How a swim meet provides an insight into capitalism (or capitalism as I think about it)

For the third time in recent weeks (and for the "umpteenth" time in the last 5 years), we are at a swim meet with our three kids. This weekend is an "away meet" which requires travel, lodging, eating meals at restaurants, etc. We are not alone; thirty six teams in total are participating. As a former athlete, I can tell you that swimming is a grueling sport. Practices are almost year round, with summer practices usually starting at sunrise. Practice is usually 2 hours per day, 5 time a week. Swimming, like many other sports is full of sacrifices. Parents sacrifice time and money. Time is required taking swimmers to and from practice and volunteering at swim meets. The kids sacrifice as well. They sacrifice time with friends who don't swim, they spend most of their non swimming time doing homework and vacations are limited due to conflicts with swim meets. Parents sacrifice financially. Financial costs include fees to join the club, fees to swim in meets, money for equipment, money for swim suits, travel, hotels, food away from home, etc. Why do we as parents do it? First, the kids love to swim. Second, we want them to do some sport for their physical fitness. We also like the fact that they are surrounded by other kids who are "goal oriented." The kids love practice ( go figure), they love meets, and they love the friends they have made.


Now, how does this have anything to do with capitalism? Swimming is all about results. For our kids, we measure our kids results by whether they are improving their times from meet to meet. At some point in time, certain time standards are important. Qualifying for State, Zone, or National meets require achievement of certain time standards. Knowing this, swimmers push themselves in practice to develop the techniques and endurance they need to try and achieve the needed time standards. Now, as with any endeavor, not all swimmers are created equal. Some are predisposed to success due to body type. Some get superior instruction. Some have parents who were swimmers who can help their children’s development. There are swimmers that are unlikely to ever develop into successful participants but they work very hard nonetheless. Our kids have enjoyed limited success as swimmers, and they earned it. Nobody gets preferential treatment on the basis of race, religion, income, education, party affiliation, etc. You either have the. skill and related performance or you will not enjoy the rewards (post season meets, college scholarships, etc). Imagine if these rules applied to corporate employees and CEO's! Swimming, like many sports is the ultimate in "pay" for performance. The performance swimmers seek is black and white. Success is defined by times. If only CEO performance was so clear and clean. Many corporate employee and CEO compensation packages are focused on metrics that if achieved, may or may not reward customers or, more importantly the shareholders of the business.

For those swimmers who enjoy little to limited success in swimming, all is not lost. I believe that all swimmers have learned life lessons. They know that if you want something, you need to work hard for it. There are no hand-outs, no bailouts, no "performance redistribution." It is interesting, given the current socioeconomic environment that swimmers respect and want to emulate those who enjoy the most success. These swimmers serve as an incentive to others to work harder to improve you performance. Contrast this with the current demonizing of the successful by the media and the career politicians. Some deserve this treatment, but I would argue that the vast majority are like swimmers. They have worked for a very long time to be good at what they do for a living. They deliver economic value to their employer, their clients, their customers. The compensation they earn is a direct reflection of the value they add for their constituents. Now if only those who demonize these folks could take a lesson from the swimmers and use those feelings as motivation to improve their lot in life. Maybe it's easier to bitch and moan than to expend the effort to make yourself more valuable to your employer, clients and customers.

Sadly, the folks in Washington are making it a lot easier to take the easy way out. What this means is that these folks will be locked into a life watching others succeed. I have always wondered if the career politicians really want the "less fortunate" to find their way and care for themselves. I generally think that they do not. I remember a quote that says "Those who rob Peter to Pay Paul can always count on the support of Paul." Job #1 for career politicians is to get elected. Job #2 is to get re-elected. As such, the "Pauls" of this country will always be dependent on handouts from the government. If only they had been a swimmer they would know a better way out.

How stupid do they think we are?

In the House "Affordable Health Care for America Act," and the Senate "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act" bills, are provisions to establish the "Community Living Assistance Services and Supports (CLASS) Program. These programs are ostensibly created to create a new federal program for long-term care insurance. However, for those who are observing the gaming of the CBO process by both houses of Congress, this is a transparent attempt at making "reform" look "affordable." As the CBO points out, "Because participation in the program is voluntary, collections of insurance premiums uncer CLASS would be recorded as offsetting receipts (a credit against direct spending)."  Over the 2010-2019 period, CLASS would reduce deficits between $72 billion and $102 billion. This is a replay of the Social Security/Medicare ponzi scheme, where a "Trust Fund" is created with the taxes paid into the CLASS trust fund. The replay is also seen when rather than that cash remaining in the "Trust Fund," earning interest, the Congress takes that cash to fund spending, leaving the "Trust Fund" with an IOU from the Treasury. This is an IOU that will be in addition to the unfunded mandates for Social Security and Medicare that total $107 trillion dollars!

Now, normal people would see this as the ponzi scheme that it is, but CLASS enrollees would have to pay premiums for only five years to be vested in the program. This suggests that the program will experience adverse selection with people close (can achieve vesting) to retirement being more likely to sign up for this. If your young, you may see this as the scam that it is and decide not to throw good money after bad. If you're hard working and successful and prudent in your spending and saving, you have to know that you will not get "one dime" from Social Security. By they time you retire, Congress will "means test" you out of your promised benefits. This will likely be the case in CLASS as well. According the to CBO, "Both the House and Senate legislation would provide considerable authority to the Secretary (of HHS) to adjust premiums for both current and future enrollees and to reduce benefits to the daily minimum of $50 in order to maintain the solvency of the program. By the time you retire, because the money has long been spent, you will likely pay higher premiums for lower benefits. Bernie Madoff would be proud to be associated with these programs.

In the 2010-2019 period, the House version will collect (per CBO) $123.1b in premiums and pay out $21.5b in benefit payments and costs. The Senate version will collect $87.6b in premiums and pay out $15.1b in benefit payments and costs. This is easy budgetary pickings for the snake oil salesmen in Congress. It's like selling a life insurance policy; You get the premium today and let someone else worry about paying the claim in the (hopefully) distant future.

The CBO can't be faulted in this because they can only score the bills as they are written. The real blame needs to be placed squarely on the shoulders of the crooks in Congress who have learned to "reverse engineer" the CBO process. We've seen this before with the "doc fix," where they took it out of the "Reform" bills and passed it on a stand alone basis to extend the appearance that "Reform" is "Affordable," when it's neither!

In future elections, we need to remember who these "CLASSy" players are and send them into a new civil program - Cheats lose all serving socialism (CLASS).

School stories

Story #1

Helping my 10 year old study for a science test:

Dad: "A relationship in which one organism lives in or on another organism and benefits from that relationship while the other organism may be harmed by it. The answer is not "What is a Liberal.""


Molly: "What is a parasite."

Dad: "Correct."

Story #2

My daughter had to do a "current event" on "Economic Justice." I made some suggestions (not all of them were conservative in nature). She chose to use the "Plan to tax the Rich" to pay for healthcare reform. Her outline included observations such as "I think it is unfair to tax people ..... because those people wither work very hard or are good at what they do."

She receeived an "A" on the presentation, but her teacher approaced her and said something to the effect of "You did a good job, but you have to know that the people you are talking about (the "rich") have inherited money and they really don't work that hard for their money."

Even in a Catholic school, one can not protect your children from the liberal leaning teachers. Needless to say, my daughter knows better than to fall for that.

My Letter to the Editor of the Columbus Dispatch on My "Representative."

I recently received an email encouraging me to “Thank my Representative for supporting healthcare reform.” My “Representative” is Mary Jo Kilroy, and she did vote in favor of the House “Reform” bill, but I won’t be thanking her. I think it is safe to say that the most important issues for Ohioans is getting or keeping a job. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, Ohio has an unemployment rate of 10.1%, up from 6.8% at this time last year. This puts Ohio in the bottom half of states in terms of the change in the unemployment rate, and tied for 13th in terms of the unemployment rate. So, what is my “Representative” doing to represent Ohio and my district? She voted for the House “Reform” bill which creates 111 new government bureaucracies. This bill is so bad that 39 democrats voted against the bill. The government will tell your insurance company what they need to cover and how much they can charge for the coverage. The cost of the House bill is over $1 trillion. Since the taxes and fees that we will pay for this kick in before the “benefits” are available, the cost is less than it would be if both the sources of revenue and costs were on an apples to apples basis in terms of timing. If that were done, the cost would exceed $2 trillion. Individuals would be penalized for not buying insurance, and employers would be penalized (8% of payroll) for not offering coverage. Over the 2010-2019 periods, individuals and employers would pay an estimated $168 billion as a result of these mandates. These are just two of the thirteen new tax increases that are part of the House version of “Reform.” This will no doubt discourage employers from hiring new employees, unless they absolutely need new workers. If you’re thinking about the comment “If you like your insurance, you can keep it,” forget about it. What is most enlightening is that by 2019 the Congressional Budget Office estimates that the number of uninsured will decrease by 36 million. 30 million of these will have insurance because they will be forced to buy insurance or because the government used our tax dollars to subsidize their premiums (why not, she voted to use our tax dollars to pay for abortions). Fifteen million of those with new insurance will be in the Medicaid program (which along with Medicare and Social Security) is dramatically underfunded. Only 6 million will be covered by the controversial “public option.” This job killing plan does not seem like reform as much as it seems like redistribution of wealth. It will redistribute wealth, to other states. With the 5.4% “surcharge” on individuals earning over $500,000, Ohio will have a top marginal tax rate of 54.3%. When the government gets over 50% of your income, look for many to relocate to lower tax states. It’s already happening in New York.




