Post #206 Charles Krauthammer's Health-Care Reform Plan

QUICK! CALL 9-1-1!! LET'S RUSH THE CONSTITUTION TO THE HOSPITAL!!!

Charles Krauthammer wants to take away your Constitutional right to have your day in court. "[I'd a]bolish the entire medical-malpractice system. Create a new social pool from which people injured in medical errors or accidents can draw. The adjudication would be done by medical experts, not lay juries."

I'll agree with Krauthammer that Obamacare "simply multiplies the current inefficiencies and arbitrariness, thus producing staggering deficits with less choice and lower-quality care."

But unConstitutional socialism is not the way to go.

Neo-cons. [rolleyes] No wonder the complaint is that Republicans have no plan. All that is heard is nonsense.

There are two components to Krauthammer's plan: 1) Tear up the Constitution; 2) Raise taxes. "The plan is so simple it doesn't even have the requisite three parts," Krauthammer said. "Just two: radical tort reform and radically severing the link between health insurance and employment.

"There is no logical reason to get health insurance through your employer. This entire system is an accident of World War II wage and price controls. It's economically senseless. It makes people stay in jobs they hate, decreasing labor mobility and therefore overall productivity. And it needlessly increases the anxiety of losing your job by raising the additional specter of going bankrupt through illness."

Yep, but the solution is -- well....

"Tax employer-provided health-care benefits," Krauthammer said, "and return the money to the employee."

I must have been asleep that day during 'Conservatism 101,' but how does taxing businesses -- big and small, I'm guessing -- help? I appreciate the willingness to mention taxes -- taxes = services, after all. But I think my idea in my Post #203 to tax the individuals who use Obamacare is better.

Look, Obamacare is just too complicated. We ought to just copy an already-existing program -- Medicare, the plan for only Senators and congressmen, Charles Krauthammer's plan (not his neo-con fantasy but what he currently uses)....

Post #205 Don't want no socialism 'round here....

I have a few cows. I sell 'em for meat. What I really hate is the way the government sends a 'Agriculture Extension Officer' to tell me how to raise cows.

We need to get the government out of agriculture. Let's end the socialism of agri-welfare. Just think of the tax-savings for everybody, and I can pass my savings in the cost of raising cows along to ya. Wouldn't ya like cheaper hamburger?

I know what ya is thinking. But I promise to have a vet check out my cows every week -- keep 'Mad Cow disease' out of the food supply. Unless of course that is the week lil' BobbiSue needs braces. But, hey, the chances of ya getting sick is small.

No, sir, no socialism for me! :p

----- End Forwarded Message -----

Post #204 9/11, revisited, Pt. III

As I said in my Post #175, every time I think about forgiving George W. Bush for 9/11, I read my Post #104 -- which follows. It is a Damning indictment of the Weasel's ineptitude and doesn't even include some of the most obvious examples -- Condi Rice's July '01 meeting with George Tenet or the August '01 Presidential Daily Briefing. Nor did I mention Bush's opposition to the 9/11 Commission or his refusal to give a formal interview.

The most depressing thing I saw on TV during MSNBC's replay of the coverage of that morning was, before 12 noon, Tom Brokaw identified the prime suspect, Osama bin Laden, and cited a speech he had given in London the month before in which he threatened the United States.

Why wasn't Bush all over this?

* * *

Post #104

Subject: 9/11, revisited

President George W. Bush stood atop the rubble of the World Trade Center, wrapped his arm around a firefighter and said, "These terrorists shall hear from us. But, if we can't get 'em, we will invade a country that did not attack us and does not threaten us."

Wait -- was that a dream or a nightmare?

Richard Clarke, former counterterrorism czar, had a meeting with the deputies of Cabinet Secretaries in April of 2001, when, he says, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz insisted the real terrorism threat was not al Qaeda but Iraq

Why a meeting with the deputies and not the Secretaries? Bush had downgraded counterterrorism from a cabinet-level job, so Clarke now dealt instead with deputy secretaries. As Clarke told the 9'11 Commission, "It slowed it down enormously, by months. First of all, the deputies' committee didn't meet urgently in January or February."

The Secretaries' first meeting on al Qaeda was not until after Labor Day, on September 4, 2001.

On January 25, 2001, five days after Bush took office, Clarke sent Condoleezza Rice a memo, attaching to it a document entitled "Strategy for Eliminating the Threat of al Qaeda" It was, Clarke wrote, "developed by the last administration to give to you, incorporating diplomatic, economic, military, public diplomacy, and intelligence tools."

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, January 17, 2001)

SANDY BERGER, NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER: With survivors of the U.S.S. Cole reinforced the reality that America is in a deadly struggle with a new breed of anti-Western jihadists. Nothing less than a war, I think, is fair to describe this.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

As Senator Carl Levin said, "I'm concerned that we may not be putting enough emphasis on countering the most likely threats to our national security and to the security of our forces deployed around the world, those asymmetric threats, like terrorist attacks on the U.S.S. Cole on our barracks and our embassies around the world, on the World Trade Center."

And where was Bush?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, February 27, 2001)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The Taliban in Afghanistan, they have offered that they are ready to hand over Osama bin Laden to Saudi Arabia if the United States drops its sanctions, and they have a kind of deal that they want to make with the United States. Do you have any comments?

ARI FLEISCHER, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: Let me take that and get back to you on that.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

Ari never did.

On February 26, 2001, Paul Bremer said of the administration, "What they will do is stagger along until there's a major incident, and then suddenly say, Oh, my God, shouldn't we be organized to deal with this?"

And they gave us Iraq instead....

* * *

Bill Clinton knew. In Australia on 9/11, the former President immediately knew who the culprit was. But yet in the White House on 9/12, there was an obsession with Saddam
Hussein as there was an obsession with Saddam on 9/10 -- 9/11 just gave an excuse to take out the bad man. So what if there had to be lies about the actual connection between Saddam and Osama? There was a get-Saddam mindset BEFORE 9/11.

Post #203 Why Leadership Has Failed On Health Care Reform

The mistake President Obama is making in regard to health care reform is that he is being too timid -- there should be a government-takeover of health care. As the Preamble to the Constitution states: "promote the general Welfare."

