Monday, January 31, 2011

Health Care

Well now it appears the Health Care Bill has run into a road block called unconstitutional... back to the drawing boards

Saturday, January 29, 2011

Fourteenth Amendment

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;

Wednesday, January 26, 2011

Michelle Bachmann Theories - Anyone?

I assume by now you all know what she said last weekend at a speech in Iowa:

Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) said the United States was founded on racial and ethnic diversity and that the founding fathers were responsible for abolishing slavery.

Speaking at an event sponsored by Iowans For Tax Relief, Bachmann hailed the "different cultures, different backgrounds, different traditions" of the early European settlers in America, adding that the "color of their skin" or "language" or "economic status" didn't preclude them from seeking happiness.

"Once you got here, we were all the same," she said. "Isn't that remarkable? It is absolutely remarkable."

The Minnesota Republican called slavery an "evil" and "scourge" and "stain on our history."

"But we also know that the very founders that wrote those documents worked tirelessly until slavery was no more in the United States," Bachmann added, claiming "men like John Quincy Adams... would not rest until slavery was extinguished in the country."

The general reaction has been: what a dope. But I don't think she can possibly be that stupid. It just isn't possible, is it. She went to third grade. She went to high school. She obviously possesses an IQ somewhere around 100. So she can't be this dumb.

My alternative theory is that she, like many people on the right, just says s--t. She just says it and doesn't care. She said the thing about "skin color" because she doesn't care if she offends anyone with a skin color different from hers. She says J.Q. Adams was a founding father because, well, close enough. And she said the founders eradicated slavery because, you know, some of them wanted to and it happened eventually.

She'll just say anything. If it pisses off liberals, so much the better. Of course, even right-wingers who know something about history will find these kinds of things embarrassing eventually.

Do you have a theory?

Tuesday, January 25, 2011

Monday, January 24, 2011

Life, liberty and the persuit of...free CT scans and PLASMA TV's

Honestly so stupid as to almost not require comment....nah.  

Baxter said...


Healthcare is already rationed, and has been, by cost and ability to pay. It will always be rationed in some manner or form.

Really?  No kidding, things are rationed based on ability to pay?  Wow.

If not, then where is my free Cadillac?

Rick Perry Texas Governor on Stimulus Money

Texas filled nearly 97 percent of its shortfall last year with Federal stimulus dollars, even as its governor has been sharply critical of "bailout" policies, citing the National Conference of State Legislatures.
In the wake of the recession, Texas is one of many states that, contending with diminished revenue, have benefited from Federal support.

After facing a $6.6 billion budget hole, Texas used $6.4 billion of Federal money to help patch it, allowing the state to keep its $9.1 billion emergency fund intact.

But on the same day he asked for the bailout money, governor Rick Perry started a petition called "No Government Bailouts." Indeed, Perry is a consistent critic of government spending, frequently pointing to his own state as proof that budget austerity -- spending cuts coupled with low taxes -- works.

But now, with the stimulus money running out, and with the economy still sluggish, Texas is projected to run a nearly $27 billion deficit over the next two years.
Repeat the lie, repeat the lie, till everyone believes it.

Crisis No More

The Success of Obama's Stimulus Program
http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Files/rc/articles/2010/0817_stimulus_success_burtless/0817_stimulus_success_burtless.pdf
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/viewarticle.cfm/where-did-the-stimulus-go--15610

About Those Death Panels . . .

The very real threat of government health care rationing.
When Sarah Palin warned that Obamacare could lead to medical rationing and “death panels,” supporters were outraged. Alarmism! they roared. A lie! Right-wing propaganda! Alas for supporters of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Palin’s provocative sound bite was at least partly grounded in reality—which is why the term entered the political lexicon.

