  Or perhaps flying back and forth across the country in their own private jet.

But more important here is the hypocritical call for Christians to support government socialism because of their faith.  The man who opposes prosylitizing apparently supports a financial theocracy.   Moore’s movie, which confuses Capitalism with government bailouts, is a scathing rebuke aimed at Wall Street fat cats who make as much money as he does.  In the end, his conclusion is not that we should get the government out of the market and stop having the government take from the poor and give to the rich.  His conclusion is that we should give all to the government and let the government give to any in need.  Apparently this is what Moore believes Jesus actually taught.

Moore doesn’t actually cite any Biblical references, which I suppose would require actually opening a Bible.  If he had, he might discover that no where does Jesus say that the government has a responsibility to take care of the poor.  No where does Jesus say that the government should take from those who have and give to those who don’t.  No where does Jesus say that the government should provide universal healthcare.  Whenever Jesus talks about giving to the poor or caring for the poor, he is addressing individuals.  I wonder how much Michael Moore gives to charity every year?  What do you say Mr. Moore, are you willing to give us all a look at your last three years’ tax returns?

Michael Moore needs to take a basic economics class and learn what Capitalism actually is.  Capitalism is freedom and opportunity.  In a Capitalist system, you are free to make billions of dollars.  On the other hand, you are then free to give those billions to the homeless shelter in your city if you so choose.  That is the beauty of Capitalism.  It’s not about forcing the government to rob from the rich and give to the poor, it is about your personal freedom to obey Jesus Christ and give to the poor.  Capitalism isn’t about bailouts, pork spending, government corruption, and government owned companies.  TARP is not Capitalism.  Going to a job, earning money, saving it for your kids college education, giving to your church and charities, hiring thousands of people and giving them the opportunity to do the same, THAT is Capitalism.  Capitalism is about freedom, not religious tyranny from a self proclaimed Catholic who is seeking to impose his ideas of financial religion on the rest of us.  That is why the Constitution prohibits the Congressional establishment of religion.

“It doesn’t seem you can call yourself a Capitalist and a Christian — because you cannot love your money and love your neighbor when you are denying your neighbor the ability to see a doctor just so you can have a better bottom line.”

Mr. Moore, I am not keeping my neighbor from seeing a doctor.  My neighbor has just as much freedom to work, buy insurance, and visit a doctor in a Capitalist system as I do.  If you believe that we are all morally responsible to send our neighbor to the doctor, then again I ask: have you?  How many people is Michael Moore footing the insurance bill for?  There is nothing in our Capitalist system preventing Michael Moore from sending his neighbor to the doctor.  But that isn’t the point, is it.

Michael Moore doesn’t want to send his neighbor to the doctor; Michael Moore wants you and me to send his neighbor to the doctor.  Moore’s idea of religion is the government forcing you and I to pay higher taxes so that the government can give people high quality government programs like Cash for Clunkers, Social Security and Public Schools.

Moore asks, would Jesus be a Capitalist?  Absolutely, and in fact his followers were.  Paul worked as a tent-maker and chose to use those proceeds to fund his ministry.  The Christians chose to sell their property and possessions and chose to share with one another.  Wealthy Christians in different cities chose to house Christians and Jesus on their missionary journeys.  Jesus was poor, but he did not take Roman welfare.  Jesus didn’t command the pagans to fund his ministry.  Jesus healed with His own hands, He didn’t require the government to provide universal health insurance to the sick paid for with taxes on the poor and middle class.

If Michael Moore truly thinks that making money is evil and should be outlawed, I can recommend a few places where he can choose to give the $5 million his movie made over the weekend.


Share This Blog

Bookmark and Share

Categories