Mary Jo, was also kind enough to vote for the “Cap & Trade” legislation that will have a dramatic impact on Ohio and Ohio jobs. Mary Jo will tout all of the green jobs that Ohio will gain from this legislation, but that is a pipe dream. The John Birch Society estimates that this new tax will cost Ohio another 86,000 jobs. This is on top of the average family paying an additional $1,500 per year in energy costs. Again, this legislation was not without significant skepticism. The legislation passed the house by a vote of 219-212, with 44 democrats voting against it. In 2007, 84.2% of Ohio’s electric supply was generated from coal fired plants. Mary Jo wants us to believe that the jobs lost will be made up by “green“ jobs (wind & solar). Recent statistics suggest that only 0.8% of American energy supply is from wind and solar. Good luck replacing the lost jobs with green jobs. Spain made a concerted effort to cut CO2 emissions with a big push into green jobs. Their experience indicated that 2.2 jobs were lost for each green job created, with only 10% of the green jobs being permanent jobs. Nine years after the Spanish experiment with green jobs, CO2 emissions are up 50%!



Mary Jo was also kind enough to vote for “Cash for Clunkers,” which, in the initial phase cost taxpayers $3 billion. It is estimated that only 18% of the car sales were due entirely to the program. The other 82% would have bought new cars anyway. I’ll spare you the details on the tax credit that folks are getting to buy golf carts.



Mary Jo was also kind enough to vote for the “First time homebuyer credit.” The Treasury Department recently told Congress that at least 19,000 who filed for the credit had not bought a house. Another 74,000 were not first time home buyers. The government is pursuing more than 100 criminal investigations related to the credit. Given this stellar execution from those who want the government to run the healthcare system, Mary Jo voted to extend it.



These programs may keep you on your job for a while, but it’s not going to preserve this over the long term, nor is it going to create jobs. Until we stop with these band aid policies, Ohio will continue to deteriorate.



One must remember that this is what big government does. It’s like a runaway aircraft carrier. It’s not going to change course, it’s going to plow through anything that gets in its way. Think about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and the enormous risks these two institutions took during the housing bubble. They continue to take risk with our tax dollars ($111 billion so far in capital infusions).



Mary Jo Kilroy is entrenched in the school of big government. She wants you to be dependent on Big Brother for most, if not all of your needs. If that is what you want, it’s your right to thank her. For me, I am not in the mood for gratitude.

Excellent Opinion Piece from Kim Strassel at the Wall Street Journal

Despite Nancy Pelosi's claim that "We won last night," the elections in New Jersey and Virgina are full of significance for the future of the White House and the Congress. The following Wall Street Journal opinion piece is full of information that reinforces the practical implications of these elections, with information at the local and state-wide level.

=======================================================================

Hello, Tipping Point



The Obama presidency was always a race against time.

By KIMBERLEY A. STRASSEL


'We don't look at either of these gubernatorial races . . . as something that portends a lot for our legislative efforts," insisted White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs on Tuesday, as New Jersey and Virginia voters gave Democrats a thumping. Unfortunately for the White House, its opinion no longer counts.



On Jan. 20, Barack Obama began a race against time. The White House knew its liberal agenda would prove unpopular in many parts of the country represented by Democrats. So long as the president looked strong, those Blue Dogs and freshmen and swing-state senators would stick. Show them any sign of weakness, however, and rattled Dems would begin to care more about their own re-elections than they did their president. Tuesday, the White House hit that tipping point.

To understand why, join some of those "nervous Democrats" who at this very moment are digging into, say, Virginia's returns. Last year, Dems captured three GOP House seats in the Old Dominion as the state voted for its first Democratic president since 1964. This week, those very same districts provided Democrats their first proof that the Obama agenda is a liability.

There's freshman Rep. Tom Perriello, who, buoyed by the big Obama turnout, won Virginia's fifth congressional district by a scant 727 votes. Today, Mr. Perriello's farming and manufacturing area sports the state's highest unemployment rate. The Democrat suffered a furious backlash over his vote for a cap-and-trade bill that will further crush local manufacturing and was then walloped at a series of health-care town halls.

Voters took their frustration to the polls on Tuesday. Republican Bob McDonnell, who campaigned for governor on jobs and against ObamaCare and climate legislation, took 61.4% of the district's vote. At the local level, Democrats challenged two incumbent GOP Virginia delegates; the Republicans each won by more than 30 points. The GOP last month succeeded in recruiting veteran state Sen. Robert Hurt, a district native, to challenge Mr. Perriello. He's already campaigning on jobs.

Or take Rep. Glenn Nye, who last year won Virginia's Hampton Roads district. Criticized as an outsider with few ties to the local military culture, Mr. Nye nonetheless benefited from Mr. Obama's fierce campaign for the district (which the president won with 50.5%). Yet residents are today anxious about the Democratic commitment to defense spending, and bitter about a Washington proposal to move the Navy's newest aircraft carrier from Virginia to Florida. Mr. Nye was wary enough to buck his party's leadership and vote against cap and trade, though he then got caught lauding the bill's passage.

Mr. McDonnell carried Mr. Nye's district by a 24-point margin. Locally, Republicans ousted two incumbent Democratic delegates. Mr. Nye already faces two GOP challengers—both veterans—who, combined, have $400,000 in the bank.

Gerry Connolly? The freshman Democrat last year won the 11th congressional district, a Northern Virginia suburb of Washington that has trended blue. Mr. Obama cleaned up 57% of voters, and the district was hailed as an example of a new tide toward Democrats. Mr. Connolly, feeling safe, has supported every aspect of the Democratic agenda, from stimulus to health care.

Tuesday, those suburban voters came swinging back. Mr. McDonnell won 55% of the vote, improving John McCain's number by 13 points. Two more Democratic incumbents on the local ballot went down to GOP contenders. Local businessman Keith Fimian has already announced a rematch against Mr. Connolly; he outraised him by $100,000 in his first fund-raising quarter.

Forget the freshmen—how about Virginia's ninth district, home to 27-year-incumbent Rick Boucher? That's coal country, though Mr. Boucher, confident in incumbency, has been playing a dangerous game of shepherding through his party's climate bill. Will Morefield, a little-known Republican running for the Virginia House of Delegates, centered his campaign against that legislation. He beat the Democratic incumbent by 14 points. Mr. McDonnell? He won a devastating 66% of the district vote.

These are the numbers the 49 Democrats who sit in McCain districts are dissecting. The mass defection in the independent vote, the uptick in the angry-senior vote, the swing in suburban voters, the drop-off in Democratic turnout—the figures have even hot incumbent blood running cold. The White House can shout that this is not a referendum on the president's policies. What vulnerable Democrat wants to take that chance?

The White House and the congressional leadership saw this coming, and it is why Speaker Nancy Pelosi is force-marching her health bill to a vote tomorrow. She's not about to give her members time to absorb the ugly results, or to be further rattled by next week's Veteran's Day break, when they go home for a repeat of the August furies. If not now, she knows, maybe never.

Look for it, nonetheless, to be a squeaker. A lot of Democrats are getting a sneaky suspicion Mrs. Pelosi is willing to sacrifice their seats on the altar of liberal government health care. Combined with the election results and Mr. Obama's falling poll numbers, this is no recipe for loyalty. Hello, tipping point. Hello, even crazier Washington.

Write to kim@wsj.com .

Is this what the founding fathers had in mind?

Watching the Health Care debate from afar, I feel incredibly naive. The back room deals being struck by the Liberal left with Democrats and Republicans, in addition to Senators who are on the fence regarding the Senate vote on the ultimate reform bill makes me ask the question “Are they voting the way that they are because a) It’s in the best interest of the United States, b) It’s in the best interest of their constituents, c) I’m getting something (no doubt paid for by taxpayers) for my district that will help me get reelected, or d) I am running for reelection, and I need to move to the center to keep my job??? I am inclined to think it is 70% option “d.” and 30% option “c.” At the end of the day, I guess the ends justify the means – whatever it takes to defeat this massive expansion of government and explosion of the deficits is fine by me. Despite being pretty cynical about politicians to begin with, this “Ah Ha” moment has been disturbing. The thought of these folks using our tax dollars to reward elected officials to support legislation that the majority of Americans oppose is insulting to say the least. I’m with Bart Stupak on taxpayer funded abortions, but the fact is that he is still voting for something that will be very destructive to our freedoms and the future that our children and grandchildren will inherit. My hope and change has relied on the expectations that Congressional membership would eventually distance themselves from Obama’s far left agenda. I think that is starting to happen, perhaps for different reasons than I expected (more self-preservation than opposing philosophies of representative government). Now I am focused on a much more important change – the change that will come again when voters move from the left to the right (more conservative ≠ Republican). My hope is that voters will be more discriminating in their choices. I think we can recover from 4 years of the current leadership (White House and Congress), but I am afraid that 8 years would be a knock out punch for the America I know and love.

