Trickle up poverty

The Senate Health Care Bill- Not as bad as you think?

2009-12-24T21:31:00.000-08:00

I've been trying to wrap my brain around H.R. 3590, the "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act" that the Senate just passed. I haven't had the chance to curl up with all 2074 pages so I'm basing my take on what's been reported in the news. Now the AM talk-radio hosts have been yelling about this one for months, but I'm starting to smell a rat. I agreed with Rush, Boortz and Cain that the House bill was a train-wreck. The stated goal of the "public option" in that bill was to cripple the private insurance industry and facilitate the government takeover of health care. Don't kid yourself- no private business could compete with a government health care plan that had unlimited tax resources to undercut market rates. But thanks to Lieberman, the public option has been kicked out of the Senate bill, and the House is going to have to follow suit if they want to pass something. So why are the ideologues still talking about a government takeover of health-care? Since I'm not a conspiracy theorist, I actually change my mind when the facts change. Unless the AM radio guys want to lose all credibility on this issue they need to deal with the actual bill, not a caricature of it. Here's my analysis of the situation.

Problems with our current health-care system:

People who can't get health insurance because they are poor or have pre-existing conditions delay routine medical treatment until they reach a crisis. Then they seek emergency medical care which the hospitals are required by law to provide. The hospitals pass along the high costs of this crisis-care to people who have insurance, inflating their premiums. Not only does this cause pointless suffering, but it's also a really inefficient way to run a health-care system.
Some young, healthy people who could afford health insurance forgo it because they think it's unnecessary. The trouble is, the insurance pool needs more healthy people to dilute the costs of those who are older or sicker. Plus, when those uninsured young people have accidents that generate catastrophic medical expenses the hospitals have to treat them, and the costs get passed on to those with insurance.
People in the U.S. pay more and get less for their medical care dollars than just about anywhere else in the world. There are many reasons for this, including Doctors that order unnecessary tests and procedures for fear of getting sued, drug companies that get Americans to subsidize R & D for the rest of the world and a medical billing system that is completely opaque. To the last point, insurance is a great thing, but it can hide the true cost of care because people only pay attention to their out-of-pocket expenses, not the total bill. In fact, medical care is probably the only expense where Americans don't find out the cost until after the work is done.
Medicare is already adding a huge burden to the federal budget, and the flood of baby-boomers coming down the pike is only going to make matters worse. Without big cuts or tax increases the system will go broke.

Some good things the Senate health care bill does to address the problems:

It creates a mandate for people to buy health insurance and for large companies to provide employee plans, with penalties for those who don't comply. This should let insurance companies dilute the costs of medical care among a larger, healthier group of people, and lower insurance rates for everyone. It also creates insurance exchanges for individuals to save money by purchasing coverage at group rates.
It subsidizes insurance premiums for poor people, and stops insurance companies from denying coverage to people with pre-existing conditions. This seems to be a bad deal for taxpayers who subsidize the poor and insurance companies who have to take on expensive customers. Remember, though, the longer these groups go without routine medical care the more expensive they get. It's a matter of pay a little bit now or a lot more later.
It makes high-dollar "cadillac" health-care plans more expensive. They will still be available, but their price will reflect more of the plans' real impact on the health-care system.
The bill creates a firewall between taxpayer dollars and the funding of abortions. This provision doesn't really address any problems with the system, but it's a good idea if you don't want millions of people becoming tax-protesters. It's also the right thing morally IMO.

Problems with the Senate bill:

Even proponents of the bill estimate that after passage, 24 million people under 65 will remain uninsured, including 8 million illegal immigrants. That's still a LOT of unreimbursed emergency room costs that will continue to be passed on to everyone else. Unfortunately, no politician wants to touch the illegal immigration debate.
Since penalties for failing to buy health coverage will max out at only $750, many people and businesses will find it cheaper to pay the penalty than get the insurance. That means that even more than the estimated 24 million people may keep resorting to expensive crisis-care. If they don't get the details right on this one, the whole bill will be worthless.
The bill doesn't do anything to control medical costs. There's no tort reform to stop defensive medical care. There's no reimportation of drugs from other countries to keep the costs of prescriptions down. Finally, there's nothing to make medical costs more transparent to the consumer, or bring more market-based price pressure into the medical system. Without an additional bill to address these issues, costs will keep going up. By the way, I think the idea of capping doctor's salaries is terrible, and doesn't bring us any closer to a more efficient, market-based system. Do you legislate the salary of that plumber who fixes your leaky pipes? No. You find the cheapest guy who still has a reputation for doing quality work. If Joe the Plumber can earn six figures by working hard, that's his business. Likewise, if there are only a few doctors who spent the years learning some advanced procedure, they are entitled to earning what the market will bear for their services.
The bill may not be deficit neutral, in spite of what the Dems say. The Medicare cuts in the bill are not produced by any actual increase in efficiency or decrease in fraud. They are simply written into the bill, as in "Medicare will be cut by X amount." There's a good chance that when seniors turn the heat on the politicians, those cuts will quietly go away.
The bill raises some taxes to help pay for the subsidies, which is never a good thing to do in the middle of a recession. Some of the taxes have a narrow scope, like the surcharge on tanning salons. Other taxes hit a much broader slice of the population.
Some parts of the bill may be unconstitutional. Forcing some states to subsidize the medicare costs of other states is already being challenged. Also, the whole idea of forcing citizens to buy something from a private company just because they are alive may not pass muster. This is the issue that conservatives have rallied around most to try and kill the bill. I think their effort is misguided, though. I'll leave the constitutional question to the courts, but to me it's a question of paying for what you use. If we lived in a country where some fool who would rather buy an X-box than pay for health insurance was left to die on the street, then I wouldn't have a problem with letting people make their own choice. The fact is, though, when that fool wrecks his car and wracks up millions in medical costs, I pay for it in inflated insurance premiums. You don't like forced responsibility? Then don't ask me to bail you out.

