A MAGA Platform - Under Construction

 

This is a list of the things most MAGA People support. These are realistic goals, and depend upon implementing them through the legal process, with the consent of the governed. Policies can be implemented through laws where needed, repeal or restructuring of regulations and executive action to reverse existing executive orders. Most of this applies to the Federal level, and has implications for the state and local levels of government. There are some caveats that are assumed, and I may need to add them in at some point. If I missed some items, let me know. 

We the People seek to:

1. reform government to limit the size and scope of the federal government; 

2. believe and promote the positive view of America and of its influence on the world;

3. hold bureaucrats accountable for performance;

4. promote equal treatment under the law;

5. allow free speech, especially political speech including speech that we don’t like or agree with (aside from libel, slander and other widely accepted and specified forms of speech); 

6. fully fund the police and allow them to enforce the law equally and fairly with accountability for their overreach and abuses; 

7. allow businesses to operate consistent with the religious beliefs and practices of the owners and employees; 

8. define what a woman is, what a man is, what a boy and a girl are, and what the differences are between them; 

9. support promote and protect the nuclear family with one man married to one woman and children under their care and responsibility; 

10. consider American interests first in all policy decisions, especially in foreign policy;  

11. build a border wall where necessary and effectively enforce our immigration laws;

12. require citizenship for voting and voter ID for each person to get and to cast a ballot;

13. restore confidence in our voting systems through open processes and responsiveness to the voting public; 

14. seek peace through strength in the foreign policy arena; 

15. avoid unnecessary wars or foreign intervention; 

16. allow all forms of energy including coal, natural gas, nuclear, wind, solar and hydroelectric power to be responsibly produced and used in our country to reestablish American energy independence;

17. lower business tax rates to be competitive with international business tax rates;

18. reduce burdensome federal regulations that drive business offshore; 

19. promote and teach the positive and complete history of America as a force for good in the world which has advanced from a slaveholding society to a society where all ethnicities have an equal opportunity to work, to learn, to accumulate wealth, to hold high office and to do whatever within the law that they want with whomever they want; 

20. allow businesses to operate without the fear of the federal government forcing political policies or agendas on them;

21. have agencies of the federal government depoliticized so that such agencies as the FBI investigate crimes in search of persons who committed those crimes rather than investigate persons in search of crimes, and agencies like the IRS apply the law equally and fairly to persons of all religions, political views, race and sex;

22. appoint judges who interpret laws consistent with the US Constitution, the text of the law and the original expressed intent of the lawmakers who wrote it;

23. recognize that the constitution limits government, and protects the rights of We the People and of the States;

24. restore budgetary and fiscal responsibility to Congress;

25. reduce spending to the point that we have a surplus and pay down the national debt; 

26. restore normal legislative order and make Congress write laws that are specific, rather than relying upon unelected bureaucrats to write regulations with the force of law in response to vague and sweeping laws;

27. add “sunset provisions” into most laws, especially spending laws, with an option to renew with a vote by Congress and signature by the President;

28. believe America was great and can be great again.

A Mature Conversation about Let's Go Brandon!

There is a phrase being chanted and posted that went viral in 2021, "Let's go Brandon!". This phrase has taken on a meaning that is totally disconnected from what the simple words put together mean.  More on the origins of the phrase later. The phrase gives me a platform to examine something that has long bothered me, about phrases we use regularly, and their true meanings. 

"Let's Go Brandon" came about quite by accident, during a recent post-race trackside TV interview of a driver named Brandon, who in fact won the race. There were remnants of the crowd who had just watched the race still present in the stands behind the race car driver and his network TV sports interviewer. As the interview progressed, fans in the stands started chanting "F___ Joe Biden!" loudly enough to be heard on TV. They were heartily chanting it, and many people noticed it, as it was being broadcast on live TV. The phrase carried the clear message that folks were unhappy with the current President of the United States. The chant was aimed at a specific person, and carried a general message, and it had nothing to do with the interview transpiring in front of them at the moment. But politics had bled into the minds of the crowd, and they took the opportunity of an open mic and camera to express their frustration at the direction their country was heading at the time. The reporter interviewing the race car driver Brandon tried to incorporate the chant of the crowd into the interview, either misunderstanding their enthusiasm to be for the race winner, Brandon, or trying to redirect the live audience into thinking they heard chants for the winning driver. She said something to the effect of "Hey, can you hear them chanting for you? Let's go Brandon!" Brandon briefly flashed a baffled facial expression, but in his exuberance over winning his first race at the professional level, he didn't really comment on the chant one way or the other. And so the phrase was overlaid on the chant, and live TV spread it to a mostly conservative crowd which was already disapproving of President Biden and his administration. I had heard the original "F--- Joe Biden!" chant before, but because I am a Christian, and avoid cussing, I never said it. But I wanted to express my disapproval and frustration, and I laughed out loud when she reinterpreted their familiar chant.  

Soon on social media, people started making signs and t-shirts, bumper stickers and of course, memes for posts of all sorts. The meaning was clear, and it was this: We are unhappy with the performance of our President, and want to express our frustration with the direction of our great country. That was the essence of the chant and phrase. It broke out at baseball games, in crowds at parks, at rallies - especially campaign rallies and was so ubiquitous that the Democrat Party had to find a way to reverse the damage it was causing. Once, during a TV interview, a caller asked President Biden a question, and waited on the phone as he answered. When he finished his answer, the reporter asked the caller if there was anything else he would like to say to the President, to which he replied "Let's go Brandon!" President Biden echoed back with a big smile on his face "Yes, let's go Brandon!". 

So what is the "real talk" or  "Mature conversation" about Let's go Brandon? There is a range of morality among people, and some are willing to use vulgar language in public, some are not. Those who have no internal limitation on their use of profane speech just come out and curse at President Biden, but those of us who do not want to curse do not use vulgar chants. So when an opportuinity to express our frustration without saying a curse word became popular and catchy, we took the opportunity to say that phrase without violating our consciences. Some still think the curse word in their minds, and thus are still unwilling to say "Let's go Brandon!", and that's understandable and ok too. What makes a curse word, like the F-word so vulgar? It is the literal meaning, which in the case of the F-word means doing a sexual act, which falls into the category of things that should only be done in private, which is why using the word in public is so vulgar. If you think about it, most "cuss words" have to do with actions normally reserved for private spaces and times. Then you get to the secondary meaning of the F-word, which is to basically express some combination of "Forget" plus "Curse" plus "insult" plus "reject" in a very negative way. When one says "F___ you!", they are not typically saying they want to perform a sex act on you, they are almost exclusively using the secondary meaning with their specific levels of the aspects of meaning against you. So replacing the "F___ Joe Biden!" with "Let's go Brandon!" still expresses the negative feeling for the target of the speaker's anger, without any connection to the vulgar primary meaning of the F-word, which they never intended to communicate anyway. 

