It is so easy to oppose federally controlled health care, so easy to say the words.  But what happens when you become one of the uninsured?  Let me share with you our story, as an uninsured family.

I had never really thought much about health insurance or its lack as a young man.  By policy rules, I remained covered under my parents policy until I was 23, but I was young, healthy and rarely needed it.  Between 23 and 25, I was an uninsured person.  My last year of college and my first year solely in the working world, I had no health care.  Had something catastrophic happened, I would have felt its lack, but I had no idea that it would ever matter.  My first job after completing college, I was a part time teacher, and I chose not to pay for the optional health care, that would have been out of pocket since I was not full time.  Then after a year, I joined the Navy.  Tricare meant everything was "free", and while I still didn't use much medical care, I sure noticed it when I got married and had a couple of kids.  We didn't pay any copays, any deductibles, and it was considered one of our benefitssince military pay was not all that high.  What I noticed with Tricare was that military hospitals had very long waits, many less than competent doctors, and huge inconvenience.  But of course, there was no cost.  Because of this, we were there all the time.  Every time a kid got a sniffle, we were there seeing if she had an ear infection.  Turn an ankle?  Sit in the ER waiting room 4 hours for an x ray.  Long waits, inconvenience, and mistakes were part of the price we paid.  I laughed when I left the military and people said one of the things we'd miss was the "free health care".  

 

Five months after I left the Navy, I began teaching in Sacramento.  The school district gave us three choices, one that was completely covered, and two where we paid part of the premiums.  The premiums were very expensive.  And for each visit, you had a copay.  For each prescription, you had a copay.  For x rays and tests, you paid a percentage until you reached a per person deductible.  After not thinking about what medical care cost my whole life, there was quite a bit of sticker shock.  For six years after that, I taught at a private school.  Being a small non profit business, they found health care premiums to be a huge burden for their 30-40 employees.  Their policy was crazy, large out of pocket premiums to cover the family, 40 dollar copays on visits, 25 dollar prescriptions, and patient pays a percentage of everything beyone routine.  My daughter broke her wrist.  Our portion was over $1000.  My wife went back to school and then was hire in a hospital.  Much better health care, but still, 20 dollar copays, still $150 a month to add the kids and $1000 deductible per family member.  Still, another broken arm (elbow this time and a different daughter), $500, a miscarriage, over $800.  Our third daughter born? Again about $1500 (not sure how it ended up over the deductible, but it did).  She needs minor surgery?  Our portion was close to $2000.  All of these were just incidents of daily life, nothing extravagant, nothing our fault, and yet over the last six years, we incured nearly $7000 dollars for a family that makes about 50,000 a year and that is with insurance.  Without  insurance our bills would have added up to nearly triple that.  Hillarycare may not be so bad.

 

This summer I decided to switch careers.  Lots of reasons, not going to discuss them here, but one of the challenges was that even with higher pay, the company I work for has just 6 employees, so they do not provide insurance.  We have applied with several companies as a family.  We have been turned down.  I am fat.  So even though I have normal blood pressure and cholesterol, and have never had any diagnosed problems except sleep apnea, I am a risk and they are unwilling to insure me.  My wife is also uninsurable because she has recurring migraines and has been on depression medicine.  So our kids are now insured, for the fairly reasonable price of $200 a month, but my wife and I are uninsured.  We could enter a "medical pool" for around 30% of my current income.  We could pay much much higher rates for catastrophic only coverage we've been told.  We could milk the system we've been told.   If we walk into an ER we have to be treated they say, and we could make arrangements afterwards to pay it back.  So how exacly is Obamacare a bad thing?

 

Well, it goes beyond Obamacare to insurance as a whole.  Insurance gives you the freedom to not be responsible.  When we had "free care" we took excessive advantage of it.  So did many families, thats why waits were so long.  Even when we had employer provided insurance, we never looked closely at bills, just what our portion was.  Before we got the kids insurance this summer, we had to take our oldest daughter to the doctor.  A simple visit, 15 minutes to diagnose a problem we already knew and prescribe a medicine which we couldn't do without a doctors visit was going to cost $180 with the first doctor.  My wife called 4 doctors, and found one that only charged $105.  For a visit that used to "cost" 20 dollars with insurance and nothing with Tricare.  And thats a big part of why insurance is a problem.  You want a car, you shop around.  You want car insurance, and you see dozens of ads on TV trying to get you to switch, they incentivize good clients because the costs of a good client are less than the expenses.  Car insurance is just for emergencies though, for accidents.  You have repairs, you pay out of pocket.  Medical insurance should be the same.  If doctors weren't forced to keep huge amounts of insurance against lawsuits, if they didn't give "free" visits to medicare, medicaid and other government programs, they could afford making daily visits more reasonable.  If you the consumer had to make decisions about which Doctor to go to not based on who your insurance accepts, but who was reasonable cost and did a good job like a mechanic, our system would be much better because the doctors would care about customer service like competing mechanics do.  If we had portability, if employers had nothing to do with health care, but we could take the care with us when we switched jobs, we could maintain policies for long term, and the company would make their money off us early in our 20's and 30's when we are healthier.  If we only had a social safety net to cover people who will need life long catastrophic care like those with birth defects or long term diseases like muscular dystrophy or cerebral palsy, then the system wouldn't be facing bankruptcy. 