If I had to rate the Senate bill overall, I would give it an "I" for incomplete. If you put aside the paranoia, the basic principle behind the bill is solid. However, if some of the details of the bill aren't fixed, I will have to change my rating from incomplete to incompetent.

One more outrage

2009-12-23T05:37:00.000-08:00

I was driving home yesterday after posting my list of this year's indefensible government gaffes, when I happened to hear a story on Marketplace that fits right in with my last post. Apparently, 84 percent of the federal clean-energy stimulus subsidies so far have gone to foreign companies. That's right, while 1 in 10 American workers languish in unemployment lines, companies like China's Shenyang Power Group and Spain's Iberdrola will be using American tax dollars to create jobs overseas. The Marketplace reporter interviewed an "expert" who thought helping foreign companies develop green technology was just fine, because it would help them do their part for the environment. Beyond the obvious outrage of borrowing money from China to create Chinese jobs, there's a bigger point that's being missed. If green technology is the wave of the future, and we help foreign companies develop the infrastructure to build it, then we're just relegating future generations to second-class status. All this raises the question: are Obama and the Democrats just short-sighted, or do they actually hate America?

Biggest government outrages of the year

2009-12-22T07:15:00.000-08:00

A lot of ink has been spent hashing out whether the impending health reform bill is the end of civilization as we know it, but here are three under-reported factoids that deserve a little more attention.

1) After Citigroup and other banks repaid $116 billion of the TARP bailout money, Congress decided to turn the money into a slush fund instead of returning it to the treasury.

This epitomizes what is wrong with our big, corrupt government and the clowns who run it. It was bad enough for the Treasury Secretary to scare us into spending $700 billion of borrowed money bailing out companies who ran their business into the ground. Now that the banks are paying us back, we should be paying down our skyrocketing debt. But Congress is acting like they just found a pile of money under the mattress. I guess they forgot that the taxpayers will have to pay it back some day. Pelosi/Reid are defending their actions by saying that the money will be used to create jobs. I contend that the only jobs those bozos know how to create are government jobs. This leads in nicely into item two:

2) Federal workers enjoyed a giant salary increase in the middle of the worst recession of our generation.

19 percent of federal workers earned six figure salaries in '09, compared with 14 percent the year before. The average federal worker now earns about $70,000 a year, compared with around $40,000 for the average private sector worker.

Personally, I'm tired of hearing the phony outrage about the obscene salaries and bonuses that CEO's are making. If you're offended by what a corporation is paying its top executives, don't invest in their stock. Don't buy their products. At least corporations theoretically have to answer to their shareholders for how they compensate their employees. If a business is losing money, everyone has to tighten their belts. Now tell me, who does the government have to answer to when it sets pay for its workers? Whether our government is effective or not, Congress just keeps hiking the federal budget. If they run out of money, they just increase our debt, or raise taxes. If I don't like the job the government is doing, I don't have the option to withhold my money from them. All I can do is vote the spenders out of office. However, since we are on the brink of having the majority of voters get more in government services than what they pay for, I don't think my vote is going to count for much.

3) The federal debt is now $12.2 trillion, and Congress is trying to raise the debt ceiling to $14 trillion.

$12 trillion is a pretty abstract number, so let me put it in context. The government would have to take all the profits of all the Fortune 500 companies for the next 145 years to pay off that debt, not including the new interest costs. We will NEVER, EVER pay off that debt. That's not a problem as long as the world continues buying T-bills. But just remember, they are only interested in keeping us afloat as long as we are the biggest consumers around. Once Europe and the developing nations are able to sustain their economies by buying and selling from each other, they'll dump us. If we continue using the money we're printing to pay off Wall Street and foreign speculators instead of producing real goods and services, we could be in for Zimbabwe-style hyperinflation. So just remember that the next time these spendthrift Democrats tell you about some new plan to pour money into a government black hole.

Top 25 American outrages

2009-04-29T19:06:00.000-07:00

In honor of Obama's first hundred days in office, here's a list of mind-numbing facts about American government and life (and no, I don't think Obama is personally responsible for all of them.)

1) The U.S. tax code is 67,000 pages long, and so complicated that even Treasury Secretary Geithner can't figure it out.

2) 43% of Americans will pay zero or negative federal income taxes in 2009 according to the Brookings Institution.

3) 48% of Americans say the amount of federal income taxes they pay is "about right" according to a recent Gallup poll. (If I were part of the 43% that paid no taxes I guess I would say that it was about right, too. The other 5% that are happy to pay taxes are just stupid.)

4) After promising to eliminate wasteful earmarks, Obama signed a budget bill with 8,600 of them.

5) The top ten earmarking senators brought home $767 million in pork from the budget bill. Six of the top ten earmarkers were Republicans.

6) Obama has pledged to halve the deficit by 2013. That shouldn't be hard to do considering that he started by quadrupling the deficit of his predecessor.

7) High school teachers earned an average of $42,000 in 2008.

8) Joe Cassano, the man behind AIG's losses, earned an average of $35 million a year for 8 years.

9) The AIG bailout cost taxpayers $180 billion.