Nancy Pelosi's "Victory"

Liberals got a little over 50% of votes for the House Bill. In the Senate, it will take 60% to advance a bill. 17 of the 39 "Blue Dogs" voted for the bill. 39 democrats voted NO and 1 "Republican" voted yes (in exchange for $$$ no doubt) it's not known if the other 22 voted against it on principal, or were given a "pass" when the bill had enough votes to pass. Some others voted for it with the expectations that the Senate would fix it's defects. The House appeased anti-abortion members, by mandating that anyone who is getting support for their premiums can't buy a plan with abortion coverage (public option won't cover). The cost of the House Bill is a little bit more than $1 Trillion, and that is before accounting for the perennial "doc fix," whatever deals were struck to get yes votes, and the mismatch of when "payfors" kick in and when the cost of the bill starts up. Issues that will need to be resolved in melding the House and Senate bills include payfors, individual and employer mandates, public option structure. The blended Senate bill is still waiting on a CBO score which will also include an analysis of the impact that the "Reform" will have on insurance premiums. Lieberman (Democrat) has said he will vote against a bill that has a public option. Not sure how Snowe would vote for a pure public option, but she will vote against the opt out and prefers the "trigger" option. Other Senators opposed to public option include:




• Mary Landrieu (D-LA) 202-224-5824

• Ben Nelson (D-NE) 202-224-6551

• Evan Bayh (D-IN) 202-224-5623

• Blanche Lincoln (D-AR) 202-224-4843



Assuming Lieberman is on board and that Snowe will only support a public option with a trigger, it's going to take a Republican "defecting" to have the bill pass (and that will assume that the Ladrrieu, Nelson, Bayh and Lincoln vote for the bill.

One must wonder is some of these nervous Democrats are willing to risk their job for a bill that received tepid support in the most liberal part of Congress. We'll see.

Who voted for Obama?

I had a great opportunity yesterday to spend time with a candidate for the U.S. Senate representaing Ohio. I have known Rob Portman for nearly 15 years, and he is a class act. Rob spent a lot of time talking about what he is hearing from Ohioans as he travels around the state. The recurring themes seem concentrated on job security, the economy, and how government regulation and it's impact on job security and the economy. We also discussed the Virginia and New Jersey elections and what impact those elections may or may not have for decisions that will be made by Congress in the near future (Health Care Reform and Cap & Trade). As I have thought for some time, Democrats who carry the water for Obama in Congress need to feel that being associated with him is a poilitcal asset. When they no longer see Obama as an asset, they are more likely to question their votes on legislation, effectively asking themselves "Is voting for this going to help or hurt my chances of getting reelected." I decide to look into who voted for Obama, and how are they feeling right now about their support for him. This is an oversimplification, but this is a rough profile:

• First time voters more likely to vote for Obama (are they now disillusioned by Obamas performance?)
• Younger (18-29) voters were significantly more likely to vote for Obama vs. other age groups (ditto)
• Black and Hispanic/Latino voters were significantly more likely to vote for Obama vs. Whites (are they better off than they were 11 months ago?)
• Females were more likely to vote for Obama, but both were more likely to vote for Obama than McCain (is the Honeymoon over?)

Exit polls indicate that the most important election issue (60% responded this way) was the Economy. It is very interesting that the Economy, Jobs and Taxes were central issues for the loss in New Jersey by a pro Obama candidate. Is New Jersey a laboratory for future elections? It's not out of the question that it is relevent to future elections. Returning to my discussion with Rob, I asked about a recent Rasmussen poll that indicated that Americans give Republicans higher marks than Democrats in 10 key electoral issues - Economic, National Security, Trust, Ethics, Healthcare, Taxes, Immigration, Social Security, Education and Abortion. Unfortunately, the Republicans have become the "Party of No" because of Obama's agenda. Rob's view is that we need to say "No," but we also need to say "... and here is how we should do it." If we can redefine ourselves (I know we can), from "No" to "Show," the impact of the recent elections will gain momentum into 2010, and we will on track to take back our country from the far left. Conservatives need to take back the Republican party. If we can do that, we may be able to give our children a country in better shape than we found it.

Amendment to House Healthcare Bill - I'm serious

Section 555 - Second Generation Biofuel Producer Credit - Seven pages of details of this section. John Dingell has the temerity to add this crap to a bill already full of crap? I guess we shouldn't worry because the Chosen One made this promise:

" ....And when I'm president, I will go line by line to make sure that we are not spending money unwisely."

Well now we know what that promise meant - if I am helping Al Gore, the UAW, the SEIU, the Teamsters, My Chicago friends, the trial bar, or my major campaign supporters, the spending is "wise." If it's something about the troops, national security, education reform, it's "unwise."

These times they are a changin'

So, Corzine and Deeds lose, and Harry Reid says "timetable for healthcare refor my slip." I thought Harry had the votes in the Senate, and that Nancy had the votes in the House. Hmmmm. Maybe some of the rats are jumping off of HMS Obama. Obama is also fond of blaming the economy, the deficits, etc. on George Bush. What the voters in NJ and VA said last night was "you own it." Obama is off hiding in an elementary school in Wisconsin today, but he better come back with a new attitude or more Democrats worried about thier relection odds are going to go overboard and swim for land.

Excellent Video from Verum Serum (Obama could use some VS)!!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7p_mUwzoYcc&feature=player_embedded

Video: 7 Lies In Under 2 Minutes

Video: 7 Lies In Under 2 Minutes


The real Obama.

Ed Freeman - he died two years ago, but still worth honoring the man!

You're a 19 year old kid. You're critically wounded and dying in the jungle in the Ia Drang Valley , on
11-14-1965, LZ X-ray , Vietnam . Your infantry unit is outnumbered 8 - 1 and the enemy fire is so intense, from 100 or 200 yards away, that your own Infantry Commander has ordered the MediVac helicopters to stop coming in. You're lying there, listening to the enemy machine guns and you know you're not getting out.
Your family is 1/2 way around the world, 12,000 miles away and you'll never see them again. As the world starts to fade in and out, you know this is the day. Then - over the machine gun noise - you faintly hear that sound of a helicopter..!! You look up to see an un-armed Huey!! But.... it doesn't seem real because no Medi-Vac markings are on it. Ed Freeman is coming for you..!! He's not Medi-Vac so it's not his job, but he's flying his Huey down into the machine gun fireanyway. Even after the Medi-Vacs were ordered not to come. He's coming anyway. And he drops it in and sits there in the machine gun fire, as they load 2 or 3 of you on board. Then he flies you up and out through the gunfire to the Doctors and Nurses. And, he kept coming back..!! 13 more times..!! He took about 30 of you and your buddies out who would never have gotten out. Medal of Honor Recipient, Ed Freeman, died last Wednesday at the age of 80, in Boise , ID.

May God Rest His Soul.

This just in from Rasmussen

For the first time in recent years, voters trust Republicans more than Democrats on all 10 key electoral issues regularly tracked by Rasmussen Reports. The GOP holds double-digit advantages on five of them.


Republicans have nearly doubled their lead over Democrats on economic issues to 49% to 35%, after leading by eight points in September.

The GOP also holds a 54% to 31% advantage on national security issues and a 50% to 31% lead on the handling of the war in Iraq.

But voters are less sure which party they trust more to handle government ethics and corruption, an issue that passed the economy in voter importance last month. Thirty-three percent (33%) trust Republicans more while 29% have more confidence in Democrats. Another 38% are undecided. Last month, the parties were virtually tied on the issue.

A recent Rasmussen Reports video report finds that voters are more disappointed lately with Obama’s performance in dealing with corruption in Washington.

Among unaffiliated voters who see ethics as the most important issue, 26% trust the GOP more while 23% trust Democrats more. Most (51%) are not sure which party they trust.

On the highly contentious issue of health care, voters now give the edge to Republicans 46% to 40%. The parties tied on the issue last month, after Republicans took the lead on it for the first time in August.

Separate polling released today shows 49% of voters nationwide say that passing no health care reform bill this year would be better than passing the plan currently working its way through Congress. Most voters (54%) oppose the health care reform plan proposed by the president and congressional Democrats, but 42% are in favor of it.

On taxes, Republicans are now ahead of Democrats 50% to 35%, nearly doubling their September lead on the issue. Prior to July, the percentage of voters who trusted the GOP more on taxes never reached 50%. It has done so three times since then.

Thirty-eight percent (38%) of voters say cutting the federal budget deficit in half in the next four years should be the Obama administration's top priority, while 23% say health care reform is most important.

Republicans are down to a seven-point lead on immigration after enjoying a 13-point advantage last month. Recent polling shows that 56% think the policies of the federal government encourage people to enter the United States illegally.

Voters trust Republicans more on Social Security by a 45% to 37% margin, after the GOP trailed Democrats by two points on the issue in the last survey.

