I’ve always maintained that whenever people argue about something, the quickest way to find out who won the argument was to see who called who a Nazi. Those who are unable to argue points based on fact resort to the ad hominem attack. They cannot come up with good counterarguments, so in desperation they demonize their opponents. Given the current public debate over health care reform, I’d say the Democrats are losing the argument.
Madame Speaker has labeled those who disagree with her as “un-American”. Really? I served my country on active duty for 12 years, and in the inactive reserve for another 6, but I disagree with her on damn near everything. Does that make me, in her own words, “un-American”?
For eight years the American people were lectured by the likes of her about the meaning of dissent and patriotism. Folks like her and her ilk said it was “patriotic” to voice dissent against your government. That’s pretty easy to say when you’re not the one in charge. But today, things are different. How different? She’s in charge now, and now that she’s in charge, she doesn’t want to hear the voices of those who disagree with her. It is a case of “protest for me, but not for thee.” There is a right to freedom of speech guaranteed to us by the Constitution. In case she has forgotten, here’s what the First Amendment says:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
As a public servant of our Republic, she swore an oath to uphold the Constitution. The commissioning oath I took is identical to the oath she took. Her oath took her to Washington DC, where she has made it her mission in life to handcuff those who are trying to protect this country from those who would take away her right of “patriotic” dissent.
Senior citizens who are concerned about the fate of Medicare attend town hall meetings armed only with their words. They are assembling peacefully. They are petitioning their government for redress of their grievances. They feel they are not being listened to by their elected representatives. Why is it “un-American” for these people to exercise their constitutional rights? Does the Bill of Rights apply only to Democratic politicians?
Let me make real easy for you, Madame Speaker, and I'll use small words so you won't misunderstand the meaning behind them. The right of free speech [and by extension the freedom to dissent] is the right of ALL Americans regardless of race, color, creed, or political party. You cannot pick and choose which rights guaranteed by our Constitution you choose to honor, respect, and protect. If you can't take the heat from people who disagree with you, it's time you found another line of work.
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
Monday, August 3, 2009
Public Option is a Proven Failure
One of the things being talked about in the debate over reforming health care in this country is the “public option.” This option is a government-run insurance option that would compete with private insurers. To a lot of people this sounds like a good thing, but I am not one of them. In the research I’ve done, the public option has shown itself to be great if you want to bankrupt the country, but not so great at “reforming” health care.
There are three examples of why I don’t like the public option. This option has been tried in three states – Hawaii, Tennessee, and Massachusetts. In Hawaii, lawmakers there approved the Keiki Care program. Its aim – to cover every child from birth to 18 years of age who didn’t already have health insurance. Surely this is a lofty goal. However, the program didn’t quite work out as planned. Here the “law of unintended consequences” reared its ugly head. What happened was that parents who already had private health insurance for their children started dropping their children’s health insurance in order to qualify for “free” health care. They abused the system. Why pay their hard-earned dollars for something the state will provide for “free”? When the number of Hawaiian children that “qualified” for the Keiki program grew by leaps and bounds, this resulted in what would be a state budgetary shortfall of some $900 million. Unlike the federal government, states aren’t allowed to print money, so when faced with budget deficits they either have to cut services in other areas or raise taxes. Despite its good intentions, the Keiki Care program had to be shut down after only seven months. In short, it didn’t work.
In Tennessee, lawmakers implemented a universal single-payer system known as TennCare. To quote Reps Marsha Blackburn and Phil Roe [both Republicans from Tennessee], “the objective was to use the anticipated savings from Medicaid to fund and expand coverage for children and the uninsured. The result was a program that nearly bankrupted the state, reduced the quality of care, and collapsed under its own weight.” TennCare was designed to replace Medicaid with a managed care system and promised savings to expand health coverage to all. That sounds almost word for word what President Obama wants today. In this case it wasn’t parents that dropped children from private insurance as was the case in Hawaii, but private business. Private businesses all over Tennessee stopped offering health coverage for their employees, which forced many people into the public option system. Again, the number of people who qualified for “free” health care ballooned. To cover the costs, Tennessee had to raise taxes and tried to establish a state income tax. When that effort failed, the Democratic governor had to restructure the program, cutting 200,000 people and cutting benefits. Hmmm….cutting benefits…that sounds like rationing to me. And they’re talking of cutting off another 150,000 people as well. Another part of restructuring the program included reductions in reimbursement rates for hospitals and doctors. Since they weren’t getting paid, fewer doctors could afford to accept TennCare patients. This flies in the face of President Obama’s pledge that you would be able to keep your own coverage and keep your own doctor. If you were on TennCare, and you liked your doctor, but your doctor had to drop you as a patient because TennCare wouldn’t pay you, you’d be up the proverbial creek without a paddle. Tennessee lawmakers ignored the “law of unintended consequences.” Think about it – if you own a business and you pay money to insure the health of your workers, wouldn’t you try to improve your balance sheets if you heard that the state will provide for “free” what you are paying company dollars for? If you were an unrepentant capitalist you would jump at that chance in a heartbeat. Given this set of circumstances, the TennCare program isn’t working out too well either.