The public-option that Obama wants is a time-consuming ruse -- the government will choke private insurers out of business. The eight [8] consumer protections that David Axelrod outlined in my post #201 are fine and dandy, but they are how the insurance companies make money and stay in business. Private insurers cannot compete with public coffers. All so that Obama can claim that he allowed the free market to work.

We have already had years and years and years of the free market; we need more now. Yes, that means government. Some problems are so big that government is the only answer. Even George Will agrees with me -- read his column about the success of Phoenix, Arizona.

I'm no fool, * heh * -- I realize that BIG government is just that -- BIG, s-l-o-w and inefficient. But at least government will respond and change its ways. A private company will resist change.

As a Libertarian blue dog Democrat, * huh? * I realize that it is in the governments interest to run health care -- a pro-business stance. What is good for General Motors is good for America, and government-run healh care is good for General Motors. Whoever decided that businesses should be in charge of their employee's health care acted stupidly.

However, I cannot support anything that's not paid for -- beyond "we'll cut waste and fraud" or other voodoo.

I think a %10 'medical tax' on everbody who files an income tax return would do -- Ned the Wino who draws $10,000 in Social Security would pay $1000 for his 'Obamacare' card while Bill Gates would pay $5 billion. Or some kind of graduation -- Ned would pay %5, $500; Bill would pay %20, $10 billion.

Make it optional -- if anybody objects to "socialism," make 'em give up Social Security, Medicare, the use of federally-funded highways, etc.

I am disappointed that Obama is not shooting straight -- playing the free market game to outwit conservatives. We need more.

Post #202 Dick Cheney Terrorizes America

Dick Cheney, former Vice President who was asleep on 9/11, said that the Obama administration's respect for the rule of law and the decision to investigate the CIA serve as a reminder "if any were needed, of why so many Americans have doubts about this administration's ability to be responsible for our nation's security."

Sweating, Dick? :p

Post #201 Fwd: Something Worth "Fwd"

----- Start Forwarded Message -----

This is probably one of the longest emails Ive ever sent, but it could be the most important.

Across the country we are seeing vigorous debate about health insurance reform. Unfortunately, some of the old tactics we know so well are back even the viral emails that fly unchecked and under the radar, spreading all sorts of lies and distortions.

As President Obama said at the town hall in New Hampshire, where we do disagree, let's disagree over things that are real, not these wild misrepresentations that bear no resemblance to anything that's actually been proposed.

So lets start a chain email of our own. At the end of my email, youll find a lot of information about health insurance reform, distilled into 8 ways reform provides security and stability to those with or without coverage, 8 common myths about reform and 8 reasons we need health insurance reform now.

Right now, someone you know probably has a question about reform that could be answered by whats below. So what are you waiting for? Forward this email.

Thanks,
David

David Axelrod
Senior Adviser to the President

P.S. We launched www.WhiteHouse.gov/realitycheck this week to knock down the rumors and lies that are floating around the internet. You can find the information below, and much more, there. For example, we've just added a video of Nancy-Ann DeParle from our Health Reform Office tackling a viral email head on. Check it out:

Health Insurance Reform Reality Check

8 ways reform provides security and stability to those with or without coverage

1. Ends Discrimination for Pre-Existing Conditions: Insurance companies will be prohibited from refusing you coverage because of your medical history.

2. Ends Exorbitant Out-of-Pocket Expenses, Deductibles or Co-Pays: Insurance companies will have to abide by yearly caps on how much they can charge for out-of-pocket expenses.

3. Ends Cost-Sharing for Preventive Care: Insurance companies must fully cover, without charge, regular checkups and tests that help you prevent illness, such as mammograms or eye and foot exams for diabetics.

4. Ends Dropping of Coverage for Seriously Ill: Insurance companies will be prohibited from dropping or watering down insurance coverage for those who become seriously ill.

5. Ends Gender Discrimination: Insurance companies will be prohibited from charging you more because of your gender.

6. Ends Annual or Lifetime Caps on Coverage: Insurance companies will be prevented from placing annual or lifetime caps on the coverage you receive.

7. Extends Coverage for Young Adults: Children would continue to be eligible for family coverage through the age of 26.

8. Guarantees Insurance Renewal: Insurance companies will be required to renew any policy as long as the policyholder pays their premium in full. Insurance companies won't be allowed to refuse renewal because someone became sick.

Learn more and get details:
http://www.WhiteHouse.gov/health-insurance-consumer-protections/

8 common myths about health insurance reform

1. Reform will stop "rationing" - not increase it: Its a myth that reform will mean a "government takeover" of health care or lead to "rationing." To the contrary, reform will forbid many forms of rationing that are currently being used by insurance companies.

2. We cant afford reform: It's the status quo we can't afford. Its a myth that reform will bust the budget. To the contrary, the President has identified ways to pay for the vast majority of the
up-front costs by cutting waste, fraud, and abuse within existing government health programs; ending big subsidies to insurance companies; and increasing efficiency with such steps as coordinating care and streamlining paperwork. In the long term, reform can help bring down costs that will otherwise lead to a fiscal crisis.

3. Reform would encourage "euthanasia": It does not. Its a malicious myth that reform would encourage or even require euthanasia for seniors. For seniors who want to consult with their family and physicians about end-of life decisions, reform will help to cover these voluntary, private consultations for those who want help with these personal and difficult family decisions.

4. Vets' health care is safe and sound: Its a myth that health insurance reform will affect veterans' access to the care they get now. To the contrary, the President's budget significantly expands coverage under the VA, extending care to 500,000 more veterans who were previously excluded. The VA Healthcare system will continue to be available for all eligible veterans.

5. Reform will benefit small business - not burden it: Its a myth that health insurance reform will hurt small businesses. To the contrary, reform will ease the burdens on small businesses, provide tax credits to help them pay for employee coverage and help level the playing field with big firms who pay much less to cover their employees on average.

6. Your Medicare is safe, and stronger with reform: Its myth that Health Insurance Reform would be financed by cutting Medicare benefits. To the contrary, reform will improve the long-term financial health of Medicare, ensure better coordination, eliminate waste and unnecessary subsidies to insurance companies, and help to close the Medicare "doughnut" hole to make prescription drugs more affordable for seniors.