The first defense that arose in response to the widespread use of the phrase "Let's go Brandon!" was to shame the speaker by saying they were actually still using the F-word, or they wanted to do the primary meaning of the F-word to Joe Biden (a gross and creepy thought for sure). And yet the phrase persists. Why? because people are truly angry at the direction of the country they love under the leadership and direction of President Joe Biden. It's not a transitory flash of rage, it's a simmering anger and discontentment brought on by widespread evidence of damage to our country, to our culture, and to our future. 

One last aspect of the Let's go Brandon! phenomenon to consider is this. Americans often like to boil their expressions down to short, pithy phrases, which are a summary or label for their thoughts and feelings on a matter. It seems to be some combination of laziness and efficiency, and it has manifest itself in many "loaded phrases", such as "Black Lives Matter", "Make America Great Again", "Back to School", "Like a Boss", "The GOAT", "Climate Change", and "American Exceptionalism". These short pithy phrases also fit well on t-shirts and bumper stickers.

So when someone says "Let's go Brandon!", they are really just expressing their frustration with President Biden, or President Brandon, as some have started calling him. That's really what it boils down to. 

20 Remarkable Things in 2020

 2020 has been a remarkable year, with many major events and a few interesting things. I wanted to summarize it during 2020, in hopes that not many more things will merit being added to the list. 

1. In January, Kobe Bryant died in a tragic helicopter crash. He, his daughter, coaches and more were flying in the LA area, through fog. It was a major loss to the sporting community, and to the Black community, because Kobe had been such an influential and positive figure. 

2. President Trump was impeached. 

3. The Novel Coronavirus spread from China to America and to the world. 

4. I got COVID-19 from the Coronavirus on March 11. Tested on 3/13, and confirmed it on 3/15. 

5. The economy was shut down to prevent the spread of Coronavirus, That shutdown is mostly ongoing. 

6. Joe Biden was selected as the Democratic Presidential candidate, winning the primary process with some influence from the DNC to dispatch Senator Bernie Sanders. Bernie was the people's choice of the Democrat base, and Kamala Harris was the first Democrat candidate to drop out of the race, even before the first primary vote was held. Senator Harris roasted VP Biden for his racist past and comments, but it did not endear her to Democrat primary voters or donors.

7. We got "Murder Hornets" which could sting humans to death. This creature was identified in Washington state, and its first victims were there. 

8. There were massive wildfires across California, Oregon and Washington, which burned millions of acres, and even were causing red sunsets as far east as Michigan. This was the result of poor forest management. 

9. My daughter graduated from GA Tech, but had a delayed ceremony in December due to COVID-19 shutdowns. 

10. We learned a new term: Social distancing. This is the process of staying more than 6 feet apart, to minimize or prevent the spread of Coronavirus. 

11. The Trump administration brokered a historic peace treaty between UAE and Israel. While the two were not at war, they now have normalized relations between the two states, opening up business, banking and travel between the two countries.

12. The Trump administration brokered a historic peace treaty between Bahrain and Israel.

13. The Trump administration brokered a historic economic treaty between Kosovo and Serbia. 

14. We have had more named Atlantic tropical storms than in any other year. 

15. President Trump garnered a higher percentage of Black voters, of Latino voters, and more votes than his first election, yet the election is marred with claims of fraud. 

16. In the third quarter of 2020, the American economy had a 33% GDP growth rate, equaling the past record for growth in America. 

17. As a result of Operation Warp Speed, two COVID-19 vaccines were developed and are in production as of November, and were distributed starting in December. Their effectiveness rates are both above 90%. 

18. Ammunition for guns has more than tripled in price since January, as of November, 2020. 

19. Kamala Harris was selected as the Democratic Party VP candidate. 

20. VP Joe Biden and Senator Kamala Harris prevailed in the 2020 general election. 

2020 GA Senate Runoff Post Mortem

This loss started a long time ago. First, Governor Kemp appointed Kelly Loeffler to the open seat without having the GA GOP team onboard. There were a few people hoping and waiting for that seat to open, especially Rep. Doug Collins. I suspect there was a financial benefit to Governor Kemp which helped him make her the choice to fill the seat. Second, the jungle Primary was a major problem, because it pitted Democrats and Republicans against each other for the seat, splitting the GOP vote. That lead to the runoff in the first place! Then, Rep. Doug Collins was not convinced not to get into the race for the rest of the unexpired Senate term, and his running against Senator Loeffler hurt them both in the general election. Third, the candidates ran as separate campaigns, rather than as a team, like Ossoff and Warnock did. The Democrat campaigns coordinated well together, with better results. Fourth, President Trump is also partly to blame, because his continual claims of election corruption dampened enthusiasm and trust in the election process. The lack of faith in the system may have been more damaging than the lack of enthusiasm, but who knows, and who would it matter? Fifth, President Trump trashed GA GOP folks including the Governor, the SoS, and others, on social media. That divided the party when it needed to be unified. It was a bad confluence of factors, and it took more than just one factor to cause this outcome. We have a lot of work to do to restore confidence, and rebuild the GA GOP.

Another Super bowl - ho hum

I should've been excited about the 2019 Super Bowl, but I just wasn't. I mean, I usually watch it, pick a team based on some tangible reasons or even based on some subjective reason like team colors, who they beat to get there, or the team's unique story. But this year was different. I just was not interested. 

The game is now over, but I'm neither happy Brady and company won, nor angry LA lost. This game also set the dubious record of being the lowest scoring Super bowl ever, which compounded my boredom with this game. 

Pre-Primary 2016 Ramblings

It's been a while.  I am trying to have a positive impact on the 2016 election, by resisting the polarization within the primary process.  Sure, I support my guy, and I am a member of a major party. But I am not saying that any other choice beside mine is fatal to the cause. Since it is before the first primary or caucus, things could change and I don't want to have to walk back any statements about other candidates.
What I am also bumping into is that on Facebook, when I post something, there is a lot of noisy feedback, and often the points get lost in the ensuing debate. This may be intentional, but this is not my intention. Another point is that I base my decisions on my Christian worldview, and sometimes this causes a lot of feedback. I need to stand firmly and confidently upon my choices, and to do so, they must be well thought out, and considered before being published. Perhaps I will use this blog as a point to launch and to test such positions first.