 

While it may feel like it to the uninsured, the answer is not Obamacare, its not Hillarycare, its not a government behemoth that covers every contingency and deals with every issue.  Its people being accountable for their own care, saving money like we are doing now to cover office visits and small maintenance, and getting insurance only for the big ticket health needs.  Its doctors competing for patients, not the other way around.  Its tearing down the walls, whether insurance built or government built between people and their health care decisions.  Europe and Canada have shown that a one size fits all solution is a contributor to a bigger problem, not a solution to our current problem.  There are some major changes in health care that need to occur, but they are painful and people don't want to hear them.  And they come from the ground up, from people being accountable and holding their service providers accountable, not from some mandate on high.            

I recieved a request for a donation from the Republican Party.  This was my reply:

 

Mr Steele,

I don't know if you will read this or one of your staff or if it just gets deleted if there is no credit card number attached, but let me explain why I will not be donating to the RNC yet.  I want a party that is committed, Mr Steele, to ending the political grab bag of local goodies to score political points.  I do not yet see that from my Republican representatives.  I want a party that when it regains power of the purse in 2010, 2012, or beyond, will recognize that tax money is not a lottery prize to be divvied up between districts, but is to be used for national necessities, and that this country will never be right until it employs sound fiscal policy.  I read that between 30 and 40 percent of the earmarks in this budget were put into place by Republicans who loudly protested the budget while stuffing it with their own pet projects.  I want to know that the party I support will make a principled stand against using federal money for local projects.

I believe Mr. Steele that the federal budget is not a place for social engineering, local projects, or artificially supporting the foolish businesses, banks, individuals, and agencies that extended too far beyond their means and made foolish decisions.  I am speaking as a person who has lost a home to foreclosure.  I too made a foolish decision.  I expect to now rent for years with ruined credit until I save up a minimum of 20-30% and show myself worthy of another chance. I am not asking for a bailout.  I do not deserve one, and neither does the bank who lent to me with no money down and a 60 percent loan to income ratio.  They were foolish and so was I.  The American dream is not everything when you ask for it, its working towards your dream, enduring setbacks and patiently building towards a future while you wisely manage your resources.  I had to lose a home to realize that, and if banks and others are allowed the pain of failure, they too will learn the lesson it teaches.

Building is a lot harder though when my retirement has lost over 30% of its value and when my pay has been frozen for 3 years amd may be cut to keep our company (a private school, I teach science), afloat.....good thing I do not retire for another 32 years (If I retire at 70). 

The point Mr Steele, is that this Republican Party does not yet represent me.  I want three things from the party before I will contribute to it again:

1) I want a committment to fight the War on Terror with all resources available.  I was an Arabic Linguist in the Navy from 1996 to 2002, Iran, Syria and even Saudi Arabia, these are not our friends.  The President sets foreign policy, and your party has limited control or sayso over his decisions, but I need the party that represents me to stand firmly as a friend of Israel, for reform in tyrannical governments, and most of all against every nation who supports or sponsors terrorism and its perpetrators.  If our President decides to engage Syria and accept their unacceptable interference in Iraq and Lebanon, I want to hear Republicans voicing dissent.  If our President accepts a Nuclear Iran, I want to hear Republicans howling against it, demanding that we do whatever we can to stop them.  If Iraq dissolves into chaos and Obama continues to withdraw our troops from their hard fought victory, I want Republicans to demand we stay and complete the mission.

2) I want Republicans to demand energy independence, not the phony calls for carbon offsets, solar and wind and other pipe dreams, but true energy policy....the 35 nuclear plants McCain called for, drilling oil shale, and anywhere we can in our own nation, feasible green sources, but not unrealistic and infeasible pipe dreams we hear the left calling for.  They do not want energy independence, they want to reduce us to a third world country for a fake environmental utopia.

3)  I want Republicans to commit to fiscal responsibility.  To protest if not block every piece of legislation that calls for spending beyond National Defense, Infrastructure, and Energy Production.  No more interference in the field of health care, no more pointless and expensive farm subsidies, no local earmarks, no sham socialist lite posturing.

4) I want new Republican faces, war veterans, business owners, intelligent members of the faceless masses challenging for every house seat in 2010.  Not retreads from failed campaigns of the past, not pseudoRepublicans like Olympia Snowe and Arlen Specter, real fresh new faces from among our 300million citizens ready to challenge for what was meant after all to be the chamber of the common man. 

You, Mr Steele, as chairman of the party, convince your members to meet these criteria, and I will support you with whatever means I can afford.  Continue to play politics as usual, and I will not be sending a dime.

Sincerely,

Wil Keepers

Yuba City, California 

I have not had time to post much, and I have not visited the other blogs here in months, but I hope to add something every so often like this letter.