7. You can keep your own insurance: Its myth that reform will force you out of your current insurance plan or force you to change doctors. To the contrary, reform will expand your choices, not eliminate them.

8. No, government will not do anything with your bank account: It is an absurd myth that government will be in charge of your bank accounts. Health insurance reform will simplify administration, making it easier and more convenient for you to pay bills in a method that you choose. Just like paying a phone bill or a utility bill, you can pay by traditional check, or by a direct electronic payment. And forms will be standardized so they will be easier to understand. The choice is up to you and the same rules of privacy will apply as they do for all other electronic payments that people make.

Learn more and get details:
http://www.WhiteHouse.gov/realitycheck
http://www.WhiteHouse.gov/realitycheck/faq

8 Reasons We Need Health Insurance Reform Now

1. Coverage Denied to Millions: A recent national survey estimated that 12.6 million non-elderly adults 36 percent of those who tried to purchase health insurance directly from an insurance company in the individual insurance market were in fact discriminated against because of a pre-existing condition in the previous three years or dropped from coverage when they became seriously ill. Learn more:
http://www.healthreform.gov/reports/denied_coverage/index.html

2. Less Care for More Costs: With each passing year, Americans are paying more for health care coverage. Employer-sponsored health insurance premiums have nearly doubled since 2000, a rate three times faster than wages. In 2008, the average premium for a family plan purchased through an employer was $12,680, nearly the annual earnings of a full-time minimum wage job. Americans pay more than ever for health insurance, but get less coverage. Learn more:
http://www.healthreform.gov/reports/hiddencosts/index.html

3. Roadblocks to Care for Women: Womens reproductive health requires more regular contact with health care providers, including yearly pap smears, mammograms, and obstetric care. Women are also more likely to report fair or poor health than men (9.5% versus 9.0%). While rates of chronic conditions such as diabetes and high blood pressure are similar to men, women are twice as likely to suffer from headaches and are more likely to experience joint, back or neck pain. These chronic conditions often require regular and frequent treatment and follow-up care. Learn more:
http://www.healthreform.gov/reports/women/index.html

4. Hard Times in the Heartland: Throughout rural America, there are nearly 50 million people who face challenges in accessing health care. The past several decades have consistently shown higher rates of poverty, mortality, uninsurance, and limited access to a primary health care provider in rural areas. With the recent economic downturn, there is potential for an increase in many of the health disparities and access concerns that are already elevated in rural communities. Learn more:
http://www.healthreform.gov/reports/hardtimes

5. Small Businesses Struggle to Provide Health Coverage: Nearly one-third of the uninsured 2013 million people are employees of firms with less than 100 workers. From 2000 to 2007, the proportion of non-elderly Americans covered by employer-based health insurance fell from 66% to 61%. Much of this decline stems from small business. The percentage of small businesses offering coverage dropped from 68% to 59%, while large firms held stable at 99%. About a third of such workers in firms with fewer than 50 employees obtain insurance through a spoe. Learn more:
http://www.healthreform.gov/reports/helpbottomline

6. The Tragedies are Personal: Half of all personal bankruptcies are at least partly the result of medical expenses. The typical elderly couple may have to save nearly $300,000 to pay for health costs not covered by Medicare alone. Learn more:
http://www.healthreform.gov/reports/inaction

7. Diminishing Access to Care: From 2000 to 2007, the proportion of non-elderly Americans covered by employer-based health insurance fell from 66% to 61%. An estimated 87 million people - one in every three Americans under the age of 65 - were uninsured at some point in 2007 and 2008. More than 80% of the uninsured are in working families. Learn more:
http://www.healthreform.gov/reports/inaction/diminishing/index.html

8. The Trends are Troubling: Without reform, health care costs will continue to skyrocket unabated, putting unbearable strain on families, businesses, and state and federal government budgets. Perhaps the most visible sign of the need for health care reform is the 46 million Americans currently without health insurance - projections suggest that this number will rise to about 72 million in 2040 in the absence of reform. Learn more:
http://www.WhiteHouse.gov/assets/documents/CEA_Health_Care_Report.pdf

Visit WhiteHouse.gov

----- End Forwarded Message -----

Post #200 Who Killed Stephen Hawking?

Well, he is not dead. Stephen Hawking, the renowned British theoretical physicist with a neuro muscular dystrophy, is alive -- just on TV getting the "Presidential Medal of Freedom."

So, the question really is: "Who is keeping Stephen Hawking alive?" The answer: Government.

"Who would kill Stephen Hawking?" Private insurers.

It seems ironic to me that the same peeps who rant about government's theoretical future role in life and death decisions have nothing to say regarding private insurers' real current role. They want to cite Stephen Hawking -- ignoring the fact that he is not dead. All the while, it is private insurers who make life and death decisions every day. If ya can't afford insurance, too bad.

In 1995, Taiwan wanted to have universal health care -- they scoured the world for the best-run government health care to copy and choose the United States' Medicare. Taiwan of course opened their Medicare to everybody. Why can't we do that?

Universal health care is a pro-business stance -- leveling the playing field of the world market. Universal health care is also pro-workers -- nobody to be held hostage to a job because of the health benefits.

"Socialism" is the cry -- ignoring last November's election results. That is the same crowd who slurps at the troughs of Medicare and Social Security, Ignore 'em, I say -- they had their chance to be heard.

Post #199 Why I'm Opposed to Same-Sex Marriage

Well, it's the same reason I oppose all marriages: The government has no interest in promoting unions of any kind -- thro tax breaks or any incentives.

It can be argued that, during the 19th century, the government had an interest in promoting unions and therefore children. The country needed to be populated, and government codifying the value of religious marriage was the way to go. But that changed sometime during the 20th century.

However, the government does have an interest in promoting the establishments of homes to raise children as this would be cheaper than government-financed orphanages.

Please note that my argument as of today has nothing to do with religion -- neither for nor against a religious definition of marriage. Separation of church and state, ya know....