Then there is Massachusetts, the state affectionately known to many as “Taxachusetts.” In Massachusetts nearly 97 percent of the state’s population has some kind of medical insurance coverage, that’s because of a "play or pay" mandate on businesses requiring firms to provide health insurance to employees or pay a tax so the government can provide coverage; and generally expanding public insurance [the "public option"]. In March 2009 the New York Times reported spending on the state's health insurance programs is expected to be 42 percent higher this year compared to 2006. Program budget gaps have been addressed by raising taxes on businesses, insurers and hospitals; jacking up tobacco taxes; and increasing premiums and co-payments. As costs explode, the Times reported that some experts argue that government will have to place caps on spending, "which could lead to rationing of care." Writing in the Washington Examiner on July 6, Sally Pipes of the Pacific Research Institute reported:
"The centerpiece of Massachusetts' 2006 health reform bill is Commonwealth Care, a government program that provides free and subsidized insurance plans to low- and moderate-income patients. It's spending has doubled in the last two years, jumping from $630 million in 2007 to an estimated $1.3 billion in fiscal year 2009. Last year, rising costs lead Commonwealth Care officials to approve a 12 percent rate increase, meaning that basic insurance costs will cut even deeper into the incomes of most participating patients... And employers, now required to contribute to employee coverage or pay a tax penalty, are drowning under ballooning healthcare costs. Indeed, businesses that sponsor high-quality insurance plans have seen annual rate increases of 10 to 15 percent since MassCare's inception. This has made it harder and harder for businesses to stay in the state. And it's made the state less attractive for entrepreneurs and investors."
In 2006, Massachusetts brought about the following reforms: individual mandates, employer mandates, an exchange, and subsidies. Individual mandates require all state citizens to purchase a government-approved policy. Employer mandates require businesses to contribute to their employees’ coverage, fining those that do not meet minimum standards. The exchange creates an artificial, heavily regulated market place. Finally, the government subsidizes the policy for people making up to 300% above the poverty line. What has happened? According to, Michael Tanner of the Cato Institute listed these among Massachusetts’ failures:
Rising insurance premiums:
* In Massachusetts, health insurance premiums rose by 7.4% in 2007 and 8-12% in 2008.
* These cost increases outpaced national averages – 6.1% in 2007 and 4.7% in 2008.
Out of control spending:
* Massachusetts’ health care reforms were projected to cost $1.56 billion.
* Costs for 2009 may now be as high as $1.9 billion - $300 million above original projections.
* These costs lead to new taxes. Already, Deval Patrick has responded to deficits by increasing the state’s cigarette tax by $1 per pack.
Waiting lists:
* The number of people foregoing care because of difficulty finding a provider has increased from 3.5% to 4.8%.
* Among low-income individuals, the same figure increased even more, from 4.2% to 6.9%.
* Average waiting times for an appointment with an internist have increased from 33 to 52 days.
Now I appreciate the need for some kind of reform in health care. Costs are just too damn high. It’s a racket, and a legalized one at that. But this public option has been proven a failure in the three places where it has been tried.
Some define insanity as the repeated attempts at failure with the hope of a different outcome. The public option has been tried in three states with the same outcome – failure. Do we as a country want to try it a fourth time and hope for a different outcome? If we do, then we are truly insane.
There are three examples of why I don’t like the public option. This option has been tried in three states – Hawaii, Tennessee, and Massachusetts. In Hawaii, lawmakers there approved the Keiki Care program. Its aim – to cover every child from birth to 18 years of age who didn’t already have health insurance. Surely this is a lofty goal. However, the program didn’t quite work out as planned. Here the “law of unintended consequences” reared its ugly head. What happened was that parents who already had private health insurance for their children started dropping their children’s health insurance in order to qualify for “free” health care. They abused the system. Why pay their hard-earned dollars for something the state will provide for “free”? When the number of Hawaiian children that “qualified” for the Keiki program grew by leaps and bounds, this resulted in what would be a state budgetary shortfall of some $900 million. Unlike the federal government, states aren’t allowed to print money, so when faced with budget deficits they either have to cut services in other areas or raise taxes. Despite its good intentions, the Keiki Care program had to be shut down after only seven months. In short, it didn’t work.
In Tennessee, lawmakers implemented a universal single-payer system known as TennCare. To quote Reps Marsha Blackburn and Phil Roe [both Republicans from Tennessee], “the objective was to use the anticipated savings from Medicaid to fund and expand coverage for children and the uninsured. The result was a program that nearly bankrupted the state, reduced the quality of care, and collapsed under its own weight.” TennCare was designed to replace Medicaid with a managed care system and promised savings to expand health coverage to all. That sounds almost word for word what President Obama wants today. In this case it wasn’t parents that dropped children from private insurance as was the case in Hawaii, but private business. Private businesses all over Tennessee stopped offering health coverage for their employees, which forced many people into the public option system. Again, the number of people who qualified for “free” health care ballooned. To cover the costs, Tennessee had to raise taxes and tried to establish a state income tax. When that effort failed, the Democratic governor had to restructure the program, cutting 200,000 people and cutting benefits. Hmmm….cutting benefits…that sounds like rationing to me. And they’re talking of cutting off another 150,000 people as well. Another part of restructuring the program included reductions in reimbursement rates for hospitals and doctors. Since they weren’t getting paid, fewer doctors could afford to accept TennCare patients. This flies in the face of President Obama’s pledge that you would be able to keep your own coverage and keep your own doctor. If you were on TennCare, and you liked your doctor, but your doctor had to drop you as a patient because TennCare wouldn’t pay you, you’d be up the proverbial creek without a paddle. Tennessee lawmakers ignored the “law of unintended consequences.” Think about it – if you own a business and you pay money to insure the health of your workers, wouldn’t you try to improve your balance sheets if you heard that the state will provide for “free” what you are paying company dollars for? If you were an unrepentant capitalist you would jump at that chance in a heartbeat. Given this set of circumstances, the TennCare program isn’t working out too well either.