 

The media complains about it constantly.  The Democrats vilify Republicans for it daily.  Collin Powell cited it as one of his main reasons for supporting Obama.  McCain decries it and says he won't do it.  How dare we go negative, go personal,  and come at our political enemies with such a negative tone?  Negative tones are a part of politics.  If there is no major difference, why vote for one candidate over the other.  If both are right, if both are moral, if both are good, what are you choosing between?  To me, the complaint about a "negative attack ad" is the official whinyness of the political class and it rings completely hollow.  Why do I oppose Obama?  His past decisions reflect judgement that casts question on his future decisions.  Bringing up associations, drug use, military service or absence thereof, past writings, past speeches, past votes, and past business dealings are all legitimate.  Any action taken by a politician in the public arena is fair game.  If I run for office some day, the words of these blogs and the comments I make are fair game.  The people I was friends with in college say something about me.  If they are all radicals, if they are all slacker partiers, if they are all cheating dirty dealers, that says something about me.  

Obama and his relationships to Ayers, Wright, Rezcko, and others tells us what kind of people he has leaned on when deciding things in the past, and it matters.  McCain and his association with those involved in the Keating 5 says something about him.  It all matters and it is all relevant. 

 

I only once have felt Republicans took it too far.  That was with the Clintons.  Bills tawdry doings in the White House only mattered to me because it seemed he had abused his position to have an affair of any sort with an intern.  The character flaw that led him to repeated dalliances with random women was despicable, but not politically relevant.  It was the relationship with a subordinate that bothered me.  His financial dealing because of their potential illegality mattered.  His wife, because of her role as the architect of his health care plan was relevant.  But any and all criticism of Chelsea was over the top, until as an adult, she campaigned for her mom or perhaps worked on her staff.   Likewise, Palins actions as governor, her relationships with business and lobbyists, her financial actions, her professional associations, these are fair game.  Bringing them up is not dirty or negative.  Attacking the kids, the spouse if they are uninvolved, the personal decisions such as whether to be a working mother or not....these are irrelevant. 

 

Negative is in many cases a matter of perception.  Collin Powells' claim that McCains "negative" campaign was one of his reasons for choosing Obama is ridiculous.  All campaigns go negative, if there is nothing negative to say about an opponent there is no reason not to choose them.  If Powell does not like negativity, he was wise to stay out of politics.  But to see it all on one side is to have willful blinders on.  

I am not a big fan of country music, but one of its virtues is its down home real life applicable lyrics.  In todays post, I will be wading into a "little" firefight we have had here on townhall between two longtime townhall bloggers whose writings I respect but whose conclusions on the current election are far apart. 

Dave writes on the Conservative in Cinncinnatti (I can't seem to spell that city right without looking it up) site.  He was one of the earliest commenters on my blog and a great encouragement to keep it up.  He writes prolifically with very good insights.  He is coming down on the side of Kenny Rodgers. 

 

Brian R is an outstanding writer and a natural leader of people with something of a rough edge.  He writes  on "A View from the Island" and often hosts rather lengthy conversations as well.  He comes down on the side of Aaron Tippin.

 

In his song "The Gambler", Kenny writes:  "You gotta know when to hold them, know when to fold them, know when to walk away, know when to run."  In his song "Coward of the County" , he writes at the end:  I promised you dad, not to do the things you done,  I've walked away from trouble when I can.  Please don't think I'm weak, I couldn't turn the other cheek.  Sometimes you gotta fight when you're a man."  Both of these songs extol the virtue of choosing your battles, of standing when standing is necessary, and compromising when compromising does the greatest good.  Dave (and many others around here) were not early McCain supporters.  They became McCain supporters because they see this as a time when the differences between the parties mean more than the differences they have with McCain.  They see 65 to 80% conservative (depending on whose numbers you use) as better than 5 to 10% conservative.  They see the next four years as too important to throw under the bus in the hopes that a "new Reagan" will arise from the ashes of the "new Jimmy Carter".  Unlike 1976, the Democratic party is militant in its determination to destroy the family, socialize every aspect of American life, and remove all American Exceptionalism, making America over in the image of enlightened agnostic and socialist France and Germany.  While in 76 elites in the party believed in this vision, there were too many union and interest group Democrats who would oppose such extremism.  Today, union members like Joe the Plumber are constituents to be bought, no longer with the power of influence.  The true influence in the party lies in San Francisco, Hollywood, New York, and Ivy League campuses spread throughout New England.  They feel that the Democratic Party has moved so far left, that even a pathetic RINO is better than unchecked leftists.  At least the RINO ought to block some of the extreme agenda, and since McCain picked Palin, a more legitimate conservative to many of us, they see a hope that a voice of Conservatism will have some place in McCains White House and in the future of the party.  In other words, this is not time to walk away from the party, its time to hold your cards, and play out the hand you were dealt.

