Arizona Immigration

The law that has Obama and the Left in a tizzy was passed by the State of Arizona this week. To hear the press tell the story, you would think it authorizes a sort of police gestapo to shake down everybody who isn't white and arrest them on the slimmest of suspicion that they just might not have the appropriate documentation.

As is my normal practice, I made the attempt to get behind the media smokescreen and determine what the actual law says. And my conclusion is that it's quite reasonable, and certainly unrecognizable from its characterizations by the leftist establishment and their communications networks.

Crime rates in Arizona are reportedly off the charts, driven largely by their hundreds of thousands of uninvited guests. The Obama administration, which is responsible for border and immigration law enforcement, refuses to take even the most basic steps to help the state solve this problem. So Arizona decided to take steps to try solving the problem themselves.

Going back to the Bush administration and Clinton before him, illegal immigration border enforcement has been a duty abdicated by the Federal government for far too long. And for all the wrong reasons.

Clinton and Obama look at illegal immigrants and see potential votes for themselves and their party. The Bush family see low-wage employees for businesses. If compassion for the poverty-stricken uneducated masses from south of the border who simply desire a better life for themselves and their families was behind their woeful disregard for sealing the border, it seems to me that their approach itself belies that.

Because the decades-old system of telling the world in public, "No, you cannot live in work in the US without filling out the paperwork", then turning to the side and whispering, "But if you can get in somehow without getting caught, we'll look the other way" is doing no service to these millions who answered the whispered promise.

Because an illegal can't, and should not, receive the protections of the US and state government that set the minimum wage, require unemployment compensation, provide welfare assistance, and many other such things.

In the meantime, when times are hard, and 10 percent of Americans can't find a job, where's the compassion in continuing to look the other way while businesses continue to hire illegals under the table at a fraction of market wages? Should a country have compassion first for their own citizens who are hurting, or for people from other countries who managed to sneak across the border?

I support Arizona's new law, and would support the idea of extending it to every state in the union. If the Federal Government refuses to enforce the law, then the citizens themselves must organize themselves to do so. For everyone's safety and welfare.

It's been posted before, but here's the recap of my proposed immigration policy:
1. Seal the borders, north and south. Use physical barriers and electronic detection as appropriate to guarantee nobody can sneak across.
2. Advertise the notice nationwide - anyone in the country illegally has 6 months to acquire the necessary permits or return to their home country. Realizing that the government will be swamped with applications for things ranging from work permits to education visas to citizenship, and those applications will likely take more than 6 months to process, those who in the initial review of their application are deemed likely to qualify can receive a deferral of an additional 6 months.
3. No person illegally in the US who has committed a felony may qualify for any legal residence.
4. Those who return to their country of origin voluntarily may apply for re-admission to the country and be considered if they meet these basic criteria: Proven English literacy, sponsorship by a US-based employer that promises to employ the person on re-entry or proof of adequate means of support.
5. After the 6 month grace period ends, any person discovered through routine law enforcement means, such as traffic stops, sobriety checkpoints, police complaints, etc., who cannot produce evidence of legal residence in the US will be summarily arrested and deported within 48 hours.

That's fairness that applies to all citizens, Mr. President.

Earth and Venus

The old popular book, Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus, wasn't something I ever read, but supposedly it highlighted the fact that men and women have brains that are just wired differently. It was a way of explaining why the two genders have so much difficulty understanding each other, I suppose.

There's something very similar going on in political thought, and I actually think a large part of it ties into the Mars & Venus theory, because women typically lean left and men right.

But in politics, I'm going to suggest that Conservatives are from Earth, while Liberals are from Venus.

For example, the polar opposite attitudes between earthlings and venusians on the Healthcare bill.

Venusians think the bill is terrific, because it purports to stop insurance companies from dropping coverage when their policyholders get sick. It forces them to accept new policyholders regardless of their health status. It picks up the tab for everybody who can't afford it.

Earthlings would actually agree that it would be good if everybody could afford to buy health insurance, and insurance companies should not be allowed to drop people if they get sick. But inhabitants of this world also understand there is no free lunch. Using the brains their God (whose existence is denied by Venusians) gave them, they have deduced that none of these benefits can take place without somebody footing the bill.

Unfortunately, its the Earthlings that are most likely to scratch out a living by the sweat of their own brows. And when the government shows up to promise health insurance for all, the only way they can deliver on that promise is to pay for that insurance. Earthlings know that the only way government gets the money to pay for their activities is by taking it away from them.

So government isn't simply solving a problem with access and affordability to health insurance. Instead it's using the new laws to accomplish something much more sinister: Confiscation of the fruits of Earthlings labor to hand them over to Venusians, while of course skimming off a healthy commission for themselves.

Some interesting but strange Venusian attitudes I've noticed recently also include the following:

Venutians are upset that people smoke and are too fat. So they want government to stop people from smoking and dictate what they can and cannot eat.

The strange contradiction in these attitudes is the exceptions they build in for themselves. Venutians make Earthlings' heads spin when they want to use the force of government to make people stop smoking and eat vegetables, but at the same time demand that the same goverment look the other way from their own abuse of marijuana and other "recreational" drugs.

Venutians love animals. They support laws against any development, especially if it's energy exploration, that might in any way interfere with animal habitats. Whether there's actual harm involved to any animal doesn't really matter to them. Their favorite animals, such as whales and polar bears, must be "saved" at all cost.

Venutians also object strenuously to capital punishment. They believe it's horribly inhuman to execute the most evil serial murderers.

But then they again make Earthlings' heads whiplash when the subject of abortion arises. The animal-loving, criminal-compassionate Venusians suddenly turn bloodthirsty when it comes to the execution of infants. As long as the execution takes place before that infant emerges fully from its mother's womb.

Venutians also hold contradictory attitudes about government corruption. Interestingly, when Earthling politicians were in charge, Venutians railed incessantly about Earthling corruption, even though much of that corruption existed only in their imagination.

Now that Venutians have grasped power for themselves, breathtaking corruption among their own political class is ignored. Apparently all the bribery and extortion used to pass their favored healthcare legislation is just fine with Venutians, as long as the legislation passed. Apparently sweetheart deals between their political class and the bankers and financiers that led to the current economic catastrophe gives them no pause, as long as it resulted in their ascention to power.

Venutians seem to be on a mission to eradicate all Earthlings. And so far, it seems the Earthlings are losing without putting up much of a fight.

Pro Sports Extortion

Only a couple of years ago, we heard the news reports that Robert Irsay was using the threat of moving the Colts out of Indy to someplace like Los Angeles, unless the city and state stepped up to help build him a new stadium. They did.

Now we hear rumblings that Herb Simon may be threatening to relocate the Pacers. This time not because he's demanding a new stadium, because the Pacers already have one of the best new basketball arenas in the country. No, because his agreement to cover operating costs of Conseco Fieldhouse is losing him money.

The Colts example wasn't that the team was losing money, but that the owner felt it wasn't making enough. The Pacers have indeed been losing piles of money, and the owner is simply looking for relief.

Either way, it's a dirty business in play around the country. The NBA and NFL and Major League Baseball are kings of their respective professional sports. There is no viable competition, and major cities feel they must keep those franchises to maintain their image, attract tourists, and attract new businesses.

It all leads to a skewed balance of power. In what other private business can the owner go to the city or state politicians and demand they build his new plant or office building, and those politicians feel they must oblige?

Sure, tax incentives are offered to large companies all the time to entice them to locate in a city and state. Infrastructure improvement projects specifically undertaken to sweeten the deal are also fairly common. But footing the bill for building and maintaining the facilities for a private concern? Only in professional sports.

My solution to the problem, as I've stated before, is a nationwide law that prohibits any government entity - Federal, State, or Local - from passing any law that favors one company or citizen over another. This would bring the bidding process for pro sports teams to a dead stop.

Owners of sports teams should face the same challenges faced by every business owner. If you provide a quality product, you're assured of making money. If not, you'll have to close or sell.

Certainly the Pacers can make money. In the 90's they were one of the best teams in the league, and attracted plenty of fans and national attention. Until the fight in Detroit, which singlehandedly destroyed the franchise. It has yet to recover.

The NBA overall has decided to be a league that focuses on its superstars. If your team is lucky enough to sign a Kobe or Lebron, the NBA style is designed to feature them. Rather than a team game, the NBA prefers to clear the floor, give the ball to their superstar, and let him go one-on-one with his defender.

In Indiana we know our basketball. And the NBA version doesn't look much like the game we know and love. The Pacers are forced to go with a bunch of no-names, with a second-tier rising star in Danny Granger their go-to-guy. Not enough to be competitive.

If Simon wants to return to profitability, the simple answer is that he needs to put a better team on the floor. Unfortunately, players like Kobe and LeBron are extremely rare, and when a promising young star does become available, he's more likely to get picked up by a big-market team like the Lakers or Celtics.

If the NBA wanted to attract basketball fans who love the actual game, they should make one simple change.

Extend the shot clock from 24 to 45 seconds.

The reason is very simple. 24 seconds is barely enough time to bring the ball up the court, pass it to your superstar, and have him create a shot. For a basketball purist like me, that's a vile apostacy.