The president is proposing a one-time $250 payment to seniors who for the first time in years won't be getting a cost of living increase in their Social Security checks because inflation's down. While half of voters support this idea, they are more skeptical when told how much it will cost.

Republicans lead on the issue of education 43% to 38%. Last month Democrats had a five-point lead.

Voters also trust Republicans more on the handling of abortion 47% to 35%.

The GOP advantage over Democrats increased from two points to five in the latest edition of the Generic Congressional Ballot. Forty-two percent (42%) would vote for their district’s Republican congressional candidate while 37% would opt for his or her Democratic opponent. This is not going to help Obama pass his leftist agenda, and too many are already worried about running for reelection with the stigma of supporting Obamas policies.

But 73% of GOP voters nationwide think Republicans in Congress have lost touch with their voting base.

We need to find out what is behind this and reconnect with our GOP base. In any event, this poll is welcome news that Americans are clearly not comfortable with the Obama/Pelosi/Reid leftist agenda.

Keeping up With Obama

1. I am reading Rules for Radicals by Saul Alinsky to better understand what makes Obama & Team think they way they think. I've only read the Prologue so far, but it's very consistent with the Obama playbook. It's also very obvious that Obama misread the change America was interested in. In reality, I think most voted for Obama because he was the "anti-Bush," not because they embraced his change agenda. It's clear now that he does not have the political capital to pull off his radical agenda. I will post excerpts from the book and how I think they are germain to what is going on with Obama and the resistance building against his agenda.

2. Read the AEI Political Report today. Very good insights into how Americans think of Obama and his policies and how he is handling the issues.

• Obama get the nod by >50% on 3 issues - Terrorism, the Environment and Energy. He gets 50% or less on the economy, Iraq, healthcare, the deficit, Taxes, immigration, Afghanistan and unemployment. These polls are as of October 2009.
• 5% of Americans think Obama is "too conservative." Go figure.
• Despite these critical assessments of Obama, Democrats get more positive marks than Republicans, although the gap is narrowing.
• Seemingly at odds with the last point, 62% think that Congress pays "not much or not at all" to what regular Americans think when it decides what to do.
• Despite 50% thinking that Obama is not doing what it takes to win in Afghanistan, more (38%) think that we should decrease the number of troops in Afghanistan than the number (37%) who think we need to increase the number of troops.
• On Iran, 61% think that "to precent Iran from developing nuclear weapons, even if it means taking military action is more important" than avoiding conflice (24%)
• 67% do not belive that Obama's healthcare plan will "not add one dime to the deficit today or in the future."
• 60% do not believe that they will not have to make a change to their insurance as a result of reform.
• 59% support surcharges on the rich to pay for reform.
• 65% oppose a second stimulus
• 83% support a photo id at polling places to help avoid fraud
• When asked what % of every dollar is wasted at various levels of government they answered:
• 
  
  50% - Federal government
  
  
  
• 
  
  42% State government
  
  
  
• 
  
  37% Local government
  
  
  

Let's hope they remember how they answered these questions the next time they are in the voting booth.

The Chicago Way

This is an excellent editorial by Kim Strassel at the Wall Street Journal. My takeaway from all of this is that the Obambi administration is unable to sell their policies on their own merits. When confronted with opposition, rather that argue on the merits of what is said, they result to bully tactics (or it is childish tactics?). What does that tell you about their convictions regarding their proposals. It's also worth noting that increasing amounts of Democratic representatives are voting against Obama's policies as well. His plummiting approval ratings suggest that voters who voted for him are feeling like victims of a bait and switch - they thought they were electing a centrist Democrat, instead they elected a rabid left wing nutjob who will not listen to logic or reason.


The Chicago Way


The Chamber of Commerce is only the latest target of the Chicago Gang in the White House.

By KIMBERLEY A. STRASSEL


They pull a knife, you pull a gun. He sends one of yours to the hospital, you send one of his to the morgue. That's the Chicago way. – Jim Malone, "The Untouchables"

When Barack Obama promised to deliver "a new kind of politics" to Washington, most folk didn't picture Rahm Emanuel with a baseball bat. These days, the capital would make David Mamet, who wrote Malone's memorable movie dialogue, proud.

A White House set on kneecapping its opponents isn't, of course, entirely new. (See: Nixon) What is a little novel is the public and bare-knuckle way in which the Obama team is waging these campaigns against the other side.

In recent weeks the Windy City gang added a new name to their list of societal offenders: the Chamber of Commerce. For the cheek of disagreeing with Democrats on climate and financial regulation, it was reported the Oval Office will neuter the business lobby. Obama adviser Valerie Jarrett slammed the outfit as "old school," and warned CEOs they'd be wise to seek better protection.

That was after the president accused the business lobby of false advertising. And that recent black eye for the Chamber (when several companies, all with Democratic ties, quit in a huff)—think that happened on its own? ("Somebody messes with me, I'm gonna mess with him! Somebody steals from me, I'm gonna say you stole. Not talk to him for spitting on the sidewalk. Understand!?")

The Chamber can at least take comfort in crowds. Who isn't on the business end of the White House's sawed-off shotgun? First up were Chrysler bondholders who—upon balking at a White House deal that rewarded only unions—were privately threatened and then publicly excoriated by the president.

Next, every pharmaceutical, hospital and insurance executive in the nation was held out as a prime obstacle to health-care nirvana. And that was their reward for cooperating. When Humana warned customers about cuts to Medicare under "reform," the White House didn't bother to complain. They went straight for the gag order. When the insurance industry criticized the Baucus health bill, the response was this week's bill to strip them of their federal antitrust immunity. ("I want you to find this nancy-boy . . . I want him dead! I want his family dead! I want his house burned to the ground!")


This summer Arizona Sen. Jon Kyl criticized stimulus dollars. Obama cabinet secretaries sent letters to Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer. One read: "if you prefer to forfeit the money we are making available to the state, as Senator Kyl suggests," let us know. The Arizona Republic wrote: "Let's not mince words here: The White House is intent on shutting Kyl up . . . using whatever means necessary." When Sens. Robert Bennett and Lamar Alexander took issue with the administration's czars, the White House singled them out, by name, on its blog. Sen. Alexander was annoyed enough to take to the floor this week to warn the White House off an "enemies list."


House Minority Whip Eric Cantor? Targeted for the sin of being a up-and-coming conservative voice. Though even Mr. Cantor was shoved aside in August so the Chicago gang could target at least seven Democratic senators, via the president's campaign arm, Organizing for America, for not doing more on health care. ("What I'm saying is: What are you prepared to do??!!")

And don't forget Fox News Channel ("nothing but a lot of talk and a badge!"). Fox, like MSNBC, has its share of commentators. But according to Obama Communications Director Anita Dunn, the entire network is "opinion journalism masquerading as news." Many previous White House press officers, when faced with criticism, try this thing called outreach. The Chicago crowd has boycotted Fox altogether.

What makes these efforts notable is that they are not the lashing out of a frustrated political operation. They are calculated campaigns, designed to create bogeymen, to divide the opposition, to frighten players into compliance. The White House sees a once-in-a-generation opportunity on health care and climate. It is obsessed with winning these near-term battles, and will take no prisoners. It knows that CEOs are easily intimidated and (Fox News ratings aside) it is getting some of its way. Besides, roughing up conservatives gives the liberal blogosphere something to write about besides Guantanamo.

The Oval Office might be more concerned with the long term. It is 10 months in; more than three long years to go. The strategy to play dirty now and triangulate later is risky. One day, say when immigration reform comes due, the Chamber might come in handy. That is if the Chamber isn't too far gone.

White House targets also aren't dopes. The corporate community is realizing that playing nice doesn't guarantee safety. The health executives signed up for reform, only to remain the president's political piñatas. It surely grates that the unions—now running their own ads against ObamaCare—haven't been targeted. If the choice is cooperate and get nailed, or oppose and possibly win, some might take that bet.

There's also the little fact that many Americans voted for this president in thrall to his vow to bring the country together. It's hard to do that amid gunfire, and voters might just notice.

("I do not approve of your methods! Yeah, well . . . You're not from Chicago.")



Write to kim@wsj.com

Investors.com - Canadian Patients Feel Wait Of The World

Investors.com - Canadian Patients Feel Wait Of The World

Imagine your access to timely health care being decided by a judge. This is the trade off between access to care and cost. There is not free lunch, so the question is, do you want access the health care on a timely basis or do you want cheaper insurance? Sadly, bureaucrats eliminated options that would lower cost - high deductible plans + health savings accounts, which would incentivize individuals (imagine that - personal responsibility) to think "do I really need this treatment" instead of the "all you can eat buffet" for a copay.

A whole new Health Care Ball Game (Heritage Foundation)

You have to read all the way to page A-25 in today’s New York Times to learn about it, but the Senate took its first floor vote on Obamacare yesterday and the White House lost. Big. The NYT reports: “Democrats lost a big test vote on health care legislation on Wednesday as the Senate blocked action on a bill to increase Medicare payments to doctors at a cost of $247 billion over 10 years. The Senate majority leader, Harry Reid, Democrat of Nevada, needed 60 votes to proceed. He won only 47. And he could not blame Republicans. A dozen Democrats and one independent crossed party lines and voted with Republicans on the 53 to 47 roll call.”