10) $11 billion of the AIG bailout money has gone to French bank Societe Generale, and $5.4 billion has gone to Germany's Deutsche Bank.

11) Merrill Lynch awarded bonuses of $1,000,000 or more to 696 people at the end of a quarter where it lost $15 billion.

12) Fifteen members of Congress are currently under investigation by ethics committees or law enforcement agencies. (8 Republican, 7 Democrats)

13) William Jefferson, who was caught with $90,000 in his freezer, is using the constitution's "speech or debate clause" to squash his bribery probe. Other corrupt politicians are following his lead.

14) Nancy Pelosi argued that money for birth control in Obama's stimulus bill would boost the economy by creating fewer people for the government to support.

15) Obama burned thousands of gallons of jet fuel to fly to Denver and sign the stimulus bill so he could stand in front of solar panels and preach to America about the virtues of green energy.

16) The government spent $120 million on Obama's inauguration, four years after people complained that Bush's $42 million inauguration was extravagant.

17) After promising to keep lobbyists out of the White House, Obama decided to let them in if they signed a waiver.

18) Former Raytheon lobbyist William Lynn is now Obama's Deputy Secretary of Defense.

19) The Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) continues to lobby Congress, even after the FBI declared it a front for HAMAS.

20) The California legislature is planning to ban black cars from the state to help reduce global warming.

21) Attorney General Eric Holder called America "a nation of cowards" because of its record on race relations.

22) The U.S. spent $68 billion on prisons and other correctional costs last year. The Department of Education spent $56 billion.

23) 1 in 31 U.S. adults are in jail, on parole or on probation, according to a recent Pew Center report. Twenty-five years ago, the rate was 1 in 77.

24) Georgia leads the nation with 1 in 13 adults in jail, on parole or on probation.

25) You still can't buy a six-pack of beer in Georgia on a Sunday.

Homeland Security calls the Deep South an extremist group in new report

2009-04-16T18:38:00.000-07:00

I just had to post this:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Just one month ago, the Missouri Information Analysis Center (MIAC) was criticized for a report that cited supporters of third-party presidential candidates like Texas Rep. Ron Paul, Chuck Baldwin and former Georgia Rep. Bob Barr as potential domestic terrorists. Now, the Department of Homeland Security is defending itself against criticism of a new report that names the South as a “Rightwing extremist group.”

According to the report, all of the states from Texas to the east and Virginia to the south (excluding Florida) fit the profile of an extremist organization.

Some of the hallmarks of extremism mentioned in the report are “antagonism toward an African American president and his perceived stance on a range of issues.” A pattern of southern racism can be clearly seen in the 2008 electoral map, which shows a band of southern states that voted against Barack Obama.

The report also contends that “Rightwing extremism includes groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion.” A recent Gallup poll showed that 52 % of people in the South hold anti-abortion views, compared to 44 % nationally.

The high concentration of military service members in the South is also cited as a major risk factor for extremism. As stated in the DHS report, “The willingness of military personnel to join extremist groups during the 1990s because they were disgruntled, disillusioned, or suffering from the psychological effects of war is being replicated today.”

Homeland Security spokeswoman Amy Kudwa said “We are especially troubled that the South has been growing in numbers,” citing census data that the region has added 1.4 million people in the last year alone. “It is definitely a sign that the south is recruiting.”

As a precaution, all southerners or people who appear to be southerners have been added to the TSA's No- Fly list. “Unfortunately this will cause some inconvenience and delays at airports in the southeast,” a TSA spokesperson at Hartsfield-Jackson airport said on Wednesday. Hartsfield-Jackson is the nation's busiest airport.

In a follow up press release, Janet Napolitano stated that Homeland Security is closely monitoring other red states throughout the U.S. “They have not reached the critical mass of the southeast, but they are still a concern.”

Here are links to some relevant documents:

http://michellemalkin.cachefly.net/michellemalkin.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/hsa-rightwing-extremism-09-04-07.pdf

http://www.dhs.gov/ynews/releases/pr_1239817562001.shtm

Next stop, the Twilight Zone

2009-04-06T15:43:00.000-07:00

Okay, so like most conservatives right now, I feel I'm living in an Orwellian nightmare. But in the last few weeks, the absurdity has reached a new level. You've probably heard that many of the same people wringing their hands about the AIG bonuses knew about them back in November. Here are a few issues that are just as mind-numbing, and haven't gotten as much press. I've added links to real news outlets so to prove that I didn't get this stuff from rightwingmilitias.com.

THE GLOBAL FINANCIAL CRISIS
Obama thinks that one big reason for the global economic meltdown is that too much influence was concentrated in the hands of a few US and UK executives, and their poor choices started a domino effect that hurt the world economy. To avoid that risk in the future, his solution is to concentrate all the influence on the world economy into the hands of a few bureaucrats on an international Financial Stability Board.

http://thebulletin.us/articles/2009/04/06/commentary/op-eds/doc49d9b9e9826c9440084179.txt

US LEGAL SOVEREIGNTY
Harold Koh, Obama's nominee for Legal Advisor to the State Department wants to subjugate the US to international legal norms on issues like the death penalty. The morality of decisions made by the Supreme Court would be reviewed by the International Criminal Court in the Netherlands. This makes perfect sense, considering that the Netherlands is also home to that paragon of virtue known as Amsterdam.