Post #198 Conservatives Against Crowley

Sergeant James Crowley wasted government money when he arrested Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates Jr. -- there was no crime. Crowley "got" his man -- but at what cost?

Did Gates raise his cane in a threatening manner? No. Did Gates punch Crowley? No! Did Gates throw a book? NO! There is no crime described in Crowley's official version. That is why the charges had to be dropped.

Crowley says explicitly that he arrested Gates for yelling. Guess what? Yelling is not a crime. Yelling does not meet the definition of disorderly conduct in Massachusetts. If Gates had of confessed to a crime or threatened to commit a crime, there would have been cause for an arrest. But nothing that Crowley has attributed to Gates amounts to disorderly conduct.

Ya have a Constitutional right to engage in what Crowley refers to as "continued tumultuous behavior." Ya can call a cop fat, ugly and stupid -- he is paid to have the good judgment and ignore that, not act "stupidly."

And how were the good people of Cambridge protected and served by one of their finest being "downtown" instead of on the mean streets? Conseratives, if ya can get beyond your prefernce for the white man, ya will recognize this case for what it is -- wasteful government spending.

Post #197 Speaking of Dick Cheney...

... and wasteful government spending, Secret Service protection for former Vice President Dick Cheney has been extended.

Normally, former vice presidents only receive Secret Service protection for the first six months after leaving office. This is the first time a former vice president's security detail has been extended beyond the standard duration.

How long? Not being said. It seems that Cheney whined and was officially authorized for extra protection by Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano on July 17.

So, Cheney sought the aid and comfort of government. As Joe the Plumber would say, "Sounds like socialism to me." No word yet on whether Cheney plans to reimburse the government.

Why the extension? Cheney's paranoia -- the extension was not based on a specific threat against the former vice president. Rather, 1) the ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, 2) the political debate about the Bush administration's strategies, 3) Cheney's active public schedule -- his refusal to stay 'undisclosed' -- and 4) Scooter Libby is out there, and he didn't get a pardon. Who knows what Evil lurks in the heart of a man who writes about bestiality in a novel!?! :p

Post #196 War Is Over, Dick!

Tuesday, June 30, 2009, was the beginning of the end, the deadline for withdrawing American forces from Iraq's cities. It was an occasion for rejoicing, despite some continuing violence. The prime minister there declaring it a national holiday, a day of sovereignty.

Former Vice President Dick Cheney expressed concern Monday that the insurgents were just waiting for U.S. forces to pull out to renew their attacks. "I would not want to see the U.S. waste all the tremendous sacrifice that has gotten us to this point," he said.

Um, you had over five years, a trillion or so dollars, over 4000 American lives, tens of thousands Iraq lives to get it right, Dick! And now we are left to clean up your mess.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BARACK OBAMA, (D) PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: So the Iraqi people are rightly treating this day as a cause for celebration. This is an important step forward as a sovereign and united Iraq continues to take control of its own destiny.

And there is more work to be done, but we've made important progress in supporting a sovereign, stable, and self-reliant Iraq. And everyone who has served there, both in uniform as well as our civilians, deserves our thanks.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

But, take heart, Dick -- FAUX NEWS continues to spew.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, "Fox Report," June 30, 2009)

CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER, SYNDICATED COLUMNIST: But he referred to what we have achieved as a sovereign, stable, self-reliant Iraq. He left out one word, and he left it out because it was a George Bush word -- democracy. That was a Bush idea was to lant a democracy in Iraq.

If we had wanted to have merely a sovereign, stable, self-reliant Iraq, we could have chosen a Saddamist general to succeed Saddam after the war and gotten out.

It's true that the democracy established here is a fragile one. It's still struggling, and we will argue for decades over whether it was worth the 4,000 American lives, as we still argue half a century later with whether or not it was worth 36,000 lives to salvage a democracy in half of the Korean Peninsula.

Nonetheless, it is a democracy, and that's what makes it unique and distinctive, and an amazing achievement in a sea of autocracies and dictatorships, having an effect, by example, on Lebanon, on the gulf states, and even on Iran, where Iranians look to their west and see a country which is also Shiite, Arab, which the Persians consider
culturally inferior, and yet it has a democracy, it has elections, it has an Ayatollah Sistani who says the clerics ought to stay out of politics, nd the Iranians are living under a sixth century dictatorship run by mullahs.

So it's a remarkable achievement, and we ought to emphasize what we have achieved in terms of democracy.

And it's a pity that the president ignores that because the democratic nature of Iraq will establish the basis for a strategic alliance between America and Iraq in the future.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

So, did we take our eye off the ball with a misguided act based on false premises that caused more damage than good? Or will we ultimately have a more democratic Middle East?

It's hard not to believe that we lost sight of the terrorists in Afghanistan because of Dick Cheney's paranoia.

But, until the U.S. completes its withdrawal and the full shape of postwar Iraq becomes clear, ultimate judgment is impossible. But even future successes must take into account American and Iraqi blood and treasure lost from a war of choice.

The problem with democracy is that the outcome of elections is not always desirable. Who do ya think will win the next Iraqi election? An American puppet or an Iraqi for the Iraqis!?! Then, there will be moaning on FAUX NEWS -- and curses for Dick Cheney....

Post #195 Tainted, Pt. II

"Why is the [Republican] party in trouble? Simple. Dubya got a hold of the keys, got high on neocon hooch, and crashed and rolled the family SUV.

"He launched an unnecessary war against a country that had not attacked us. With his utopian No Child Left Behind scheme and his Medicare drug plan, he did his passable imitation of LBJ, and blew a hole in the budget.

"Touting globalism, he presided over the loss of one in every four U.S. manufacturing jobs and ran up $5 trillion in trade deficits. He refused to defend the Mexican border against an invasion, then pushed an amnesty for the invaders.

"This was no Reaganite. This was the neocons' apprentice."

So said Pat Buchanan, May 8, 2009.

Every Republican should repeat that and then explain why ya supported amending the Constitution without an Amendment and why ya supported budget deficit after deficit and why ya supprted globalism. Explain what Reagan believed and why ya believe that.

I think Republicans' newly-found 'principles' have more to do with eing out-of-power than reading and researching about 'conservatism' and what it means.