Now, however, some are seeking to wield the term against conservatives. Case in point: The Arizona legislature recently cut its Medicaid budget because the state is in dire financial straits—a move approved by the Obama administration. When the cuts led to canceling Medicaid coverage for organ transplant surgeries, and a potential organ recipient died, death panel claims suddenly became all the fashion. For example, CBS’s HealthWatch opined:

There is a certain irony here. During last year’s federal battle over President Obama’s health care legislation, some Republicans claimed his program promoted “death panels” which they seemed to suggest would involve government bureaucrats deciding who lives and who dies. The health care bill did include language which paid doctors to offer end-of-life counseling. That was eventually removed. Facing a tough budget situation, however, Arizona has instituted what critics say is much closer to these so-called “death panels” than anything that ever appeared in the federal government’s health care legislation.
Where Did the Stimulus Go?

Sunday, January 23, 2011

Nice Dress

Ahem. Specific Spending Cuts?

It has been nearly three months since the election that brought control back to the GOP in the House of Representatives. Out of power, the Republicans spent much of the past two years loudly advocating massive spending cuts and a balanced budget. Once back in power, their first act was to "jam a bill down throats of America" and repeal the Healthcare Act, thus raising the deficit $280B+. They did this despite the fact that three out of four Americans oppose full repeal of "Obamacare". Finally, they have yet to specify any specific spending cuts. What are they waiting for?

Geez, you are thinking, this seems awfully screwed up. Well, that is because it is. But why would you be surprised? These are the same people that cut taxes twice as we headed into two wars and engaged in a general "War on Terror". These are the folks that massively added to Medicare entitlement costs (Prescription Drug Plan) without providing a penny in revenue to pay for it. Our current national debt is a direct product of Republican policies over the past thirty years. And now they have the temerity to decry deficits and debt!?

Don't listen to what they say. Watch what they do. Then vote Democratic.

Wednesday, January 19, 2011

Pat Toomey is a Deficit Fraud (Much Like His Party)

By Pat Garofalo

Deficit Fraud Toomey Says Spending Cuts Are His Priority While Embracing Budget-Busting Policies

When he’s not reminiscing about having successfully deregulated credit default swaps, Pennsylvania’s Republican senate nominee Pat Toomey likes to scaremonger about government spending. In fact, he told the Harrisburg Patriot-News’ editorial board that one of his “top three priorities” is cutting government spending.

“I hear a lot of people who are fearful about the future of our country,” Toomey said. “They are very worried about the size of the deficit and worried their kids are ultimately not going to be able to attain the standard of living they’ve enjoyed because of the debt we are imposing on them.”

But if Toomey wants to decrease the deficit, he sure has a funny way of showing it. The Patriot News reported that Toomey’s legislative goals are “repeal the Obama administration’s health care reform law, impose no huge tax increases, oppose cap-and-trade energy legislation and make permanent the Bush-era tax cuts and extend them to top American earners.” None of these steps do anything to reduce the deficit, and two of them make it considerably worse:

– Repeal the Affordable Care Act: According to the Congressional Budget Office, repealing health care reform would add $143 billion to the deficit.

– Permanently extend the Bush tax cuts: The entire tax cut package costs more than $3 trillion. Extending just the cuts for the wealthiest two percent of households — which President Obama wants to see expire — costs $830 billion.

– Oppose cap-and-trade: According to the CBO, Sen. John Kerry’s (D-MA) cap-and-trade plan would reduce the deficit by $19 billion over the next ten years and not increase the deficit at all for the next forty years.

If Toomey is against “huge tax increases,” is he endorsing little ones? In any case, no serious analyst believes that the budget can be balanced on the spending side alone (as doing so would require draconian cuts to highly popular and vital programs). As former Reagan economic official Bruce Bartlett wrote, “the idea that we can or even should embark on serious deficit reduction with no tax increase whatsoever is grossly immature and unworthy of consideration.”

So Toomey, after paying the necessary lip service to cutting spending, embraced a legislative agenda that would cause the deficit to explode, and explicitly ruled out raising any revenue to offset his humongous expenditures. He’s either clueless about the effect of his proposals or he’s simply a deficit peacock who is more interested in ginning up anxieties about the deficit than in actually taking the necessary steps to bring it down.

Tuesday, January 18, 2011

Jim G. Likes spending restraint. Enforced.