 

In his song, Aaron Tippin sings:   "You gotta stand for something or you'll fall for anything.  You've got to be your own man, not a puppet on a string.  Never compromise what's right, and uphold your family name.  You've got to stand for something, or you'll fall for anything."  Brian has said Romney was as far as he could go in the compromise direction.  McCain has thumbed conservatives in the eye on McCain/Feingold, McCain/Kennedy, McCain/Lieberman.....over and over he has betrayed the principles of conservatism in the name of compromise, to the point where he has no conservative principles.  He in fact "stands for nothing".  While he over a lifetime is conservative in a relative sense, he has been drifting leftwards for years, especially the last 10 or so.  He will not only choose not to stand for any conservative ideals, he will tarnish the R behind his name with RINO policies that will fail, that will equal the leftward drift of Obama but will do so under the flag of Republican so when the liberal ideals fail as liberal ideas almost always do, Republicans will still be the target of the masses anger and resentment.  These people believe that you have to suffer the purging of a Goldwater defeat and the cleansing of a Ford fall to reap the glories of a Reagan Revolution.  They believe either that the harm Obama and a liberal congress can do is little worse than McCain and a liberal congress, or they believe that the pain of this will so anger the masses, that a real Republican revolution can occur in 2010, 2012, and beyond and short term pain is worth it for the long term gain.  They believe that until the RINO wing of the party is resoundly defeated, the Conservative wing will always be marginalized.     

 

And these two sides of the conservative movement are so invested in their strategies, so sure of their rightness, they can barely speak without "a negative tone".  I will post on that in a minute......I find Powells assertion that McCains negative tone is the problem to be ridiculous beyond belief.  I have been back and forth for a long time.  I have thought as I see Schwartzenegger destroy California with the liberal assembly in ways Gray Davis never would have dared that maybe this is the tipping point and I need to stand against compromised principles.  But then I hear Obama say to Joe the Plumber how important it is to redistribute wealth and realize who we are facing here.  I see McCain talk about Democrats in his cabinet and think "no way".  But then I hear Obama supporters and Pelosi and the plans they have and think.....Amnesty and Campaign Finance Reform are horrible, but what about the fairness doctrine a massive single payer health care bureocracy, a UN mandated foreign policy and trying to end the 2nd amendment?  The desires of the far left make the bad bills McCain has signed seem minor to me.  I have to come down on the side of compromise.  I have to vote for McCain because the alternative scares me so much.  Does that make me weak?  Maybe.  Does it make me unprincipled?  Absolutley not, any more than Jefferson and Adams were unprincipled because for years they wanted to work within the British system rather than scream from the rooftops with Patrick Henry stirring phrases like "Give me liberty or give me death", and "If this be treason, make the most of it".  They came to a tipping point where they say independence as the only viable option.  I may eventually reach that tipping point with the Republican party, but I am not there yet. 

 

I can say that some individuals in the party, I can't support.  If I lived in Oregon, I would be voting third party in the Senate race, even if it gave the Dems their 60th senator.  Gordon Smith has strayed from a solid conservative at the State level to a liberal after 2 terms in Washington, and though the third party guy is anti Iraq, so is Smith, and the third guy seems more conservative on other issues.  I can say if the law was changed and Schwartzenegger ran for President, I would never vote for him again, and if he runs against Feinstein or Boxer, despite my desire to see them removed,  I will vote third party given that option.

 

But in most cases, hardline conservatives will be marginalized whether they lead the party or whether they abandon it.  I was not around in 1964, so correct me if I am wrong, but the Goldwater nomination was a response to "RINOs" of the Eisenhower/Nixon years and compromise on too many New Deal residuals to suit the conservative wing of the party.  The Goldwater Republicans were the coming out party for Reagan but were so far to the right, that they led to LBJ in 64 with huge majorities that rubber stamped the Great Society, boondoggles far worse than the New Deal that we are still paying for today.  The Goldwater years were followed by 3 straight RINO tickets in 68, 72, and 76 before they led to Reagan.  Are we ready for 4 years like the 64-68 era followed by 12 more years of moderate ascendancy all in hopes that we might get another 1980?  Because if Democrats sweep all three places, I see 1964, not 1976.  And as bad as Carter was, that is far far worse considering how far left of LBJ we see BHO. 

 

Did I articulate the arguements correctly?  Did I state something wrong that anyone I am speaking for disagrees with?  Feel free to correct me.  I may not be around much between now and the election, but even if I don't have time to respond, I still receive the comments.     

Joe the Plumber is not the issue.  Whether he is or is not a licensed plumber, whether he is a nice guy or not, whether he would make a competent politician or not.  Joe the Plumber is not running for anything.  His dream is apparently to someday own his own plumbing company and make 1/16th of the money Barack Obama made last year.  So if Joe the Plumber is not the issue, what is?  Why is everyone talking about him?  Because Joe with a well placed and well phrased question caught on you tube exposed Obama (once again) for the paternalistic elitist that he is.  Joe asked simply "If I want to buy the company I work for some day, and I make 250,000 in doing so, why would you punish me with higher taxes?"  And Obama smugly answered, as we all know by now, that if we "Spread the wealth" to those beneath you, its better for everyone."    Joe put the taxation question into terms that people can identify with.  And Obama answered like the smug elitist that he is. 