Post #194, Tainted?

"Do you really believe that we lost 18-to-34-year-olds by 19 percent, or we lost Hispanic voters, because we are not conservative enough? No. This is a ridiculous line of thought. The truth is we lost young people because our Republican brand is tainted."

So said Senator Lindsay Graham, Republican of South Carolina.

Tainted? With tax cuts and torture? :p

Graham also said: "We are not losing blue states and shrinking as a party because we are not conservative enough. If we pursue a party that has no place for someone who agrees with me 70 percent of the time, that is based on an ideological purity test rather than a coalition test, then we are going to keep losing."

The debate rages: Should the Republican Party purge moderate voices like newly-Democrat Arlen Specter and embrace its conservative roots or seek to broaden its appeal to regain a competitive position against Democrats?

Please, please, I say, embrace 'conservative roots' and explain yourself for the past eight years, Mr. Republican. Michael Reagan, the son of former President Ronald Reagan and a conservative talk show host said, "We've been closeted for the last eight years; it's time for the right to come out of the closet."

Oh, dear. What exactly closet have ya been the victim of? Who put ya there!?! :p

Where were you when George W. Bush asked to take more than a trillion dollars out of the treasury in the form of tax cuts? Whatever happened to 'fiscal responsibility?'

Where were you when Bush wanted to expand the government's reach into your private life by the Patriot Act? Apparently, the belief in limited government only applies when a Democrat is in the White House.

Where were you when Bush wanted to appropriate the Constitutional authority to declare war for himself? Did your support go only as long as it was 'off-budget?'

Where were you when Bush extended prescription drug coverage to seniors, the largest expansion of government into health care since the birth of Medicare?

The question continue.

Where are you on war crimes? Ignore? Investigate? Prosecute?

Any Republican today who wants to lead that mob has a lot to answer for. Now, I think a 'conservative' party can bring a lot to the table, but they need to understand that History has taken another step to the Left -- todays Republicans do not understand that, nor do they understand their own complicity in that.

Post #193

Subject: My work here is done….

Now that George W. Bush is in exile in Texas, tossing and turning every night, fearing that every bump in the night is the posse coming to hold his sorry ass accountable for the war crimes of his administration, I can close this blog. I began this blog to take a few swipes at the Weasel before he left office. I will leave this blog here -- as long as blogspot agrees -- so that peeps can read it and say “Never again.” Never again will the voters be fooled by a charming ignorance.

I may add from time to time, especially as lame excuses for the Bush administration are offered -- such as Dick Cheney’s recent ‘civics lesson.’ What Dick does not seem to understand is that America is all about following the rules -- to torture is to become terrorists ourselves, a losing strategy. Thanks, Dick [rolleyes].

Post #192

Subject: We Got Fooled Again, Pt II

Hey, I know less about the economy than John McCain does, but I do know the solutions coming from Washington smell -- throwing money at Wall Street because they asked and inflicting another layer of bureaucracy -- “car czar” -- on those who actually work for a living.

It seems to me that Barack Obama’s first step to help the economy should be something easy, inexpensive and effective -- EIE. He should sign an executive order -- easy -- mandating that all new cars and trucks bought by the feds -- inexpensive; the feds need replacements every year -- be powered by something other than gas -- effective; creating a new market for Detroit. This will “grease the wheels” of lending, as loans to Detroit would now seem like a good idea; thus, lowering our bailout overhead.

By the way, the author of the last article I quoted -- my Post #191 -- William Greider has been a political journalist for more than thirty-five years and has been a editor at Rolling Stone and Washington Post.

Post #191

Subject: We Got Fooled Again

My responses and additions – in [brackets]….

Paulson Bailout Plan a Historic Swindle By William Greider

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20081006/greider

[It is, as Jim Cramer of CNBC’s “Mad Money” puts it, a betrayal by the Bush administration. George W. Bush took care of his pals -- even forcing banks that did not want or need help to accept taxpayer funds. Of course, we now know that banks cannot or will not account for that money.]

[I thought the whole idea was to ’grease the wheels’ of lending so that other bailouts would not be necessary.]

[Please, Mr. Obama, not another dime to reward incompetence -- cut our losses at $350 billion.]

[Note the date of this article.]

September 19, 2008

Obama's too smart to allow the ideas of the past to define his presidency. Yet Timothy Geithner is an architect and enabler of the unfolding crisis.

If Wall Street gets away with this, it will represent an historic swindle of the American public--all sugar for the villains, lasting pain and damage for the victims. My advice to Washington politicians: Stop, take a deep breath and examine what you are being told to do by so-called "responsible opinion." If this deal succeeds, I predict it will become a transforming event in American politics--exposing the deep deformities in our democracy and launching a tidal wave of righteous anger and popular rebellion. As I have been saying for several months, this crisis has the potential to bring down one or both political parties, take your choice.

Christopher Whalen of Institutional Risk Analytics, a brave conservative critic, put it plainly: "The joyous reception from Congressional Democrats to Paulson's latest massive bailout proposal smells an awful lot like yet another corporatist lovefest between Washington's one-party government and the Sell Side investment banks."

A kindred critic, Josh Rosner of Graham Fisher in New York, defined the sponsors of this stampede to action: "Let us be clear, it is not citizen groups, private investors, equity investors or institutional investors broadly who are calling for this government purchase fund. It is almost exclusively being lobbied for by precisely those institutions that believed they were 'smarter than the rest of us,' institutions who need to get those assets off their balance sheet at an inflated value lest they be at risk of large losses or worse."

Let me be clear. The scandal is not that government is acting. The scandal is that government is not acting forcefully enough--using its ultimate emergency powers to take full control of the financial system and impose order on banks, firms and markets. Stop the music, so to speak, instead of allowing individual financiers and traders to take opportunistic moves to save themselves at the expense of the system. The step-by-step rescues that the Federal Reserve and Treasury have executed to date have failed utterly to reverse the flight of investors and banks worldwide from lending or buying in doubtful times. There is no obvious reason to assume this bailout proposal will change their minds, though it will certainly feel good to the financial houses that get to dump their bad paper on the government.