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/q=MDBhMDk5NzFkZGIwMDI0ZDM3ZDQzYzBjNTk1ODg0YmQ=

HEALTH CARE
Obama's new budget director Peter Orszag has stated that cutting health care costs is one of the best ways to solve our nation's long-term budget problems. I agree with him. The problem is, his boss Obama's plan to save money is to have the government insure 80 million new people, and use that economy of scale to bring costs down. Remember, this is the same government that paid $436 for a hammer. This is the same government that thinks a budget cut means no new increase in spending. This is the same government that underestimated the cost of the Medicare prescription drug program by 60 percent. They're the ones who can cut health care costs?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A9328-2005Feb8.html

DISARMAMENT
After North Korea used the pretext of launching a satellite to test a long range missile, Obama responded with a call for the US and other superpowers to scrap their nuclear weapons and bring the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty into force. Fewer nukes would make the world a safer place, right?It's similar to the argument that the best way to curb gun violence is to have everyone turn in their firearms. The problem is, the only people who would turn in their guns are the law-abiding citizens, who would then have no way to defend themselves against the criminals who kept their guns. It's sort of like asking the community of nations to disarm. That brilliant plan would only leave the rogue states to have WMD's all to themselves.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/05/AR2009040500021.html?hpid=topnews

Goodnight Bush

2009-01-20T09:10:00.001-08:00

In honor of George W. Bush's last day in office I wanted to post a link to one of the best books of 2008, Gan Golan and Erich Origen's Goodnight Bush.

http://www.goodnightbush.com/

Don't let the cute, illustrated style fool you. It's one of the darkest, funniest and most heart-rending books you'll ever read. It makes you realize just how much we've lost over the last eight years.

In 2004, the Democrats thought they had a bulletproof candidate in John Kerry. He was no softy liberal, no goofball politician playing Army in a tank. He was a real war hero who had led men through battle. But Karl Rove turned Kerry's greatest strength into his greatest weakness with help from the Swift Boat Veterans for truth. Kerry went from war hero to war coward overnight. Four years later, Republicans tried again to win by tearing down the opposing candidate. But Barack Obama's brilliance was in turning his biggest potential weakness into his greatest strength. Obama couldn't hide the fact that he had a funny name and looked different from all those old guys on the bills in your wallet. He couldn't help but represent anything but change, and when our society seemed to be sliding off a cliff, change sounded pretty good.

Today, Barack Obama is being sworn in as our 44rd president, and he certainly looks like the man for the job. As lean and grave as Lincoln, his long black coat curling in the cold breeze, he strides with purpose onto the stage of history. You couldn't ask for a better icon in these tough, frightening times. I sincerely hope he lives up to the promise.

Responses to 10 things to expect in the next four years

2008-11-05T07:52:00.000-08:00

Here are some off-line email responses to my top 10 list. I'm happy to play the moderate in this debate. I'll even give someone else the last word:

On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 12:29 PM, Colman Bryant wrote:

Congrats Will on making a blog and having a voice. This is an interesting list, but I want to respond to it.

1) The gap between rich and poor will shrink, thanks to a decrease in rich people's incomes.

Correct. That money isn't just disappearing into thin air, though. It would be going toward things like better education for your kids, healthcare for your family, investing in non-archaic energy sources that aren't dominated by foreign powers, cleaner environments, and overall lower cost of living for everyone. This means more money in the pockets of the middle and lower classes, which means more spending and stimulation of a capitalist economy (which doesn't exactly work when only the upper class can afford luxuries and entertainment). That, I should think, would be a welcome change after the past 8 years of falling dollar values, a weakening economy, huge tax breaks for the richest 1%, DOUBLING the national debt (of which we owe almost a quarter to China), driving the nation's record high surplus to what is now a record national deficit, draining social security, and still-falling availability of jobs. The only thing that has trickled down to the rest of us during Bush's terms, as far as I can tell, is yellow and smells like urine.

2) There will be 12 million new Democratic party voters, thanks to an amnesty bill for illegal immigrants.

Haven't really heard much about this. How would it work? Would it make it so anyone with a job can vote? Feel free to elaborate or post a reference.

3) The Fairness Doctrine will be used to squelch conservative talk-radio, in the interest of reducing polarization and bringing people together.

Conservative talk radio is currently the ONLY talk radio (especially in certain parts of the country, like the grand ol' confederate South). This is due primarily to the fact that 90% of radio stations are owned by radical right-wing agencies, such as Clear Channel. That means if you live in the boonies, all you can get is neo-nazi talk radio. The goal is to present equal representation of information to the people, or at least give us a choice of what to listen to. Think of it as breaking up a monopoly. If Sean Hannity and other such neo-nazi's suffer because of this, it would be due to lack of real substance of their material when presented alongside opposing arguments (as most of what they preach is purely based on speculation and the "some people say" rhetoric they regularly rely on to make arguments in lieu of actual verifiable information).

4) Tax dollars will be used to subsidize struggling liberal newspapers, in the interest of promoting diversity in the marketplace.

Presumably an equal number could go towards subsidizing struggling conservative newspapers, in the interest of promoting diversity in the marketplace. "Fairness in media" does not mean "support one side." Also, let's keep our tax dollar usage in perspective. Whatever tiny amount would actually go toward promoting these small businesses (representing both sides) would be dwarfed by the great many more tax dollars that go to Halliburton, Black Water, and other such military contractors that make their business off of destroying and rebuilding foreign nations (using your and my money). Much of these tax dollars would be returned to us when we actually end this garbage war Bush started and McCain wants to maintain with no end (currently around $350 million PER DAY of taxpayer money and what we have to borrow from other nations). If I had to guess, I'd say a day or two of this war would cover much more than the tiny amount that would actually go towards these subsidies you speculate would happen.