After the 2010 Budget Compromise

They say that Politics is the art of Compromise. Well, that may well be the problem! We in-artfully compromise, and get screwed by shrewd Democrats. We need to be tough, and get tough with those who would spend our country into oblivion. For example, what we need is better strategy. I like Mike Steele, but if he's helping craft the GOP messaging, we might need some young guns in the GOP HQ message-crafting office instead. The first thing we need to do is to NOT rule out a government shutdown. Even the threat of it helps negotiate a better deal. Second, we need to close all of our primaries, so only GOP can vote in them. No more outside influences on our primaries. Third, we need to pass a military funding bill that appropriates the defense budget separately, and for the rest of the year and pass it in both the House and Senate. Fourth, we need to reclaim the idea that we are cutting the PPACA (Obamacare) because it has been ruled unconstitutional twice. We didn't lose much in 1996 (2 house seats?! That's all!), and we held the House and Senate until 2006. Sounds like a fair trade to me. Finally, we just have to keep any shutdown focused on the issues, not on personalities; ours or theirs. The president would love to demagogue the shutdown, but if we stand confidently, firmly, cheerfully and refute their lies and distortions, the president will not get much credit. In fact, it will become obvious that the president is standing in the way of those working on serious spending reductions, and it will help any good GOP 2012 candidate who clearly articulates the responsible policies and reasons for them. There is enough alternate media out there to reach the moderates who truly love our country and its freedoms, and the seniors who will not be hurt by the Ryan Road-map to Prosperity spending reductions.

What are we Doing in the Middle East?

This article in The Hill linked above makes us as a nation seem rudderless, leaderless, and aimless. It leads to the question "What are we doing in Libya?" If we did not go into Libya based on any sense of precedent or consistency, then why did we go? Are we going to keep making unprecedented decisions that use our borrowed money, risk our precious lives, and are short-sighted, in that they are only based on best achieving our interests (which, without using precedent or consistency can be nothing but short sighted)? This is really disturbing to me.
The seeming confusion reigns up to now, with the President due to finally make a speech about why we went into Libya, and how things are going there. The article goes further to suggest that it is likely Mr. Obama will not lay out any foreign policy that would define "any doctrine encompassing the administration’s philosophy for intervening in foreign conflicts." This seems like the perfect time to do so, since there are several other countries with similar uprisings happening right now in that very region. I hope our press is downplaying hopes so that when the President does outline a consistent, thoughtful strategy that keeps American interests first and foremost, we will be pleasantly surprised. I will be relieved if he does lay out some sort of philosophy that can be used to foreshadow out military involvement in any other countries in the region, because if not, he will have to once more come before us and Congress, and make basically the case for whatever other intervention he chooses to make.

One thing that needs to be said, though it seems obvious to me is that the President should be a leader, have a plan ahead of any invasion, and get the American people on-board for any future invasions or "kinetic military actions" that risk American lives and treasure. Giving a speech a week or two after military action has begun seems like following, not leading. Being a leader entails risk, but also yields big rewards. In this case, the risk is that some may not be on board with the military action, but the reward is that our mission is defined, and with a coherent strategy and public voice, the nation will be behind whatever action is taken. Such leadership could also go far toward showing that our President is a leader, and that he deserves to be re-elected. By putting forth a philosophy or doctrine, our friends and enemies can take note and respect our position, even if they disagree with it. It would help to stabilize the world money and oil markets, as well, keeping the price of gas from going higher. With such a strategy publicly stated, our President could then leave the details unspoken, and keep our enemies more afraid of us, because we could then take any tactical action we deem necessary to protect our national interests.

That leads to another point: we need to clearly define our national interests both in Libya, and elsewhere. For example, I don't consider a life lost to a dictator in Iran any less valuable than one lost to a dictator in Libya. Nor are they less valuable in Syria, so if the point is to stop genocide, let's broaden our scope to take on all similar deadly dictators. If the lives of Innocent people plus oil interests in a country are the real motivation, then let's say so, and define where those interests lie. This line of reasoning sounds cold and cruel, but it more sounds even cold and capriciously cruel to me to pick one genocide over another to use our military might to stop. Then we truly are playing God, not just looking out for our vital national interests.

The final point is the concept of vital national interests. Our President needs to define for us what he considers our vital national interests in Libya, and elsewhere. What makes an interest "vital" is that if we do not address it, it will pose a direct threat to the lives of Americans. That threat must be against our citizens lives, our sovereignty, our national security, or have a severe impact on our economy, such that it would weaken our country. An argument could be made for other wars, such as WWII, where Japan attacked our sovereign territory, and Hitler stated and demonstrated that he intended to rule the world. It was a little less clear in Vietnam, though you could point to the attacks on our military people in the Gulf of Tonkin. Gulf War I was about Iraq invading a sovereign country and threatening our oil supplies, both from Iraq with Kuwait, and from Saudi Arabia. If Iraq had been able to take over the Middle East, it would have had a severe economic impact on our country, and made us more vulnerable to other hostile nations. Gulf War II was the result of Saddam Husein threatening our allies in the region again, and the attack on our homeland by Al-Qaeda from his base in Afghanistan.
In each case listed, there have been anti-war protesters, and detractors who don't believe there was justification for those wars. Truth be told, they probably would have been against any and all wars. I therefore discount all of those detractors, who are a loud, but small minority. Our President came before the American people and addressed our imminent entry into each of those wars before we sent anyone into war. In each case, even if I did not buy into the reasoning of the President, there was a national speech and some national political dialogue about going to war. In the case of this Libyan "kinetic military action", however, this has been sorely lacking. We have heard conflicting objectives such as

• "Kadhafi must go"
• "Regime change in Libya is not our objective."
  
• "It's time for Qaddafi to step down."
• "We will impose a no-fly zone"
• "Our aircraft have targeted tanks and forces loyal to Kadaffi."
• "There will be no 'Boots on the ground'".
  
• "Our rescue teams have recovered the pilots who ejected from their F-15 Fighting Eagle."
  

So what will we get tonight from our President? We'll see.

Party Politics in Blacks and Whites

I was following up on a thread in FB where a respondent asked the question why does it seem black Conservatives are no longer considered black? This was based on a statement in the linked video where the Rev. said that he had to convince people that yes indeed, he is still black.

I think there is a media blackout on both the conversions to the Republican Party, and on the doubts people in "the black community" have regarding the positions and effectiveness of the Democrat party. This fits neatly into a cultural difference, which is that blacks tend to place higher priority on and commit to personalities and "the group" than on their principles, while whites largely place higher priority on principles than on a person or group. Thus the media can be largely successful in herding blacks into the Democrat party by creating the perception that "their group" (the Dems) is where they are, where they belong, and that "the other guys", (GOP) is against them. Never mind that blacks' social beliefs more closely align with "the other guys", it's about staying with "our party". For example, in 1992, I campaigned for the GOP up and down the ticket, but when I went to the election night party, I felt a bit out of place. I soon left, and stopped by the Democrat election night watch party, where they made me feel right at home, assuming I was on their side. It didn't make me switch parties or anything, but I determined that we need to make all feel welcome and valued in the GOP. Still a lot of work to be done!