So now team messiah is trying to smear Joe and distract from the truths that his question raised.  Joe Biden (Or Joe the Career Politician) said plumbers don't make 250,000 in Scranton, Pennsylvania.  I have to wonder how many Plumbers Joe from Scranton is on intimate terms with, intimate enough that they tell him their yearly salary.  I also have to wonder who appointed Joe the Politician to determine what Joe the Plumber ought to make.  Team Obama has raised the fact that Joe owes back taxes, as a character flaw.....many self employed people, contractors, small business owners, and others do as well because they do not have taxes removed from an hourly, weekly, or monthly wage, they pay them quarterly out of pocket.  As a contract plumber, Joe may or may not fit into this category, but it raises another flaw of the tax system that Obama defends.  They brought up the fact that Joe is divorced.  So is half of America, Obama, do you want to really raise that standard as required for someone to ask you a question?  Ultimately, thats what its all about to him.  He can't defend his position, so he is attacking the messenger.  84% of American according to a poll I heard quoted on Mark Levins show do not believe in redistribution of weath when asked point blank.  So Obama can't defend his answer, its indefensible.  He is telling us that this "average American" is too flawed to question him or may have had alterior motives in questioning him.  Basically, like when Palin was chosen, Obama and his team of arrogance want to belittle anyone and everyone who opposes him, including some poor schmuck whose question to him happened to be caught on you tube.  Why?  Because when examined, his policy proposals are in many cases the antithesis of the American Dream.

 

So let me tell you about a plumber I knew.  When I lived in Georgia during my military enlistment, Chris was a contract plumber working for a man who owned a business.  He went to our Church with his wife and 2 kids.  He was slowly working to save up for his own business, setting aside money whenever he could, renting a home instead of buying, not taking vacations, pouring every spare cent into an account.  When he had saved up 20,000 dollars, after about 3 years, he put it down on 120,000 dollar truck.  The truck was a plumber truck, with all the things necessary to be an entire office on wheels.  It included tool boxes, spools for hoses and such, places to hold every part imaginable that a plumber might need.  He took a huge risk to be his own boss, to start his own business.  For the first 6-8 months of owning his own company, Chris nearly went under.  In the beginning, he did not have health insurance like he had as a contract plumber working for someone else, and when one of his three kids (they had another one right before he made the big leap)  got seriously sick, he almost had to stop.  But the plumbers union (yes, they sometimes do some good things) raised money for him, the church raised money for him, and his wife (who wanted to be an at home mom), got a part time computer based job to keep the family afloat.  His son got better and Chris built up a customer base, and by the time I left Georgia, he was making between 90 and 100,000 dollars a year.  He had paid down the truck considerably, been able to get himself health insurance through the union, and saved to put a down payment on a house.  He worked some days as many as 15 hours, but he was his own boss, loved his job, and took pride in his work.  He was considering buying a second truck and hiring another plumber to use it.  When I knew Chris, I was in the Navy.  I was making 1,879 a month as an E-5, but I lived in free base housing, had free medical, paid only for TV, phone and internet as utilities, and had the security of a check every two weeks.  I made less because I chose a secure job rather than a job with financial risk.  I had a different American dream.  I grew up in a family where lack of security was a scary thing.  My dad worked hard and did his best for a lumber mill for about 20 years.  He moved up through the ladder and was making a pretty good living when all at once, they closed.  For almost 7 years, he bounced from minimum wage entry level jobs with kids half his age to part time mill work to the unemployment line, always hoping to find a job that would bring security.  Finally, after seven years of this, he did, and he worked the last 12 or so years before medical retirement for a specialty mill that made crossarms.  Chris and I had different American Dreams.  His was to be his own boss, to own his own company.  Mine was to have a secure job where I did not need to fear the unknown and could support my family.  Besides financial aspects, there are other components of the Dream.  Some want a job they can leave behind them and be free of on their off time.  Some love to live their work, to have it be all consuming.  Some want to "do good" for others, some want to "save the world", some want a job that is easy, others a job that is fun.  All would like to make a lot of money, some are willing to put in the long hours for it, others the intense schooling, others take the financial risks.  For each one of us, the American Dream is a slightly different picture.  Many of us are too fearful to chase it and live our dreams outside of work or always talk about it.  Others chase it and fail, then either give up or rebound to try again later.  The key thing is, the American Dream is earned, not given away.  

 

Who is Barack Obama, Joe Biden, or any other public "servant" to pompously tell Joe that when he reaches his dream, he owes it to those below him, those who did not take the risks he took, work the hours he worked, or endure the challenges he endured, that he owes these people a large portion of his income to fulfill their American Dream.  Right now, if Chris or Joe, pay 36% of their income to federal taxes.  Out of 250,000, this is about 88,000 dollars.  Lets say half of that can be written off in some way and they pay 44,000 in taxes.  Then they pay state taxes.  Each state is different, the highest is about 13%, so lets say 5%....That is another 12,500.  Then they pay property taxes on their house, registration fees for their cars, and license fees to the state to be a plumber, local taxes, sales taxes, fees and tolls.....Out of the 250,000 dollars that a "rich" business owner is making, they are probably approaching 80-100,000 dollars in taxes if they find all the loopholes, much more if they try to navigate the tax system themselves.  Barack Obama wants to raise that rate by 3%, another 7,500 dollars of Joe or Chris' money.  He wants to mandate health coverage for any employees he has at a cost of thousands more.  He wants to impose new OSHA, EPA, Carbon Offsets, Fuel Taxes, and other hidden costs onto this mans income, raising that 80-100,000 already paid to more like 120,000 dollars.  Meanwhile, somewhere in the neighborhood of 35-40% of American pay no tax.  Many of them recieve tax rebates, a pseudonym for redistributed wealth.  Is this fair?  It is justice?  Is it right to stick it to the evil business owner in this way?  Why bother to risk it all, to work the long hours that so many business owners work, to go through all of this, when he could make almost as much without the headaches as a state worker of some sort, or part of a corporation.  Because its his American dream.  He took the risks, he deserves the riches.  I chose a "safer" route, and I don't begrudge him the money he earned.   Patrick Henry once cried "As for me, give me liberty or give me death."  With Obama, Pelosi, and Reid, especially if the Senate gets to the filibusterproof 60, we may lose many of our liberties, including the right of people to pursue an American Dream and reap its rewards. 