5) The liberal media will encourage Palin to run in 2012, because they know her candidacy will be doomed.

If her candidacy is doomed, it would be due to her own lack of qualifications, ability to answer questions, and defective brain. She's been pretty much shooting herself in the foot with every vacuous word she's spewed out so far, both among Republicans and everyone else. That's the fault of no one but herself and grandpa McCain for picking her.

6) Vague assassination threats on Obama will replace vague terror threats as a way to strike fear in the hearts of Americans.

Possibly, but at least it would be a change from the norm and hopefully much less frequent than the daily "terrorism" rhetoric big brother beats us and our civil rights down with.

7) Empathy will replace justice in the federal courts.

Not sure what the basis for this claim would be, but at least actual laws would replace biblical commandments on the walls.

8) The federal government will fund abortions through the third trimester for any reason.

"For any reason" is somewhat incorrect. It would take a "strict, well-defined exception for the health of the mother" to allow for a late abortion to even take place., and it would be up to the states to determine what these particular exceptions would be. More importantly, Obama would support education and availability of contraceptives to the people most likely to have abortions (particularly teens from lower income families), thus hopefully lowering the rate at which unwanted pregnancies occur in the first place. Compare this with the Bush administration, which has been so interested in perpetuating ignorance in hopes that their own particular view of morality will somehow spring up that it has mandated that the word "condom" even be removed from all the CDC public health websites on this issue and related to STDs (as just one example). Brilliant... let's keep people ignorant about how to prevent unwanted pregnancy, and then just hope that the problem of these pregnancies occuring in the first place somehow solves itself. Leave it in God's hands. It's been working so far, right?

9) Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson will remind people that Obama is half-white after he fails to be as radical as they hoped.

And they will continue to make little difference in the overall scheme of things...

10) High school dropout rates for African-Americans will go down, as Obama's success gives them hope of making it in America (every cloud has it's silver lining)

Good, if it actually works out that way.

-Colman

On Mon, 11/3/08, Ramon Garcia wrote:

Oh boy.

Colman as you know, I strongly disagree with just about every single one of your responses in an extremely passionate way. I just thought I'd reiterate. I don't have the time to reply to all of them but, of all of your "points", the worst is the one about abortion. Obama has voted at least 4 times AGAINST a ban on partial birth abortion. Barack Obama voted against a bill that would have protected infants born alive having survived an abortion attempt, Now that's one sick man!

You all watch this (interview on Hannity and Colmes) and tell me which position trumps a baby's right not to be tortured and murdered.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KKj109ZST3g

Obama himself has said that he doesn't know when life begins and that "kind" of question is "above his pay grade" - mind you this is a man that is running for, arguably" the most powerful position in the world. So he admits that he doesn't know when life begins but, says that it's a woman's "choice". So in his own words, it could be alive and yet left up to him, a woman can, in his eyes "lawfully" murder the baby. That is sickening and I can't see how anyone can stomach that hideous evil.

The "fairness" doctrine is anything but fair. It has been used by Obama's "truth" squad for harassment and intimidation - used recently against people like Joe the plumber who dared to ask a question that Barack felt was unfavorable! The nerve!!! It was used on a local TV station after an interview with Joe Biden! How dare that reporter try to make me answer a question that wasn't all that difficult because Obama himself essentially said himself - he is a socialist / Marxist. The result, Obama blacklisted the TV station. Fairness / truth - it's akin to bad meaning good. That's BRILLIANT Obama, what a witty guy! They also use it to force left wing talk show hosts on the air even though the FREE MARKET showed that it was unpopular with it's listeners. That's how it's done in a free society. Colman, a national left wing radio station it was tried already and the particularly hard left talk radio station failed! The number of listeners and the funding for it was dismal but, don't worry because here in GA we have a very left talk radio station in the AM channel. How about the TV channels? I never hear about the OVERWHELMING hard left wing news organizations in national and cable. ABC, NBC, CBS - way left with ABC taking the top prize. With the exception of Foxnews, it's the same with cable, MSNBC is outrageous followed up by CNN spewing forth their socialist agenda. By the way socialism = bad for America and any other country that loves freedom. What about PBS - left wingers and we as taxpayers are funding them!!! Now that's great! I have a big feeling that Obama's going to use some of all the new tax (or money that he is stealing from us rather) and help organizations that favor his views and quell opposition to him.

Oh yeah and the Hannity comment, accusing him of being as you call a neo Nazi!?! Give me a break man. That's out of line. Where's the support for such a claim? Site your reference. Also, he is not the only voice on his show, he has a left wing Democrat by the name of Allen Colmes and they both have about equal time.

Now worries though, I have been practicing the Soviet National anthem. :)

On Monday, November 3, 2008 12:28 PM, Will Burns wrote:

Thanks for responding, and I agree with many points you make. Do you mind if I post your response on the blog? The top 10 list is really a way to generate some controversy and discussion, and some of it is tongue-in-cheek. That said, I'll give you some of my perspective on what you mentioned. As far as tax policy goes, I think spending billions on a war that didn't help our national security, and billions more on the interest to pay off our adventures is insane. However, I don't support raising taxes on the rich or anyone else, especially in a weak economic climate. There is data showing that when tax rates have gone down, tax revenue has actually increased because the economy has grown. I'm going to be doing in-depth research on that, and if that's correct it would be a strong argument against raising taxes. I think the bigger problem in Washington is out-of-control spending. The war in Iraq is culprit number one. Although I was opposed to the war before it began, I don't support pulling out prematurely, no matter what it costs. The problem is that we've created a power vacuum in Iraq that will be a mess for decades if we don't stay there until the government can stand on its own. We can argue about who should decide when that time will be, but I'm more in line with McCain and Petraeus on that issue.