President Obama at Chamber of Commerce 2/7/11

I listened to the speech, and here is one thing that popped out at me: He referred to FDR marshaling business leaders in the late 1930's to change over to making war materiel, and that they had the greatest expansion ever known. He said that we can do it again. The elephant in the room is that they had a war coming on, one for national survival, and we do not. We only have big spenders who won't reign themselves in, spending us into oblivion. I feel another observation coming on... in my next comment.

Jobs trail demand, in the economy. When the economy picks up, jobs will be required, and they will be added. What our President suggested and requested was production before demand. That's against the "just in time" models we implemented in the 1990's, and is a high-risk approach for business. It won't happen, unless we lose our business minds (in which case, it might as well not happen at all).

One last thing: He also lamented that technology is created here, then built overseas. Very good observation. What he fails to address is why. The reason is cost: if cost for labor, regulatory compliance, healthcare, etc. is higher here than overseas (not to mention wages), any smart business will get things made where it costs them less, even considering shipping and customs/local taxes. He did address regulations, but left loopholes so big as to render his proposals ineffective, since most of the regs were put in place for "good reasons". Those reasons are still there, so the regs will stay, no matter how crippling they are to business and jobs.

A guy named James wrote this in reply:

I'm surprised(not really because the government never takes direct routes toward a solution or takes the common sense action) that with the call from both sides to cut spending that they haven't made the decision to sit down and go through ...every single entity that the government spends money on and see where things can't be cut. Several duplicate or even triplicate agencies exist doing basically the same thing. Cut one or two of those agencies and make the one left over more efficient.

I believe they need to do the same thing with each regulation they put into effect as well. In fact, each and every thing the government does at any time needs to be revisited every five or ten years to make sure the reason for it's implementation is still justified and that it is doing what it is supposed to do without harming anyone or anything.

Government's basic job is to ensure protection from enemies foreign and domestic. Then there is the job to ensure the greater good is protected in this country.
Taxing the crap out of anyone in this country isn't exactly providing for the greater good because even the millionaires and billionaires are citizens in this country. They have the power and resources to take their money elsewhere, as we have seen.

So I replied this:
James, you must understand Obamaspeak. When he talks about getting rid of useless regulations, consider what "use" he might consider enough to keep it. If milk is considered as dangerous as petroleum, then the EPA can impose the same rules... on dairy farmers as on Exxon for storage of their products. If a regulation has the effect of redistributing wealth, it is therefore useful (to Obama). If a regulation has the effect of stopping burning of anything, which he considers to be warming the atmosphere, that Reg is thus useful.

When it comes to cutting spending, there is the baseline, and that is a projected growth based on last year's budget, plus inflation. Then they talk about cutting from that, or any increase. One other key thing is that Congress critters always want to cut the other guy's program, not their own. When you replace the Constitution with Congressional whims, there is no consistent basis for justifying spending. Thus, whoever is in power will spend whatever they can get passed and signed into law. If we get back to basics, and follow the Constitution, what we spend our tax dollars on will become clear, and the budget will shrink, because the Constitution doesn't provide for so many things we spend our money on now. Both parties are guilty of this type of spending, which is why there is a popular uprising against both parties in our country.

FB Reponses could be Posts

I spend a lot of time replying to people on Facebook. That time is spent on writing these detailed posts that get lost in the ether. If I post a reply that is longer than a sentence or two, I might as well start it as a post her eon my blog. Then you can have a single place to review and peruse my thinking on various subjects.

Yes, it might be messy, and yes, it might be disjointed. But with this, I can go back and edit posts, and perfect them as I either get more detail, or those brilliant afterthoughts that often come to me hours or days after my initial response. I might also start throwing some pix in here, like those I took around the tailgating for the Superbowl.

State of the Union

This is what I wrote during the 2010 State of the Union as my first attempt at "Live Blogging". I am going back and cleaning it up over the next few days, so bear with me.

Populist Theme

A government of decency is what we need. Rails against the bank bailout. It's clearly an attempt to get on the people's side.
Demonize the banks - This is a slight of hand, as only those banks who have not paid back teh money should be paying this, but he is talking about getting money back from all big banks, even those who have already paid their money back. This will not fly with most Americans, because we are not stupid!

He listed a host of groups for whom he cut taxes 8 million - He sounds again like a Republican, boasting about all the groups that "got cuts". Does this mean that there are no tax increases coming?

I think that he was expecting applause from GOP. Got a tepid bit. I suspect this was not on the teleprompter, because his tone changed, his timing changed, and then reverted when he moved on.
He emphasized that they have not raised income taxes - not a single dime! The taxes have not gone into effect yet might be a better way to put it. Allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire is a tax increase, and they expire this year.

He praised the 2009 Recovery and Reinvestment Act for the jobs it has created. Economists on both left and right agree it is helping. He feels our pain, but how can that be if we are out of the recession? But more must be done, so that's why jobs must be our focus in 2010, so he called for another new jobs bill tonight. Harry Reid was bored, yawned around this time.

He acknowledged that the engine of job creation will always be America's businesses, and says Government can create environment where they can grow. He even explained that entrepreneurs make money and grow the economy by taking risks. Banks are lending to big business, but not small. Small business owners need help, so he proposes to use $30B of TARP for community banks to encourage loans. Is it legal to use TARP money without further approval from Congress? Small business tax credit proposed.

He proposed to eliminate capital gains taxes for all small business, then rushed through a laundry list of tax cuts for big business. They sounded like nuanced, targeted, and limited cuts, not general cuts so everyone could benefit. Also, if he was excited about this proposal, he would have spent more time on it, not rushed through it. I doubt the Democrats support this initiative, let's wait and see.

He then moved on to propose a high-speed rail corridor with more TARP funds. He said that would create jobs and improve our infrastructure. He did not mention waiving the environmental studies, or any other regulations that will delay the implementation of all such major building projects. this sounded good, but these types of projects take years to design and approve, purchase land, and decades to complete.

He mentioned clean energy jobs, as a way to keep us ahead, and keep jobs her in the USA.

He proposed to cut taxes for companies that keep jobs here, and slash tax breaks for those that ship them over seas. This is easier said than done, because it is the many taxes and regulations here that drive companies (read jobs) off-shore. How can we remove those regulations and axes for those who stay here? House supposedly has already, and he wants the Senate to do the same.

Here he tried to channel Bill Clinton, and explain how he felt their pain. He challenged the Congress to put a bill on my desk right away, though even that won't make up for 7 million jobs lost.

He says (but doesn't explain exactly how) this recovery won't be like the expansion in "the lost decade", the 2000's won't be duplicated. No bubble, no speculation. He seems to blame risk taking for the recent recession, though the risk was both facilitated and encouraged by the federal government. He says that gridlock not good. We can't put future on hold. He says we have been waiting for decades, but China is not waiting, Germany is not, India is not waiting to improve their education. They are making more investment in math, infrastructure, etc, so should we. He says he will not accept 2d place for the USA. This is his justification to keep on spending on things he thinks are necessary. This is a weak argument to me, because if we are drowning in debt, no matter how good our infrastructure is, we will fail. Also, we used to spend less than we do now, and we got good education, so money is not the key to better education.