Then there is Massachusetts, the state affectionately known to many as “Taxachusetts.” In Massachusetts nearly 97 percent of the state’s population has some kind of medical insurance coverage, that’s because of a "play or pay" mandate on businesses requiring firms to provide health insurance to employees or pay a tax so the government can provide coverage; and generally expanding public insurance [the "public option"]. In March 2009 the New York Times reported spending on the state's health insurance programs is expected to be 42 percent higher this year compared to 2006. Program budget gaps have been addressed by raising taxes on businesses, insurers and hospitals; jacking up tobacco taxes; and increasing premiums and co-payments. As costs explode, the Times reported that some experts argue that government will have to place caps on spending, "which could lead to rationing of care." Writing in the Washington Examiner on July 6, Sally Pipes of the Pacific Research Institute reported:
"The centerpiece of Massachusetts' 2006 health reform bill is Commonwealth Care, a government program that provides free and subsidized insurance plans to low- and moderate-income patients. It's spending has doubled in the last two years, jumping from $630 million in 2007 to an estimated $1.3 billion in fiscal year 2009. Last year, rising costs lead Commonwealth Care officials to approve a 12 percent rate increase, meaning that basic insurance costs will cut even deeper into the incomes of most participating patients... And employers, now required to contribute to employee coverage or pay a tax penalty, are drowning under ballooning healthcare costs. Indeed, businesses that sponsor high-quality insurance plans have seen annual rate increases of 10 to 15 percent since MassCare's inception. This has made it harder and harder for businesses to stay in the state. And it's made the state less attractive for entrepreneurs and investors."
In 2006, Massachusetts brought about the following reforms: individual mandates, employer mandates, an exchange, and subsidies. Individual mandates require all state citizens to purchase a government-approved policy. Employer mandates require businesses to contribute to their employees’ coverage, fining those that do not meet minimum standards. The exchange creates an artificial, heavily regulated market place. Finally, the government subsidizes the policy for people making up to 300% above the poverty line. What has happened? According to, Michael Tanner of the Cato Institute listed these among Massachusetts’ failures:
Rising insurance premiums:
* In Massachusetts, health insurance premiums rose by 7.4% in 2007 and 8-12% in 2008.
* These cost increases outpaced national averages – 6.1% in 2007 and 4.7% in 2008.
Out of control spending:
* Massachusetts’ health care reforms were projected to cost $1.56 billion.
* Costs for 2009 may now be as high as $1.9 billion - $300 million above original projections.
* These costs lead to new taxes. Already, Deval Patrick has responded to deficits by increasing the state’s cigarette tax by $1 per pack.
Waiting lists:
* The number of people foregoing care because of difficulty finding a provider has increased from 3.5% to 4.8%.
* Among low-income individuals, the same figure increased even more, from 4.2% to 6.9%.
* Average waiting times for an appointment with an internist have increased from 33 to 52 days.
Now I appreciate the need for some kind of reform in health care. Costs are just too damn high. It’s a racket, and a legalized one at that. But this public option has been proven a failure in the three places where it has been tried.
Some define insanity as the repeated attempts at failure with the hope of a different outcome. The public option has been tried in three states with the same outcome – failure. Do we as a country want to try it a fourth time and hope for a different outcome? If we do, then we are truly insane.
Monday, July 6, 2009
Intemperate Thoughts
I don’t have one specific thing on which to offer comment, just a lot of little things.
Today is Monday. That means in the Air Force its “Blues Monday.” Since I’m no longer in the Air Force, I like “Blues Monday” for one simple reason – it means all the junior birdmen flyboy wannabees in my squadron have to take their green bags [flight suits] off at least once a week. None of the bag wearers in our squadron is a pilot, nor do any of them occupy a flying slot. Just because they went to Test Pilot School as engineers they get to wear the bag. I’m sorry – if you’re not flying today, you should be wearing a different uniform.
Will Barack Obama be as tough on Iranians and North Koreans as he is on Republicans?
During the 2008 campaign, Barack Obama made the following promise - "I can make a firm pledge. Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes." To pay for all the stuff he wants to do [cap-and-trade, health care, etc] how is he going to keep this promise?
