Posts Tagged ‘Republicans’

Questioning Progressives?? How Dare I?

April 7, 2010

In an op-ed disguised as an article on the Huffington Post, Robert Creamer, a self-proclaimed progressive, lays out the reasons he thinks that Democrats will be able to maintain control of the government because of health care reform.

I decided to respond to them…

Because it’s passed into law, Democrats are now the ones who will be in a position to demand that Republicans keep their “hands off our health care.” And we can be very specific about provisions that go into effect right away. — OK. Please note that he did not mention any of the specific provisions for starters. By most reports, there are only three effects that will kick in this year– 1) Keep children on parents’ health insurance until age 26; 2) Closing the loophole prescription drug coverage for older Americans, and 3) Not denying children because of pre-existing conditions. Otherwise, the bill that had to be passed quickly will not provide insurance for most of  “the 32 million” until 2014.

Does Congressman Boehner really want to repeal the 35% tax credit that helps small business buy health care for their employees? — What Mr. Creamer forgets to mention is the rest of Section 1421 where it says that the credit would “the lesser” of the costs if 1) all of the employees who were covered by the employer’s group plan or 2) if all of the employees had  enrolled whether or not they actually did. This would also be for the prior tax year. Hmmm….what will happen to the small business who had the misfortune of expanding just prior to the passage of this bill? Simple, the tax credit would be nowhere near enough for the employer to absorb the costs. He also does not mention that the credit will be redcued based on the number of employees and average wages.

Does McConnell really want to repeal the provision that prevents insurance companies from denying benefits to children who have “pre-existing conditions?” — Aaahhh, the morality angle. Stating the obvious is the only thing healthcare supporters can do. Fine! Repeal this monstrosity and pass a simpler bill saying insurance companies can not deny children on the basis of pre-existing conditions. There problem solved without creating a massive new bureaucracy. Man, I think I deserve the Nobel Prize for Medicine for solving such a complex issue.

Does Steele really want to kick all the recent college grads off their parent’s health insurance policies?— No, but do progressives want to create a culture of underachievers? The only way this reform would work is for people to continue to be productive and thereby maintaining the tax base necessary to fund this monster. Where’s the incentive for these young adults? Or could this be a backdoor way to cover their political backsides because the unemployment rate is still high and will probably go higher once this goes into effect.

Does the Republican caucus really oppose closing the “donut hole” of coverage for senior citizen drug benefits — or forcing seniors to send back the 250 check they will get this summer as a down payment on making drugs more affordable?— Again, the morality angle, but in two parts no less. Close the “donut hole”, but do it without reinventing the wheel. (See my point about children and pre-existing conditions.) As for the $250 check, how long does that last? A month, maybe two… Let’s not forget the increased costs for businesses will be passed onto the consumer– in this case, the senior citizen.

Do Republicans want to side with the big insurance companies and eliminate the provision that will limit the amount of our premium dollars that insurance companies can spend on CEO pay, armies of bureaucrats who do nothing but deny claims, TV ads and limousines full of lobbyists?— So, the argument here is that we need the reinvent the entire wheel to reign in runaway insurance companies. Mr. Creamer does not mention that the health insurance industry was a willing participant at the start of this debate over a year ago. However, that was before they were considered the true “evil” behind this problem.

…the bill did not – as the Republicans claimed — cut their Medicare. In fact they will find that it has strengthened their Medicare – that the only thing cut was a subsidy to big private insurers. — OK, the $500 billion cut strengthens Medicare. So, the insurers get less money from the government as reimbursement for covering Medicare patients. Notice the costs of the treatment did not go down, just the reimbursement. So, that means the insurer is losing money on every single Medicare patient. What would happen if the costs of the treatment goes up? That’s right, the insurer would lose even more money. The logical conclusion being that all private insurers would eventually go out of business– leaving only the government. Obama has said that he is an advocate of the single-payer system. Google it!! The video is out there.

He then goes on to belittle the leadership of the Republican Party (McConnell, Boehner, and Steele) as being beholden to big business, Wall Street, the insurance industry, etc. He condemns the accumulation of wealth (especially by a few) as being the root of all evil and that it takes a courageous leader– i.e. Obama– to use the power of the government to level the playing field by taking money from the rich and giving it to the poor.

So, Mr. Creamer, what would be my incentive to be productive if the government will just give it to me because it’s the right thing to do? This whole healthcare debate is not about the morality of the issue. It’s about the economics of the issue which carried out to its logical conclusion would have everyone doing nothing to get something.

Sorry, but I’m not buying.

Advertisements

An Open Letter to Democrats

March 23, 2010

This is in response to Michael Moore who wrote an open letter to all Republicans.
_____________________________

There is an old saying: “Three things you should never talk about: Sex, Religion, and Politics.” I would like to announce the demise of true political discourse in this country. It did not go out with a bang or a whimper. It was extinguished by individuals who think they know what is best for you.