Americans Oppose Healthcare Repeal

The latest polling indicates that America does NOT want to repeal "Obamacare" by a three to one margin. Only 26% support full repeal while 43% favor reform that expands the scope of change to our healthcare system. This gives us a front row seat to see hypocrisy in action. The Republicans - when in the deep minority - complained that Democrats were passing healthcare reform against the will of the people. Now that they have the majority, they are rushing to repeal the bill in apparent contradiction of America's wishes. Worse - they would add $280B to the deficit according to the bipartisan CBO.

Not exactly an auspicious beginning...

Read the poll by cutting and pasting the below to your browser:

http://www.ap-gfkpoll.com/pdf/AP-GfK%20Poll%20011411.pdf

A leading civil rights leader in Congress believes the Democratic Party is losing too many white voters. 
In an interview, Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.) said Democrats need to "go all out" to win back white Southern voters before the next election.

Senator Kent Conrad surprised observers today by announcing that he is ending a 24-year stint as a senator and will be retiring at the end of his term in 2012.

Just to be clear, she did not ask to be involved, she was drawn in.

She is not the President.  She is a private, politically active citizen.  She does speak with greater clarity than the President and with much greater courage.  She has a job and I'm sure makes a very good living as a commentator.

What you little boys have against her is beyond me.  And before you open your pie holes (figuratively), remember she was accused (even by our friend Eric) within hours of the event of being responsible for the heinous act.

PALIN:  I read my name in the reports, and then I read Rush Limbaugh and then soon your name, Sean, and Mark Levin and soon Tea Party Patriots and soon the entire state of Arizona was being falsely accused of somehow being accessories to this horrendous, horrendous crime.  That is why I was puzzled the first as to why -- before facts were even gathered, why -- it would be that the mainstream media would start accusing and using such a tragedy for what appeared to be, right off the bat, some political gain.

?    "Well, what can you tell us about this map, crosshair map?"

PALIN:  For many, many years maps in political races have been used to target certain districts that people would feel that they can get into those districts and find someone whom they believe would represent the constituents' will better than an incumbent.  That's not original.  In fact, Democrats have been using it for years.  In fact, Bob Beckel I believe he had bragged on your show, Sean, that he was the one who invented these crosshairs or these targets.  (Eric, this kind of puts your, let's call it  "premature" cross hair post into context, the context being false outrage for the purpose of political gains resulting in a...Blood Libel!)

?   Does this impact your political future?

PALIN:  They're not going to shut me up. They're not gonna shut up Tea Party Patriots or those who, as I say, respectfully and patriotically petition their government for change.  They can't make us sit down and shut up, and if they ever were to succeed in doing that then our republic will be destroyed.

?    "Let me ask you about 'blood libel.' Some of your critics are saying that you didn't know the historical significance; others criticized you for the phrase.  I want you to address the timing and that phrase.  What is it?"

PALIN:  "Blood libel" obviously means being falsely accused of having blood on your hands.  In this case that's exactly what was going on and, yes, the historical knowledge that people have of the term blood libel, it goes back to the Jews who were falsely accused back in medieval European times of using the blood of children and  you know, the criticism of even the timing of this statement is being used as another diversion.

RUSH: "You ever have moments of doubt, feeling that you would like the comfort of not having to deal with this all the time?"

PALIN:  Other people are facing much greater hardships and making greater sacrifices than I am in just engaging in debate and I'm thankful for the opportunity that I have to speak for many, and I will continue to do so. I feel very blessed to be in the position that I am and I'll take the darts and the arrows because I know others have my back, and I have their back.

Thursday, January 13, 2011

Forget it Jake

Keep the "O" and give me Sarah

The collective thought seems to be that "O" is a great oraterLast night I listened and learned that the way through this tragedy is to "hug mom" and realize that despite our faults we are a good people. Huh? An evil madman shoots a bunch of people and the lesion is to examine our faults and grow from the experience? What drivel!


Sarah understands that there is evil in the world and we must be vigiliant. She did not blame "us" and instead identified evil and said it must be stopped.