As we reported on Monday and Tuesday, yesterday’s “doc fix” vote was part of a White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel strategy to smooth passage of President Barack Obama’s $1 trillion-plus health care overhaul by transferring a quarter of its cost into a separate, and completely unpaid for, bill. This transparently dishonest shell game was too much for honest Democratic Senators like Evan Bayh (D-IN), Kent Conrad (D-ND), Russ Feingold (D-WI), Claire McCaskill (D-MO), Bill Nelson (D-FL), and Ron Wyden (D-OR). Wyden told the NYT: “On the eve of a historic debate on health care, it’s essential to show a commitment to real reform,” which includes fiscal responsibility.



Yesterday’s vote marks a significant failure of the Left’s special interest approach to passing Obamacare. From the beginning, the White House thought that if it bought off all of the business interests involved (the American Medical Association, the drug industry, health insurers, hospitals, etc.) opposition to the plan would whither. In one sense, the plan worked. USA Today reports PhRMA, Pfizer, America’s Health Insurance Plans, and the Federation of American Hospitals have all ponied up millions of dollars for lobbying and television ads in support of Obamacare. Can you blame them, it's everyman for himself!?



But all these special interest television ads failed to rid Americans of their common sense objections to Obamacare’s government takeover of health care. Gallup reports today that Americans now more than ever believe the costs their family pays for health care will get worse if Obamacare passes. And more Americans now believe that Obamacare will lower the quality of care they receive, reduce their health care coverage, and complicate the insurance company requirements they have to meet to get certain treatments covered.  And yet CNN claims that 62% support the public option! Ha!



Instead of the massive overhaul being pursued by the White House, a solid majority of Americans tell Gallup they want to see Congress move in the opposite direction. By 58% to 38%, Americans would generally prefer to see Congress deal with health care reform “on a gradual basis over several years” rather than “try to pass a comprehensive health care reform plan this year.” Bipartisan, fiscally responsible, reform such as equalizing the tax treatment of health insurance purchases, freeing customers to purchase health insurance across state lines, and allowing states more flexibility on Medicaid spending are readily doable. And that is what the people want.

Dr. Charles Krauthammer - Speech at the Manhattan Institute

Awsome speech. A true conservative, working at of all places, the Washington Post (soon to be toast?)

http://www.manhattan-institute.org/video/wriston/

Congress Should Pay for the Medicare Doctor Fix | e21 - An initiative for 21st Century Economic Policies

Congress Should Pay for the Medicare Doctor Fix e21 - An initiative for 21st Century Economic Policies

This is from Don Marron.

Donald Marron is an expert on U.S. economic policies and federal budgeting. Prior to joining GPPI, he served in a series of senior government positions, including as a member of the President's Council of Economic Advisers and as acting director of the Congressional Budget Office. Before his public service, Marron had a varied career as a professor, consultant, and entrepreneur. At GPPI, he teaches the core courses, Introduction to Microtheory and Public Finance.

Senate Finance Committee Bill

I read HR 3200, and I still have a headache. I'll wait until the SFC bill makes it's way through the sausage factory (Congress) before I consider reading another bill. I assume it's like HR 3200- too much techincal language for a layman to understand the details hiddin by references to existing law.


http://finance.senate.gov/press/Bpress/2009press/prb101909.pdf

Red Ink Hiding

So, the Liberals in Congress are acknowledging that the budget impact from the Seante Finance Committee was a hoax. Now they (led by Harry Reid) want a seperate bill to deal with the "Doc Fix." Prior legislation required reimbursement to doctors serving Medicare patients to be reduced annually to keep the cost in line for the total Medicare budget. Congress has deferred these rate cuts (as they will under the current reform) to the point that to pay for all of those deferred cuts, the current cut would amount to a 21.5% pay cut. Two things are clear. One, Medicare doctors are already underpaid. Cutting their rates by another 21.5% would be adding insult to injury. The second issue is that if the doc fix were not implemented, even more doctors would refuse to accept Medicare patients. As discussed in a previous post, the Senate Finance committee assumed that the doc fix would not take place and that doctor reimbursement would grow at a "Sustainable Growth Rate." This allowed the Finance Committee to "save" $247b over the next 10 years. As discussed, this would never happen and the Finance Committee bill would eventually reflect this cost, and expose the lie that was built into the Finance Committee bill. This brings us to today, where Harry Reid and a Senator from Michigan (the bailout state), want a seperate bill to deal with the doc fix, so they can still claim that the "Reform" bill is at worst deficit neutral. Clearly they think we are not paying attention. Also, it proves that they do not give a damn about deficits. They just want "reform" to be wrapped up in "defict neutral" wrapping paper. This is in addition to the "Cadillac Tax" that was also a big source of revenue, contributing to the deficit neutrality of the bill. As predicted, the Unions have leaned on Congressional Liberals, and even that tax is in jeaopardy. It's safe to say that Obambi will not call a stop to these games, as he needs a political victory to get his ratings out of the basement. Sadly, all of this is taking place in the context of more Americans opposed to reform that are in favor. We're getting something we don't want and we have to pay for it too!

Red Ink Rising

Dumbocrats in Congress are planning on cutting the tax on "Cadillac" healthcare plans. This is not a surprise as this would impact unions, who are the bread and butter of Liberal fundraising. They also want to curry favor with doctors (wasn't Obama excoriating doctors for ordering unnecessary tests to pad their wallet?) by shielding them from cust in Medicare reimbursement. Recall that the CBO scored the Senate Finance Committee bill has having an $829 billion on the deficit over the 2010-2019 period. This is dramatically understated as the taxes would begin in 2010 and the spending would not start until 2013. Nonetheless, if the Cadillac tax and the "Doc Fix," were removed from the bill the 10 year cost (also understated) would go from $829 billion to $1.226 trillion. Note that this is before the Libs try to insert a public option as it makes its way through the sausage factory, otherwise know as Congress.

Brilliant!

Under pressure from the "Pay Czar" Ken Feinberg, Citigroup sold Phibro LLC, an energy trading business. Why did they sell this? Well, Andrew Hall, a star trader was likely to make $100m this year after having made $98.9m in 2008. This was politically unacceptable give the degree to which Citigroup had benefitted from bailout money. So, to eliminate this "optical" problem, Citi sold Phibro to Occidential Petroleum for $250 million. According to the Wall Street Journal, Phibro earned $1.86 billion dollars over the past five years. Using the average of the last 5 years,  Phibro was sold for 67% of earnings. How much sense does this make? In the spirit of political correctness (having to pay a trader $100m for generating substantial gains for his employer), Citi sells the business for a song (67% of earnings - in other words, .67x earnings) when the average company in the S&P 500 trades for 17 times earnings. This is an example how government makes idiotic decisions when the focus is not on "what is the best use of taxpayer money," rather than, which decision is going to make me more popular with the largest share of potential voters. Idiot!

Democrats Weigh Tax On Financial Transactions

By JOHN D. MCKINNON

WASHINGTON -- Taxing financial transactions on Wall Street is gathering support in high places.

With federal budget deficits soaring, policy makers and other advocates are eyeing the huge sums that could be raised as a way to cover the costs of new initiatives.

Labor unions, in particular the AFL-CIO, have proposed a financial-transactions tax as a way to defray costs of a health-care overhaul. Lawmakers have discussed a similar fee as a way to cover the cost of future financial oversight. Liberal advocates are pushing the tax to pay for new stimulus spending.

Taxing Wall Street's financial transactions is back on the table. WSJ's John McKinnon says the populist notion is gaining support on Capitol Hill and with the IMF.

This week, the left-leaning Economic Policy Institute floated the idea of a national transaction tax that would raise $100 billion to $150 billion a year. The tax, at a rate of 0.1% to 0.25% of the value of the trade, would be levied on all financial transactions such as stock trades, but not on consumer transactions such as with credit cards. So, if middle class Americans executes a stock transaction, they Obama will have raised another tax on those he promised that they would not see an increase in ANY tax.  Where is Joe Wilson?

The money would be used initially to pay for temporary aid to states, hiring incentives for public- and private-sector employers and school construction money.

"We are in a difficult time right now, so people are looking at every opportunity to gain some revenue to fund" new initiatives, said Rep. Stephen Lynch (D., Mass.), a member of the House Financial Services Committee. "Because I was one of the first to suggest using this to fund [new] regulatory infrastructure, folks have come to me and said, 'That's a good idea; I've got a better one: Why don't we use it for stimulus or especially health care?'"

One Democratic aide said the idea is under consideration among House leadership, though the discussions are preliminary.

A spokeswoman for Republican House leader John Boehner of Ohio criticized the idea. "How is killing more American jobs by stifling capital investment, further eroding families' savings and diverting much-needed investment out of the United States a good idea during a severe economic downturn?" said the spokeswoman, Antonia Ferrier. It's not a good idea, but they need to fund their spending spree, so they will tax anything they can to get it done.


Unnoticed by many, the concept already has found its way into federal law. At the urging of House Democratic leaders, last year's $700 billion financial-bailout bill contains a provision requiring the president to submit legislation to "recoup" from the financial-services industry any eventual shortfall in the Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP.