 

Tell me again, does this election mean nothing?

Walt Williams wrote an article that explores the idea of the the Founders intent in the bicameral legislature.  The intent was for the House to be a place where the people were close to their representative.  He points to Federalist Papers #56 as his evidence for this, and shows that the idea was abandoned in 1929 when Congress limited the number arbitrarily at 435.  I say we abolish this congressional mandate, and make the House as it was intended to be.  I already discussed this last February.  Here is that link as well as the link to Williams' article:

 

 

 

 

Don't worry, I'm not.  I am not avoiding blogging because I am upset with the sudden electoral college surge Obama is showing, nor because I am not an expert in economic affairs.  I have just been swamped with work and such.  Later this week, I will try to go around and visit all of your great blogs, but in the meantime, let me comment on the last 3 weeks.  Keep in mind that I have not been up to date as I should be on all that is going on, so I may repeat things you all have said. 

 

Why the sudden shift in the electoral college?  I believe there are three main reasons:

 

First, oil prices have gone down.  The urgency of the issue is not on peoples mind like it was a month or two ago, and it was a great contrast between the two candidates.  The price of gas is still insanely high, people are still hurting, but there is some level of relief and other issues have clouded this.

 

Second, the world is on hold.  Russia, China, Iran, they are all quiet and waiting, not rocking the boat, waiting until after the election to act.  There is no urgent world crisis, no great and powerful reason to seek a commander in chief.  If foreign policy is not on the table, McCain has to win based on domestic policy.  This is much tougher ground for him to stand on.

 

Third, McCain is rivaling Obama in incoherence on economic issues.  He does not believe like Reagan did that supply side economics is a cure for any economic ailment, and so he spouts lite liberalism.  Lets fix the market with a bailout.  Lets play games with incentives and tinkering at the margins of the tax system rather than call for overhaul.  Lets propose a pseudomarket approach to health care, not a real market based reform.  Lets talk in the language of environmentalism, not discredit it as a scheme of extremists to move Americas market towards socialism.  Because McCain does not believe in these reforms, he cannot call for them with conviction.  So what should he do?

He needs to bring back the reforms he believes in:

 

1) Bring energy back on table and tie energy to economic stimulus.  Opening our coasts, ANWR, and building nuclear plants in addition to taking regulation off of alternative energy will provide a huge boost to our economy and our long term prospects for growth.

 

2) Talk about corruption.  Inside and outside government.  You love this issue.  The economic crisis has three causes:  People buying houses and consumer goods they couldn't afford because they believed the hype that the bills would never come due, and now are panicked because they came due, the loan companies that made bad loan decisions and gave loans to people they knew couldn't pay them, hoping that the equity that could build up could keep the ball rolling, knowing that eventually the loans would fail, but hoping they wouldn't be holding the bag, and third government regulations demanding that some of these loans to unqualified people be made for reasons unrelated to economics.  It was a failure of responsibility on the parts of everyone involved.  The last thing that we need to do is force those who were responsible and paid their loans, those banks who did the right thing, the only ones not culpable in all of this, to foot the majority of the bill. 

 

McCain needs to make that case.  He needs to make clear that the solution is found in the free market.  Investors buy the houses people can't afford, and they rent while repairing their credit and next time buy a home the right way.  (The way I and my family will have to)  Investors buy the failed companies, reform them, fire those who need firing, and build them up the right way.  If anything, the government can loan the money to these good companies to make liquidity available in the short term....invest and see the hope of the retirement age people restored when their investments recover.  There will be pain, but most of it is earned pain.  That is the problem. 

 

Both parties want to tell us pain is avoidable.  They want to be Santa Claus.  They want to be liked and popular, and holding people accountable is not fun.  McCain needs to be a leader, not our friend.  Then he needs to make the case for a vast overhall of regulatory and legal red tape tying up financial activities of all kinds.  Get rid of social engineering laws.  Free up companies to seek wealth, and they will pull us along with them.  Get power out of Washington and people can fix it themselves.  McCain loves to fight corruption.  There is a plethora of corruption to fight, he just needs to demand it both within and outside of government.  Like Palin, fight it inside and outside the party.  Line up with Coburn and Jindal and the other few who still have credibility on this issue.  And Do It NOW!!!!! 