Baxter states that he had other things on his mind, however when push can to shove, he accused my side of having "finger prints" all over this tragedy. And Eric wants an apology.

Where and for what? Even though they never let facts or reality get in the way, it is hard to ignore the following and continue to insinuate that the right had any causal relationship to the event.

Apology? I'm waiting.


He did not watch TV. He disliked the news. He didn't listen to political radio. He didn't take sides. He wasn't on the left; he wasn't on the right.

Wednesday, January 12, 2011

And Eric's and Baxter's? The more I consider the asinine response of those two, the madder I get (don't worry, no gunplay planned). Apologize? Finger prints? I was going to write something but Charlie nails it.

Massacre, Followed by Libel


The origins of Jared Loughner’s delusions are clear: mental illness. What are the origins of Paul Krugman’s?  The charge: The Tucson massacre is a consequence of the “climate of hate” created by Sarah Palin, the Tea Party, Glenn Beck, Obamacare opponents, and sundry other liberal bĂȘtes noires.
The verdict: Rarely in American political discourse has there been a charge so reckless, so scurrilous, and so unsupported by evidence.


As killers go, Jared Loughner is not reticent. Yet among all his writings, postings, videos, and other ravings — and in all the testimony from people who knew him — there is not a single reference to any of these supposed accessories to murder.

Not only is there no evidence that Loughner was impelled to violence by any of those upon whom Paul Krugman, Keith Olbermann, the New York Times, the Tucson sheriff, and other rabid partisans are fixated. There is no evidence that he was responding to anything, political or otherwise, outside of his own head.

A climate of hate? This man lived within his very own private climate. “His thoughts were unrelated to anything in our world,” said the teacher of Loughner’s philosophy class at Pima Community College.  “He was very disconnected from reality,” said classmate Lydian Ali.

“You know how it is when you talk to someone who’s mentally ill and they’re just not there?” said neighbor Jason Johnson. “It was like he was in his own world.”

His ravings, said one high-school classmate, were interspersed with “unnerving, long stupors of silence” during which he would “stare fixedly at his buddies,” reported the Wall Street Journal. His own writings are confused, incoherent, punctuated with private numerology and inscrutable taxonomy. He warned of government brainwashing and thought control through “grammar.” He was obsessed with “conscious dreaming,” a fairly good synonym for hallucinations.

This is not political behavior. These are the signs of a clinical thought disorder — ideas disconnected from one another, incoherent, delusional, detached from reality.

These are all the hallmarks of a paranoid schizophrenic. And a dangerous one. A classmate found him so terrifyingly mentally disturbed that — as she e-mailed friends and family — she expected to see his picture on TV after he had perpetrated a mass murder. This was no idle speculation: In class, “I sit by the door with my purse handy,” she wrote, so that she could get out fast when the shooting began.

Furthermore, the available evidence dates Loughner’s fixation on Rep. Gabrielle Giffords back to at least 2007, when he attended a townhall of hers and felt slighted by her response. In 2007, no one had heard of Sarah Palin. Glenn Beck was still toiling on Headline News. There was no Tea Party or health-care reform. The only climate of hate was the pervasive post-Iraq campaign of vilification of George W. Bush, nicely captured by a New Republic editor who began an article thus: “I hate President George W. Bush. There, I said it.”

Finally, the charge that the metaphors used by Palin and others were inciting violence is ridiculous. Everyone uses warlike metaphors in describing politics. When Barack Obama said at a 2008 fundraiser in Philadelphia, “If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun,” he was hardly inciting violence.

Why? Because fighting and warfare are the most routine of political metaphors. And for obvious reasons. Historically speaking, all democratic politics is a sublimation of the ancient route to power — military conquest. That’s why the language persists. That’s why we speak without any self-consciousness of such things as “battleground states” and “targeting” opponents. Indeed, the very word for an electoral contest — “campaign” — is an appropriation from warfare.