Barack Obama finds himself in complete agreement on the Honduras matter with Raul Castro, Hugo Chavez, and Daniel Ortega. He didn’t want to seem “meddlesome” in Iran, but he’s making up for that in Honduras. Manuel Zelaya wanted to hold a referendum to extend his term as president. He imported ballots from Venezuela. He accepted election monitors from Venezuela and Nicaragua. The Honduran Supreme Court said “no.” The legislature said “no.” The army said “no.” Zelaya’s own attorney general said “no.” The Honduran Constitution stipulates that actions such as those of Manuel Zelaya are illegal. It also stipulates those who try such things automatically forfeit their office. The Supreme Court authorized Zelaya’s removal. The army did the deed and replaced him with the Congressional leader of Zelaya’s own political party, not an army general. This sounds like an internal matter to me. Yet Mr Obama wants Manuel Zelaya returned to power, as does that pit of dictators known to all as the United Nations. He respects "the sovereignty of the Islamic Republic of Iran" but not that of Honduras. Interesting…
Robert McNamara died today. He’s rotting in a very warm place. I don’t wish this on many people, but for this man I make an exception. He was one of Kennedy’s “Best and the Brightest” who thought they knew better than anyone else about everything [just ask them]. I think Don Rumsfeld took lessons from this guy. He had an unquenchable desire to quantify the unquantifiable. If you think I’m a bit harsh, read David Halberstam’s “The Best and the Brightest”. It makes me wonder though – if this guy was so damn smart, how come Ford made the Edsel and the Falcon during his watch? Hmmm….
Harry Truman once said “if you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.” Sarah Palin has left the kitchen…
I’m disgusted with Republican politicians who can’t keep it in their pants. I think my party is leaving me… Maybe if Republicans weren’t so sanctimonious about moral values they wouldn’t be done in by their own hypocrisy.
I pay premiums for my own health insurance. In order to pay for health care for others, I might be asked to pay taxes on those very benefits I’m already paying for. Does anyone but me see something wrong with this picture?
Every time I hear a politician advocate a specific policy for “the common good” I want to reach for a copy of Karl Marx’s Communist Manifesto.
I still haven’t figured out why this country pledges such undying support for Israel. Is it to make up for inaction during the Holocaust? I understand the Cold War was a zero sum game – we had the Israelis, the Soviet Union had support of the Arab states. The Cold War is over now – how does unquestioned support of Israel benefit our national interests? If Israel gets into a shooting war with Iran, will we get dragged into it? While I was avoiding listening to that mosquito known to most people as Sean Hannity, I heard someone call into Fred Thompson’s radio show today who said that he would “do anything” to protect Israel from Iran. Anything? He said he’d “send troops.” Just where are these troops going to come from? We’ve still got a lot of troops keeping an eye on The Gargoyle in North Korea. Many others are kinda busy in Iraq and Afghanistan at the moment. Does that mean this guy would go himself to defend Israel, or that he’d gladly send someone else’s sons and daughters to do the dirty work? Ah, the safety of being out of range…. It makes me wonder how many like-minded people are out there. I don’t want any part of that.
I’ve been listening to The Band a lot lately. There’s four Canadians (Robbie Robertson, Rick Danko [RIP], Richard Manuel [RIP], Garth Hudson) and one guy from the States (Levon Helm), all of whom played several instruments. There’s lots of really good songs [The Weight, Up On Cripple Creek, The Night They Drove Old Dixie Down just to name a few], few guitar solos, great singing. They broke up in 1977, reformed without Robbie Robertson in 1983, then broke up for good after Rick Danko died in 1999. Levon Helm was diagnosed with throat cancer in the late 1990s and almost lost the ability to sing. He’s back now and has a pretty good solo career. In the last three years he’s put out two CDs [his first solo recordings since 1982], Dirt Farmer and Electric Dirt. Dirt Farmer has lots of traditional tunes played with acoustic instruments [acoustic guitars, mandolins, fiddles, acoustic piano]. Electric Dirt has more of the same, but also some electrified music. The tunes include some from Muddy Waters, the Grateful Dead, Randy Newman. Levon Helm doesn’t sound like the powerful, gritty singer he was during The Band’s heyday. He sounds more like bluegrass god Ralph Stanley these days, but that’s not a bad thing. If you don’t know who Ralph Stanley is, watch the movie O Brother Where Art Thou? When you hear the Klan Wizard [who is running for governor of Mississippi] sing during the Klan rally, that’s Ralph Stanley’s voice you hear. Both Dirt Farmer and Electric Dirt capture Americana without sounding corny – it’s all good.
Today is Monday. That means in the Air Force its “Blues Monday.” Since I’m no longer in the Air Force, I like “Blues Monday” for one simple reason – it means all the junior birdmen flyboy wannabees in my squadron have to take their green bags [flight suits] off at least once a week. None of the bag wearers in our squadron is a pilot, nor do any of them occupy a flying slot. Just because they went to Test Pilot School as engineers they get to wear the bag. I’m sorry – if you’re not flying today, you should be wearing a different uniform.
Will Barack Obama be as tough on Iranians and North Koreans as he is on Republicans?
During the 2008 campaign, Barack Obama made the following promise - "I can make a firm pledge. Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes." To pay for all the stuff he wants to do [cap-and-trade, health care, etc] how is he going to keep this promise?