On the immigration issue, I don't know if you noticed, but McCain and Obama seem to have a pact not to mention it. The issue never came up in four and a half hours of debate, even though it's one of the most crucial problems of our time. In fact, both candidate's positions are similar, and neither has anything to gain by making their views known. If Obama wins, I think he will offer amnesty and a shortcut to citizenship to the large number of illegal immigrants, and they will reward the Democratic party with loyalty in the years ahead.

With regard to the Fairness Doctrine, talk-radio and newspapers, my position is simple. I am always in favor of protecting first amendment rights. In theory, newspapers and radio stations operate in the free market. In order to survive, they have to find an audience who will support their advertisers. Right now, AM radio is dominated by conservative hosts, but there should be nothing stopping someone with liberal views from starting a station, finding an audience and paying their bills with ad dollars. If there are monopolies in the market that prevent competition, then that is the problem that should be addressed. I don't think the answer is to try and institute heavy-handed control of the existing broadcasts. My point about using tax dollars to support only liberal newspapers was somewhat facetious.

As far as Palin, I think the public has already decided that she's not a serious candidate, and it would be poor strategy for the GOP to support her, no matter how good her reviews on SNL might be.

On the possibility of overblown assassination threats, I hope that it doesn't happen, because I hate having my emotions manipulated by the government.

On Obama and judges, here's a link from Obama's own website discussing what he would be looking for in the judicial temperament of his appointees. I think it strays from strict interpretation of the law and the constitution, but judge for yourself. http://www.barackobama.com/2007/07/17/obama_on_judges_supreme_court.php

Ah, the abortion issue. It's the biggest wedge out there, and I won't get into the core debate now. I was specifically referring to federal funding of abortions supported by everyone's tax dollars, not state laws. I actually support McCain's position on this issue, which is that legality of abortion should be left to the states and not mandated by the federal government at all. I completely agree with you on supporting preventative birth-control education and availability. There's not a lot more to add on the last two. Anyway, I do enjoy the discussion.

Will

On Mon, 11/3/08, Colman Bryant wrote:

Absolutely feel free to post my response on the blog, or I could if
you'd rather. Definitely should be good for getting some discussion
started there.

I believe the reason Obama wants to raise taxes
on the rich is in response to a couple things. One is that the rich
have simply had it far too easy over the past 8 years, while the rest
of the country has suffered. The richest of them have enjoyed
multi-million dollar bonuses and massive golden parachutes while the
rest of the economy and even their own corporations crumbled. These
people can surely afford to dig a little deeper to aid the country
they've made their fortunes in. Bush gave them massive tax breaks at a
time when the economy was soaring and we had a massive budget surplus
(coming out of the Clinton era). This essentially cut a large amount of
funding for the federal government - very much in line with old-school
Republican conservatism. The problem is that Bush also has, since
cutting off this nation's main source of income, been the biggest
spender of any president in this nation's history - a sign to me that
the Republican party no longer understands what it means to "conserve,"
as it hasn't managed to conserve anything, from money to the
environment, over the past 8 years. Note also that McCain has supported
Bush 95% of the time on his policies. This, to me, doesn't exactly
indicate he's the voice of change he claims to be. Now, Bush has left
the country in massive debt, run up a deficit that will now be very
difficult to turn around (mostly paying costs of war and other such
"national security" measures which, I would argue, don't really make
anything more secure and in fact nullify many of our "inalienable
rights" as citizens of this country). I think these guys can afford to
have a few Bush tax cuts rolled back. In addition, even if the most
overbloated corporations do suffer a little, it's not entirely a bad
thing, as it makes way for new entrepreneurial ventures to form. It's
like cracking the pavement and watching seedlings grow through the
cracks.

As for our policy in Iraq, Obama has made it clear, to
me at least, that he plans on ending the major American presence in the
war as early as reasonably possible, and he gives at least a rough
deadline of what that seems to be. He also acknowledges that by having
no time frame whatsoever, which is McCain's policy, passed down from
King George, we give less incentive for the government we have helped
set up there to take responsibility for its own nation, which it surely
must be capable of affording, if they indeed have a 70 billion dollar
national surplus. In addition, Obama would responsibly seek more
international support, rather than alienating our allies and insulting
the UN, as the Republicans have shown themselves more than ready to do
in recent administrations. I think his plan seems quite responsible,
while still helping relieve us of this massive financial and moral
burden. On the other hand, the promise of staying until the job is done
no matter how long it takes and with no estimate whatsoever or even a
clear definition of what "job is done" means disgusts me, reminds me of
1984, and makes me shudder at how well Cheney and his company must be
doing at your and my expense. The idea that Obama would be pulling out
"prematurely" I think is merely a fictionalization and over
exaggeration perpetuated by the same people that have huge vested
business interests in maintaining the war (the current administration
and friends - including McCain). I sincerely doubt McCain's policy in
Iraq would be very different from Bush's, which has been criticized by
nearly every General that hasn't retired yet. If you think his military
experience might help him, remember, most of his experience is limited
to crashing and burning or being caught... not exactly a pro. He was
even 5th from bottom of his class in military school - not exactly the
signs of an expert. I absolutely cannot support or trust a leader from
essentially the same group of war hawks, criminals, and liars as Bush,
that has supported him on almost every term and issue, from the initial
and faulty declaration of war to maintaining it to this and a yet
further undefined length of time. Not to mention all the other horrid
and inhumane acts our current "leaders" have attempted to justify in
the name of "national defense."