If you want to open up the game, make it more exciting, and achieve parity, it will be immediately accomplished with that one simple rule change. Because a 45 second shot clock, like the one used in college, permits teams to play a team game instead of one-on-one. All of a sudden, the game rewards those teams who are disciplined, unselfish, and employ the best strategic game plans. The court is leveled for the savvy coaches and players able to embrace a patient team concept to offset the advantages of the superstar-plus-4 teams.

Suddenly a team like the Pacers, with a group of no-name journeymen, can become competitive with the talent-rich teams, by employing a great coach and signing players that fit a winning system.

Imagine if the NBA playoffs looked a bit more like the NCAA tournament, where good coaching and cohesive team play often defeats superior talent.

That I would watch.

Hopeful or Hopeless?

It's tempting, after seeing Tea Party tax day events drawing thousands in cities around the country, to be hopeful that there's a chance the citizens will elect representatives this Fall who will turn back the clock on the alarming rush to the top-down socialism so favored by those now in power.

But simply electing enough conservative representatives, while still far from a certainty, is also not necessarily a guarantee that they'll do the right thing. Because the right thing is going to be very hard, and will probably turn many of the same people against their chosen representatives.

A troubling valid criticism of the Left against the Tea Party movement isn't the ridiculous and insulting charges of racism and redneck ignorance. Rather, it's the charge that many Tea Party protesters will turn their signs around and protest the opposite point of view if they actually get people in office who enact their wishes.

Because it is certain that for the government to balance their budget, they're going to have to reduce or eliminate a substantial portion of government discretionary spending. It won't take long before the folks find out this includes some of their own government benefits.

The unpopular and certainly corrupt spending that so exercises the Tea Party from TARP and the Auto Company bailouts can be cancelled and the money pulled back, and most will cheer. Except perhaps for the Auto Workers who lose their jobs when General Motors falls apart without continued cash from Uncle Sugar.

Big news this tax day is the fact that nearly half of Americans didn't pay any income tax. Most of those folks not only paid no tax; they actually received cash from the government. Euphemistically called 'Tax Credits', in reality they're cash kickbacks from a President and Congress that hope to buy those votes from the grateful recipients.

Hopefully Tea Party folks realize that the first government goodies to get cut have to be these handouts. No more homebuyer credits, 'cash for clunkers', earned income credits for the middle class, or all of the other varied programs designed to pay off people demographically most likely to vote for Democrats.

Much more will have to be cut for any chance to return the federal government to solvency. That means no more massive handouts to states to keep schools open. It means possible adjustments to the Unemployment benefits that keep getting extended indefinitely. It means cutting the featherbedding in government agencies across the spectrum.

But even those won't be enough. To really get spending under control, serious work has to be done with the biggest monsters of the federal budget. Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid are bankrupt, and that problem won't be solved by wishing.

The longstanding practice of raiding the Social Security surplus to fund every whim of congress has finally turned the program upside down. It's time for the government to tell the truth about Social Security; it is not a retirement savings and insurance plan, but an income transfer between workers and retirees.

The government told the mother of all lies when they sold our great-grandparents on Social Security. See, if every dollar of the 15 percent of our earnings actually went into some sort of interest-bearing account that paid off when we retired, we could all retire pretty comfortably (at least those of us who work). But that's not how the program ever was intended to work, because if it actually worked that way, then it would serve no benefit to the political class.

Now the baby boomers are retiring. And the numbers just don't work. The tipping point is here. The ratio of payers to payees is too low, unless we decide to take 40 percent from all the payers.

Something has to give. And there aren't any painless options.

I just hope everybody in the Tea Party understands the old saying, "Be careful what you wish for ..."

Indiana 9th Debate

I seldom do this, but last night I made my way to the Jennings County fairgrounds to take in the 4-way debate between the four guys fighting for the chance to take Baron Hill's seat in the US House.

Here's the cast of characters:

The Grizzled Veteran - played by Mike Sodrel
The Regular Guy - played by Rick Warren
The Lawyer/Politician - played by Todd Young
The Evangelist - played by Travis Hankins

Each candidate has a very specific and readily-identifiable set of positive and negative attributes. If there were any surprises for me in seeing this debate, they were with Sodrel and Young. I expected to be more impressed with Young and less with Sodrel, and the opposite held true.

If I were to name an overall "winner", in terms of performance, I'd have to give the nod to Sodrel. Which is something I would have bet against going in.

In my opinion, the big "loser" on the night was Young. He failed to connect with the regular folks, and wasted too much time looking petty by incessantly attacking Sodrel.

They're all conservatives, they're all republicans, and any policy differences among the four are insignificant. I'd have no problem voting for any one of them against Baron; but then again, I'd probably vote for a convicted felon if it facilitated our current congressman's immediate retirement.

Here's the breakdown of each candidate, with advantages and disadvantages:

Sodrel, the old veteran, has been there, done that. He knows the ropes, he clearly knows what he's talking about and how to navigate Washington.

His positives are experience and grasp of the issues, his 'regular guy' persona. During the debate, he was at his best when just speaking off-the-cuff, giving honest and common-sense answers to the questions posed. He was the only candidate who showed up in casual clothing, perhaps purposely attempting to differentiate himself from the others. He was especially good in responding to Todd Young's attacks with brief, concise refutations that made Young look foolish.

Sodrel's biggest negative is also his experience. He's run for the same seat against Baron Hill every cycle for as long as I can remember, and lost every time but once. He was also in office with the Republicans who made such a mess of things and got swept out by the Democrats as a result. Whether or not he supported the GOP spending spree and outrageous earmarking in his two-year stint actually matters less than the perception that he was in office at the time, and therefore part of the problem.

Warren is very much the regular guy in the race. He's far from eloquent, and obviously lacks in any identifiable qualifications for the office he seeks.

Warren's positive is his 'regular guy' approach, which is genuine. He demonstrated in the debate that he sincerely holds his views, and will hold to his principles in office.

But unfortunately, Rick will get eaten for lunch by Baron Hill's well-funded Democrat party machine.

Todd Young is the guy I've been hearing so much about, but hadn't yet seen him in person. He's a lawyer, obviously intelligent and well-spoken.

Todd's positives are his qualifications for the office, and a generally good presentation. He's sort of wonky on policy issues, and probably has very detailed proposals on the key problems faced by the country.

Todd's negatives are too many. He came off as petty and sort of the same old lawyer-politician type most regular folks feel got the country into this mess in the first place. He shouldn't have spent so much time trashing Sodrel, and the fact that no other candidate engaged in the mud slinging made him appear mean and petty. Of all the candidates, Young connected with the people in the audience the least. He came off as arrogant, and while attacking Sodrel treated the other two candidates as irrelevant.

Travis Hankins was the evangelist of the bunch. He wears his faith on his sleeve, and whenever he spoke, it sounded just like a Baptist preacher exhorting the flock.

Hankins' positives are his energy, passion, and idealism. I was convinced he was sincere in his desire to try to shake up Washington.

Hankins' negatives are not negatives from my personal perspective, but will be negatives should he earn the right to take on Baron. His emphasis on faith, morals, and values, while exciting Social Conservatives in the district, will put off the very large population of nominal and non Christians. He's also rather naieve, whether in his goals of rolling back spending to 2002 levels, building a fence along the entire southern border, or pushing through an end to abortion. All noble goals, but he can't realistically get them done in the 3 terms in which he's promised to limit himself.

In the debate, Travis irritated the crowd by several times asking the moderator to clarify that "I'm the only candidate who ....". The first time drew chuckles, but by the third and fourth repeats, he just drew groans.

If I voted my personal favorite, I'd be tempted to go with Travis. I like the idea of sending a fiery, energetic, idealistic young new face to congress. Because of the anti-Hill sentiment in the district, I think he could win, but also think he'd be very vulnerable in the next election cycle.

If I voted for the candidate best positioned to defeat Baron, I suppose it would have to be either Sodrel or Young. As mentioned above, my biggest concern for Sodrel is the 'same song, different verse'. People want real change in congress and new faces, and for better or worse, Sodrel represents the bad old days.

Strangely, I suddenly find myself wishing for one more candidate. Too late, I know. But my ideal candidate would be a local businessman, relatively young, energetic like Hankins, but obviously extremely intelligent and capable, while down-to-earth and approachable. Sort of like Mike Pence, I suppose.

How can one of these guys win my vote?

Hankins can win by toning down a tad. I'm in no way suggesting he give up the primacy of faith in all he does, but just that he brings it down just enough as to avoid turning off the voting contingent that doesn't share his faith. He also should change his speaking pattern to be less like a Baptist preacher and more conversational.

Young can win by knocking off the spitballs at Sodrel. He needs to sell me on who he is, not who Sodrel is. He also needs to find a way to be more personable, more approachable, less arrogant. That might be hard to do, since I suspect he was being himself in the debate last night.

Sodrel can't overcome his negatives, as far as I can conceive. Maybe if he talks more about what happened during his two years in office, and why those things happened, and what he learned from the experience and would do differently this time, it would help.

Unfortunately, Rick can't win my vote. I certainly like the guy, and thought he did as well as a person like him could possibly do in the debate. But he doesn't have what it takes to win the office, and I suspect he'd be swatted like a fly if he made it to Washington.

I'll keep my eye on the candidates until it's time to choose one. Then, we'll see.

New Contract for America

It probably will be named something else this time around to differentiate it from Newt's original idea that swept Republicans into power after Clinton's failed attempt to nationalize healthcare.