Barack Obama finds himself in complete agreement on the Honduras matter with Raul Castro, Hugo Chavez, and Daniel Ortega. He didn’t want to seem “meddlesome” in Iran, but he’s making up for that in Honduras. Manuel Zelaya wanted to hold a referendum to extend his term as president. He imported ballots from Venezuela. He accepted election monitors from Venezuela and Nicaragua. The Honduran Supreme Court said “no.” The legislature said “no.” The army said “no.” Zelaya’s own attorney general said “no.” The Honduran Constitution stipulates that actions such as those of Manuel Zelaya are illegal. It also stipulates those who try such things automatically forfeit their office. The Supreme Court authorized Zelaya’s removal. The army did the deed and replaced him with the Congressional leader of Zelaya’s own political party, not an army general. This sounds like an internal matter to me. Yet Mr Obama wants Manuel Zelaya returned to power, as does that pit of dictators known to all as the United Nations. He respects "the sovereignty of the Islamic Republic of Iran" but not that of Honduras. Interesting…
Robert McNamara died today. He’s rotting in a very warm place. I don’t wish this on many people, but for this man I make an exception. He was one of Kennedy’s “Best and the Brightest” who thought they knew better than anyone else about everything [just ask them]. I think Don Rumsfeld took lessons from this guy. He had an unquenchable desire to quantify the unquantifiable. If you think I’m a bit harsh, read David Halberstam’s “The Best and the Brightest”. It makes me wonder though – if this guy was so damn smart, how come Ford made the Edsel and the Falcon during his watch? Hmmm….
Harry Truman once said “if you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.” Sarah Palin has left the kitchen…
I’m disgusted with Republican politicians who can’t keep it in their pants. I think my party is leaving me… Maybe if Republicans weren’t so sanctimonious about moral values they wouldn’t be done in by their own hypocrisy.
I pay premiums for my own health insurance. In order to pay for health care for others, I might be asked to pay taxes on those very benefits I’m already paying for. Does anyone but me see something wrong with this picture?
Every time I hear a politician advocate a specific policy for “the common good” I want to reach for a copy of Karl Marx’s Communist Manifesto.
I still haven’t figured out why this country pledges such undying support for Israel. Is it to make up for inaction during the Holocaust? I understand the Cold War was a zero sum game – we had the Israelis, the Soviet Union had support of the Arab states. The Cold War is over now – how does unquestioned support of Israel benefit our national interests? If Israel gets into a shooting war with Iran, will we get dragged into it? While I was avoiding listening to that mosquito known to most people as Sean Hannity, I heard someone call into Fred Thompson’s radio show today who said that he would “do anything” to protect Israel from Iran. Anything? He said he’d “send troops.” Just where are these troops going to come from? We’ve still got a lot of troops keeping an eye on The Gargoyle in North Korea. Many others are kinda busy in Iraq and Afghanistan at the moment. Does that mean this guy would go himself to defend Israel, or that he’d gladly send someone else’s sons and daughters to do the dirty work? Ah, the safety of being out of range…. It makes me wonder how many like-minded people are out there. I don’t want any part of that.
I’ve been listening to The Band a lot lately. There’s four Canadians (Robbie Robertson, Rick Danko [RIP], Richard Manuel [RIP], Garth Hudson) and one guy from the States (Levon Helm), all of whom played several instruments. There’s lots of really good songs [The Weight, Up On Cripple Creek, The Night They Drove Old Dixie Down just to name a few], few guitar solos, great singing. They broke up in 1977, reformed without Robbie Robertson in 1983, then broke up for good after Rick Danko died in 1999. Levon Helm was diagnosed with throat cancer in the late 1990s and almost lost the ability to sing. He’s back now and has a pretty good solo career. In the last three years he’s put out two CDs [his first solo recordings since 1982], Dirt Farmer and Electric Dirt. Dirt Farmer has lots of traditional tunes played with acoustic instruments [acoustic guitars, mandolins, fiddles, acoustic piano]. Electric Dirt has more of the same, but also some electrified music. The tunes include some from Muddy Waters, the Grateful Dead, Randy Newman. Levon Helm doesn’t sound like the powerful, gritty singer he was during The Band’s heyday. He sounds more like bluegrass god Ralph Stanley these days, but that’s not a bad thing. If you don’t know who Ralph Stanley is, watch the movie O Brother Where Art Thou? When you hear the Klan Wizard [who is running for governor of Mississippi] sing during the Klan rally, that’s Ralph Stanley’s voice you hear. Both Dirt Farmer and Electric Dirt capture Americana without sounding corny – it’s all good.
Thursday, June 18, 2009
Silence = Consent, Obama-style
Last month I argued that Nancy Pelosi consented to torture of terrorists because she didn’t complain about those actions that she now claims to oppose when she was told about them. The phrase I used then was “silence = consent.” Today I use that term again, only this time the object of my argument is none other than Barack Obama.
Last week Iran held a presidential election. Was it rigged or wasn’t it? I don’t know. It’s not important what I think about the validity of the Iranian election. What IS important is what the Iranian people think. What I do know is that many thousands, perhaps millions of Iranians went to the polls thinking that their vote would count for something and affect real change in their country. The change these people wanted didn’t come to pass [yet], and they are outraged. Another phrase I learned when I was in the Air Force is “perception is reality.” Their perception is the election was rigged. These folks are expressing their outrage by demonstrating against their government. When these protests began I thought things could go one of two ways. The outcome could be the Filipino way of the peaceful People Power Revolution that toppled Ferdinand Marcos after THAT rigged election, or we could see a replay of the violent crushing of the Tienanmen Square protests by the Chinese Communists in June 1989. Today it looks as if the mullahs who rule Iran are taking a page out of the Chinese playbook.