A serious intervention in which Washington takes charge would, first, require a new central authority to supervise the financial institutions and compel them to support the government's actions to stabilize the system. Government can apply killer leverage to the financial players: accept our objectives and follow our instructions or you are left on your own--cut off from government lending spigots and ineligible for any direct assistance. If they decline to cooperate, the money guys are stuck with their own mess. If they resist the government's orders to keep lending to the real economy of producers and consumers, banks and brokers will be effectively isolated, therefore doomed.

Only with these conditions, and some others, should the federal government be willing to take ownership--temporarily--of the rotten financial assets that are dragging down funds, banks and brokerages. Paulson and the Federal Reserve are trying to replay the bailout approach used in the 1980s for the savings and loan crisis, but this situation is utterly different. The failed S&Ls held real assets--property, houses, shopping centers--that could be readily resold by the Resolution Trust Corporation at bargain prices. This crisis involves ethereal financial instruments of unknowable value--not just the notorious mortgage securities but various derivative contracts and other esoteric deals that may be virtually worthless.

Despite what the pols in Washington think, the RTC bailout was also a Wall Street scandal. Many of the financial firms that had financed the S&L industry's reckless lending got to buy back the same properties for pennies from the RTC--profiting on the upside, then again on the downside. Guess who picked up the tab? I suspect Wall Street is envisioning a similar bonanza--the chance to harvest new profit from their own fraud and criminal irresponsibility.

If government acts responsibly, it will impose some other conditions on any broad rescue for the bankers. First, take due bills from any financial firms that get to hand off their spoiled assets, that is, a hard contract that repays government from any future profits once the crisis is over. Second, when the politicians get around to reforming financial regulations and dismantling the gimmicks and "too big to fail" institutions, Wall Street firms must be prohibited from exercising their usual manipulations of the political system. Call off their lobbyists, bar them from the bribery disguised as campaign contributions. Any contact or conversations between the assisted bankers and financial houses with government agencies or elected politicians must be promptly reported to the public, just as regulated industries are required to do when they call on government regulars.

More important, if the taxpayers are compelled to refinance the villains in this drama, then Americans at large are entitled to equivalent treatment in their crisis. That means the suspension of home foreclosures and personal bankruptcies for debt-soaked families during the duration of this crisis. The debtors will not escape injury and loss--their situation is too dire--but they deserve equal protection from government, the chance to work out things gradually over some years on reasonable terms.

The government, meanwhile, may have to create another emergency agency, something like the New Deal, that lends directly to the real economy--businesses, solvent banks, buyers and sellers in consumer markets. We don't know how much damage has been done to economic growth or how long the cold spell will last, but I don't trust the bankers in the meantime to provide investment capital and credit. If necessary, Washington has to fill that role, too.

Finally, the crisis is global, obviously, and requires concerted global action. Robert A. Johnson, a veteran of global finance now working with the Campaign for America's Future, suggests that our global trading partners may recognize the need for self-interested cooperation and can negotiate temporary--maybe permanent--reforms to balance the trading system and keep it functioning, while leading nations work to put the global financial system back in business.

The agenda is staggering. The United States is ill equipped to deal with it smartly, not to mention wisely. We have a brain-dead lame duck in the White House. The two presidential candidates are trapped by events, trying to say something relevant without getting blamed for the disaster. The people should make themselves heard in Washington, even if only to share their outrage.

Post #190

Subject: War Crimes

“What sets us apart from our enemies in this fight… is how we behave. In everything we do, we must observe the standards and values that dictate that we treat noncombatants and detainees with dignity and respect. While we are warriors, we are also all human beings”

-- General David Petraeus, May 10, 2007

On Thursday, December 11, 2008 -- eight days ago, the Senate Armed Services Committee released a report which laid out the case that George W. Bush and his entire National Security Council are war criminals. It is important that the Senate committee voted for the report unanimously -- every Republican, including John McCain, and every Democrat voted for this report. The report is titled "Senate Armed Services Committee Inquiry Into The Treatment Of Detainees In U.S. Custody."

To quote:

“Al Qaeda and Taliban terrorists are taught to expect Americans to abuse them. They are recruited based on false propaganda that says the United States is out to destroy Islam. Treating detainees harshly only reinforces that distorted view, increases resistance to cooperation, and creates new enemies. In fact, the April 2006 National Intelligence Estimate "Trends in Global Terrorism: Implications for the United States" cited "pervasive anti U.S. sentiment among most Muslims" as an underlying factor fueling the spread of the global jihadist movement. Former Navy General Counsel Alberto Mora testified to the Senate Armed Services Committee in June 2008 that "there are serving U.S. flag-rank officers who maintain that the first and second identifiable causes of U.S. combat deaths in Iraq -- as judged by their effectiveness in recruiting insurgent fighters into combat -- are, respectively the symbols of Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo."

There ya go, Mr. Hawk -- and ya know who ya is: Keep Guantanamo open and create more enemies.

“The abuse of detainees in U.S. custody cannot simply be attributed to the actions of "a few bad apples" acting on their own. The fact is that senior officials in the United States government solicited information on how to use aggressive techniques, redefined the law to create the appearance of their legality, and authorized their use against detainees. Those efforts damaged our ability to collect accurate intelligence that could save lives, strengthened the hand of our enemies, and compromised our moral authority.”

The Senate Armed Services Committee has publicly released a summary of this report -- the full report is still classified, although Committee Chairman Carl Levin has called for it to be declassified. The report details war crimes by the highest government officials, the top of the chain of command.

“Conclusion 1: On February 7, 2002, President George W. Bush made a written determination that Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, which would have afforded minimum standards for humane treatment, did not apply to al Qaeda or Taliban detainees. Following the President's determination, techniques such as waterboarding, nudity, and stress positions, used in SERE [Survival Evasion Resistance Escape] training to simulate tactics used by enemies that refuse to follow the Geneva Conventions, were authorized for use in interrogations of detainees in U.S. custody.

“Conclusion 2: Members of the President's Cabinet and other senior officials participated in meetings inside the White House in 2002 and 2003 where specific interrogation techniques were discussed. National Security Council Principals reviewed the CIA's interrogation program during that period.”