Whatever its name, here are my suggestions for it this time around:

1. Repeal Obamacare. Simultaneously replace it with a more practical bill that actually helps cut costs and makes health insurance more affordable and accessible without unconstitutional federal mandates. How that can be accomplished is a much more involved topic I've dealt with partially in previous posts.
2. Renew the Bush tax cuts. Even make them permanent. The economy desparately needs the boost it can get by simply reassuring individuals and businesses that they won't be hit with massive new taxes.
3. Cancel the Obama Stimulus. Whatever hasn't already been spent will simply be pulled back. Also the government will remove itself from the Financial, Automotive, and Insurance industries completely, selling off government interests to private investors.
4. Solve Illegal Immigration. Give the Border Patrol whatever resources they need to be successful. Announce a 6 month grace period for all those in the country illegally - they have 6 months to get their affairs in order and move back to their home country. Create a legal means for those who can prove they are self-supporting and want to return to apply for re-entry. Again, there's more, but it's a much longer discussion.
5. Outlaw Earmarks. Simply stated, no more earmarks. Every project must be proposed, subject to hearings and debate, and voted on by both houses.
6. Balance the Budget. Have the federal budget balanced within a reasonable time period, but make it less than 10. As long as unemployment exceeds 5% and budget deficits continue, no member of congress or federal employee may receive a salary increase.
7. All Laws Apply to Everyone Equally. No longer can congress exempt itself from laws they pass for everyone else. No longer can favored individual or corporate or special interest groups be singled out for tax exemptions nobody else may receive.
8. Domestic Energy Development. All available oil, natural gas, and coal reserves are open for exploration and development to reduce dependence on foreign oil. In the meantime, tax incentives will be made available to anyone that finds innovative, practical, and low-cost energy alternatives.
9. Scale Back Unnecessary Spending. Every federally funded program must demonstrate that it is meeting its mission, or be defunded. If a federal program does not fulfil its mission, which in all social programs must involve moving clients to self-sufficiency, it will be put on probation with no increase in funding for 2 years, and after those 2 years will be defunded entirely if no progress is made.
10. Commitment to Transparency. Every major piece of legislation will be posted in plain english (no legalese) online during debate, giving constituents the opportunity to comment and express their own opinions. With the possible exception of national security matters, if a congresspersons' constituents oppose a major bill by more than 60%, that congressperson will commit to vote their constituents' wishes.

Demographic Proof

This from the latest Zogby poll:

The poll revealed three demographic groups in which Obama still has support:

• American voters who are not required to pay federal income taxes (roughly 36 million people)
• Voters in the New England region (7 million people)
• Voters age 18-29 years old (24 million people)

Contrasted to the White House and their surrogates' consistent message that has become more strident in the last month, that those who do not support Obama are racists. By extension, the essential charge being made in regard to the racism of Americans who oppose his government policies apply to the majority of all groups not included in the above three.

Specifically named in the poll, describing those who oppose Obama:

• Taxpayers
• Gun Owners
• Evangelical Christians
• Business Owners

The question it raises for me is simply this: If everybody who pays taxes opposes the Obama agenda, presumably because they understand it's designed to increase their tax burden, in what way does that make them racist?

If the answer is because most folks in the #1 Obama supporting group (non-taxpayers) are non-white, then which side is racist - those who don't think the federal government should pursue an agenda that robs those who produce to "redistribute" to those who don't, or those who have concluded that these government dependents are helpless for no reason other than their skin color?

The young may not deserve their own category, since they're suffering the highest unemployment rate of all groups under the Obama economy. They just have the added burden of sitting in classrooms listening to communist instructors every day, and have to await "real life" experience later on that will teach them the truth about intrusive and oppressive government.

Could the NCAA Champs be Hoosiers?

Got to be careful calling them 'Hoosiers', since Indiana University currently claims that moniker.

But if you like the real-life story of the Butler Bulldogs, which seems so congruent with the best sports movie ever made, not to mention the real-life story of Bobby Plump and Milan High School, you have to love watching this play out.

Here are the Bulldogs playing in Indy just a few miles from campus in front of a world-wide audience against the big, bad Duke Blue Devils. Duke's bigger, they're more talented, and they boast one of the best basketball coaches in the history of the game.

So once again, just like they did in every round of the tournament, nearly all the sports broadcasters and writers are giving little Butler zero chance of knocking off the Dukies for the national title.

If they're so smart, the Bulldogs wouldn't have made it past game 1. They said Butler couldn't beat Syracuse, but they did. Butler couldn't beat Kansas State, but they did. Butler was going to fall victim to the experience of Tom Izzo and the Michigan State Spartans, but they didn't.

I don't know what will happen tonight, but it will be a lot of fun watching to find out.

This true drama will always be better than anything else they can put on TV. That includes the NBA, not to mention '24'.

A Butler victory would be the greatest sports story since the 1980 US Olympic Hockey Team.

Political Hype

To hear the media tell it, the Hutaree group is some sort of massive right-wing anti-government terrorist organization.

But if you actually take the time to check out the details, it seems to be nothing more than some Michigan survivalists that like to pretend to be a militia "training" in the north woods to resist a totalitarian government.

What concerns me most is that the small group, mostly from a single family, hasn't even really done anything. They're accused of plotting murder, but as far as I can tell never even started any specific plan.

So does this mean if a group of people are hanging out somewhere, maybe drinking a bit, and somebody starts ranting about Obama and the Democrats and boast that he will fight to the bitter end, that the thought police will report him to the authorities and he suddenly finds himself imprisoned?

I don't know whether these folks really planned specific attacks, as they are accused. And that's what bothers me most.

Certainly the story doesn't deserve the press it's getting. Nothing happened, and this so-called Hutaree militia may exist only in the imagination of the few unfortunate folks now sitting in jail.

Clearly the non-story is being played for political purposes. Heaven forbid that innocent people are being persecuted for no reason other than scoring a few extra points for Democrats.

Tipping Point

There are two tipping points we're seeing now, both based on the same trends.

The first tipping point is the shift in balance between those who rely on the government for their livelihoods versus those who do not.

Which leads to the second tipping point, which is the number of people who vote in favor of keeping and expanding their share of that government income redistribution.

My reading of polls is that we've become approximately equally divided on both counts. The rolls of retirees who rely on Medicare and Social Security has exploded, along with the rolls of unmarried mothers who rely on Federal and State government welfare to provide their housing, food, and medical care.

Recent local newspaper stories highlighted these tipping points. In one article, we found out that over half of births in local hospitals are covered by Medicaid. What the article failed to mention, I have to suspect purposely, is that those births are overwhelmingly to single women.

A second article announced that our county has now achieved a record level of unemployment. Which is quite remarkable, if we assume that record includes the Great Depression.

Unspoken is the most simple truth: Those who have a good job don't need government assistance, and of course do not need government-controlled healthcare. Married couples with children, unless both parents are unemployed, can and do take care of their own families without government assistance.

So the tipping point has been reached through the failed economy, which I argue was substantially caused by irresponsible government. Then an opportunistic Left took advantage of the opportunity to create massive new entitlement programs with the objective of creating the tipping point, ie a plurality of citizens who must rely on them for their livelihood.

There's no escaping the truth, which is that the President and the leadership of his party are Socialists. They have proven it with the Health Insurance law, and continue to prove it through their continuing agenda.

The priorities of this government going forward are reportedly:
1. Financial Reform - If you think it's only about imposing reasonable regulation on financial institutions to keep them from behaving badly and requiring future bailouts, think again. It actually empowers the Federal Government to nationalize banks whenever they deem it necessary for the general welfare of the country.
2. Immigration Reform - Think it's about sealing borders and dealing with the millions of illegal immigrants? No, it's about making those millions of illegals citizens who will complete the tip-over and provide enough votes to keep the socialist government in power indefinitely.
3. Cap & Trade - Think it's about improving the climate? No, it's the purest form of socialism. It takes money from companies that use energy to produce their products and gives it to somebody else. The somebody else is almost always a crony of the Leftist power base, pretending to make "environmentally friendly" products. This while Al Gore and his cronies pocket a commission on every transaction, becoming richer than Bill Gates and Warren Buffet.
4. VAT - Next on the agenda is a brand new tax on everything, assessed on every step of production.

People like me who lived through the Cold War and believed our country to be the antithesis of communist and socialist central control of its citizens never would have believed these tipping points would arrive. But they have.

So now we either bite our tongues and work harder for less money so the government can take our hard-earned wages to give to those who don't work, or we simply join the ranks of the non-working and hope for change.

Revisiting Tournament Comment

So Butler not only beat Syracuse, they did it without having their best possible game.

Although I can't offer much in the way of analysis, because I was traveling and didn't see the game. Driving, it was a frustrating process - finding the game on the radio, listening for about 10 or 15 minutes before the AM station faded out, then scanning and scanning until I picked up another station and repeating the process.

I thought is was strange that the closer I got to home, and thus presumably Butler country, the harder it was to find the game on any local stations. I actually missed most of the second half because no station in range of my vehicle, AM or FM, was carrying it.

They don't get Xavier again, but K State just barely squeaked through in overtime.

I like the Bulldogs' chances of making the Final Four, although certainly the win they need to get home for that is hardly in the bag.

Tonight we find out whether Purdue has enough for Duke. Again, it would seem a long shot in theory, but Butler's shown long shots do win sometimes.



Good stuff.

Changing the Subject

It would seem that threats to lawmakers has become a political strategy.