I can definitely agree
immigration is an issue, and I plan on looking further into it. I'll be
looking into Obama's policy on this amnesty and what the qualifications
would be. I personally believe if a person is paying the same taxes an
American citizen pays, they should receive most of the benefits we do
from those tax dollars. How much input toward the direction of the
country policitally they should have is still up for debate, though,
and should be carefully addressed.

I agree in regards to protecting first amendment rights in media, and yes,
in theory, newspapers and radio stations do operate in the free market.
However, as we've seen, sometimes a free market can tend toward monopoly
under certain circumstances and over enough time. As an example, consider
Microsoft at the time of their monopoly lawsuit (and perhaps again, it
is beginning to seem). I think most of this country's radio has fallen
into a similar scenario. Most of the consumer-accessible radio
wavelengths in this country are owned by a handful of radio station
mega corps, the vast majority of which support right-wing doctrine.
This makes it very difficult for independent stations to spring up,
since there are a limited number of wavelengths available, and most are
already owned by these mega corps. This exclusive ownership may or may
not have anything to do with the programming they play, but the fact of
the matter is only one side is available to most people to hear. In a
democracy, it is dangerous to keep people ignorant of all but one
voice. If the fairness doctrine encourages multiple perspectives to be
heard, I think this is a good thing overall, as it lets people make
more educated decisions based on knowledge of multiple view points.
Maybe not the best for the personal interests of a handful of mega
radio corps, but good for the nation overall, and probably still good
for the radio business, as more varied consumers should be attracted.

Yeah, Palin does suck... ;-)

As for the abortions, I definitely think it's a serious concern and the
morality of third trimester abortions is up for debate, but it worries
me that the issue is as overblown as it currently is. There are around
100 third trimester abortions performed in the United States in any
given year. That's it. One hundred. That doesn't mean it's not an
important moral issue we should address, but I think, in comparison to
the thousands of US troops killed in Iraq over the past few years or
the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians we've killed over the same
amount of time, the tortures we've inflicted, or the diseases we might
have cured by now had people expressed the same amount of interest in
doing so, those 100 or so fetuses (and the relatively minor cost
involved in removing them) seem rather lower on the list of major
priorities and game breaking issues to me, unless of course a fetus'
life is valued that much more than an already-born person's, which I
suppose some could argue is the case. I also don't exactly think Obama
or his policies will be encouraging more pregnant girls to have late
term abortions, if that is also a concern.

Anyways, that's all I have for now. Very interesting discussion.

-Colman

On Tuesday, November 4, 2008 7:23 AM, Will Burns wrote:

The radio monopoly is a serious issue that I want to research in-depth. I do think there are a spectrum of voices if you look at all the different media outlets. Even radio has NPR, giving some balance on the FM side.

The number of one hundred for third trimester abortions sounds low to me. Maybe that's the number for late term or partial birth abortions. I'm in favor of anything that lowers the number of abortions in the world.

That's an interesting point you make about creating room for entrepreneurial ventures. I'm all for that if the policy goals are explicitly stated, but not if they're a hidden agenda behind a change in tax rates. As far as corporate greed and corruption, I think the answer is simplification of the tax code to remove obscure loopholes that benefit the few, campaign finance reform to stop pay to play politics and more accountability to shareholders through laws to make corporate boards more independent and power for shareholders to rein in excessive CEO pay. These are separate issues from what the tax rates should be. If we don't reform the system, the savvy corporations and individuals will find a way to shirk their fair share no matter how high the rates are. Unfortunately both candidates have little to say about corporate reform and even less to say about tax simplification. At least McCain sponsored the McCain Feingold campaign finance reform bill, which was a step in the right direction.

Will

On Tue, 11/4/08, Colman Bryant wrote:

I did a little more research on the number of late abortions and found
the following, according to the CDC. In 2002, there were a total of
854,122 known abortions reported (out of 47 states, excluding Alaska,
California, and New Hampshire). In the same year, 1.4% of these
abortions were after 20 weeks. That would make approximately 12,000
abortions after 20 weeks. I wasn't able to find trustworthy data
specifically on abortions after the third trimester (27th week), but I
assume that extra 7 weeks probably reduces this percentage a great deal
more, based on the steadily decreasing rate of abortions as they get
later in the pregnancy
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:USAbortionbyGestationalAgeChart2002.png).
It's difficult to say for sure if there may be more than 100 per year,
but it would still be a relatively small number. Not to mention, the
number of overall abortions has been steadily declining since around
1990 - likely due to better sex education and availability of birth
preventatives (which neither McCain nor any Republican has mentioned
anything to my knowledge of supporting). I'm not trying to justify
abortions of fetuses that are considered "viable" (I personally think
if it gets that late, they should only be performed if there is serious
risk to the mother or the baby would be born with major life-altering
problems), but my point is that it's truly a small issue to be the
major deciding factor for so many people, especially when the party
that claims morality in that area has been so blatantly full of lies,
tyranny, corruption , and immorality in so many other areas. It just
seems like a political ploy to me. Rally the people behind supposed
(yet still debatable) morality regarding an issue that's blown way out
of proportion in order to push through all the corrupt, country-robbing
agendas we've suffered from over the past 8 years, and potentially 4
more, depending on the outcome of today. So many people say abortion is
the main issue for them when they supported Bush or support McCain, but
that really just seems out of touch with the real issues to me.