It was a bit unusual to hear him criticize a Supreme Court decision. Alito said "no way, not true" when President Obama mentioned corporations, even foreign corporations will have undue influence on the elections by pouring money into campaigns. He must not have read the decision, because the decision did not allow donations to campaigns, only that corporations could spend money on candidates and issues directly, not to campaigns. I have to agree with Justice Alito.

Now he says it is time to get serious about things that do financial reform. He claims it is not about punishing banks, but rather to guard against same recklessness that nearly brought down our economy. Can't allow banks to take risk with your money. It's the main theme of populism, We vs. them, and he tries to sound tough by saying forcefully that he won't sign bill if it doesn't provide true reform.

He claims that in 2009 he made the largest investment in green technology, and there is no area better than energy. He pointed to a NC company that makes batteries, a Ca company that makes solar cells, he suggests building nuclear power plants (GOP cheered) open new off-shore oil and gas drilling, invest in clean coal technology, bio fuel, and even cap & trade. He think climate change (Laughter) incentives are the right thing to do, and we can lead the global economy by doing the most in these areas. I thought cap & trade was dead, and discredited.

He wants to export more of our goods, so we can support more jobs in our country. He amorphously says he wants to double exports in 5 yrs, to create more jobs. Doesn't exactly say how, but it sounds good. Details include reform of export controls consistent with security concerns. He says he will make our trade partners play by the rules (what does that mean, if they have different rules in their country?). He says he will expand on the Doha agreement, with South Korea, Panama, and others. No details here, so I doubt it will get done.

He plans to invest in new skills through education. We must reward success, instead of rewarding failure or status quo. The best anti-poverty program is world class education. This is nice sounding pious words, but without details and broad support, nothing will get done on this initiative either.

Eric Lamont Hill seems to be out in audience.

He proposes a $10k tax credit for families for 4 yr college education. When they graduate, they will only have to pay 10% of their income if they choose a public career, and will be forgiven the balance in 10 years. This type of targeted benefit is not generally helpful, and will not restart the economy. It will play to a sliver of the population.

increase retirement deductions, so we can step up nest eggs.

To relieve the burden on middle class, still need HCR. big cheers.

clear a few things up: didn't choose to tackle HCR for politics. Rather, because of those who are at risk of losing their coverage. protect us from worst practices of HC insurance cos. Michelle O, (he rushed thru that part). same story as before, keep HCI, keep docs, nothing new here.

still, it's complex, and he takes his share of the blame, and with all the lobbying, horse trading, what's in it for me? more would have lost their HCC, premiums go up, lose coverage, all the bad stuff he always says. He won't walk away, neither should those in that chamber.

so as temps cool, look again at plan they proposed. solicited more input. but let us finish the job (effectively shutting out GOP ideas now). Reduce our deficit, but it's not enough to dig us out of the hole we are in.

At 2000, budget surplus. $1T when he came in. 2 wars, expensive drug program, tax cuts. Slamming GOP, essentially. blaming Bush for his adding $1T to national debt. says we must tighten our belts, as people do in families. Proposing specific steps to pay for debt. freeze for 3 yrs.

Now the loopholes: entitlement not included, will use veto if necessary to enforce. continue to go line by line? when did they start it? please!!

cutting tax cuts for wealthy people (oil people, CEO's, rich). Can't just be a gimmick, so restore pay-go in senate.

tried that, helped get us into this crisis. Rather than fight same battle, try something new. He is calling his idea common sense, a novel concept. he is facing a deficit of doubt. must close credibility gap.

I believe he is causing the C gap. he talks about bi-partisan, and posting all earmarks online. I thought they were going to end earmarks?

He says he's not naive? please! Always will be philosophical differences. Must not block just because they can? Can't run a political campaign every day? then when will he stop doing so?

Saying things that are not true is not ok. election year, the spirit of campaign fever is here. Must solve problem, Democrats, not run for the hills. if GOP insists that 60 votes r needed, they must take responsibility too now. No GOP clapping.

This week, he will address GOP - wants it to be monthly. joke fell flat (may not have been on teleprompter.

not interested in re-litigating the past. committed to our country's defense. let's leave that all behind, and make things better for the world. He must have been talking about the prosecution f the Bush team.

Now he claims he is fixing gaps revealed by the Xmas day bomber. Killed many Al Qaeda leaders. reward good governance, and rights of all Afghans. smattering of clapping.

Promises to end this war, will have all combat troops out by this August, and will support that Iraqi govt for the promotion of regional peace. Big clapping.

Tonight all our men/women in uniform have to know that they (didn't read it right) have our support. We will support them when they come home. why we made largest increase in Veterans n decades. I notices he stumbles a lot in this section of the speech. It is not a natural topic for him.

will bring 44 nations together here to work on nuclear weapons. Hinting at Iran, talking about isolating them. Promises they will face growing consequences. Engagement to sustain lasting global recovery. Climate change. DEVELOPING COUNTRIES TO FEED THEMSELVES.

We stand with FREEDOM ABROAD, AND AT HOME. UNITY IN DIVERSITY, DRAWING ON the promises enshrined in the Constitution. Once again prosecuting civil rights violations. Strengthened laws to protect right, will work with Congress to repeal laws that kick gays from military.

Equal pay
immigration laws. tepid clapping.

immigrants are same as rest of us. not GOP or Dem values, are American values.

Again with the divisive caricatures of the bankers, the CEOs that take advantage fo the folks.

Not sure if they believe in "Change we can believe in", but he can't do it alone. People are losing confidence in him. He's challenging people to make decisions to do what is needed to keep the dream alive for their kids & grandkids. (quiet as a pin drop). Admin has had setbacks, but optimism in core of American people lives on. lives on in htose whose' neighbors who are still employed. All the Americans that helped in Haiti, those who didn't know. (still quiet for pin drop).

we don't quit, I don't quit, let's carry the dream forward.

70 minutes of speech. Now to go back and clean up what I wrote.
highlights:
Blame Bush for every thing bad, and reject GOP solutions.
Channeled Clinton in "I feel your pain".
Cap & Trade still a priority.
Healthcare reform still needs to get done, can't jsut drop it for fiscal.
Cut taxes on 95% of Americans, not raised taxes one dime.
Green jobs.
Gays in military acceptance openly.
End war in Iraq.
Education reform.
Doubled down on the existing positions, no pivot or move to the center.