It began with members of the black caucus charging Tea Party demonstrators with shouting threats and racial epithets and spitting on them. In response, others have posted videos of the incident, which show no such things. And none of the caucus members have produced evidence in any form that any of those things happened.

That was followed by Democrats complaining about threats and vandalism from people angry about their votes in favor of the bill. Some released audio. Interestingly, the audio clips I've heard from congresspersons' recorded voicemails were certainly angry and vulgar and insulting. But I didn't hear specific violent threats.

And of course Republicans mentioned that, oh by the way, we've been getting the same stuff, and one congressman got his office window shot out for his opposition to the bill.

So more and more it seems that the whole flap may have been designed by the Democrats in an attempt to silence their critics by labeling them racists and terrorists. The inherent suggestion by the black caucus was that the Tea Party is a racist and unAmerican organization.

That extended to all those who oppose the government healthcare takeover, presumably to frighten "moderates" away from opposition, lest they be called racists or terrorists.

Yes, we are a polarized nation. But are we on the brink of civil war? I don't think so, as long as the opposition has the opportunity to mobilize their own candidates and boot the bums out of office in November.

March Madness

My bracket was destroyed with Kansas losing, but that's what makes it fun.

It's nice to see Butler make the Sweet 16, but any hope they have of reaching the Final 4 requires them to beat Syracuse, which would seem all but impossible.

But again, that's part of the fun of the tournament. If Butler plays a flawless game and stays close, just maybe they steal one from Syracuse and have a shot. Maybe against Xavier, who they've already beaten once.

But Heyward and Howard have to have great games for it to happen. Both weren't themselves in the previous close game against Murray State. But then again, Murray State really played oustanding defense against both, forcing other Butler players to step up for the win.

I'm traveling tomorrow, so I might not get to watch. But I can still catch Purdue - another team that doesn't seem to have much of a chance, going against Duke without Robbie Hummel.

But if they didn't have a chance, there'd be no reason to play the game.

The NBA can't hold a candle to the entertainment value of the college tournament.

This is Fun

Check out this Powerline Post.

I cracked up at the comments about Bob Dylan & Taylor Swift, plus Simon Cowell.

Fascinating perspectives.

Mental Healthcare

It would seem that the Healthcare bill is just about a done deal. Reporting keeps saying there aren't yet enough votes to pass it, but they're within a handful. It's sort of stunning to me that the plurality of Democrat congressmen are willing to sacrifice their jobs to deliver this monstrosity for their President.

Clearly they're not listening to their constituents, who overwhelmingly oppose the bill. They are in many cases rude to the callers who have been flooding their offices with telephone calls pleading for a "No" vote.

My own congressman, Baron Hill, has already demonstrated beyond all doubt that he's more beholden to his party leadership, and presumably the special interests who bankroll them, than his own district. He's almost certain to lose his seat to one of the several Republicans who've lined up for this spring's primary, salivating over the chance to take his job.

It's already been reported that he got promises from Obama to visit the district to help his campaign. He got to sponsor the recent "Pay-Go" bill, which of course was a sham designed to prop him up but really has almost no teeth to actually force goverment to live within its means. He's also been given some earmarks to bring home some bacon, and rumors are also flying that he might even have been promised a job in the Administration if he loses.

Is that integrity? The only congressman I can find who actually seems to be showing courage and integrity through this whole process is Bart Stupak. If there's anybody else standing by principle over party arm-twisting, I'd like to know who.

The bill as I understand it is such a travesty that the only possible theory on why so many Democrats are behind it is this: The bill was specifically designed to exacerbate the healthcare problem and actually turn it into a real crisis, giving them cover to impose their long-desired socialist "single-payer" system for all of us.

I actually am having difficulty conceiving any other outcome.

Affect on Mood

Personal information is taboo for my blog, but this may be as close as I get to sharing personal data, in mentioning the fact that my mood tonight is sour.

What's strange is that there isn't a logical reason for my current bad mood. Just back from vacation, having finished a decent buy unspectacular day, but still I feel angry, frustrated, disappointed, dispirited.

OK, there are a few factors that contributed to the foul mood, from business, personal, and general sources. But nothing I can't handle, and certainly nothing that should have driven me into so deep a funk.

I wonder, is it the post-vacation blues? Something I ate or didn't eat? The weather or phase of the moon? The idiots in Washington with the government healthcare mess? The accumulation of work-related challenges that hit me like a truck the second I got back to work? The personal stuff? Maybe all of the above?

Some might challenge me and advise me to shake it off, make my own luck, meet the challenges head-on. I'm glad none of those people are here telling me that right now, because I might just haul off and punch them in the nose.

Perhaps I need a vacation to recover from my vacation.

Do You Share this Thought Process?

What are the Democratic leaders saying? "If you pass the Stupak amendment, more children will be born, and therefore it will cost us millions more. That's one of the arguments I've been hearing." Stupak says. "Money is their hang-up. Is this now how we value life in America? If money is the issue -- come on, we can find money in the budget. This is life we're talking about."

Above from Bart Stupak.

Seriously, how can it possibly be true that half the country agrees with the point of view shared by Congressman Stupak above? We have to pass government healthcare to keep extra babies from being born and costing them millions?

Does Anybody Really Get it?

The simple and obvious truth of our current pain and suffering is not evident anywhere I can find, whether from TV talking heads, politicians, or publications. Is this because everyone just takes it for granted and assumes there's no need to state the obvious, or is possible most don't actually understand?

What obvious truth am I talking about?

Simply this: When you lose 17 or 18 percent of the workforce to unemployment, and everybody else who's still working is earning generally less than they would in a healthier economy, revenue to government takes a big hit.

Just like businesses are closing or hanging on by their fingernails, governments at the Federal, State, and Local levels who have always spent every penny of tax revenue inevitably face fiscal disaster when the taxes they collect on their constituents' income falls off a cliff along with that income.

It just puzzles me to read and hear the angst and anger of people who are seeing their favorite government programs cut. Protesters scream about losing funding for everything from schools to road repairs to community social programs. Politicians bend themselves into pretzels trying to figure out ways to raise taxes on everybody without them realizing it and voting them out of office.

We have an encapsulation of the problem in the healthcare battle. Left-wing Democrats, led by the President, are using every tool at their disposal to exploit this best opportunity in several generations to implement the one socialist program they've lusted after for generations: Nationalized healthcare.

Imagine the economy were to rebound, returning to full employment. How many people would be worried about our health insurance system when virtually all of them are employed and most employers offer insurance? Not many. And nobody but the most committed Socialists would support the current healthcare bills.

But the rhetoric of the Left side of the political spectrum is predictable. We all know about their goals and aspirations, and there's no surprise that they might choose to ignore this simple truth to push their agenda.

It's the Right side that is puzzling me. How simple is it to build an appealing campaign message that easily shuts down the other side's healthcare and soak-the-rich demagogery?

"Vote for me if you would rather have a good job than a government handout."

Unless you're a permanent ward of the State, wouldn't that simple campaign message resonate?

So why isn't anyone using it?

They've been set up

I watched the "healthcare summit" for awhile this morning, and boy, did the Republicans fall into a trap.

It didn't take long to figure out the strategy. Get the Republicans to talk about specific things they think should be done, then answer by saying, "That's already in the bill".

Aside from mental midget Harry Reid's over-the-top partisan rants, Obama and his minions have been trying to present a picture of reasonableness and agreeability. The strategy seems to be working wonderfully well. Get a Republican to say something, then respond with agreement with the statement, then emphasize that it's either already in the bill or they'd be happy to find a way to inculde it.

From a purely political perspective, the Republicans were stupid to agree to this meeting. The old law, "never play another man's game" holds especially true here. Obama is in control of the meeting and as such controls the agenda and message, which is obviously designed to make the Repubs look like partisan obstructionists to what is otherwise both a necessary and reasonable healthcare bill.

Another Interesting Argument - Credit Cards

I was reading stories about the new laws that went into effect stiffening regulations on banks regarding how they treat their credit card customers.

Credit cards have of course long been hugely profitable for banks. If they weren't we wouldn't all be getting "offers" in the mail every day for the latest new card, offering airline miles or "points" or cash back "rewards". (Side note, I stupidly signed up for one of the "cash rewards" cards once. Just before it was time to collect on that cash reward, the bank rescinded the program. Learned my lesson.)

So basically the legislation was a Democrat-backed plan to "protect" consumers from predatory bank practices. Absurdly high interest rates, fees, etc.

But according to the stories, it seems to be hurting more people than it helps. Banks have responded with several actions that have been detrimental to their customers as a whole. Even I got a notice about 6 months ago that my interest rate was getting hiked on my card. The notice was actually pretty honest in letting me know the interest rate hike was being imposed to try to maintain profitability in the credit card business.

But let's get to the basic argument.

The reason Democrats wanted to pass these regulations on the banks was because the banks were unreasonably charging exhorbitant rates and unjustified fees to many of their customers. Who could argue with that, right? It does seem that banks are rather predatory and greedy when it comes to their credit card policies.

On the other side, a conservative would generally suggest that banks hike rates and fees in an attempt to insulate them from default by their higher-risk customers. Charging 23% interest is just protection against the highly possible event that the cardholder will stop making payments altogether, and the bank will lose all of the credit card balance. Otherwise, anyone who is credit-worthy and holding a balance on a 23% interest rate credit card only has himself to blame, because in 5 minutes he or she could find a great deal on another credit card out in the marketplace, cut up the old card, and problem solved.