 

Bring back the free trade issue, reminding us that Clinton supported NAFTA and was right.  Explain that trade barriers do more harm than good, and push the Columbia free trade pact both under economic and foreign policy grounds.

 

Finally, he needs to remind us that unchecked liberalism is what we had from 76-80 and from 92-94 and in both cases, it led in directions people didn't like.  Bring up Pelosi as often as possible and remind voters who she is and that Obama has stood with her and the liberal wing of his party over 95% of the time.  McCain crosses lines, not Obama.  He has proven that.  They both have.  Keep hammering these points and keep making the case for energy independence as a part of economic policy.  People do not want unchecked liberalism, they want leadership.  Show some.  Be proactive, not responsive, and shape the debate.   

I saw this article onyahoo news, and I couldn't resist.  I have to wonder if kangaroo meat will come up as an issue in the vice presidential debate tomorrow.  I got a kick out of this even as I shook my head about how bizarre these people can get.  Enjoy the latest installment of bizarre science in the name of fighting global warming:

 

 

 

Kangaroos:  The other white meat?

The media will either not report this, or it will get buried in the avalanche of political reporting, but today, 16 died in an attack on the US Embassy in Sa'na, Yemen.  None were Americans, so its easy to brush this off, but this story shows us three things:

 

 

1) Al Qaida is weaker than it was 7 years ago.  Contrary to reports and commentary from the Left and the Democratic party, this is about the best they can do.  It is still bad, and the loss of life is sad, but they have been weakened.

 

2) Al Qaida still exists and still wants to harm us.  Contrary to some who say the war is over, we can come home, cut the military, and focus on social programs, there is still an element out there that wants to hurt us.  They have been weakened, not eliminated.

 

3) Our defensive measures did what they were supposed to do.  We had at least 2 layers of concrete fencing, Yemeni guards ringing American guards, and other security measures that may not have existed prior to 9/11.  Now they exist, and they did their job.  16 died, but 6 were attackers, 4 were Yemeni guards, and 6 were Yemeni civilians.  This is tragic, especially the civilian deaths, but since the Yemeni government has refused our help, they have led themselves to this result.  Hopefully no more have to die to make them see that they ought to pick a side.

   I saw this headline and thought to myself,  "Yes, we did it, our pressure forced them to concede."  But then I looked closer.  Here is the AP story:  http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/offshore_drilling

 

Its headline reads "House approves offshore drilling"  and describes a bill which will do far more harm than good.  The essentials:

 

1) "The House has voted to allow oil drilling off the nation's Atlantic and Pacific coasts if states agree — but only 50 or more miles out" and "The Democrats' bill would allow drilling in waters 50 miles from shore almost everywhere from New England to Washington state as long as a state agrees to go along with energy development off its coast line. Beyond 100 miles, no state approval would be required. The drilling ban would remain in the eastern Gulf of Mexico." and "They cited Interior Department estimates that 88 percent of the 18 billion barrels of oil believed to be in waters now under drilling bans would remain off limits because they are within 50 miles of shore. And they said few states would likely agree to drilling since the bill does not provide states with any of the royalties from the new energy production"

2) Roll back $18 billion in tax breaks for the five largest oil companies and requires energy companies to pay billions of dollars in royalties avoided because of an Interior Department contracting error.

 

Just a thought here, but won't retroactive taxes raise the prices dramatically?  Isn't that part of the point?  Oil is a commodity like any other.  Taxes ought not be overwhelming and really, ought to be at the state level much more than the federal, since state residents are the ones impacted by things occuring in their states.

 

3) Require the release of oil from the government's Strategic Petroleum Reserve to try to push down gasoline prices

 

This is a ridiculous non solution that will seriously risk our security if there is a real crisis (such as a war with Iran or a natural disaster that takes out too many resources.

 

4) Provide tax credits for wind and solar energy industries, the development of cellulose ethanol and other biofuels.  Require utilities nationwide to generate 15 percent of their electricity from solar, wind or other alternative energy source.

 

Tax credits?  I would rather see a less complicated tax code, not more, but I can live with that.  What I can't live with is the utilities mandate.  If these technologies are economically feasible, they will be adopted,  and if they aren't they won't.  This will force utilites to use higher cost alternatives to meet the mandate and they will pass ont he cost in the form of higher utility bills

 

5) Make it a federal crime for oil companies holding federal leases to provide gifts to government employees, a response to a recent sex and drug scandal involving the federal office that oversees the offshore oil royalty program and energy company employees.

 

I thought it already was a crime to bribe officials.  Isn't that what Sarah Palin made serious efforts to stop in Alaska?  I can support this, but don't know that it is really necessary.

 

6) Give tax breaks for new energy efficiency programs including the use of improved building codes and for companies that promote their employees use of bicycles for commuting.

 

Again with the tax breaks?  The idea that government needs to reward the behavior it wants with tax breaks is a sign that taxes as a whole are too onerous and need to be reduced.

 

7) Nowhere in this article did I hear mention of Nuclear Power, ANWR, Oil Shale, or any other of a number of serious reforms that need to occur in any productive energy bill.

I have been swamped between the normal daily prep work for school and my two online classes (I am taking genetics and microbiology towards a masters degree), but I saw this and couldn't resist posting. 