These were the meetings at which John Ashcroft famously said, “History will not judge this kindly.”

“Conclusion 3: The use of techniques similar to those used in SERE resistance training -- such as stripping students of their clothing, placing them in stress positions, putting hoods over their heads, and treating them like animals -- was at odds with the commitment to humane treatment of detainees in U.S. custody. Using those techniques for interrogating detainees was also inconsistent with the goal of collecting accurate intelligence information, as the purpose of SERE resistance training is to increase the ability of U.S. personnel to resist abusive interrogations and the techniques used were based, in part, on Chinese Communist techniques used during the Korean War to elicit false confessions.”

Doesn’t anybody care what is going on in your name? I pray that we are on God’s side.

Post #189

Subject: George W. Bush: Ya is Fired! Pt. IV

OK, I just like the title -- “George W. Bush: Ya is Fired!” The below is from another blog. My responses and additions – in [brackets]….

http://blog.catholic-convert.com/?p=2495

“A friend wrote:

“Dear Fellow Business Executives:

“As the CFO of this business that employees 140 people, I have resigned myself to the fact that Barrack Obama will be our next President, and that our taxes and government fees will increase in a BIG way.

“To compensate for these increases, I figure that the Clients will have to see an increase in our fees to them of about 8% but since we cannot increase our fees right now due to the dismal state of our economy, we will have to lay off six of our employees instead. This has really been eating at me for a while, as we believe we are family here and I didn‘t know how to choose who will have to go.

“So, this is what I did. I strolled through our parking lot and found 6 Obama bumper stickers on our employees‘ cars and have decided these folks will be the first to be laid off. I can’t think of a more fair way to approach this problem. These folks wanted change; I gave it to them.

“If you have a better idea, let me know.”

Some folks took this way to seriously, as a few emails have demonstrated. This is a “joke,” a political satire, a social commentary, a sarcastic “cartoon” in words. This did not really happen (for those who don’t read between the lines). It was meant to react to those who treated Obama like a Messiah-figure who will now have to pay for their choices in the real world -- even as
Obama begins seriously backpeddling from much of what he promised and can never deliver.

[Satire -- I get it. Or at least thought I did. I thought this was aimed at those who rush to judgment, those who over-react out of FEAR -- kind of like you-know-who….:p]

[Why doesn’t Mr. Business wait until his taxes are raised BEFORE he fires ‘family members?’]

Post #188

Subject: George W. Bush: Ya is Fired! Pt. III

My responses and additions – in [brackets]….

By Pat Buchanan

November 4, 2008

[Why did I chose this column -- “But Where Did Bush Go Wrong?” -- posted on election day by Pat Buchanan as another post-mortem on John McCain’s presidential bid instead of Pat’s “Why Did McCain Lose?” Quite simply, Pat’s post-mortem was a thinly-veiled call for more racism and hatred. Hopefully, we are beyond that.]

After losing control of the Senate and 30 House seats in 2006, the GOP is bracing for losses of six to nine in the Senate, and two dozen to three dozen additional seats in the House.

If the party "were a dog food," says Rep. Tom Davis, "they would take us off the shelf."

[George W.] Bush's approval is 25 percent. Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton left office with ratings more than twice as high.

But while John McCain and others have deplored the Bush failures, what, exactly, did he do wrong?

What were the policy blunders to which Republicans vehemently objected at the time?

That Bush is a Big Government Republican is undeniable. His two great social spending initiatives, prescription drug benefits for seniors under Medicare and No Child Left Behind, so testify.But how many Republicans opposed Bush on these initiatives? How many have called for the abolition of either program, or for raising payroll taxes to pay for prescription drugs?

[“Big Government Republican” ought to be a contradiction in terms.]

McCain now supports the Bush judges and justices and the Bush tax cuts, as do almost all Republicans.

True, Bush sought amnesty for illegal aliens and backs the free-trade globalism that exported our manufacturing base and 3 million to 4 million jobs. But McCain is even more enthusiastic about both.

Does the party dissent on free trade and mass immigration?

Two-thirds of Americans now believe the Iraq war a mistake. Yet, all but a few Republicans backed the war. At the time of "Mission Accomplished!" in May 2003, the nation gave Bush a 90 percent approval rating, as his father had after Desert Storm.

What turned America against the war was not the decision to invade, oust Saddam, destroy the weapons of mass destruction and depart, but the long, bloody slog, the five-year war, with nearly 5,000 dead, that Iraq became. It was not the lightning war of Tommy Franks, with journalists riding tanks into Baghdad, that soured America, but the unanticipated duration and cost of the war.

Yet, Republicans still believe that the war was not a mistake, only mishandled. And now that Gen. Petraeus got it right in Iraq, they say, we should pursue the Petraeus policy in Afghanistan.

[Add me to the ever-growing list of those who question our commitment in Afghanistan. What exactly did Petraeus do in Iraq, and why will that work in Afghanistan? Let’s find out BEFORE we “surge” in Afghanistan, huh?]

How many Republicans have repudiated the Bush Doctrine that got us into Iraq - the belief that only by making the world democratic can we keep America secure and free? Americans no longer believe that, if ever they did. And history proves them right. For Iraq has never been democratic, and America has always been free.

Yet, the Republican Party has never renounced the Bush Doctrine.

Indeed, it is being applied today in Afghanistan.

That war, too, after we failed at Tora Bora to capture or kill bin Laden, has become a long slog to create a democratic Afghanistan, which, like a democratic Iraq, has never before existed.

In Afghanistan, we are entering the eighth year of war with victory further away than ever. The Taliban grows stronger. U.S. casualties are surging. Opium exports are breaking records. Our NATO allies grow weary. Even the Brits are talking of reconciliation with the Taliban, perhaps accepting a dictator.

These two wars helped to cripple the Bush presidency and end the GOP ascendancy. Yet, at the highest levels of the party, one hears no serious questioning of the ideology that produced these wars. McCain has pledged to stay in Iraq until "victory" and send 10,000 more troops to Afghanistan.