All arguments basically valid, as far as they go.

I'm personally not opposed to usury laws, and tend to believe it's not in the country's best interest to be laissez-faire on all bank practices. I do happen to believe that a legitimate role of government is protection of citizens from theft. Just because it's legal to charge somebody loan-shark rates on loans doesn't mean it's not theft to do so.

Where my beef lies with the whole topic is more in line with the mega banks. I think the biggest fault of government was in allowing consolidation of banking institutions into a small number of mega banks that were "too big to fail", resulting in the economic disaster we're experiencing now.

It's OK to pass basic usury laws, capping the interest rate banks can charge their customers at some multiple of Prime. That will result in banks basically cutting off lots of marginal customers from access to credit; but don't those folks need the wake-up call anyway? Those who suffer the most from the highest abuse from bankers are, in fact, those who are least responsible in terms of their debts. No laws can change their behavior, so maybe having a change in behavior forced on them by losing their credit lines is a positive thing.

That reminds me, I should shop for a new card to replace this one. If there's another bank out there that wants my business, they'll offer me a more attractive rate. (I just won't mention they'll never collect any interest from me anyway, because I pay off the balance every month.)

Recovery or Disaster?

I haven't posted in awhile, for a couple of reasons: Mainly I've been too busy, but also I haven't had a lot to write about.

Currently we've got two lines of rhetoric coming at us, once again divided by party affiliation.

The Dems are trying to tell us things really are getting better. They're "Stimulus" is really working, really!! And the only reason things aren't getting better faster is because the Republicans are obstructing and stalling their reform agenda.

The GOP tells us things are really bad, and are set to get much worse. The Democrat "Stimulus" was nothing but a boondoggle of historic proportions, and did much more to hurt the recovery than to help. Now we face unsustainable debt levels that are guaranteed to lead to runaway inflation, made even worse by the massive tax increases planned by the Democrat power base.

As for the obstruction charge, the GOP says we'd be much worse off today than we already are if they hadn't done everything in their power to stop the destructive Democrat/Obama agenda. Besides, they point out, Dems have huge majorities in congress that meant nothing they wanted to do could be obstructed by Republicans; it's the American people that spoke loudly to their centrist representative to keep the agenda from passing.

Rather than get into the politics of the argument, I'll try to approach it with a bit of common sense and economics.

The Democrat government is indeed spending almost twice what they're taking in in taxes. They have no desire to cut back any part of their spending, and would rather increase tax rates. The problem is, even if they raised taxes to 100 percent, it won't be enough to satisfy their voracious appetite.

So they sell bonds to China, and print money to pay for what they can't raise any other way. China's already pulling back and expressing frustration with the devaluation of the dollar caused by running the printing presses around the clock. That's going to raise the cost of debt, because the weaker the dollar the higher the interest rate that will be demanded by those who invest in it.

What also happens, as I can directly attest through just listening to the executives in the companies I consult with, is business is running scared right now. Even businesses that are doing well aren't expanding, because they have a well-founded fear that the Democrats will succeed with their agenda.

Whether Healthcare Reform, Cap & Trade, or simply tax increases, executives believe the regulatory and tax burdens either already imposed or on the way next year will hammer their profitability. So they choose not to invest in expansion. They choose not to hire employees, and make do with their existing staff or use temporary and part-time workers to guard against likely future layoffs.

Sounds like a dilemma. We can't spend our way out of the recession with money we don't have. Besides, I'm convinced the very Keynesian ideas the presidents' policies use are a fiction.

The only way out is to reintroduce sanity to government. Unfortunately, I hold little hope of that happening, and am not even sure this fall's elections will truly change the game.

Pick off the "low-hanging fruit" first. These are easy:
No earmarks, period. Cancel the ones passed earlier this year that haven't already been completed.
Close the Department of Education
Close the Endowment for the Arts, or make it solely privately funded
Scale back the Department of Agriculture significantly
Cancel the rest of the "Stimulus" and pull back the funds
Drop Cap & Trade
Drop Healthcare Reform but start incrementally on only those things that will save taxpayers money
Pass a Constitutional Amendment that basically says, Any taxes or tax breaks passed by the government must be open to all. If there's a tax, everybody pays. If there's a credit or reduction, everybody gets it. In other words, no more "targeted" taxes and no more political favors in the tax code.
Make taxes simpler and flatter. Everybody pays something - no more allowing 50% of the population to pay nothing.
Eliminate all non-essential projects, departments, etc. (Boy are there lots of them)

Yes, healthcare has become the government's biggest expense, primarily because of Medicare and Medicaid. Something needs to be done about that problem. But the Democrat solution of just putting everybody in them isn't the answer. There will never be bipartisan agreement on that point, thus the incremental approach of only common-sense tax saving reforms.

I know, pipe dream.

Who's Playing Politics?

Obama or Congressional Republicans?

Interesting how Obama decided on a strategy to triangulate the healthcare issue in what Republicans consider a trap, offering a half-day meeting with Republicans to "listen" to their ideas on healthcare reform. He's apparently trying to build on what he likely considered a big win in his talk with the GOP lawmakers at their retreat, where he had his supporters salivating over his "masterful" rhetoric designed to make them look like partisan obstructionists.

The GOP leaders have set preconditions on his proposed follow-up meeting, namely that the president throw away the bills already created by his fellow democrats and start over. He of course refused.

Which party is playing politics? Mostly Obama, mostly the GOP, or both equally?

Seems rather apparent to me.

It's interesting that the problem is structural. Having created an entitlement mentality among the citizenry, we clearly now have a situation where the largest demographic consumers of expensive healthcare are those already on the government plans - Medicare and Medicaid. That demographic consisting, of course, of the poor and the elderly. Those folks now account for more than half of all heath insurance payments in the country as a whole, and it's only going to get worse.

The argument isn't about whether or not that is a problem. It's about what should be done about it.

Obama and his left wing of the Democrat party believe the answer is to simply put everybody into a universal version of Medicare. The socialist ideal is at play, which says "To each according to his need, from each according to his ability". Simply take much more from the productive segment of the population and give it to the unproductive.

The GOP believe the answer is to drive the best possible economic conditions, which might at least help address the poor part of the demographic by getting them back to work for business where presumably they will get into their employer's health plans. They realize that doesn't address the exploding senior population consuming the rest of those resources, but why should they stick their necks out talking about solutions to that problem and anger one of their most potent constituencies that seems likely to return them to power; perhaps as soon as next year.

It would of course be very nice if somebody, say even the president, would catch wind of the ideas I've developed and began talking about them.

But I don't believe it's ever really been about the actual healthcare problem for many of the political class. It's about getting and holding onto power.

So unless that changes, beginning this coming November with new leaders elected to represent us, nothing good will happen. Something still might happen, but it's pretty much guaranteed to make the problem worse than doing nothing.

More Evidence Suggesting Climate Change is Politics, not Science

One of my favorite blogs is Powerline, which has this great post about what scientists who don't have a political dog in the fight are saying about the whole Climate Change myth.

I about fell out of my chair when I heard the president call for more drilling and development of American oil, gas, coal, and nuclear resources during the State of the Union speech. Until he got around to the end of that part of the speech, where he strongly suggested an offer of "compromise" with conservatives on those issues if they would only get on board with his Cap & Trade bill. Of course, he gave a not-so-subtle suggestion that conservative resistance to the idea of "climate change" was borne of ignorance or conscious choices to ignore the scientific "consensus".

I found it interesting that the president followed up his SOTU with a visit with Republican legislators, where he harangued them for 90 minutes with a message that they need to stop opposing him and using "divisive" rhetoric to stop progress.

It certainly was a well-crafted message, where he steadfastly refused to engage them on policy details, focusing instead on his pleas that they stop spreading unfair characterizations about his policies. For example, he affably suggested that Republicans were telling their constituents that his healthcare bill was "some kind of Bolshevik plot".

Besides the fact I never heard any GOP lawmaker ever call it "Bolshevik", their characterizations of the healthcare plan was consistently "Socialist". Which of course is accurate.

It seems that he was successful from a PR perspective in presenting himself as a reasonable person who is willing to compromise and meet Republicans halfway for the benefit of the country. Avoiding details was an absolute requirement for this message, because whenever the details of his policies leak out, Americans resoundingly reject them. This is a president who is determined to push through his agenda at all costs, apparently believing that fooling enough of the populace to allow the bills to pass is OK, because in the end it's going to be somehow good for us who oppose them.

This might be an interesting year, in which I think conservatives may be able to recover enough seats in congress to slow down Obama's hard left turn.

For Colts Fans

Real Analysis

Something the networks refuse to do is analyze the fundamentals of the so-called healthcare reform bills that went down in flames last week. So I'm going to take my own shot here.

The question to ask is, why were the Democrats willing to bribe their way into this massive bill that they came so close to pushing through, even though it was beyond flawed?

They say that their objective was to make health insurance more affordable and accessible to those who don't currently have it. Their widely reported justifications were based on the accusation that insurance companies will not sell to individuals with pre-existing conditions, then will routinely cancel the policies of individuals who are unfortunate enough to get sick. They go on to be outraged that insurance company executives are fat cats who siphon profits into their own pockets, partly on the backs of those customers they so callously reject.