The provision, inserted during last-minute negotiations, was encouraged by moderate Democrats who worried that taxpayers would be left footing the bill if the government investment produced big losses.

Transactions taxes first were proposed in the 1970s for currency trading, to reduce volatility in exchange rates. The idea later was seized on as a way to reduce volatility in financial systems.

In an interview Friday, Rep. Barney Frank, chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, said he supported the legislation's idea of recouping future losses from the industry. As this is described, it's not paid by the industry, but buy those engaging in transactions.

"I was one of the ones who suggested" the idea for the TARP provision, said the Massachusetts Democrat. He said he didn't specifically propose a financial-transactions tax. The provision could be structured as either a tax or a fee, he said, and could be a one-time provision rather than a permanent tax.

That would make it less likely that parties to financial transactions would seek to escape the tax by moving activity to another country. He said imposing such a tax "country by country...would be a problem."

Many economists have argued against a financial-transactions tax on policy grounds, saying it could have consequences for markets, in part by driving activity outside the U.S. Critics said it also would throw sand in the gears of capital markets.

Still, some appear to be changing their minds. "I'm not as hostile as I used to be," said Len Burman, a Syracuse University professor and former head of the Tax Policy Center, a venture of the left-of-center Brookings Institution and Urban Institute. Curbing frequent trading might be a good idea, he said, though he is "skeptical this is the best way to do it."

Mr. Frank said additional fees might be imposed on financial-industry participants such as payday lenders in order to pay for a consumer-protection agency.

Fees to pay for regulatory activities aren't considered a tax under House rules. The new fees would be relatively minor, he said, adding that details haven't been worked out. Similar fees already help pay for the operations of some agencies such as the Securities and Exchange Commission. How stupid do they think we are. This is not about regulation. This is about tax & spend!

A broader question is whether levies on the financial industry might be used to help establish a rescue fund for future calamities.

In response to a question at a House hearing in September, White House economic adviser and former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker said it "might be interesting" if Congress ordered a study of the idea of a transactions tax. But he pointed to the problem of driving transactions to other countries. "That's the No. 1 problem; you'll have to get some consistency internationally," he said.

Trade unions are backing the idea to reduce government deficits and pay for new jobs initiatives, among other purposes. Amid their urging, the Group of 20 industrial and developing nations recently pushed the International Monetary Fund to study the idea, which has drawn endorsements from some leaders in the U.K. and Germany. Since when do Unions have a say in legislation. Never mind, that's a dumb question!

Robert E. Moffit: CBO report shows Baucus bill's problems

Robert E. Moffit: CBO report shows Baucus bill's problems

By: Robert E. Moffit

OpEd Contributor
October 9, 2009 Finally, a victory for Obamacare! Or so the media claims.



According to reports, the CBO said the Senate Finance Committee's highly conceptual health reform legislation, put together by committee Chairman Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., would reduce the federal budget in 10 years. But what exactly did the CBO say?



We read the report, and highlighted some important sentences omitted from that cheering coverage:



"CBO and [the Joint Committee on Taxation's] analysis is preliminary in large part because the Chairman's mark, as amended, has not yet been embodied in legislative language." In other words, the Senate Finance Committee has yet to produce a real bill, with real bill language, and instead has been marking up a conceptual framework. There is no telling what would change once there was an actual bill, or what that would mean for CBO's projection. As the CBO notes, "Those estimates are all subject to substantial uncertainty."



"These projections assume that the proposals are enacted and remain unchanged throughout the next two decades, which is not often the case for major legislation." Much of the deficit reductions the CBO credits come from significant cuts in Medicare, primarily in payment reductions for Medicare Advantage.

but ....

Congress has a long and uncomplicated history of restoring the cuts it makes to Medicare. Just look at the "doc fix" issue, in which Congress, year after year, delayed cuts in physician payments. But CBO actually takes pain to explain these deficits aren't likely to happen.



Congress has a long and uncomplicated history of restoring the cuts it makes to Medicare. Just look at the "doc fix" issue, in which Congress, year after year, delayed cuts in physician payments. But CBO actually takes pain to explain these deficits aren't likely to happen.



"CBO has not extrapolated estimates further in the future, because the uncertainties surrounding them are magnified even more." America is swimming in debt. While the CBO provides analysis for the first 10 years, there are no mentions of what this enormous legislative framework could do to deficits 20 or 30 years later.



We know the federal budget is hemorrhaging trillions in deficits. Economists predict this will worsen from the current unfunded promises to be paid out for Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. We have no idea what the real, long-term cost of a new federal health program would be.



What Americans need is real legislative language, the five days President Obama promised the public would have to see any bill online before it's voted on, and more accountability from our elected officials. After all, they're overhauling one-sixth of the U.S. economy, and changing the way we get (or don't get) our health care.

Remember when the SFC has a bill, Harry Reid will "meld" it with the Senate HELP Committe bill. Then that bill will be voted on by the Senate. After that, the Senate Bill will have to be merged with the House bill (which is left of Barney Frank). So, the "final product" to emerge from the Congerssional sausage factory is unlikely to resemble the SFC bill, and will likely be significantly more expensive and as a result, it will not reduce the deficit.

Who is John Galt?

For twelve years you've been asking "Who is John Galt?" This is John Galt speaking. I'm the man who's taken away your victims and thus destroyed your world. You've heard it said that this is an age of moral crisis and that Man's sins are destroying the world. But your chief virtue has been sacrifice, and you've demanded more sacrifices at every disaster. You've sacrificed justice to mercy and happiness to duty. So why should you be afraid of the world around you?




Your world is only the product of your sacrifices. While you were dragging the men who made your happiness possible to your sacrificial altars, I beat you to it. I reached them first and told them about the game you were playing and where it would take them. I explained the consequences of your 'brother-love' morality, which they had been too innocently generous to understand. You won't find them now, when you need them more than ever.



We're on strike against your creed of unearned rewards and unrewarded duties. If you want to know how I made them quit, I told them exactly what I'm telling you tonight. I taught them the morality of Reason -- that it was right to pursue one's own happiness as one's principal goal in life. I don't consider the pleasure of others my goal in life, nor do I consider my pleasure the goal of anyone else's life.



I am a trader. I earn what I get in trade for what I produce. I ask for nothing more or nothing less than what I earn. That is justice. I don't force anyone to trade with me; I only trade for mutual benefit. Force is the great evil that has no place in a rational world. One may never force another human to act against his/her judgment. If you deny a man's right to Reason, you must also deny your right to your own judgment. Yet you have allowed your world to be run by means of force, by men who claim that fear and joy are equal incentives, but that fear and force are more practical.



You've allowed such men to occupy positions of power in your world by preaching that all men are evil from the moment they're born. When men believe this, they see nothing wrong in acting in any way they please. The name of this absurdity is 'original sin'. That's inmpossible. That which is outside the possibility of choice is also outside the province of morality. To call sin that which is outside man's choice is a mockery of justice. To say that men are born with a free will but with a tendency toward evil is ridiculous. If the tendency is one of choice, it doesn't come at birth. If it is not a tendency of choice, then man's will is not free.



And then there's your 'brother-love' morality. Why is it moral to serve others, but not yourself? If enjoyment is a value, why is it moral when experienced by others, but not by you? Why is it immoral to produce something of value and keep it for yourself, when it is moral for others who haven't earned it to accept it? If it's virtuous to give, isn't it then selfish to take?



Your acceptance of the code of selflessness has made you fear the man who has a dollar less than you because it makes you feel that that dollar is rightfully his. You hate the man with a dollar more than you because the dollar he's keeping is rightfully yours. Your code has made it impossible to know when to give and when to grab.



You know that you can't give away everything and starve yourself. You've forced yourselves to live with undeserved, irrational guilt. Is it ever proper to help another man? No, if he demands it as his right or as a duty that you owe him. Yes, if it's your own free choice based on your judgment of the value of that person and his struggle. This country wasn't built by men who sought handouts. In its brilliant youth, this country showed the rest of the world what greatness was possible to Man and what happiness is possible on Earth.



Then it began apologizing for its greatness and began giving away its wealth, feeling guilty for having produced more than ikts neighbors. Twelve years ago, I saw what was wrong with the world and where the battle for Life had to be fought. I saw that the enemy was an inverted morality and that my acceptance of that morality was its only power. I was the first of the men who refused to give up the pursuit of his own happiness in order to serve others.



To those of you who retain some remnant of dignity and the will to live your lives for yourselves, you have the chance to make the same choice. Examine your values and understand that you must choose one side or the other. Any compromise between good and evil only hurts the good and helps the evil.



If you've understood what I've said, stop supporting your destroyers. Don't accept their philosophy. Your destroyers hold you by means of your endurance, your generosity, your innocence, and your love. Don't exhaust yourself to help build the kind of world that you see around you now. In the name of the best within you, don't sacrifice the world to those who will take away your happiness for it.



The world will change when you are ready to pronounce this oath:

I swear by my Life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man,

nor ask another man to live for the sake of mine.


From http://www.working-minds.com/galtmini.htm

If you have not read "Atlas Shrugged," you should. You will think it was written yesterday!!!