Nor have Republicans objected to the U.S. air strikes that have killed hundreds of Afghans, or the Predator strikes that have inflamed Pakistan or the helicopter raid into Syria that humiliated Damascus and enraged the population. If Republicans disagree with these policies and actions, their voices are muted.

Bush is for facing down Russia and bringing Georgia and Ukraine into NATO. Does any Republican disagree? For McCain is more hawkish than Bush when it come to Moscow.

The party says it is losing because the economy went south. But who caused that? Was it not because Republicans colluded with Democrats in pushing "affordable housing," subprime mortgages, for folks who could not afford houses?

Is the GOP prepared to demand tough terms for home loans?

Was it not GOP presidents who appointed the Fed chairmen who pumped up the money supply and created the bubble? How many Republicans objected to the easy money when the going was good?

The country wishes to be rid of the Bush policies and the Bush presidency. But where does the Republican Party think Bush went wrong, other than to be asleep at the wheel during Katrina?

The GOP needs to confront the truth: The failure of the Bush presidency lies not in a failed execution of policy but in the policies themselves and the neoconservative ideology that informed them.

[It is worth repeating: The failure of the Bush presidency lies not in a failed execution of policy but in the policies themselves and the neoconservative ideology that informed them.]

Yet, still, the party remains in denial, refusing to come to terms with the causes of its misfortune. One expects they will be given the time and opportunity for reflection soon.

"The fault, dear Brutus, lies not in our stars but in ourselves."

Post #187

Subject: George W. Bush: Ya is Fired! Pt. II

My responses and additions – in [brackets]….

By George Will

November 16, 2008

WASHINGTON -- Conservatism's current intellectual chaos reverberated in the Republican ticket's end-of-campaign crescendo of surreal warnings that big government -- verily, "socialism" -- would impend were Democrats elected. John McCain and Sarah Palin experienced this epiphany when Barack Obama told a Toledo plumber that he would "spread the wealth around."

[All taxes -- and indeed tax cuts -- “spread the wealth.” The only question is, to whom? George W. Bush got over a trillion dollars in tax cuts. How much did ya get? I’m still waiting for those Ronald Reagan tax cuts to “trickle down” to me…. :p]

America can't have that, exclaimed the Republican ticket while Republicans -- whose prescription drug entitlement is the largest expansion of the welfare state since President Lyndon Johnson's Great Society gave birth to Medicare in 1965; a majority of whom in Congress supported a lavish farm bill at a time of record profits for the less than 2 percent of the American people-cum-corporations who farm -- and their administration were partially nationalizing the banking system, putting Detroit on the dole and looking around to see if some bit of what is smilingly called "the private sector" has been inadvertently left off the ever-expanding list of entities eligible for a bailout from the $1 trillion or so that is to be "spread around."

[Whatever happened to, the government that governs least, governs best?]

The seepage of government into everywhere is, we are assured, to be temporary and nonpolitical. Well.

[Who assured that?]

Probably as temporary as New York City's rent controls, which were born as emergency responses to the Second World War, and which are still distorting the city's housing market. The Depression, which FDR failed to end but which Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor did end, was the excuse for agriculture subsidies that have lived past three score years and 10.

The distribution of a trillion dollars by a political institution -- the federal government -- will be nonpolitical? How could it be? Either markets allocate resources, or government -- meaning politics -- allocates them. Now that distrust of markets is high, Americans are supposed to believe that the institution they trust least -- Congress -- will pony up $1 trillion and then passively recede, never putting its 10 thumbs, like a manic Jack Horner, into the pie? Surely Congress will direct the executive branch to show compassion for this, that and the other industry. And it will mandate "socially responsible" spending -- an infinitely elastic term -- by the favored companies.

Detroit has not yet started spending the $25 billion that Congress has approved, but already is, like Oliver Twist, holding out its porridge bowl and saying, "Please, sir, I want some more."

McCain and Palin, plucky foes of spreading the wealth, must have known that such spreading is most what Washington does. Here, the Constitution is an afterthought; the supreme law of the land is the principle of concentrated benefits and dispersed costs. Sugar import quotas cost the American people approximately $2 billion a year, but that sum is siphoned from 300 million consumers in small, hidden increments that are not noticed. The few thousand sugar producers on whom billions are thereby conferred do notice and are grateful to the government that bilks the many for the enrichment of the few.

Conservatives rightly think, or once did, that much, indeed most, government spreading of wealth is economically destructive and morally dubious -- destructive because, by directing capital to suboptimum uses, it slows wealth creation; morally dubious because the wealth being spread belongs to those who created it, not government.

[Aaahhh, this is where ‘conservatives’ really need to do a re-think: If taxes slow wealth creation -- and tax cuts create wealth, well, how are things today? And leave the “morally dubious” charge to church.]

But if conservatives call all such spreading by government "socialism," that becomes a classification that no longer classifies: It includes almost everything, including the refundable tax credit on which McCain's health care plan depended.

Hyperbole is not harmless; careless language bewitches the speaker's intelligence. And falsely shouting "socialism!" in a crowded theater such as Washington causes an epidemic of yawning. This is the only major industrial society that has never had a large socialist party ideologically, meaning candidly, committed to redistribution of wealth. This is partly because Americans are an aspirational, not an envious people. It is also because the socialism we do have is the surreptitious socialism of the strong, e.g. sugar producers represented by their Washington hirelings.

In America, socialism is un-American. Instead, Americans merely do rent-seeking -- bending government for the benefit of private factions. The difference is in degree, including the degree of candor. The rehabilitation of conservatism cannot begin until conservatives are candid about their complicity in what government has become.

[Simply, ‘conservatives’ need to admit their complicity in the victory of BIG government. Then, perhaps “I believe in what Ronald Reagan believed in” will not sound so shallow -- dishonest. And who’s gonna want a dishonest party in charge!?! :p]

As for the president-elect, he promises to change Washington. He will, by making matters worse. He will intensify rent-seeking by finding new ways -- this will not be easy -- to expand, even more than the current administration has, government's influence on spreading the wealth around.

[Spreading-the-wealth to the middle class sounds better than spreading the wealth to the rich. I’m against spreading the wealth -- well, much of it. But, after eight years of favoring the rich -- to no good, it seems only fair to favor the middle class.]