 

The Democrats are preparing to lose.  They are getting it in gear, saying already two months ahead of time that if they lose, it is because of racism.  This quote comes from an article in "Salon":  

 

"I know there is a real concern out there that some people who normally would be voting Democratic might not vote for an African-American," said Tim Burke, the Democratic chairman of Hamilton County (Cincinnati and its suburbs). "Gov. [Ted] Strickland has spoken openly about this." Campaigning for Obama in Jackson County in the Appalachian southeastern corner of the state earlier this month, Strickland declared, "I'm going to talk about the elephant in the room -- and I'm not talking about any Republican. The elephant in the room is what everybody's thinking but nobody willing to talk about ... it's race."

 

Yes. There are racist people.  There are people I met in the Navy and in college who think that interracial marriage or dating is wrong somehow, that people of different races are less human than their own race.  I had a roommate in language school in the Navy that told me the Bible forbids interracial marriage.  He used as his verse some place in Leviticus where God told the Hebrew nation not to intermarry with the people of the land they conquered.  When I asked him wasn't that more because He didn't want them seduced by the religions of those people, he said it didn't matter and didn't want to talk about it.  So I get it, there are racist people.  But see what this author did?  He specified that "States like Ohio" are where this will be an issue, and further, that in the Appalachia corner of Ohio is where it needs to be dealt with.  It goes back to the assumption, the words Obama himself used, that it is poor uneducated rural white people who are too stupid to look beyond race to vote for the future.  Obama talked about rural white voters clinging to guns and religion and HATRED FOR PEOPLE DIFFERENT THAN THEY ARE.  He said that to an audience in San Francisco of rich liberals who completely agree with him.  We are seeing more and more of this from the press as Palin has an effect.  They are so convinced that their ideas are the right ones, so convinced that they are smarter than everyone else, that they cannot concieve of the possibility that their ideas are wrong, that maybe people move to rural areas seeking FREEDOM from government breathing down your necks, monitoring everything you do.  It isn't about race, for most rural voters its about freedom in an increasingly intrusive country. 

 

Now that the press is seeing the tide turn, they are getting ready, priming the pump, getting the memo to the community organizers, that if Obama loses it is Racism, and as such, there should be rioting in the streets.  How much more racist can you get than assuming that black voters will riot if Obama loses, that if Obama loses there will never be another black candidate, and that we the people are not individuals but are made up of monolithic voting blocs based on race, gender, and lifestyle?  I have a lot more to say, but no more time. 

As the father of three daughters, I cannot express how sick I am about the far left and their willingness to smear and lie about a child in an attempt to discredit a candidate.  They are scared to death of Sarah Palin because she represents what many of them fear most:  A woman or minority of accomplishment who is off the liberal reservation.  To discredit her, they will do anything, including starting rumors about her children.  The fact that her daughter is pregnant does not lessen the "crime" here, it adds to it.

 

I had often thought that perhaps in my fifties, I might retire early from teaching and run for congress.  I have long believed that we were meant to be a "citizen government" and that therefore citizens ought to consider serving in politics.  I have thought I would wait until my children were at least out of high school, to avoid subjecting them to the rigors and ugliness of a political life.  But I don't think I can do it.  I am the father of three daughters.  They are currently 9, 7, and 1.  They are wonderful little girls.  Do I really want to see Daily Kos and Huffington Post spread filth about them in an attempt to discredit me?  Worse, if one of them does make a mistake and ends up in drug rehab, being an unmarried mother, or cheating on a college exam, do I really want to put them through this kind of hell?

 

I am a Christian, and I am raising my daughters in a Christian home.  But all have sinned and fallen short, despite my best efforts and despite their best efforts, they will make mistakes.  Apparently, those mistakes will be broadcast far and wide. 

 

In the Bible, two of Jesus' disciples made huge mistakes.  Judas betrayed Jesus to the authorities, Peter denied Him for his own protection.  Both felt remorse after realizing what they had done.  Judas then went out and hung himself.   Peter was broken, and cried out for forgiveness and it was granted him.  He went on to lead thousands to saving grace and even if he hadn't, he was forgiven.  Judas turned his back on forgiveness but it was there for him if he'd have asked.  That is the lesson I would have my daughter learn.  To err is human.  To forgive divine.  Gods love is unconditional, and our love as parents ought to be as well.  Sarah Palin and her husband appear to be living that way.  My prayer is that I will do so as well.

 

Bottom line, kids ought to be off limits.  Whether they are very young like Obamas daughters or adults like McCains, they should be a non issue.  Unless something criminal is done to cover for them or unless they are exploited for political purposes (for example if Palin or Biden, who both have sons going to Iraq were lying and their sons were not serving in the military, that is newsworthy because of their lie, not their sons service or non service).  I am sickened by this past 72 hours and even further disgusted by the complicity of "respectable" media outlets and members such as Alan Colmes and Andrew Sullivan in perpetuating these sick comments.  Some things ought to be sacred, even for politicians.  But I guess not, and the sad thing is, our nation will be far weaker for it if good people refuse to serve because of the toll on their families.