Missing themes/mentions:

1. Apology for anything. Accepting his share of blame is not an apology.
2. Decision to charge Christmas Day Underwear Bomber as criminal.
3. Closing Gitmo.
4. Plan to recover bailout money form auto makers, and to spin them off from Government ownership.
5. Police who took down Hassan (shooter) at Fort Hood. They were next to Michelle Obama in gallery.
6. Israelis who helped much in Haiti. Were not in the list.
   

Republican Response

many blacks in background at VA House chamber.
jobs are top priority.

Don't pile on regulation to kill jobs.
Refers to Tho. Jefferson in beginnign, and often.
Jobs lost last year, debt to double in 5 yrs, triple in 10.

Freeze is laudable, but must reconsider proper role and level of government at every level.
excessive govt threatens our future.

relsuts, not srhetoric.

Much common ground:
HC system - don't turn it over to the fed govt.
GOp has plan to do common sense reforms,
by acros state lines,
tort reforms,
our proposals are available online: FB, twitter.
Blessed with vast naturala resources, must use all.
can agree on nukes, but not cap n trade.
now is time to lower energy prices and create jobs.

education: much agreement here.
need t compete in global economy.
child's intellect, not zip code determines results.

military. agree on 30k to Afghanistan

Scott Brown said: "we should not be spending our tax dollars to defend terrorists, but rahter to defeat them".
disagree with treating as criminals terrorists. as Scott Brown said. big applause.

can't guarantee outcomes, btu can guarantee opportunities.

Many americans are concerned abotu greater control bu feds on business, so top down control should not be expanded. govt closer to the people governs best. big applause.

freely choosing to help is best, thanx for compassion for HAITI.

some are afraid not land of promise. where opportunity is absent, create it.
where limited, expand it, where denied, open it to all.

forefathers pledged their lives, fortunes, sacred honor. we shoudl do the same.

Joe trippi:
went to American people with not quitting.
pivoted against Washington, though he IS Washington.
He will run against Washington this year.

Bob BECKEL;
put Gop on the mark, will have to take sides.
took on GOP
Obama will see more partisanship from GOP

Palin:
In a word: lecture. not leading.
fundamental disconnect between what people are expecting and what he is doing.
He could have implemented these common sense reforms last year, but didn't.
Drilling offshore is now his idea, though it was a GOP idea for long time.

Steve Hayes:
dignity for countries, but what about Iran last year?

Tiger needs a Mulligan on That Drive

Well, it seems that Tiger Woods needs a Mulligan on the drive he took at 2:25 AM last night. Here is what I think happened, as of Friday evening, 7:00 PM.
Tiger and his wife were home, and something came up that they needed from the store for the baby. Since they didn't have a nanny, someone had to go make that run for diapers, formula, medicine, or whatever. Words were exchanged between Tiger and the misses over who would go, and in a huff or anger possibly mixed with pride, Tiger grabs the keys, stomps out of the house, jumps in the Escalade, throws it in reverse, and stomps on the gas. The cars lurches backward in an unexpected way, and Tiger, with all the confidence in the world, tries to correct, over corrects, and hits the fire hydrant. In a rare un-Tiger-like moment, Tiger panics, and doesn't push the brakes, resulting in the car crashing directly into the neighbor's tree, throwing Tiger's head violently into the steering wheel, cutting his handsome face severely. Because the Cadillac Escalade wasn't going 33 MPH or more, the airbags didn't deploy in time to save face, so to speak.
Hearing the crash, Mrs. Woods ran out into the cool Florida night, fully panicked and feeling guilty for their argument just moments ago, and she ran to help her husband who was pinned in the vehicle. She reached for the most ubiquitous item that could possibly break a window, and Tiger regained consciousness just long enough to recommend a 9-iron instead of the wood club she had selected. Mrs. Woods broke the window pulled Tiger out of the vehicle with adrenaline-enhanced strength, and called 911. Authorities arrived shortly and took Tiger to the hospital, where they treated his wounds, which turned out not to be as bad as the profuse bleeding had lead everyone to believe.

I can see that they will probably have to make some changes, if not by having a nanny live with them, then at least by having an on-call service to bring them things when they need them, so they don't have to run out and risk accidents in the heat of the night.

Vast Right Wing Conspiracy Identified

It has become clear that there is, as President Clinton stated, and Hillary long ago (1998) declared, there is a "vast right-wing conspiracy" that was out to get them. Well, I believe I now know who it is, and you will be shocked.

The Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy is the Public.

That's right, the public is center-right, and they are not supportive of, and in fact are suspicious of those in power on the Left. Draw your own conclusions.

Priorities: Afghanistan or Copenhagen?

Today I was thinking about our President, and how he is doing his job.

Let's see: the war in Afghanistan is going badly, and we need more troops, according to our top generals who are prosecuting the war that Mr. Obama said was the war we should be pursuing, as opposed to the Iraq war.
The 2016 Olympics are up for grabs, and several cites are competing for the honor of hosting them. Valerie Jarrett and Michelle Obama have been pursuing it for their hometown of Chicago, and now our President is going over to Copenhagen to lobby for Chicago.

I went back to my trusty Constitution, and reread Article II. It was a quick read, and I found an interesting piece of text. Section 2 says, in part: "The President shall be the Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and the militia of the several states, when called into the actual Service of the United States." I looked around for any mention of the Olympics. Nope, didn't find it.

So what is behind our President winging his way to Copenhagen? Is that where he will meet with General Stanley McChrystal? Maybe General Petreaus will be there to discuss our strategy going forward? No, I see Michelle Obama's fingerprints all over this. She's the one pushing for this, she's going over to Copenhagen, and there is a healthcare strategy all wrapped in one.

They are in full court press and distracting the people from health care by pushing for the Olympics. THey also have other things popping up to distract, like expanding school days and years, illegal immigration, and whatever else they can fit into the kitchen sink. If there is not one issue that distracts you, they didn't do a good job. But while the issues are important, healthcare reform will be the most sweeping, restrictive, costly, and enabling of government piece of legislation they are trying to pass. More later, I have to finish lunch.

A Closer look at the "46 Million Uninsured"

OK boys and girls, today I want to look at one of the main talking point reasons people use to support the President's HC Bill, HR3200. It is widely said by those in power that there are 46million uninsured people, and we must get them covered. It sounds like a crying shame that there are so many uninsured people in our prosperous country. Let's break this group down and see who is in it, shall we?
According to the U.S. Census Bureau, of the 46 million who are uninsured:

• 10.1 million are individuals who have income of $66,000 for a family of four, but who elect to remain uninsured.
• 9.3 million are non-citizens who generally do not pay tax.
• 6.4 million who are enrolled in Medicaid or S-CHIP but reported to the Census taker that they were not. (This phenomenon is known among statisticians as the Medicaid undercount.)
• 4.3 million are eligible for Medicaid or S-CHIP but have not enrolled.
• 5 million are childless adults, mainly healthy, young adults who simply do not wish to pay for insurance.
• 10.9million remain who are truly uninsured, some for short periods of time averaging less than four months.
  