On the tax code, yes, I definitely agree that obscure loopholes and overly
greedy and powerful CEOs are by far the main problem. If these bloated
corporations would invest those 50 million dollar CEO holiday bonuses
back into the company (primarily the rest of the stock holders and
workers), we'd be in much better shape now as a nation. Instead, Bush
changed to tax code to allow for this widening of the income gap. He
rolled back the taxes that helped keep it in check, introduced new
loopholes that his buddies have profited from (especially including his
Vice President and friends in Haliburton, which has moved its base out
of this county in order to further evade taxes while still making
immense profits off of tax payer money spent on huge uncontested
military contracts, and oil/energy companies), and hasn't done a damn
thing to fix or even address any of it, as if it wasn't a pretty
serious problem. His tax policies have sucked the lower and middle
class base of this country dry while his friends enjoy those lofty
golden parachutes. Obama has been very clear on his stance on taxes. He
will raise them for the upper 5% (by simply removing the cuts Bush gave
them). He will close tax loopholes, many of which were introduced by
Bush, that allow big corporations to effectively steal money off the
books and from their common investors (you and me). He will curb big
CEO payoffs and the loopholes that allow insiders to have early trading
advantages over the rest of us. In general, he will be harsher on the
wealthiest percent that have been shedding responsibility and getting
rich out the ass during Bush's term through the tax breaks and
loopholes Bush introduced. On top of it, that extra revenue the country
will be generating from these closed loopholes will be /invested/ into
things like new energy sources (a HUGE and worthwhile investment that
will save us a great deal of money and soured foreign relations in the
future), better education for your kids starting at earlier ages
(again, good for this country if we want to maintain world leadership),
incentives and grants that allow more people to go to college to get
educated so they can get out of stinking fast food kitchens (which
would help a great deal of my friends get on their feet and be able to
afford college), a space program appropriate for a world leader, a cleaner
environment, and tons of other good things that have been all but abandoned
over the past 8 years. I think it's fair, just, good for the nation as a whole,
and these CEO's can certainly afford it without anything other than
superficial suffering. I don't see how reducing and discouraging those
big bonuses is going to hurt small startup businesses - again it seems
like a scam perpetuated by the people who stand the most to lose - the
ultra rich who are currently in power. McCain has supported Bush on
almost all of his bills. I'm quite sure that isn't going to just
magically change if he were to become president. He comes from the same
base, has shared most of the same arguments, and even has the same
campaign adviser. It will just be more of the same trend, or at the
very best, nothing new at all. Obama's policy just seems smart to me.
Invest in things that will be profitable and good for us down the road.
Find money to pay for these investments by rolling back the federal
income cuts Bush put in place. McCain just doesn't seem to be thinking
about the future, possibly because he'll be dead before it gets here.
He's out of touch, out of ideas, and out of his friggin' mind.

Colman

10 Things to expect in the next four years (if Obama and the Democrats take power)

2008-11-01T10:23:00.000-07:00

1) The gap between rich and poor will shrink, thanks to a decrease in rich people's incomes.

2) There will be 12 million new Democratic party voters, thanks to an amnesty bill for illegal immigrants.

3) The Fairness Doctrine will be used to squelch conservative talk-radio, in the interest of reducing polarization and bringing people together.

4) Tax dollars will be used to subsidize struggling liberal newspapers, in the interest of promoting diversity in the marketplace.

5) The liberal media will encourage Palin to run in 2012, because they know her candidacy will be doomed.

6) Vague assassination threats on Obama will replace vague terror threats as a way to strike fear in the hearts of Americans.

7) Empathy will replace justice in the federal courts.

8) The federal government will fund abortions through the third trimester for any reason.

9) Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson will remind people that Obama is half-white after he fails to be as radical as they hoped.

10) High school dropout rates for African-Americans will go down, as Obama's success gives them hope of making it in America. (Every cloud has it's silver lining)

The Manifesto

2008-10-29T20:30:00.000-07:00

My urge to start this blog began this summer as I watched Obama's rise in the polls with increasing disbelief. I started wondering what was in the Kool-Aid, and how so many Americans could support a candidate so far left of the mainstream. Before you write me off as a Limbaugh dittohead, you should know that I'm a moderate who has voted Democratic in two of the last three elections. I also have no problem with an African-American president. I supported a black female third-party candidate in '92, when Barack was a nobody. Now sixteen years later, as the most liberal Senator in America steamrolls his way to the White House, I feel compelled to vent my angst to the world.

I'm not going to bother with moral issues, because most people's views on those hot topics are impervious to facts. I'm sticking to the economic sphere, because you can't argue with numbers. Obama and McCain both say they want to increase jobs, enrich the middle class and balance the budget. I think McCain's plan for getting there is realistic, while Obama's is naive and misguided. Obama rails against trickle down economics, where the success of the rich trickles down to make everyone's life better. He thinks that approach only increases the gap between rich and poor.Obama plans to cut taxes for the middle-class and give rebates to the poor because it's the right thing to do, and thus cannot help but make the economy better. His argument is based on morality- If we do what's fair, we will be rewarded. Unfortunately the economy doesn't answer to our scruples. It answers to the ruthless demands of global competition.

I think that in trying to slice the pie more evenly, we will make the whole pie smaller. Punitive policies against the successful only depress competition and stifle ambition. Michael Savage coined the term "trickle up poverty," and I think that's what we're in for if Obama and a Democratic Congress get their way. We'll see what the facts bear out over the next four years. I hope they prove me wrong.