All that is followed up with an emotionally-charged declaration that healthcare is a right, not a privilege!

Let me start with that last statement. The Bill of Rights doesn't say a word about healthcare. That declaration may sound noble to many, but if it's correct, then would it not follow that people of America also have a right to a decent home and 3 square meals a day? I'm guessing the same Democrats making this statement would answer that question "yes!"

But how can such things be rights? How can it be a right of any person to receive a house, plenty of food, and medical care, all of which presumably had to be provided by someone else, without compensating that provider in some form?

For any right to exist in a just society, how is it just to declare a right that essentially requires confiscating that good or service from someone else?

The essence of the Democrats' end goal of universal healthcare is just that; a system that confiscates goods and services from one citizen to pass on to another, while skimming a healthy percentage off the top for the government who oversees and enforces that transfer.

So to the other justifications for health insurance reform, let's deal with them individually:

Insurance companies should not make a profit from people's suffering. Sounds nice, until you consider the alternative. The Democrat alternative, as defined in their barely disguised incremental approach to ending private insurance in favor of government insurance, is certain to shift those profits into the pockets of the class of bureaucrats they put in place to administer this newer, "fairer" healthcare insurance plan.

They argue Medicare is very popular, so what's wrong with simply extending Medicare to everyone? At face value, I sort of like that idea too. If I could get insurance coverage through Medicare that allowed me to drop my outrageously expensive private health insurance plan, I'd be very happy to participate.

But I have to be realistic. Medicare's already bankrupt. They already collect about 3 percent of every dollar earned by every American, and it's not enough to cover the seniors already in the plan. They have already cut the Medicare reimbursement rates to the point where doctors and hospitals are treating seniors covered by the plan at a loss, which they must pass on to the rest of their private patients who are paying for those treatments.

So let's say everybody says, "Great, sign us all up for Medicare!". First, how much would the tax rate have to increase to cover all of us? Double? Triple? Quadruple? Would even that be enough? Then, when the doctors can no longer pay their bills because everyone's on Medicare and they can't pass costs on to other paying patients, they've already promised they will simply retire. Ultimately, we'll all have Medicare, but won't be able to find any health providers to treat us when we get sick. Because they will all have shut down from the system making it no longer economically feasible to continue.

So what about these evil insurance company practices? Yes, I have heard the stories of companies canceling policies as soon as their customer checks into the cancer treatment center. But I don't actually know anybody personally that has experienced this - do you?

And the little bit I know about contract law says that if you contract with an insurance company to reimburse medical costs, they must abide by the terms of that contract. So as a consumer, our first responsibility is to make sure there are no clauses in the fine print that allow the insurance company to dump you if you get sick. Then, if they try to do that, you have a case to sue them in court.

So maybe government can play a small role in this problem, to whatever extent it may exist, by simply passing a law that says insurance companies may not put such clauses into the fine print of their contracts, or at least that they must disclose those conditions to their customers before issuing a policy. Whatever this legislation might become, it is a far cry from what the Democrats tried to implement.

Fundamentally, I believe each of us has a responsibility to see to our own needs, whether housing, food, education, healthcare, etc. I also believe the healthcare system is in trouble today precisely because of government interference and an out-of-control tort system.

These days if you are employed, you most likely have a decent health insurance plan through your employer. The problem is the unemployed and the self-employed. The unemployed can't afford insurance, and the self-employed generally choose not to pay oppressive insurance rates for plans that don't pay until you exceed the high deductibles & co-pays.

If the government wants to reform the healthcare system, they should prioritize and create conditions that allow the citizens to force reform, rather than the big-brother approach so favored by our leftist Democrats.

1. Reform the Tort system. I have what I think is a pretty good idea for how to do this without abandoning protection for those who have truly been injured by malpractice.
2. Change the payment system. Change the system to have the citizens themselves pay for their services as rendered. We all should see and have to process the invoices, which will automatically make us more informed consumers. Insurance should be geared toward reimbursing us, not the providers.
3. Detach insurance from Employers. Make health insurance more like car insurance. We should be able to shop for and buy the policy we want in an open, competitive market. That way we don't lose our coverage after we leave an employer, and the self-employed are buying insurance the same way everyone else does.
4. Regulate, but open the market. The government can place reasonable regulations on insurance companies to make sure they act responsibly, but should also encourage companies to offer a wide range of policy options that fit individual customers' needs, and of course a pre-existing condition should affect an insurance purchaser no differently than an accident would affect a car insurance purchaser.

Too bad there isn't a single politician out there with anything close to these ideas.

Glimmers of Hope

Interesting in the wake of our freshman president's campaign promising "hope" and "change", recent events actually have provided the first glimmers of hope for me since he took office.

To have a Scott Brown come out of nowhere to beat the Democrat establishment candidate in the deepest of blue states means there seem to actually be enough people with enough sense even there to turn out to kick out the establishment.

Flipping channels the morning after that election, I happened across Meredith Viera on the Today show interviewing the new Massachusetts senator. She has always seemed to me a sweet lady, but I saw a completely opposite side of her in this interview. She was angry and combative, and pummeled Brown with a litany of accusations more than questions.

The gist of her grilling of the new Senator, as far as what I heard, was

"How dare you take over Ted Kennedy's seat in the Senate with the intention of stopping passage of the health reform he dedicated his entire political career to making a reality!"

I couldn't help but once again wonder, while listening to her line of questioning, whether she really is that ignorant about why people across America oppose the healthcare bill. But of course, I also can't imagine anybody who has paid even minimal attention to the contents of the bill and the shady deals made to buy votes for it still believing it's a good idea.

I see a lot of the same on CNN, and forget about MSNBC. These talking heads are so incredibly partisan that they can't even identify a turkey when it's right in front of them in broad daylight.

There may be hope for us yet.

See Why I Don't Gamble

1 for 4 in my picks this weekend.

That's why I don't gamble. I'm a bookmaker's dream.

The NFC results didn't really surprise me, as I did pick the underdogs in both games. Although I was mildly surprised that both games were blowouts.

The biggest surprise of the weekend was the Jets beating the Chargers. Is it possible that San Diego took them for granted and looked ahead to the Colts just a bit?

Or is the Jet defense that good?

We'll get to find out.

The important thing is I had the right pick for the most important game of the weekend.

It was fun to be there Saturday night.

Football Diversions

Just for fun, a post about this weekend's NFL playoff games.

This is the weekend that pretty much anything can happen. Past history indicates that seedings are unreliable predictors of the outcome, as each division's final four teams square off.

The NFC has two interesting matchups -

Arizona will try to steal the chance to play for the Super Bowl at New Orleans, where the Saints have had perhaps their best season ever. But the Saints stumled late in the regular season, looking very average against some average opponents. Meanwhile, the Cardinals won an overtime shootout last week against Green Bay, where until the Cardinal defense sacked and forced a Rogers fumble for the winning touchdown, it seemed that neither team could stop the other.

Did New Orleans use their bye week to rejuvenate their lagging team? Or will their dream season come to an anticlimactic end against Kurt Warner's passing game?

The Cowboys go to Minnesota to try to keep their late-season surge alive. This is an interesting game, with both teams looking strong late in the year. The Vikings' running game with Ardrian Peterson seemed to tail off a bit late, but it doesn't seem to translate into predictions of doom against the hot Cowboy defense.

This game is a tough one to pick. Of the four weekend games, this seems the most likely to stay even to the end. I think the winner will be decided by a late official's call or non-call, a dropped pass, or a lucky (or unlucky) bounce of the ball.

The AFC would seem to be more predictable in theory, but I'm not ready to predict either game as a sure thing.

It would seem that the underdog Jets have no shot against the talented Chargers, playing on the opposite coast. The Jets needed the gift they received from the Colts in the second-to-last game just to qualify for the playoffs.

But the Jets also beat Cincinnati convincingly, have a very good defense, and are one of the best rushing teams in the league.

I think the Chargers will likely win, but only if they play their best and don't take the underdog Jets for granted.

Finally, in the game that has my biggest interest, the Colts host the Ravens.

Ravens fans, and apparently the entire city of Baltimore, hate Indianapolis with every fiber of their being. They feel the Colts were stolen from them, when Bob Irsay packed up the team in the middle of the night and sneaked out of the city to relocate to the Hoosier state.

So more than anything, Ravens fans want the sweet revenge of taking down the Colts in one of their finest regular-season years in history.

In theory, the Ravens team shouldn't have a prayer. They don't have much of a passing game, and must win behind a strong running game and outstanding defense.

But that approach worked amazingly well last week against the Patriots on a cold day in Massachusetts. That Ravens defense rattled Tom Brady so badly that he almost looked like some rookie quarterback, rather than one of the best at this position (outside of Peyton Manning, of course).

The Colts will try to stuff the Ravens run and ask Peyton and the gang to put up a 2 or 3 touchdown lead as early in the game as possible. Then the Ravens will have to change their game plan and start passing to get back into the game. That's when the Colts will turn loose their all-pro defensive ends, Freeney and Mathis, to terrorize Joe Flacco.

I think the Colts should win this one, but they're not likely to put up a lot of points against that Ravens defense. The game will be close because the Raven's won't allow Peyton too much room, but the Ravens offense still won't be able to keep up.

My predictions for the divisional championship games?

Chargers - Colts
Cowboys - Cardinals

I'm picking the favorites to win in the AFC, and the underdogs to win in the NFC.