Of those who are uninsured on a continuing basis, this is in most cases due to the working poor earning too much to get Medicaid/SCHIP/Medicare, but too little to afford (less than $50,000) HC insurance (HCI). There are varying estimates of these numbers, but all are roughly the same. It is the chronically uninsured working poor who should be the target of any HC reform.

Why, you may ask, are some not getting into the available coverage? Well, for the young, it is mostly the sense of invincibility and they often don't see any cost benefit. For many, it may just be a lack of initiative, planning, or interest. There may also be some shame at getting into the government handout business, so they just don't sign up. Still others may not realize they are eligible. These factors could be addressed, and in fact, many of the programs allow people to sign up when they enter the ER, so essentially, they are already covered.

Can we all agree that the 46 million number is a myth, and that the real starting point for covering "the uninsured" needs to be those who cannot afford or qualify for HCI? Also, I would be remiss to not direct you to my previous post of 8/7/09 with my analysis of HR3200. This post bumped it off the top of the list, though it is still being updated.

Healthcare Bill H.R. 3200 Analysis

Ok boys and girls, today we will look at the President's Healthcare bill that Congress has written. This is the first installment, as I am certain that I can't possibly fit all of the facts into this one blog, and even more certain that you won't read them even if I did. it has been updated as of 15 Aug 2009, even though the blog spot says the date of its creation, August 7th.

First, let's set the ground rules:

1. I will cite sections by page and line number, so you can go read it for yourself. I have also decided to put in headlines, or titles, so you can search by subject.
   
2. Don't just take my word for it, go check me! I get it wrong, and some things may be subject to interpretation.
3. This is not a witch hunt, it is an analysis, so there will be good as well as bad noted, not just the things that fit my bias. I get so sick of hearing only one side reported, as though the whole bill were either a totally unacceptable piece of trash or the salvational piece of legislation that will do everything for everybody. I don't believe that from either side, and I intend to not treat this bill so trivially. Too much is at stake to play politics, though I do admit my biases.
4. Since I brought up my biases, my bias is against too much government, and toward freedom. It's the American way, and self-determination, with the ability to make "stupid choices" is what I believe we all should have. If you can't choose the stupid, you have no true choice. Once Government decides what you can and cannot choose, in this context of Healthcare especially, We the People will suffer. There is a place for regulation, but excessive regulation is inimical to my way of thinking, so let's just get that out there right from the jump. Knowing that I have this bias, I will try extra hard to cover the other side as well. The reason I use the term "stupid choices" is that Elizabeth Edwards used that term when discussing Healthcare before her husband's affair came out into the news. My choices may seem "stupid" to her, or to others, but my choices make sense for my situation, as your do for yours. If they are uninformed, they may not be the best, but we all deserve the right to make choices that we deem the best for ourselves, no matter how "stupid" they may seem to others. I think many choices made by others are "stupid", like that of ever having an abortion. So you have the right to make your "stupid choices", and I have mine. Let's keep it that way!
5. If you find that I have grossly mischaracterized some passage of the bill, please bring it to my attention, with an explanation of why you think so, and what the bill really means. Lord knows I am no legal scholar, but I am a scholar in general, and a scientific mind who is trained and experienced in debug, analysis, and getting to the root cause of problems.
6. I have read, myself, every line I am pointing out.
   

Now for the actual Analysis:

• Funnel into Public Plan - Page 16, line 10-20: Existing plans may not enroll new individuals, except as family members of the grandfathered-in enrollees. They let you cover your new spouse and children, but nobody else can get in. This means that insurance plans may not grow, and their customers will die off, effectively cutting the insurance companies source of income and customers off. This will cause people to funnel into the only plans that can accept ne enrollees, the government plans.
  
• Minimum benefits set by government panel - Page 17, lines 10-20: All private insurance plans must conform to the same requirements as those for the essential benefit package described by the government plans, within five years. this removes choice of plan benefits, and makes all plans a one-size fits all type, which never fits everyone. It causes some to waste money, and others to not get level of coverage they want and are willing to pay for.
• No new plans on open market - page 19, lines 1 thru 5: All new individual plans must be offered thru the Exchange the government sets up for Health Insurance plans. This means you cannot go buy a plan that is not conforming to the Government standards or benefit packages.
  
• No rejection for preexisting conditions - Page 19, line 18 thru page 20, line 23, there are no limits based on pre-existing conditions to getting into a plan, nor can a person be dropped for another reason than not paying the premiums. this is actually a good reform, and should be so noted, unless it is negated by some other provisions. This is the best thing so far in this bill.
  
• Discouraging company self-insurance - Page 21 line 22 thru Page 23 line 7: The Bill MANDATES a government audit of the books of ALL EMPLOYERS that self-insure in order to “ensure that the law does not provide incentives for small and mid-size employers to self-insure”! This is totally wrong, as it should be up to the employers to find the most cost-effective way to provide for their employees, not the Government's job to disincentive companies from certain choices that are acceptable to their employees. The studies are to be done in 18 months, with reports providing recommendations (on how to change the law to disincentiveize companies from self-insuring).
  
• Limits on profits of insurance plans - Page 25 line 1 thru 11: The Government shall set the amount of profit an insurance plan can have, and the insured (you), will get money back if the plan gets too profitable. How profitable is "too profitable"? The Commissioner will decide.
• Minimum Coverage includes substance abuse Disorder Services - Page 28 lines 10 and 11: This will expand the cost for those who don't have such problems. Not all do!
  
• Minimum coverage includes maternity - Page 28, line 17. This may not seem bad on its face, but for the single guy, it is a waste of money. For the older couple, it is a waste as well. Same for well-baby/child coverage in lines 18 thru 20. Should be optional, to allow cost savings for the buyer.
• Rationing of HC Benefits - Pages 29 line 4 thru Page 30 line 10: The text is somewhat technical, but it says basically that the cost sharing will be "actuarially equivalent to approximately" 70% of the total cost of the individual benefits, and has a maximum of $10,000 per year for a family, and $5,000 for an individual. This seems to indicate taht the benefits woudl cost more a-la-cart, but together there is some cost savings. If someone who has a better understanding of legalese and/or insurance cost structures, I'd love to get a more complete explanation. I'll insert it, if it comes via email, Facebook, or comments.
• A Government Health Benefits Advisory Board will determine covered benefits - page 30 lines 13 thru 18: This board of public and private persons will recommend covered benefits, for the plans. This section introduced the idea of Enhanced and Premium plans, and they decide what goes into them. They are to take into account advances in HC and how they can reduce health disparities. Not HCI disparities, but actual "health disparities". This seems to restrict new medical advances, since the use by doctors often provides incentive to develop new technologies and products. If it can't be used until it is covered, it will slowly strangle our development process (see page 32 lines 18 thru 21).
  