Our country has a long tradition of support for democracy around the world, for freedom of expression, and against tyranny of any form. Mr Obama often talks of restoring the US to the “moral high ground” in foreign affairs, to return to the traditional American ideals that created our country. But given the opportunity to actually practice what he preaches, Mr Obama’s silence on the treatment of Iranian protesters has been deafening. He has been as quiet as the Sphinx. Columnist Ralph Peters argues [and I agree] that Mr Obama’s refusal to take a moral stand on the side of the Iranian protesters gives the mullahs in charge a “blank check” to brutally crack down on them. Remember, silence = consent. If you don’t complain about the things that you say you oppose, others can and will take that silence as tacit approval of their actions.
The only things our president said about this sordid mess was that the Iranians must be the ones to elect their own leaders [I have no problem with that], and that Mir Hossein Mousavi was no different than Mahmoud Ahmadinejad [I DO have a problem with THAT]. Mr Mousavi stated “we can have better relations with the world which is surely very significant to help our country’s development.” Ahmadinejad denies the Holocaust ever happened and wants to wipe Israel off the map. This guy is a few fries short of a Happy Meal.
House GOP Conference Chairman Mike Pence (R-Ind.) and Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Howard Berman (D-Calif.) introduced a strongly-worded resolution condemning the crackdown on pro-democracy activists in Iran. This resolution states:
Resolved, That the House of Representatives—
(1) expresses its support for all Iranian citizens who embrace the values of freedom, human rights, civil liberties, and rule of law;
(2) condemns the ongoing violence against demonstrators by the Government of Iran and pro-government militias, as well as the ongoing government suppression of independent electronic communication through interference with the Internet and cellphones; and
(3) affirms the universality of individual rights and the importance of democratic and fair elections.
In this era of hyperpartisanship, members of Congress are putting their own partisanship aside to express solidarity with the Iranian protesters. When will President Obama get with the program?
Friday, May 15, 2009
Careful What You Ask For, Madame Speaker
Nancy Pelosi wants to have a “truth commission” regarding the torture of terrorist suspects. She’s not satisfied that her party controls both houses of Congress and the White House. She wants vengeance against those who disagreed with her [those evil Bush Republicans]. Careful what you wish for Madame Speaker – you just might get it.
On Sept. 4, 2002, less than a year after 9/11, the CIA briefed Rep. Porter Goss, then House Intelligence Committee chairman, and Madame Speaker, then the committee's ranking Democrat, on “enhanced interrogation techniques” [EITs] including waterboarding. They were the first members of Congress so briefed. Mr Goss said he and Madame Speaker were briefed about the interrogation techniques and that both he and Madame Speaker asked if the CIA needed any more support from Congress to carry out its mission. There was no indication of disapproval from Madame Speaker at this point. However, when things in Iraq went to hell, Madame Speaker suddenly found her voice.
At first, Madame Speaker stated "We were not -- I repeat -- were not told that waterboarding or any of these other enhanced interrogation methods were used. Any contention to the contrary is simply not true." On May 5th, CIA Director Leon Panetta "Briefing on EITs including use of EITs on Abu Zubaydah, background on [legal] authorities, and a description of the particular EITs that had been employed." The operative word here is “had”, indicating that the techniques Madame Speaker claims to decry were already being used at the time she was first briefed by the CIA. When the CIA briefs politicians, they keep track of who gets briefed, what gets briefed, and when the briefing happened.
Madame Speaker then admitted that one of her aides was part of a February 2003 briefing during which he learned the CIA was using “enhanced interrogation techniques.” Why didn’t Madame Speaker speak out in opposition to these techniques? As we used to say in the Air Force, “silence means consent.” Earlier this week she had a press conference where she had to rely heavily on notes and prepared statements to deny her knowledge or possible approval of EITs. I don’t know about you, but if I’m wrongly accused of something I didn’t do, I don’t need notes to get my point across. Then she claimed she didn’t act because she wasn’t personally briefed, only that she was told about EITs by an aide. Madame Speaker then claimed the CIA lied to her. I’m claiming that Madame Speaker is either lying about what she knew, didn’t comprehend what was briefed to her [which means she’s just plain stupid], or both. Taking on the CIA in a public forum is not a smart thing to do. They’ve had more than their share of failures in the past, but the folks at the CIA have experience in overthrowing governments, assassinating opponents, and damaging politicians they don’t agree with by leaking information about their activities.