When profiles of Obama’s first chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, noted that he once sent a dead fish to a pollster who displeased him, a characteristically subtle statement carrying more than a whiff of malice and murder, it was considered a charming example of excessive — and creative — political enthusiasm. When Senate candidate Joe Manchin dispensed with metaphor and simply fired a bullet through the cap-and-trade bill — while intoning, “I’ll take dead aim at [it]” — he was hardly assailed with complaints about violations of civil discourse or invitations to murder.
Did Manchin push Loughner over the top? Did Emanuel’s little Mafia imitation create a climate for political violence? The very questions are absurd — unless you’re the New York Times and you substitute the name Sarah Palin.

The origins of Loughner’s delusions are clear: mental illness. What are the origins of Krugman’s?

Monday, January 10, 2011

Where have all the flowers gone?
Long time passing
Where have all the flowers gone?
Long time ago
Where have all the graveyards gone?
Covered with flowers every one
When will we ever learn?
When will we ever learn.

I just can't let this go sorry! We won't let kids watch cigarette comercials because they might smoke, and yet the best selling game today to kids is BLACK OP'S.
When will ever learn?
The Virginia Tech killings, How many did he kill?
Can you rember, I doubt it. (32) I will say it again 32.
The guy in Omaha?, (8)
Whitman At the University of Texas?, (16)
The guy at the McDonald's in California? (21)
The day trader in Alanta? (9)
Harris and Klebold at Columbine? (12)
The guy in Killen Texas at the Luby's? (23)
The Amish girls at their school? (5)

The trouble is we are so used to this we are numb too numb.
In two weeks you will barely remember this as well as all the others I have pointed out.
The action and the consequences are so far apart that it lessens the shock and lessens the outrage that we need to change things in this country.
I say hang this guy next Friday in the public square in Tucson.
This is not a who dun it, we have witness's.
Sorry about your rights, you certainly didn't care about those people's rights.

Guns don't kill people do

Gun's don't kill people do, the mantra of the NRA will undoubtly will be heard again and again.
It is not that the gun was evil, but that it was in the hands of an evil person,” Rep. Trent Franks (R-AZ) assures us on Meet the Press. Echoes the Tea Party’s Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) on CNN: No laws curtailing gun ownership could stop a person “bent on performing evil acts to kill another person.”

Is that so? If the Tucson madman did not easily and legally acquire his gun and the large magazine of bullets with it, would he have been able to vent his evil on a crowd of people, killing at least six and wounding 13?

Of course not. Guns kill people. A single gun can kills lots of them in seconds. A single knife can’t. The gun has a unique utility for translating rage into instant killing. The gunman can get close, concealing the weapon, and take the victims by surprise. The counterargument is that if a victim has a gun, the gunman won’t try. There is something in that. But the attacker always has the benefit of surprise. Sadly, it didn’t help Rep. Gabrielle Giffords that she is a gun owner and a keen Second Amendment supporter. Banks are well-defended but still get robbed.
While I believe in owning a gun, there must be a better way to regulate how many bullets a gun can shoot in one second. I mean if we can tell auto makers how many MPG they need to have, can't we tell gun mfg's, no assault weapons, to civilians.

Where is the $100 Billion?

The NY Times ran an editorial on Saturday asking where the $100B in spending cuts were that John Boehner and the Republicans promised four months ago. To date, they have yet to specifically identify the cuts and, in fact, are said to be paring the number down to $50B-$60B. As a reminder, the federal budget is $3.5 trillion and the party that ran on the promise of cutting spending has so far identified only $35 million. I sense a continuing pattern.

As I have long said, it is one thing to yell "Just cut spending!" as you are taking over a town hall meeting and preventing others from speaking. It is quite another to identify the cuts, as that is when the question is in full relief. Tax cuts sound great in a vacuum, and ring like poor policy if the price is deficits or the elimination of popular programs. Further - spending cuts are not the path to recovery in times of recession and high unemployment.

Campaign promises are easy. Governing is hard work. Lets see what you got, Mr Boehner.