What's next for Obama after the Nobel Peace Prize?????

You say "what has he done to deserve this?" What does that have to do with it?

What Price for Obama’s Nobel Prize?

From Pajamas Media

What Price for Obama’s Nobel Prize?


What do the Norwegian Nobel arbiters expect to collect from President Barack Obama? They have just awarded him a peace prize which Obama himself suggests was extended on credit — or so he implied in telling reporters Friday morning that he wasn’t sure he’d done enough to deserve it.

But the Nobel Norwegians express not only their hope that he will play out their fantasies, but their confidence that he is “now the world’s leading spokesman” for their preferred “international policy and attitudes.”

Who are these folks issuing Obama a prize on credit to steer America along their preferred course? The Nobel Peace Prize is awarded by a committee of five Norwegians, whose members are appointed by the parliament of Norway. Ever heard of Thorbjorn Jagland? Active for decades in the Socialist International, a collectivist who navigated a long series of embarrassing moments in Norwegian politics to become current Secretary-General of the Council of Europe, Jagland now heads the Norwegian Nobel Committee. His fellow members who have just issued this Nobel IOU to a sitting American president are — are we ready for global policy guided by this crowd? – Kaci Kullman Five, Sissel Marie Ronbeck, Inger-Marie Ytterhorn and Agot Valle.



What, more specifically, might they be expecting of Obama? For starters, Norway, along with neighboring Sweden and Denmark, has been banging the drum for America to hand over to the United Nations enormous control over and constraints upon the U.S. economy, in the name of (warming/cooling/take-your-pick) climate change. Thus did Norway’s Nobel committee bestow its favors in 2007 on Al Gore and the UN’s Self-Interested Panel of Politically Corrupted Science — excuse me, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. And this December the UN is convening a big climate conference in Copenhagen, with which the U.N. hopes to “seal” its growth-stunting UN-enriching climate “deal.”



Whatever Obama’s instincts to sign on wholesale, one might hope they would be balanced by the realities of the huge cost and burden this would impose on Americans. This is what hangs in the balance for the overlapping crew of U.N. and Scandinavian gurus who have carved out a profitable niche for themselves as doom-saying oracles of world weather. If Obama was in any way put off by the Olympic slap in Copenhagen last week, Norway has just handed him a feel-good consolation prize; a message that he can return to Scandinavia without losing face.



More broadly, Norway’s Nobel grandees have presented themselves in recent years as cheerleaders for some of the UN’s more grossly embarrassing performances. Recall the Nobel Peace Prize awarded to the UN and its former secretary-general, Kofi Annan, in 2001 — during the period in which, with Annan at the helm, Oil-for-Food mushroomed into the most massively corrupt endeavor in the history of humanitarian relief. And of course there was the Nobel in 2006 for the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Mohamed El Baradei – who, if he deserves any award, really ought to get one from Tehran for his convenient and apparently endless existential doubts over the Iranian bomb program.



For more than 60 years, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, and for that matter the rest of Western Europe, have basked in relative peace. This is not thanks to the conversational charms of select members of the Norwegian parliament. America’s system of individualism and free enterprise produced the wealth and — yes — the weapons that went into winning both World War II and the Cold War. Americans have fought and died in a series of wars to keep the totalitarian shadows at bay. Americans are at the forefront of those fighting and dying along those same front lines today, notably in Afghanistan – where Norway is part of the coalition, but among those serving, 869 Americans have died, versus 4 Norwegians (even taking into account Norway’s much smaller population, this means that, proportionally, more than three times as many Americans have sacrificed their lives in Afghanistan than have Norwegians). And this is part of a broader conflict, with flashpoints ahead that years of dialogue, U.N. resolutions and Nobel prattle have all failed so far to defuse.



America, in the course of defending its own freedoms, has long extended to the likes of Norway, Denmark and Sweden a protective umbrella. Under that shelter, too many Europols have come to believe that peace is a function of nothing more than talk and hope and dreams and …premature prizes.



Obama said on Friday morning that he will accept this award as “a call to action.” Action on whose behalf? The five Norwegians who make up the Nobel peace prize committee chose to give him this award, for their own purposes. Obama, and America, owe them nothing. The real hope is that Obama will remember he took an oath (twice) not to serve as global spokesman for the Norwegian Nobel Committee, but “to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” Before his presidency is over, keeping faith with that oath may require him to do things would knock the stuffing out of the featherbed philosophy of this sanctimonious crowd of Scandinavian free-riders.

The Nobel Hope Prize - An award for the end of American exceptionalism.

The Nobel Hope Prize


An award for the end of American exceptionalism.

The Nobel Peace Prize awarded to President Obama yesterday was greeted with astonishment as much as any other emotion, even among many of his admirers. Our own reaction is bemusement at the Norwegian decision to offer what amounts to the world's first futures prize in diplomacy, with the Nobel Committee anticipating the heroic concessions that it believes Mr. Obama will make to secure treaties that will produce a new era of global serenity.

Mr. Obama seemed more than a little amazed himself, after only nine months on the job and having been inaugurated only 12 days before Nobel nominations were due in February. The prize isn't "a recognition of my own accomplishment," the President said yesterday, adding that "I do not feel that I deserve to be in the company of so many of the transformative figures who've been honored by this prize." Humility grace note accepted.

Yet something more than the power of charisma induced the Norwegians to honor Mr. Obama, so this is also a teachable moment. The committee's citation provides a crib sheet. The Norwegians hailed "Obama's vision of and work for a world without nuclear weapons," noting "a new climate" in which "multilateral diplomacy has regained a central position." In other words, it's a reward for being naive.

The statement extols the American's support for the U.N. and notes that "dialogue and negotiations are preferred as instruments for resolving even the most difficult international conflicts." Praise comes as well for Mr. Obama's commitment to fight climate change by capping greenhouse gas emissions. George W. Bush may have retired from American public life, but the Europeans want the Yanks to know they never want to see his likes again. Counting Jimmy Carter in 2002 and Al Gore in 2007, this is the third Nobel Non-Bush Peace Prize.

On one level, all of this represents the parochial European foreign policy agenda. But somehow we doubt Mr. Obama would have received the Nobel merely for believing in climate change. The Norwegians rightly detect something larger in Mr. Obama's vision. As Thorbjørn Jagland, who chairs the Nobel Committee, told CNN: "He has done a lot already" and this award will "enhance the ideals Barack Obama is promoting." So, while the American people are telling him to "Cool it," they want to tell him to "keep it up!"

What ideals are those? Well, the Nobel citation declares that Mr. Obama's "diplomacy is founded in the concept that those who are to lead the world must do so on the basis of values and attitudes that are shared by the majority of the world's population." Now, the world is a big place, much of it run by despots and crooks, each of whom gets the same vote in the U.N. General Assembly as America. The Europeans are applauding that at long last there is an American President willing to let himself and his country mingle as equals with this amorphous global "majority."

The Norwegians are on to something. In a mere nine months, the President has promulgated a vision for the U.S. role in the world that breaks with both Republican and Democratic predecessors. Madeleine Albright, Bill Clinton's Secretary of State, called America the "indispensable nation" a decade ago. Ronald Reagan called it a "city on the Hill," an example to the world.

Mr. Obama sees the U.S. differently, as weaker than it was and the rest of the planet as stronger, and so he calls for a humbler America, at best a first among equals, working primarily through the U.N. The world's challenges, he emphasized yesterday, "can't be met by any one leader or any one nation." What this suggests to us—and to the Norwegians—is the end of what has been called "American exceptionalism." This is the view that U.S. values have universal application and should be promoted without apology, and defended with military force when necessary. Guess what, that America still exists and will outlive Obama!

Put in this context, we wonder if most Americans will count this peace-of-the-future prize as a compliment. Hell No!!! Appearing at the Rose Garden yesterday, Mr. Obama seemed to have noticed what the Norwegians have noticed about him, as he was at pains to spin his award for Americans. For once, he refrained from making his habitual remark about having restored America's standing in the world, or apologizing for some U.S. transgression. Instead he wrapped the Nobel in the U.S. flag "as an affirmation of American leadership" and concluded that, "I believe America will continue to lead."

We all have at least three more years to learn if Mr. Obama will fulfill the audacity of hope that the Nobel Committee has put on him to bow to the values of the world's "majority." Sadly, I fear the answer is yes. He sees it as a "call to action! "

What I heard in Honduras

Our ambassador is the only person I met there who thinks there was a 'coup.' Let's release the State Department legal analysis.

By JIM DEMINT
Tegucigalpa

In the last three months, much has been made of a supposed military "coup" that whisked former Honduran President Manuel Zelaya from power and the supposed chaos it has created.

After visiting Tegucigalpa last week and meeting with a cross section of leaders from Honduras's government, business community, and civil society, I can report there is no chaos there. There is, however, chaos to spare in the Obama administration's policy toward our poor and loyal allies in Honduras.

That policy was set in a snap decision the day Mr. Zelaya was removed from office, without a full assessment of either the facts or reliable legal analysis of the constitutional provisions at issue. Three months later, it remains in force, despite mounting evidence of its moral and legal incoherence. Obama isn't the kind of guy that admits he made a mistake. Maybe he needs to have Micheletti come to the White House for a beer.