Than again, my track record for picking winners isn't great.

But it will be fun to see how things actually play out.

Living on the Road

When opportunities come around for grabbing solid paying consulting work, I feel I have to take advantage of them. Even when it means living on the road and having little to no time to take a breath, let alone take care of my myriad administrative duties as a small business entrepreneur of sorts.

The weekend seemed to be short to the degree of barely existing. Saturday was about 70% planned, and of course Sunday afternoon meant another flight. So I was able to barely squeeze in the most vital of paperwork in the gaps of a short and busy weekend.

I have to admit to being a bit grumpy this weekend. The commodity I value highly but seem to suffer a lack of lately is sleep. Chris' Saturday evening basketball game, where several unfortunate factors led to his team losing a game they had well in hand in the fourth quarter, made a contribution to my foul mood.

As did getting pulled over for expired license plates. And being unable to squeeze in any time to try figuring out how to recover from losing my office in the Christmas fire at the United Way building. Even experiencing the bizarre disappearance of my socks from the laundry added to my pain.

Then there was the Sunday trip. TSA must not have planned on the number of travelers they would be screening this afternoon, because the lines were long and slow. Then a gray-haired executive type, who happened to show up across from me on my flight, tried to cut the line. I was pleased to see the deft maneuvering of the guy he tried to cut in front of, who managed to position himself in such a way as to deny the jerk his sought-after spot without overtly seeming to be confrontational.

Finally, the woman that sat next to me had to lather up with an extra-pungent hand lotion as we were making our approach. I was only just able to avoid unloading my mostly-digested breakfast into her lap. Seriously, do these people have any clue whatsoever that somebody might not appreciate their fragrant lotions and perfumes? I suspect they might, but simply don't care.

Oh yeah, and the hotel's wi-fi is down. So I just finished emailing my weekend reports using the hotel's "Business Center", which is a wired connection.

A week here in one of the nation's coldest places, then a week back down south, then finally I will get a Monday & Tuesday at home (but with at least a week's worth of work to try to fit into those days).

Yeah, I'm a bit grumpy.

Unexpected Events

My office turned into a smoldering void due to a Christmas fire. Not sure the cause yet, but the newspaper says arson is not suspected. Very old building, I suppose in hindsight it may have been inevitable.

The office supplies, equipment, and furniture are all replaceable. Not cheap, but I'll survive.

Files and my backup hard drive are gone forever. I suppose those things I'm missing will become evident over the next few months, as something comes up and I come to realize, "Oh, that was in my office." Gone forever.

Some personal items are also lost, but I can't think of anything in the office of extremely high sentimental value.

It's still a bit hard to wrap my head around the idea that my office is gone.

Fundamental Issues

I've probably laid out most of what I have to say about the silly healthcare "reform" and dishonest "Cap and Trade" legislation the Democrats and their president are so intent on ramming through. So perhaps a better approach today is to discuss the fundamentals underlying their determination to achieve a much bigger goal than simply helping folks get health insurance or improving the environment.

Because, you see, if they were telling the truth about their intentions of bringing healthcare costs down and getting everybody insured, they could do that with a simple bill that would cost far less than the trillion dollars they're bent on spending.

If they were telling the truth about "Global Warming" being such a threat to the planet, there are many things they could do to entice everyone to use more "green" habits, rather than promising to shut down or tax into submission our energy companies.

The fundamental issue is our very system of government. They don't like our free republic. They want something that falls somewhere in between Soviet or Chinese-style communism and European-style social democracy.

Lately I'm wondering whether there's a plurality of citizens who agree with them. I suppose it's either that or they just don't have a clue what communism or socialism is. It is apparent that many have bought into the Democrat lie that they can get something for nothing simply by voting for the Democrat candidate.

I was in Communist Russia & Poland in the 70's. Sure, it equalizes most of the population. But they are equally poor and repressed. The "Party Members" in communism keep the best stuff for themselves - in Russia, they had cars when their fellow non-member citizens rode public transportation. They had houses while the rest were assigned to government-built apartments.

We had a socialist tax system for decades, when the US Government essentially confiscated everything people earned above a certain limit. That stopped when Reagan beat Jimmy Carter.

I suppose another alternative to the two governmental systems vying for power in our country is a monarchy. A year ago I would have suspected some would like to crown Obama king, but that ship seems to have sailed.

The basic question we face today is very simple. Do we want to remain a free republic, or throw out the constitution and rewrite it to become a social democracy or full-blown communist partner with China?

I no longer think the answer is clear. I don't think we'll know for sure until next November.

Timely but Unfortunate

My recent post about heroes was even more timely than I suspected at the time, as it occurred just before the sordid details of Tiger Woods' tomcat lifestyle came to light. So many have had their bubble burst with that fallen hero. I just feel sad and would rather not hear anything more about the story.

On another sports note, now that the Colts have secured pretty much everything they wanted this season except the Super Bowl, now the debate has started about whether they should go for the perfect season or rest their starters for the playoffs.

I understand the argument on both sides of the issue. It might be sort of moot, given the number of defensive backs that are hurt on the team right now. They might have to recruit a few fans out of the stands to cover the Jaguars' receivers this week.

But the coaches must be able to glean something from history, one would think. The Colts had two recent seasons with stellar regular-season records, when they rested the starters, then looked obviously rusty in dropping their first playoff game.

It seems to me that the thing to do is keep your guys sharp and competitive. Let the healthy guys play in the last 3 games, but rest the guys who are hurt. Maybe if the Jaguars start sacking Peyton with some frequency this week, you go ahead and pull him to save injury. But otherwise, I think you let everybody who is healthy go out and play. Inspire the rookies and backups who presumably have been itching for playing time to go out and prove their value.

But don't sit back and let everybody take the rest of the season off. A month later in that first playoff game, they'll be playing as if it's the preseason. And they'll get beat.

We will soon see what happens. Then those who have opinions on the matter will be proven right or wrong. But we'll all have fun following the Colts to the end of this year's run.

True Intentions

Part of the political discourse these days includes attempts by each side to convince the regular folks that the other side holds some sort of evil intent in promoting their particular position on an issue.

Take healthcare, for example.

The Left accuses the Right of somehow wanting people to die for lack of medical care. Surely only the most partisan or ignorant sycophants on the Left actually believe that. But even the President has joined in the rhetorical suggestion that Right opposition to the Left's healthcare "reform" proposals are nothing more than a big sellout to the health insurance industry.

Conversely, the Right suggests that the Left's main goal is a Socialist/Communist model where the government controls every aspect of the citizens' lives. That their version of healthcare reform is not at all about improving the access and quality of healthcare for all citizens, but is merely a power grab that is part of a much larger objective of destroying free enterprise.

I can say for certain that most opponents to the healthcare "reform" proposals oppose them because of the massive and inefficient bureaucracy it promises to create, the extremely high costs that promise to raise punitive taxes on all of the citizenry while exploding an already out-of-control budget, and the inevitable rationing of care that will result in a system that will be immediately overwhelmed by massively increased demand coupled with reduced supply of healthcare providers.

I can guess that the supporters of this proposal do not believe there's any sort of sinister plot for the government to destroy free enterprise. The supporters more likely hear the stories of people having their insurance cancelled as soon as they receive a bad diagnosis, others facing bankruptcy because they acquire an illness or injury for which they have no or inadequate insurance coverage.

Most supporters I know don't actually lack insurance, and don't even know anybody who lost their insurance when they got sick. They are fearful that it might happen to them someday. And they hear the stories so eagerly spread by supporters of the "reform" about insurance executives taking millions in bonuses, and believe it's not right for anyone to make a profit from other people's misery.

I think that among opponents to the healthcare reform movement are probably insurance company interests who will do whatever they can to keep the money train on the track. I also believe there are those on the Left that are pushing this legislation as part of a larger agenda designed to someday end with an entirely government run and controlled healthcare system.

I also believe that supporters of these "reforms" are either uninterested or dismissive of the negative details and consequences these new laws will have on either their own lives. I wonder how many of these folks will wake up a couple of years from now to realize they made a terrible mistake.

The bottom line is the same for me as with most current political issues. Our government is counting on our ignorance and gullibility as they push through an agenda none of us (except their own bureaucratic class) will appreciate once it comes to fruition.

Clueless or Dishonest

Turned on CNN when I got in tonight. First thing on was Obama, saying:

"We are trying to figure out how to get companies hiring again."

My jaw dropped, because everybody with half a brain knows the answer to that is very simple. The companies I consult with every day can't be more clear about the simple solution. Want to get them hiring again?

Announce that "Healthcare Reform" is going to be pulled back, at least temporarily until the economy gets back on it's feet.

Drop Cap & Trade altogether.

Extend the Bush tax cuts a couple more years.

Only a fool or a dishonest politician would try to sell "green jobs" and healthcare reform and cap & trade and across-the-board tax increases and stifling regulation and new restrictions on energy development and cash for clunkers and cash for caulkers and stimulus for ACORN and printing billions of new dollars and selling the country to China and unprecedented boondoggling and out-of-control pork-barrel spending and all the rest as good for the economy.

I've gotta assume it's dishonesty and not cluelessness. But either is not good for any of us "regular" folks.

Hey, Barry: We "regular" folks don't want a government healthcare program or massive taxes to solve a fake global climate change crisis. We just want good jobs so we can take care of ourselves and our families without your big-brother government butting in.