NY Times piece: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/09/opinion/09sun1.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

Sunday, January 9, 2011

The flood of American liberals sneaking across the border into Canada has intensified this week after the shootings, sparking calls for increased patrols to stop the illegal immigration. The results of the recent election are prompting an exodus among left-leaning citizens who fear they'll soon be required to hunt, to pray, and to agree with Bill O'Reilly and Glenn Beck.
Canadian border farmers say it's not uncommon to see dozens of sociology professors, animal-rights activists and Unitarians crossing their fields at night. "I went out to milk the cows the other day, and there was a Hollywood producer huddled in the barn," said Manitoba farmer Red Greenfield, whose acreage borders North Dakota . "The producer was cold, exhausted and hungry. He asked me if I could spare a latte and some free-range chicken. When I said I didn't have any, he left before I even got a chance to show him my screenplay, eh?"

In an effort to stop the illegal aliens, Greenfield erected higher fences, but the liberals scaled them. He then installed loudspeakers that blared Rush Limbaugh across the fields  "Not real effective," he said. "The liberals still got through and Rush annoyed the cows so much that they wouldn't give any milk."


Officials are particularly concerned about smugglers who meet liberals near the Canadian border, pack them into Volvo station wagons and drive them across the border where they are simply left to fend for themselves. "A lot of these people are not prepared for our rugged conditions," an Ontario border patrolman said. "I found one carload without a single bottle of imported drinking water. They did have a nice little Napa Valley Cabernet, though."

When liberals are caught, they're sent back across the border, often wailing loudly that they fear retribution from conservatives. Rumors have been circulating in the US about plans to build re-education camps where liberals will be forced to drink domestic beer and watch NASCAR races.

In recent days, liberals have turned to ingenious ways of crossing the border. Some have been disguised as senior citizens taking a bus trip to buy cheap Canadian prescription drugs. After catching a half-dozen young vegans in powdered wig disguises, Canadian immigration authorities began stopping buses and quizzing the supposed senior citizens about Perry Como and Rosemary Clooney, to prove that they were alive in the '50s. An official said, "If they can't identify the accordion player on The Lawrence Welk Show, we become very suspicious about their age."

Canadian citizens have complained that the illegal immigrants are creating an organic-broccoli shortage and are renting all the Michael Moore movies. "I really feel sorry for American liberals, but the Canadian economy just can't support them," an Ottawa resident said. "How many art-history majors does one country need?"

Like day follows night

Of course ONLY the angry RIGHT retoric is to blame.

Until Saturday's rampage against Rep. Gabrielle Giffords left her battling for her life and ended the lives of six others, Clarence Dupnik was not the most famous sheriff in Arizona.


But after a pull-no-punches news conference in which he linked the shooting in Tucson to a poisonous underlying political atmosphere, the Pima County sheriff may soon become known nationally as the anti-Joe Arpaio.

"When you look at unbalanced people, how they respond to the vitriol that comes out of certain mouths about tearing down the government. The anger, the hatred, the bigotry that goes on in this country is getting to be outrageous," said Dupnik, referring to the troubled suspect, 22-year-old Jared Loughner.

Dupnik said Arizona, embroiled over the last year by bitter divisions over illegal immigration and health care reform, has "become the mecca for prejudice and bigotry."

Many officials have been threatened, including Giffords, the federal judge killed by her side and Dupnik himself. The sheriff called that a "sad thing," and said, "Pretty soon, we're not going to be able to find reasonable, decent people who are willing to subject themselves to serve in public office."

We have a Winner! Thanks, Sarah Palin. You can go away now.

Tucson

Is there any way to persuade the Pima County Sheriff to run for congress? He seems to know what is going on.


Thursday, January 6, 2011

Circular logic-or a Circular firing squad

We have a budget deficit, let's raise taxes!  On the rich! (to the prev post I reply Duh!)

    Before we raise taxes, let's cut spending... how about we start with Earmarks?

Earmarks!  That is nothing, all the spending is in entitlements!

     But cutting Earmarks is a start and they corrupt the process.  But OK...Let's cut entitlements.

We can't cut entitlements!  People would be mad.

    But we can't afford to continue the current entitlements, they are breaking us.

Yes!