While in Honduras, I spoke to dozens of Hondurans, from nonpartisan members of civil society to former Zelaya political allies, from Supreme Court judges to presidential candidates and even personal friends of Mr. Zelaya. Each relayed stories of a man changed and corrupted by power. The evidence of Mr. Zelaya's abuses of presidential power—and his illegal attempts to rewrite the Honduran Constitution, a la Hugo Chávez—is not only overwhelming but uncontroverted.

As all strong democracies do after cleansing themselves of usurpers, Honduras has moved on.

The presidential election is on schedule for Nov. 29. Under Honduras's one-term-limit, Mr. Zelaya could not have sought re-election anyway. Current President Roberto Micheletti—who was installed after Mr. Zelaya's removal, per the Honduran Constitution—is not on the ballot either. The presidential candidates were nominated in primary elections almost a year ago, and all of them—including Mr. Zelaya's former vice president—expect the elections to be free, fair and transparent, as has every Honduran election for a generation.

Indeed, the desire to move beyond the Zelaya era was almost universal in our meetings. Almost.

In a day packed with meetings, we met only one person in Honduras who opposed Mr. Zelaya's ouster, who wishes his return, and who mystifyingly rejects the legitimacy of the November elections: U.S. Ambassador Hugo Llorens.

When I asked Ambassador Llorens why the U.S. government insists on labeling what appears to the entire country to be the constitutional removal of Mr. Zelaya a "coup," he urged me to read the legal opinion drafted by the State Department's top lawyer, Harold Koh. As it happens, I have asked to see Mr. Koh's report before and since my trip, but all requests to publicly disclose it have been denied.

On the other hand, the only thorough examination of the facts to date—conducted by a senior analyst at the Law Library of Congress—confirms the legality and constitutionality of Mr. Zelaya's ouster. (It's on the Internet here .)

Unlike the Obama administration's snap decision after June 28, the Law Library report is grounded in the facts of the case and the intricacies of Honduran constitutional law. So persuasive is the report that after its release, the New Republic's James Kirchick concluded in an Oct. 3 article that President Obama's hastily decided Honduras policy is now "a mistake in search of a rationale."

The Hondurans I met agree. All everyone seemed to want was a chance to make their case, or at least an independent review of the facts.

So far, the Obama administration has ignored these requests and instead has repeatedly doubled down. It's revoked the U.S. travel visas of President Micheletti, his government and private citizens, and refuses to talk to the government in Tegucigalpa. It's frozen desperately needed financial assistance to one of the poorest and friendliest U.S. allies in the region. It won't release the legal basis for its insistence on Mr. Zelaya's restoration to power. Nor has it explained why it's setting aside America's longstanding policy of supporting free elections to settle these kinds of disputes.

But these elections are the only way out—a fact even the Obama administration must see. The Honduran constitution prohibits Zelaya's return to power. The election date is set by law for Nov. 29. The elections will be monitored by international observers and overseen by an apolitical body, the Supreme Electoral Tribunal, whose impartiality and independence has been roundly praised, even by Ambassador Llorens.

America's Founding Fathers—like the framers of Honduras's own constitution—believed strong institutions were necessary to defend freedom and democracy from the ambitions of would-be tyrants and dictators. Faced by Mr. Zelaya's attempted usurpations, the institutions of Honduran democracy performed as designed, and as our own Founding Fathers would have hoped.

Hondurans are therefore left scratching their heads. They know why Hugo Chávez, Daniel Ortega and the Castro brothers oppose free elections and the removal of would-be dictators, but they can't understand why the Obama administration does.

They're not the only ones.



Mr. DeMint, a Republican senator from South Carolina, is a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

Why should Obama respect the Constitution of Honduras. I'm still waiting for him to respect the Constitution of the United States!

Obama's Nobel and His Obligation to Afhanistan

When it comes to moral reputation, almost nothing matters more than keeping your word.

By BOB KERREY



In a wonderfully stunning decision, the Nobel Committee in Oslo awarded our president its Peace Prize. They said the award was as much for the hope that he will contribute to a more peaceful world as it was for any specific accomplishment during his first nine months in office.



This is the same hope I had when I voted for President Barack Obama, contributed to him financially, and campaigned for him in a few states. I believed he could successfully manage the process of U.S. withdrawal from Iraq. I believed he would help build a bridge to the Muslim world. And I believed he would bring his unique story to inspire us to overcome our divisiveness. I still hold fast to these beliefs, in spite of the fact that his presidency already seems to have brought out the worst in some.



By awarding the prize to Mr. Obama, the Nobel committee also surely hoped to influence the debate about U.S. policy in Afghanistan. I wish they had waited until the debate was settled here at home. My wish is based on a fear that American political leaders (Liberals) are about to talk themselves into breaking yet another foreign policy commitment.



In December 2006, President George W. Bush was faced with a similarly difficult foreign policy decision. The Republicans had suffered tremendous losses in the November election, in part because of the conduct of the war in Iraq. At the time, the unpopular Republican president was being pressured by ascendant congressional Democrats and some members of his own party into withdrawing from Iraq. Failure in Iraq loomed, as public opinion for the effort to help the democratically elected government survive had faded thanks to a series of tactical blunders and inaccurate assessments of what would be needed to accomplish the mission.



Then, against all reasonable predictions, President Bush chose to increase rather than decrease our military commitment. The "surge," as it became known, worked. Victory was snatched from the jaws of defeat.



From what I have seen, President Obama has the same ability to step outside the swirl of public opinion and make the right decision. While success in Afghanistan may not look the same as it does in Iraq, I believe there is a very good chance that a stable democracy can survive there. If it does, it would be good for the Afghan people, good for the security of the region, and good for the United States. But does Obama want to spurn the Norweigans?The heroism of Afghan voters who turned out this past August in spite of the Taliban's violence should inspire us to stand by their side until security and stability are established in their country.



There are four primary components of any foreign policy: vision and strategy; quality of the leadership team; domestic strength; and capacity to manage crises. Weakness in any of these realms can lead to overall failure.



On vision, President Obama is very inspiring. He has given moderates in Muslim countries room to move by speaking to them directly and respectfully, while at the same time continuing to wage an aggressive and necessary battle against radical Islamists who have declared war on the U.S. However, he has made too many apologies. And at this point, his strategy is too naïve and has too little coherence to be called a strategy. If the issue of foreign policy had been more important in his presidential campaign—and therefore important to the electorate—I might be more critical. And if I weren't a supporter, my judgment would be harsher. But in this realm, I'm still hoping for improvement.



On the quality of the leadership team he has recruited, President Obama has excelled. Across the board, from Secretary of Defense Robert Gates to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, the president has assembled an exceptional team. Their depth of experience and intellect provide him the kind of judgment and analysis he needs to make tough choices. He's assuming he seeks their input and listens to them!



President Obama's lack of domestic strength is his biggest problem. His actions to stabilize the financial system prevented an economic meltdown of dire proportions. However, our economy is still very fragile. Our public debt is growing at the fastest rate since the World War II, the dollar is weakening, and economic experts are making ominous statements about the possibility of our currency being replaced as the world currency of choice. Anxiety over unemployment and the devaluation of assets has contributed to America's unwillingness to support much of anything that doesn't contribute directly to our recovery.



As for his capacity to manage crises, this skill is being tested right now in Afghanistan. There is surely a strong temptation to conform his better judgment to popular opinion. If he chooses this politically safe route and does not give his military commander on the ground the resources needed to win, history will judge him harshly. Great American leaders of our past have ignored popular sentiment and pressed on during the darkest hours, even when setbacks give rhetorical ammunition to the skeptics.



President Obama's decision is extremely difficult. Today, less than 50% of Americans support the war. No doubt even fewer Americans would be on the side of doing what Gen. Stanley McChrystal wants to do: temporarily increase the number of troops and dramatically change our strategy.



The way we have provided development assistance to the government in Afghanistan hasn't improved the lives of the Afghan people. A cloud of illegitimacy hangs over President Hamid Karzai because of the recent election. Even friends of the Karzai administration have reported cronyism and corruption.



Yet despite these setbacks, our leaders must remain focused on the fact that success in Afghanistan bolsters our national security and yes, our moral reputation. This war is not Vietnam. The Taliban are not popular and have very little support other than what they secure through terror.



Afghanistan is also not Iraq. No serious leader in Kabul is asking us to leave. Instead we are being asked to withdraw by American leaders who begin their analysis with the presumption that victory is not possible. They seem to want to ensure defeat by leaving at the very moment when our military leader on the ground has laid out a coherent and compelling strategy for victory.



When it comes to foreign policy, almost nothing matters more then your friends and your enemies knowing you will keep your word and follow through on your commitments. This is the real test of presidential leadership. I hope that President Obama—soon to be a Nobel laureate—passes with flying colors.



Mr. Kerrey, a former Democratic senator from Nebraska, is president of The New School.

The question is - will Obama try to appease the Norweigans for their "honor," or will he fufill the mission to fight terrorism?