• Standard Definitions of Insurance and Medical Terms - Page 45 lines 11 thru 15: the Government will develop standard terminology for HCI and medical related terms. This is another good thing. This should keep the Commissioner busy for a good while!
  
• HC will be provided to all, even non-US citizens - Page 51 line 21 thru page 52 line 3. This is part of Section 152, "Prohibiting Discrimination in Health Care ", and say "...all health care and related services (including insurance coverage and public health activities) covered by this Act shall be provided without regard to personal characteristics extraneous to the provision of high quality health care or related services." No mention of citizenship required, and no limit is placed on non-US citizens either. This is a loophole big enough to fit all undocumented persons through!
• This Tax is not a "Tax" - Page 203, lines 13 thru 18: ‘‘(4) NOT TREATED AS TAX IMPOSED BY THIS CHAPTER FOR CERTAIN PURPOSES.—The tax imposed under this section shall not be treated as tax imposed by this chapter for purposes of determining the amount of any credit under this chapter or for purposes of section 55.’’ This speaks for itself. Not a tax? Note, there is nto even a section 55, so to what are they referring? What did Section 55 say?
  
• Home visits to Parents for child development - Page 837 line 10 thru page 839 line 5: The Government will send trained people to homes of families who are expecting or have young children, to help parents to raise their children properly. Hat tip to Chuck Norris, who pointed this out, though I have verified it myself. The exact wording of their goal is in line 13 on page 837: "to improve the well-being, health, and development of children". Also, on page 839, lines 1-5 indicates that they will "identify and prioritize serving communities that are in high need of such services, especially communities with a high proportion of low-income families or a high incidence of child maltreatment". Who determines what is "maltreatment"? Is it spanking? Deprivation of cell-phones? Allowing kids to eat "bad" food? This is a nice goal, but it is not the responsibility of the Government to intrude on the raising of our kids. I am certain that we will not be able to influence the content and standards they apply to this program. Amish and Muslims will certainly raise their kids differently from each other, and from those who are Atheists. One size will never fit all.
  
• 
  

More later!

My Family Reunion Song

'Tis the season to be Family,
fah-la-la-la-laa, la-la-la-laa.
Drive we now across the country,
fah-la-la-la-laa, la-la-la-laa.
Love we now our distant cousins,
fah-la-la, la-la-la, la-la-laa;
Spending time with our loved ones,
fah-la-la-la-laa, la-laa-la-laaa!

Eating food and blowing diets,
fah-la-la-la-laa, la-la-la-laa,
Taking pictures, posed and random,
fah-la-la-la-laa, la-la-la-laa,
Holding babes and kissing Grandma,
fah-la-la, la-la-la, la-la-laa;
Getting home to peace and quiet,
fah-la-la-la-laa, la-laaa, la-laaaaaa!!!

Look at what?!

There were two pix from President Obama's recent trip, and one seemed to be really smarmy, with him ogling a young lady's "Stimulus Package". After this brouhaha erupted, suddenly a new picture came out of him when he left the summit. To the right is the first picture. Obviously Nicholas Sarkozy is ogling, but then, he's a Frenchman, so we can understand his behavior. A quick review of the actual footage that this was taken from clears things up nicely, if one cares to get at the truth.

After this turned into an international joke, the person to whom it mattered most seemed to have directed or orchestrated another picture, another photo op, if you will. That person was the First lady, Michelle Obama. When was the last time you saw the first couple enter Air Force One next to each other? Most often, they are in single file, with one going in first, then the other, waves and smiles. But this time, they had to put this incident, shall we say, behind them? They had to let the world know where the President's heart, and hand in this case, was. Look at this next picture, and see for yourself.

This should clear things up. I doubt Obama is a player. This is one area where he gets it right: he is a family man, and seems to be a faithful father and husband. Kudos to him and to his wife, who protected their family image.

Health Care Debate

I watched the President dominate the ABC health care infomercial last night. It was predictable. He took some softball questions, and some that made him struggle to articulate the same answers into the query at hand, but there was no real debate about it. There were also the sob stories, and hypothetical questions that seemed chosen for effect, not to truly debate the issues.

But that is not the point of this post. My point is to ask the questions, and consider things I think real people will be really interested in hearing about. Here they are:

1. What about those who have no health care coverage by choice?
2. What about Tort Reform, in at least two aspects: limiting pain and suffering awards, and "loser pays"?
3. What about illegal aliens and making sure they are not a cost burden?
4. Why does Government intervention have to cost so much?
5. Will the Health care plan work any better than the Stimulus plan, and the natural follow up: why not wait to see how the stimulus plan works first?

That something needs to be done is not really a question. There needs to be some changes, but that does not mean that the program sought by the President and the Democrats is the only way to fix it. We also need to consider our budget as we go. I think that until the budget is balanced, we should not have a government program for health care that costs billions, and certainly not trillions of tax payer dollars. There are some simple things the government can do to dramatically improve the quality of health care, reduce cost, and increase coverage, which would cost relatively little. Before I get into that, however, let me acknowledge the points where the President and I agree. They are few.
1. Portability. We agree that a person's health care plan should be portable, meaning that if an employee leaves their job, they should be able to remain in their health insurance plan. This is something that the Congress can legislate into legality without spending even millions of dollars. With 56% of Americans in employer provided health insurance plans, this would be the single largest step to allowing them to keep their coverage. I have lost mine a few times after leaving an employer, and it was painful.
2. Pre-existing conditions: no exclusions for them. People will in many cases have pre-existing conditions, and that should not be a discriminator against allowing a person who joins a business or other pool to join a health care insurance plan.
3. Health care IT. To stream line storage and retrieval of records would greatly improve health care provided, though I think it would be good for the government to do studies on it, and give tax breaks for the transition to it, rather than for the government to run it. Other countries are using this type of system already, and if the results of their practical experience could be studied with government grant money, an optimal system for our country could be recommended and supported.

Here's what we could probably get passed this year with bi-partisan agreement, and with little cost to the government:
1. Tort reform to limit awards for "pain & suffering", at some reasonable level, such as $1 million. This is not to be confused with allowing suits to recover lost income, medical costs, and other impacts related to medical malpractice. Those types of awards will help keep doctors honest.
2. Tort reform to make the loser pay. In simple terms, this means if a frivolous lawsuit is brought, the loser pays the legal fees of the team that had to fight it (as well as their own). This would reduce lawsuits to those that have basis in fact.
3. Change the law to allow people to keep their health insurance when they leave their job.
4. Change the law to make health care insurance a deductible thing for individuals, and make employers give the total amount of money they would be paying for health care insurance to the employees. That would make the costs obvious, and the choice the consumer's.
5. Start studies on health care IT around the world, and the available technologies.

More later. I have to go earn my health care coverage.