    But you/we are  legislators, why don't we deal with entitlements?

Yes!  We need to deal with entitlements, let's raise them, everyone needs health care!

     But you just agreed we can't afford our current entitlements, why do you think we can add another?

Because people need things and it is the responsibility of a small portion of the citizenry to pay for the general welfare.  Raise taxes on the Rich!

     But even if we raise taxes and ignore its effect on the economy, we will still go broke if we don't deal with entitlements. Let's legislate something.

No!  If we legislated something other politicians would say bad things about us and we would lose our jobs! 

      Who would say such things?  This is really important, the country is going broke, we need to act.

We would!

Americans Support Tax Hikes (on the rich)

U.S. News
Poll: Most favor taxing rich as budget fix
Published: Jan. 3, 2011 at 2:50 PM

NEW YORK, Jan. 3 (UPI) -- Raising taxes on high-end U.S. taxpayers should be the first step taken in balancing the federal budget, a CBS "60 Minutes"/Vanity Fair poll Monday indicated.

Sixty-one percent of Americans said they thought increasing taxes on the wealthy should be the first thing done to help bring the budget into balance, while 20 percent said they preferred cuts to Pentagon spending as their first option, The Hill reported.

Four percent said cutting Medicare would be the best way to begin to cut the deficit while 3 percent of participants said they preferred cutting Social Security.

Raising taxes for the wealthy was popular among the wealthy themselves, the poll revealed. Fifty-eight percent of respondents making between $50,000 and $100,000 per year ranked tax hikes as the best first step to balancing the budget, while 46 percent of people earning more than $100,000 said it was their top choice.

Results are based on nationwide interviews with 1,137 adults Nov. 29-Dec. 2. It has a 3 percentage point margin of error.

Sunday, January 2, 2011

Bipartisan Healthcare Improvements?

The GOP has bitterly complained about the individual mandate contained in 2010’s Healthcare Reform. Perhaps, they can improve the bill by working constructively in the 112th Congress:

Repeal the provision “requiring” the purchase of health insurance and replace it with “open enrollment” at the date that the “requirement” was going to kick in. Those who choose to opt out will not face a tax penalty. However, should opt-outs ever desire to opt-in, they would be subject to the underwriting standards employed today. They would be subject to rejection and exemption from pre-existing conditions, just as today. Finally, they would be fully responsible for the costs any healthcare consumed while uninsured, just as today. What self-respecting, government-hating conservative American would balk at such conditions?

Allow insurers to offer “health & fitness” discounts of up to 15% each in three areas: smoking status, height/weight, and drugs/alcohol. Those who are weight proportionate, don’t smoke, and/or provide clear drug screens would be able to receive significant premium reductions. All three areas are based upon personal behavior choices and would move the cost of insurance closer to the risk of same. Allow employers and healthy employees to split the premium cost savings. Incentives, of course, are very powerful. This “health & fitness” provision would probably be one the greatest acts to improve our health and consequently reduce costs since health insurance became widespread. Like the man said, it really would be a BFD.
If you ever wondered what side of the fence you sit on...

If a conservative doesn't like guns, he doesn't buy one.
If a liberal democrat doesn't like guns, he wants all guns outlawed.

If a conservative is a vegetarian, he doesn't eat meat.
If a liberal democrat is a vegetarian, he wants all meat products banned for everyone.

If a conservative is homosexual, he quietly leads his life.
If a liberal democrat is homosexual, he demands legislated respect.

If a conservative is down-and-out, he thinks about how to better his situation. <>A liberal democrat wonders who is going to take care of him.

If a conservative doesn't like a talk show host, he switches channels.

If a liberal democrat doesn't like a talk show host, he demands the show be shut down.

If a conservative is a non-believer, he doesn't go to church.
A liberal democrat non-believer wants any mention of God and religion silenced.


If a conservative reads this, he'll forward it so his friends can have a good laugh.

A liberal democrat will delete it because he's "offend ed".

Saturday, January 1, 2011

Nothing more needs to be said!

Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.
Dwight David Eisenhower