But you know all that, don't you.

How to Stave off the Cold

No, I don't think I know exactly.

Here I am trying to hold one off again, only about a month after recovering from the last sinus infection. This morning I was sneezing, thinking, "where did these sneezes come from?"

By this evening the sinuses are raging. I'm chugging Emergen-C, which seems my only hope to keep this one at bay.

How do these happen? I'm pretty careful - I try to keep to clean habits as much as possible.

But I can't avoid the specific things I suspect contribute to these viral infections.

Like flying. The person directly behind me on this week's flight was coughing frequently. I was tempted, but stopped myself from looking at him for fear of seeming rude. But I wondered if he was coughing on me, and suspected he was.

Then there was the flight delay, which very nearly caused me to miss my connection. I had to hustle from the far end of Atlanta's Concourse A to the far end of Concourse D in about 15 minutes. They'd actually posted "Closed" on the monitor when I walked up, but fortunately the agent let me on. They closed the door behind me.

So I arrived at my destination after midnight, so I got maybe 5 hours of sleep, but maybe not really because I'm staying in a mini-mobile home they have the nerve to call a "Chalet". And it has a furnace that I think produces more decibels than degrees of heat.

My suspicion is that the furnace in my little "Chalet" hasn't been operated yet this year. So by me being the first to turn the thing on, it probably blew out all sorts of accumulated molds and other nasty allergens.

Perhaps I should consider myself fortunate that I don't get sick more often, given my unusual itinerant lifestyle.

I only pray this time I can duck the sinus infection or cold or flu or whatever is trying to knock me off my feet. There's nothing worse than getting sick on the road.

Tracking the Climate Change Fraud

Every day there seems to be a new layer peeled back on what is looking very much like a political fraud that's been perpetrated on the world by people claiming to be scientists.

The hacked emails showing the concern of the leaders of the movement that their data doesn't support the theory, thus plotting ways to keep the ball rolling; the newer claim of a software engineer that the code underneath the climate change models was written to guarantee the desired outcome; the evidence of collusion in the influential climate change advocate (self-described scientist) community to suppress all refuting studies and trash those with the temerity to bring them forward - all point to the compelling likelihood that the whole "global warming" agenda now renamed "climate change" agenda is about left-wing politics and grant money, not science.

It is interesting to see all the members of Gore's Church of Climate Change scrambling to save the socialist ideal they believed they were on the cusp of installing upon the foundation of their alarmist climate message. Their main messages seem to boil down to what the Wizard of Oz so famously told Dorothy and her friends:

"Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!"

They are saying, "Pay no attention to those emails, the code behind the model, and the suppression of contrary studies: Climate change is irrefutable!"

I would think anybody out there who calls themselves scientists should be appalled and angry at the way their profession has been besmirched in the pursuit of a political outcome. Unfortunately I can't seem to find much evidence of anybody in the scientific community expressing such outrage or suggesting the climate data be made available for independent study to find out the real truth without regard to political agendas.

Have we universally lost all capability to think rationally, outside of the Left-Right paradigm?

It would seem so. Where have the intelligent people gone?

Heroes

Some say one of today's problems is a lack of heroes. In some ways, I tend to agree that a seeming dearth of exemplary individuals to serve as models for us and our children isn't a good sign for our country as a whole.

I find it rather strange that, in the midst of two foreign wars, stories of heroes are almost completely missing. Even more disturbing is a phenomena I've noticed, where when a story of heroism in Iraq or Afghanistan does bubble to the surface, the media immediately commence an initiative to either squash the story or find a negative light in which to cast the story to make it appear that the heroic actions were somehow much less so.

In the media's world, broadcasting a story of selfless heroism on the battlefield is tantamount to supporting or glorifying a war they detest. Because their choices are now in charge of the wars, the irony is palpable, as the same anti-war media creatures twist themselves into pretzels as they try to find ways to justify their favored Commander-in-Chief's continuation of the hated conflicts.

While they play politics, we all suffer, continuing to miss the stories of heroism and self-sacrifice that very will might be taking place every day in remote Afghanistan, or in the city markets in Iraq.

I wonder whether heroes today purposely hide in the shadows, are besmirched because of political considerations, or are truly rare.

Sadly, the only evidence of hero-worship I can detect seem to be misdirected. The new President is certainly worshipped by certain segments of the population, even though there are no noble, selfless, or courageous acts of heroism in evidence. He seems to attract worship solely on the merits of smooth speechmaking and left-wing idealism.

Some hold up sports stars as their heroes. While sports stars are certainly worthy of admiration for their outstanding athletic prowess, simply being good at a game hardly qualifies one for hero status.

As a Colts fan, I certainly admire Peyton Manning, who seems to be one of the best quarterbacks ever to play in the NFL. But my admiration for the quarterback is limited to his football skills. I don't know him personally, and for all I know, he could be the most insufferable jerk imaginable off the field. Winning Super Bowls and bringing his team back from big deficits to win close games is great, but for Peyton Manning to actually be a hero, I would need to see evidence of him showing great courage and self-sacrifice to save and help others.

The most puzzling hero worship I observe is in the form of worship of celebrities and entertainers. For some, it seems the only qualification for their adoration is fame.

I certainly can admire the vocal entertainment skill of someone like Barbra Streisand. But how is it that her singing prowess translates into any credibility for political activism? Whether choosing activism from the Left or the Right, don't celebrities realize that choosing sides does nothing but alienate half of their fan base?

Is a conservative-leaning person going to suddenly abandon all their political beliefs and attitudes just because a Barbra Streisand tells him he's a brainwashed idiot for holding those beliefs? If she thinks so, she really does live in a fantasy world.

Celebrities are not heroes, nor is the reverse. It seems to me that most people who qualify for the hero designation are unknown beyond their sphere of relatives, friends, and acquaintances.

The greatest heroes are unknown to the world. That's fine with them, but I think maybe these heroes deserve some attention, so the rest of us can learn from their example.

Eloquent and Succinct

This is from Paul Rahe of Hillsdale College. It sums up our current government situation better than anything else I've seen.

The Tea-Party movement lacks institutional support. Back in the early 1990's, when Hillary Clinton announced her proposal for a federal takeover of healthcare, the insurance companies mounted a campaign against it.

This time, the Democrats have squared everything with the special interests. The National Association of Manufacturers quickly climbed on board, eager to free its members from having to provide health insurance for their members' employees. The pharmaceutical companies did a deal with Obama aimed at protecting their short-term interests, as did the American Medical Association. The American Association of Retired Persons -- which purports to represent the interests of the elderly, but which has business interests of its own -- was bought outright, and the same thing can be said with regard to the health insurance companies. The industrial labor unions are similarly on board.

Indeed, everyone appears to have been taken care of ... except, of course, for the ordinary citizens who will be subject to the new regime. There is no one to stand up for them. The Republican Party lacks the requisite votes, and everyone else has been bought.

Hangin' in LA

Ha, fooled you. LA as in Louisiana.

Since I had to be here two weeks back-to-back, it didn't make sense to take the trip home Saturday, only to turn right around and come back Sunday. So I stayed over.

Since I'm located in sort of the middle of Nowhere, LA, my client provided wheels for the weekend and I took a day trip to Red Stick. Umm, I mean Baton Rouge.

Spent more time driving than anything else, but saw the Louisiana countryside and the big ports on the Mississippi. Also had the minor adventure of doing laundry at what must be the only coin laundry in the state, downtown Baton Rouge. Sort of a rough part of town, but I survived OK.

Followed by a rather dull Sunday afternoon, after checking out Mass at the local church. Colts vs. Patriots tonight will be a bit more interesting, but I'm sort of expecting the horseshoes to get handed their first loss of the season. For some strange reason, I even have this idea that the Pats might just blow them off their brand new stadium field.

Sure hope I'm wrong about that.

The fortunate thing is that I convinced two clients to sign up for additional projects, which lets me relax a bit about being busy at least through Q1 of next year. Relaxing about things like that is always nice.

I seem to be unfocused here, so I suppose this will do it until I have something more interesting to write about.

Free Advice

Is worth what you paid for it, I know. But just a few pieces of fatherly advice anyway.

Attitude is everything. I find my ability to deal with the tough times life dishes out is directly related to my attitude. I believe that if you take two individuals side-by-side with the exact same life experiences, the one with the better attitude will be the more content.

Don't waste time worrying. It's a corollary to the first statement. Most of the stuff we worry about never happens. So why waste time stewing about it?

If you love doing something, put all you've got into it. If you like something, you probably have some talent for it. One of the biggest satisfactions we can find in life is in doing something we love superbly. (Caveat: I'm not talking about time-wasting activities like video games)

Spend your life in search of God. This is where you will find truth, beauty, peace, love, and wisdom. Not to mention salvation.

Focus outward. Don't worry so much about yourself, but learn to know and appreciate those around you. Doing the right thing is never about you, but about what you can do to help others.

Overcome fear. Most of us limit ourselves only because of fear. We fear the unknown. We fear failure, but in some strange way, we find a way to fear success. When you know what you want to do, don't let fear stop you.

Learn from others. Seek out people who can teach you what you need to learn. Listen critically. Compare different philosophies. Never stop learning.

One interesting thing I need to share about these little pieces of advice: I don't necessarily follow them all that well myself. But I try.