To Democrats- liberals in particular:

Bush/Cheney are not in office. They could not have served for third term even if they wanted to do so. So, please do the American public a favor and stop talking about what Bush/Cheney did. They are gone and they are not coming back. This is nothing more than a political smokescreen and enough is enough. Complaining about the war and playing the race card to deflect attention from your real agenda is an old and pathetic manuver.

Next, it’s the economy stupid!!! To paraphrase the “annointed one”, on numerous occasions, “We are in the middle of the worst recession since the Great Depression.” So, a 3.6 trillion dollar budget does not make sense. Where is the money coming from? Government spends what they take in in taxes. So, this budget must have a corresponding tax increase so it is paid for. Otherwise, the government is increasing the national debt. Do not quote talking points and tell me the money will come from reallocating existing funds and taxing the rich. That still wouldn’t be enough money to pay for the budget.

The president said in another interview, I think with CNBC: “We are out of money.” Fine, so please explain to me why the U.S. is going to reform health care? According to the Democrats, it is going to cost 938 billion. If we are out of money, how is this going to be paid for? The president stated today that this must happen to ensure the stability of families. Hmmm. Part of the way Democrats say this is going to be paid for is with a payroll tax, up to 8% of total payroll, on any small business which does not offer health care to its employees. Small businesses will cut jobs to maintain their financial viability. Please explain how this will maintain family stability if they do not have the means to provide for their day-to-day needs because they lost their job.

Finally, can you please display some honest character? The president, members of Congress, and all federal employees are public servants. This means they are supposed to serve the best interests of the entire public.

The president campaigned on how he would change the culture of Washington. He then went on to appoint in his cabinet either long-standing members of Congress or members of the Clinton administration. Where’s the fresh perspective? He said he would reinvent the image of the U.S. abroad. We are still dealing with Iraq and Afghanistan, but the president added Iran and North Korea to the mix. So much for security. He said he would cut taxes for 95% of Americans and they would all receive a “stimulus” check. I still have not gotten mine, but 10,000 dead people have received theirs. Now, the president is proposing taxes on everything from sodas to health care benefits to energy. So, I can’t have a coke, see the doctor, or watch television. That will do wonders for my “stability.”

The members of the president’s cabinet (and those who withdrew their name) have admitted to or may be convicted of the following: 1) failed to file taxes; 2) worked as a lobbyist for the department they were nominated for; 3) accused of taking kickbacks just to name a few. These are the people the president selected to help him run the country. Then there are the ‘czars.’ What???!!! I won’t even go into detail, but the president has chosen people to oversee areas where they do not have any previous experience. This is the utmost in lunacy.

I almost forgot. DO YOUR JOB!!! In more specific terms, this refers to things such as read the bill before you vote on it. (The entire bill not just the highlights as an Obama adviser said on Fox News about the healthcare bill.) Also, if a bill can not withstand rigorous debate; then it should not become law. The country will not implode if you actually take some time to consider the merit of a bill. And last but not least, the character assassinations or political blackmail you have done on Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, or Rush Limbuagh show you to have no firm belief in your own ideas. They need to stop before the public turns on you.

This is not politics; this is plain common sense. Actually, do the research for yourself. The information is out there.

Term Limits for Congressmen

March 22, 2010

In recent days, one thing should be apparent. Our “representatives” in Congress are snake-oil salesmen who will do whatever it takes to maintain the status quo for them not us. They will attempt to spin everything and anything as being responsive to the needs of their constituents. They simply do this in the hope they can get reelected.

I think that is something we need to change. Roosevelt had been reelected to his fourth term as president when he died. Shortly thereafter, a constitutional amendment was passed which said presidents can only be elected to two terms. The general idea is to prohibit one man, i.e. one party, from holding the reigns of power to long.

The question one must ask is why isn’t this same principle applied to members of Congress. Joe Biden was a senator for over 30 years before he became vice-president. John McCain, who just ran for president, has also been a senator for 22 years. Strom Thurmond served as a senator for South Carolina until he was 100 years old. I even took a political science class in college from a professor who was a former nine-term representative.

Does anyone think Thurmond was really doing senatorial work for his last term? I didn’t think so. So, why did he continue to run for relection? Simple, he wanted to continue to enjoy the power he had accumulated over the years, as well as untold benefits and perks that came with his political position. Also, to say that he was the only one who did so would be simply ludicrous.

Representatives are supposed to work on the behalf of the people they represent. So, we need to change the rules so those who run for Congress remember that very point. If service is limited to twelve years, only altruistic and idealistic individuals would seek to serve.

As the old saying goes: “Absolute power corrupts absolutely.” Term limits would diminsh the corruption within the political system. Influence peddling would not work because politicians would be forced to retire before they could wreak too much havoc on the country, if they were inclined to do so. It would also severly limit, if not eliminate, the influence of lobbyist and special interests groups.

Reform the system. We need to install term limits for all members of Congress.