That Madame Speaker knew about CIA torture doesn’t excuse those who actually DID the torturing, but if she agreed with what they were doing and didn’t do anything to stop it, doesn’t that make her an accomplice? Jane Harman, who replaced Madame Speaker as the ranking Democratic member on the House Intelligence Committee, wrote a letter to the CIA’s general counsel to express her concerns about the agency’s interrogation techniques. What did Madame Speaker do? Nothing. She claims she couldn’t object then. She claimed Rep. Harman was the “appropriate channel” for voicing her displeasure. She also claimed she was bound by secrecy laws which prevented her from speaking out. That’s an answer an entrenched bureaucrat would give you when you call him/her out for not performing one’s sworn duties. This is complete total bullshit. I’m sorry, but Madame Speaker was in a high position if authority, and SHE was the “appropriate channel.” Madame Speaker, have you ever heard of a “closed session”? From time to time, when Congress needs to debate sensitive matters, they turn off the cameras, lock the doors and throw out all the visitors so they can talk about classified information. This is the “closed session.” She was the House Minority Leader at the time. She had a pretty big soapbox on which she could speak out against what she thought was wrong. She has never been shy about getting in front of a camera. She could have proposed to cut-off funding for the CIA if they didn’t stop using the techniques she now claims to oppose. She could have asked for a closed session of the House to debate the manner. She could have tied up the House in legislative knots if she so desired. Yet she did none of these things. Is this inaction by Madame Speaker the behavior of someone who violently opposes something, or the sign of someone wanting somebody else to do the dirty work for for her for the sake of partisan advantage? Remember…silence = consent.
For someone to suggest that Madame Speaker couldn’t do much because she was in the minority forgets recent history. In the late 1980s, Newt Gingrich became the House Minority Whip and used his position to bring attention to the House Banking Scandal and the Congressional Post Office Scandal. He brought ethics charges against House Speaker Jim Wright about a book deal that circumvented campaign-finance laws and House ethics rules. The ensuing inquiry resulted in Wright resigning his speakership. And by the way, his tireless efforts in all of these endeavors resulted in Republicans taking control of the House for the first time in 40 years in 1994. I am not convinced Madame Speaker did all she could to stop the torturing of terror suspects. Gingrich did a helluva lot more with less.
Is this a Republican effort to shield themselves from any responsibility and deflect attention from their own culpability regarding torture as some Democrats claim? Maybe, but if it is, it seems to be working pretty well. Given all that has come out this past week about Madame Speaker’s lack of urgency concerning enhanced interrogation techniques, do you think she still wants a “truth commission”? President Obama doesn’t, Sen Reid doesn’t. Steny Hoyer thinks it might be a good idea to learn what SHE knew and when SHE knew it. It’s not a good sign when your #2 doubts you. If she keeps embarrassing herself and shredding what little [if any] credibility she has left, and keeps the attention on herself instead of President Obama’s agenda, her speakership may not last much longer. Mr. Hoyer would gladly take over the speakership if the need arises.
Friday, April 17, 2009
Straight from the Liberal Playbook
And now for a much shorter rant this evening. I’ve always said that when you are engaged in debate or argument with someone else, you know you have won the argument when your opponent resorts to calling you names. This is exactly what Janeane Garafalo did on Keith Olbermann’s show last night. Their topic of discussion was the April 15th “TEA Parties.”
People who had these “TEA parties” on April 15th protested about out-of-control government spending, government getting too large, government intrusion into people’s lives. Does Ms Garafalo have an argument against the accusation that government getting too big? No. Does she have an argument against people who think they’re being taxed too much? No. Does she have an argument against people who think government intrudes too much into their lives? No. Instead, she has this to offer: “Racism straightup. Nothing but a bunch of teabagging racists. These guys hate that a black guy is in the White House. The Republican hyphen conservative movement has crystalized into the white power movement.” This is some rational, deep thinking on her part, or as Sean Penn would put it “elegant” – NOT!!! Just more of the usual name-calling from a liberal who has run out of talking points and can’t think for herself.
For the last eight years, I’ve heard the constant drone from Leftists that it is “patriotic” to protest the actions of one’s government. Now that one of theirs occupies the highest office in the land as well as both Houses of Congress, their thinking has changed. To protest the actions of our government, in their eyes, is nothing short of an act of treason [yes, I know I heard the same thing from Republicans when they were in charge, so don’t get your panties in a bunch – it’s MY blog, dammit!]. It’s un-American, and well it’s just downright racist. I must be an un-American, treasonous racist veteran who would like nothing better than to violently overthrow our current government. I guess it is racist if I don’t want to pay someone else’s mortgage in addition to my own. I suppose it is racist to think that I don’t want any of my hard-earned dollars going to those thieving bastards at Citicorp [and all the other thieving bastards as well].
For the record, I don’t hate the fact that “a black guy is in the White House.” I do object to his policies though. I don’t want the second coming of Jimmy Carter. I’ve seen that movie before, and I didn’t like it then. Been there, done that, don't want to go back.
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
Today's Thoughts on Tax Day
Today is April 15th – Tax Day! I wonder if Tim Geithner, Kathleen Sibelius, Tom Daschle and Ron Kirk payed their taxes this year. I paid mine, got some money back, and bought a guitar today, so I’m doing my bit for “economic stimulus.” There are quite a few people who picked today to hold “TEA [Taxed Enough Already] parties”. These folks, who are pretty much fed up with everything the federal government does, think they are protesting just like the guys who threw English tea into Boston Harbor. There’s one flaw in their thinking – the original Boston Tea Party protested “taxation without representation.” Sorry gang, but we have representatives and our representatives let us down. I never thought I would say this, but on this Paul Begala and I agree. We just had an election, the other guys won. These protests will last all of one day, and then the protesters will get on with their lives. The political ruling class will ignore them. While I agree with their sentiments, if an annoying mosquito like Sean Hannity thinks having TEA parties is a brilliant idea, there MUST be something wrong with it. If one really wants to change the status quo, vote to throw the bums out in November 2010. It worked in 1980, 1994, and in 2008 – it can work again.
This week the Department of Homeland Security published their "intelligence assessment" [and I use that term very loosely - more on that later] about right-wing extremism. According to these clowns, anyone who thinks states ought to have more say in how they run their own affairs are extremists [Texas and 21 other states?]. Apparently in the eyes of DHS, those who think illegal immigrants [there's that word illegal again] should NOT get the same products and government services as those who are here legally [that would be my big sister and me] are right-wing extremists. Disgruntled military veterans [hmmm...people like me?] are right-wing extremists. I have to take all this with a huge grain of salt. DHS has done similar assessments on left-wing extremism [Friends of the Earth, Earth Liberation Front. etc] where they actually name organizations and actual targets of domestic terrorism. The piece on right-wing extremists goes into no such detail. Every stereotype about right-wingers one can think of is this document. Was this document written by intelligence professionals or left-wing bloggers with axes to grind? I guess I should be appalled and outraged by this document, but I when I consider its source I can only shake my head in amusement.
At this point, I don’t have very much faith in the folks at the Department of Homeland Security. Let me start with Customs. I just recently got back from a business trip to Germany. On the flight back I had to fill out this little two-page form to declare anything I brought home from overseas. The front of the form asks if you brought any food. I checked the “yes” box. The back of the form asks you to itemize said items. What food did I bring home? I brought home some Belgian chocolate candy for my wife. Now, any reasonable person would be able to connect the “food” that I checked “yes” on the front of the form to the “chocolate candy” that I listed on the back of the form. Not so Customs agents. When it was my turn to get a “welcome home” and a passport stamp from the Customs agent, the following conversation took place:
Customs agent [after looking at both sides of my declaration form]: Do you have anything to declare?
Me: Yes – chocolate candy and T-shirts.
Customs agent: This form says you brought food into the country. What kind of food did you bring?
Me: CHOCOLATE……CANDY!!!!
I have to mention that this Customs agent was male. If the agent was female, I wouldn’t have gotten such a stupid question. Every female on this planet thinks of chocolate as a major food group [and for any women reading this, you KNOW this to be true…].
Where do they find these people?
The next object of my irritation is the favorite agency of anybody who flies, the Transportation Security Agency [TSA]. In my job, I fly a lot. Suffice to say, I’m usually gone two weeks out of every month. I was in the Air Force for a long time. I still have a military ID. I work as a contractor supporting the Air Force. I have a security clearance. Let’s just say my clearance is higher than those who check old ladies for weapons in airports. And yet, whenever I fly an airline other than Delta, my name pops up on TSA’s terror watch list. It must be because of that Homeland Security study that said to be on the lookout for disgruntled veterans. The airline people are very nice, and they tell me to go to TSA’s web site so I can get my name off the watch list. So when I got home after one particular trip, I went to TSA’s site. I followed their instructions, made copies of my passport and driver’s license, and emailed the copies to the email address the web site provides. Did I get any feedback from TSA? No. Did I get an acknowledgement of them having received my paperwork? No. Am I still on the terror watch list? You betcha, dontcha know!
Where do they find these people?
Now, about this state sovereignty business. A long time ago a bunch of white slave-owning aristocrats got together in the late summer of 1787 to write a new Constitution for the young fledgling nation known as the United States of America. While the Untied States operated under the Articles of Confederation, the individual states had sovereign rights. There was a very weak central authority. It was not the kind of government that could deal with outside threats very well, because all decisions made by the states in a collective had to be unanimous. It was an unworkable framework. So in 1787, these white slave-owners got together to come up with something new. These guys had just broken away from England and they didn't want power concentrated in the hands of a single individual, like an English king.
They came up with a federal system. There would be a central government with a strong executive to run the day-to-day affairs of the country, but power was also divided among three separate branches. In addition to this new central government, the Founding Fathers saw the need for the individual states to have some authority. Power is shared between the national government and the states. This arrangement was codified in the 10th Amendment to the new Constitution. This amendment is very simple - it reads "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Twenty-two states are currently drafting resolutions in their respective legislatures that would re-assert their authority under the 10th Amendment. These states see the federal government as becoming too big and usurping state authority. This is not a new phenomenon. This movement began during the Bush years. They are protesting what they call "unfunded mandates" [among other things]. One example of such a mandate is in the stimulus bill recently enacted into law. This item concerns unemployment benefits. The federal government is giving money to the states, but with some strings attached. Some of this money has to be spent on unemployment benefits. The dirty little secret is these funds run out after 2010, and after that the states have to pick up the tab. The states are none too thrilled at that prospect, especially since THEY and not the Feds who will have to come up with sources of revenue [which usually means higher taxes and "user fees"] which is why you are hearing about some states rejecting stimulus money.
When I read and think about these state sovereignty resolutions, I have one question - what would be the practical effect if these resolutions are enacted into law? Will we have a Nullification Crisis like what this country went through in the 1830s? Will there be any effect at all? Will states begin to stop sending their tax dollars to Washington? I don't know the answers to these questions, but it is something that makes someone go "hmmm..."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
