The health care debate is already over

I present my two cents on the issue. And it's not likely to win me much popularity. But as far as I'm concerned I don't understand why we're debating anyway. The issue reflects the larger shift society is making toward obsessive and insufferable "health" and "safety", unreasonable regulations, and micro-management of all facets of daily life. In my completely pessimistic view, the debate is pointless. Even if the current health care "reform" push is defeated, it will just come back again and again until it is fully realized. On that sunny note, let me begin.

There are many factors but mostly we have ourselves to blame for the mess that our health care system is in.

For starters, the real cost of medical treatment is hidden to the average person because insurance companies or the government pays those costs. You have an out of pocket co-payment or deductible, which is generally small, compared to the hundreds and thousands doled out by that third party. But the actual cost of the doctor's expertise and the drugs and technology is nebulous because it is not market-determined but determined through bureaucratic and administrative and middle-man costs. The patient's ability to pay does not factor into the pricing of medical care in any way.

Also, in recent years doctors have had to increase prices to help pay for the unreasonable rise in malpractice protection costs. Doctors have no choice but to pass that cost on to the customer. And no, that customer is not you, but the insurance company who pays on your behalf. Since the insurance company must pay more, it stands to reason they are going to charge you more to carry that policy. The insurance company is in the business to provide a service and to make money — that should not shock anyone — so when you file frequent claims and over-use your insurance, as many do, it should not be hard to understand why they are raising your premiums when the policy renews. You are costing them more, and you are still paying a very small fraction of what they pay on your behalf. And that's just for private individual policies. Imagine the complexities insurance companies deal with trying to price group coverage for employers and large companies? This is not to defend insurance companies or single out the unfortunate souls with insurance horror stories. I am simply pointing out a fact about how insurance works.

Also, I don't think it's strictly anecdotal because I know and work with plenty of folks who do this, but a lot of people run to the doctor for just about every little problem these days. Yes, it's a cliché, but is it not true? Think of the people you know. How many of them are like that? A headache, sniffles, a mild fever, a stubbed toe, the blues, et al. Can it be denied that many doctor visits occur for non-chronic, minor conditions that could probably be treated at home? Or ridden out? And, of course, everyone wants the best doctors, the best diagnostic tests and equipment, the fanciest MRI machines and newest technologies. None of these are cheap. Yet we all expect and even demand them and have no real sense of the cost because, in reality, someone else is paying. If people paid directly out-of-pocket for most of the medical care they received, and only used insurance for the most catastrophic situations, it stands to reason they would be more discerning and "consume" less health care generally. Prices would automatically come down because all of those for-profit doctors and wellness centers and hospitals and drug companies would have to compete better for your money.

Competition is the key. And an honest person admits there isn't anything in the current legislation being discussed that truly addresses that. Adding a "public option" — essentially a government insurance company — does nothing to increase competition or address the core issue: the direct cost of health care. It simply creates another insurance company to choose from when deciding on who will pay the ridiculous medical costs for you. And since government consistently underpays doctors and providers this really will have no impact on reducing costs. It just means a larger share of health care expenditures will be underpaid.

On top of all of that, and perhaps most importantly, we refuse to change our lifestyles in any significant way. We continue to eat fast food and processed junk, smoke, drink and lead sedentary lifestyles with little or no exercise. We know all of that is bad, but we are too lazy to do anything about it. In other words, we want to have our cake and eat it too. And by the way, personally, I am completely in favor of letting people do whatever they want, no matter how bad, dumb or harmful. More on that in a moment. But we want to do whatever we want, then have the consequences of those behaviors taken care of by the best health system in the world, and we want to pay very little for that quality and excellence. And if things go wrong, we want to make sure we can file a mega-lawsuit as well.

Many people would be just fine with the government taking over all aspects of the health care system. Do away with private insurance and just have a huge universal Medicare system for every citizen. "Health Care for All" as they say. We're already paying a lot through insurance, what's the difference if we just replace those insurance premiums with taxes to Uncle Sam? The irony is, private insurance has no say-so in your lifestyle, but all of those people who love the idea of a "universal" health care system can be sure that when government is invested in your health, they certainly can and will have an interest in monitoring and managing your lifestyle.

Universalizing health care forces me to be an investor in your lifestyle. Currently, I don't care what you do. But when taxpayers are footing the bill, you can be sure we will all take an interest in what you do, even if on a philosophical level we couldn't care less. And that is the problem. In a free society, I don't want to take an interest in your lifestyle. I don't want to be forced to care about what you do. Because I might have some crazy ideas about what your lifestyle should be, and you might have some crazy ideas about what my lifestyle should be. So why would we want to do that to each other? Why would we want to take that power out of the disinterested private sector and hand it to the very interested public sector?

To take this back where I began, frankly speaking, I think this whole debate is a moot point anyway. I believe we will not only have health care "reform", I believe eventually we will indeed have a fully socialized universal system where the government funds all health care expense and it is paid for through taxes. It may be 10 years or 30 years, but it will happen. Why? Because there are just too many people in this country who feel entitled to it. Who believe it is a "human right". And those people reproduce, and their offspring will have the same mental condition. Combine that with the fact that it's just an emotionally appealing idea that's very difficult to oppose. After all, who can be against "health care for all"? What person wishes to be labeled cold and heartless for saying no to something that feels so good and right? It's an unfortunate but unstoppable tide.

I'm sure the intentions are pure. It's not a "bolshevik plot". But if the end result looks the same, what's the difference? I am not worried about death panels and abortion funding and "cornhusker kickbacks". It's not the delivery of health care that's going to be rationed, it's those cheeseburgers and beers and sugary treats and countless other little liberties that will be. Smoking bans and trans-fat bans are only the beginning. The red-tape killjoys of the world are ready and willing to hang the figurative hazard sign on just about everything you do. And when all health care is governmentalized, they will. So be sure and turn out the lights on your way out, America, the party's over. We'll have only our very safe selves to blame.

The meaning of Massachusetts

It turns out conservatism isn't dead after all.

It was only a year or so ago we were being told that conservatism had been relegated to the ash heap of history. An obsolete and outdated philosophy bitterly clung to only by angry white tea baggers, racist rubes and gun-totin' hicks.

Recall Newsweek declaring that we are all socialists now. And Colin Powell's assertion that people wanted more government in their lives — not less.

Not surprisingly, rumors of conservatism's death were premature. In fact I'm not sure it can die in what remains a center-right country. But it can be temporarily abandoned. And it certainly was by a big-spending Republican president and congress during the early 2000's. Of course you could argue they had bigger things to focus on such as defending the country against the jihadist onslaught. But that is only a partial excuse.

In many ways we conservatives should thank Barack Obama for stirring the sleeping giant.

A good many people had become turned off to politics. Tired of the abrasive chatter and negativity. After eight years of Bush and the bitter 2000 election and truthers and other weird national distractions it could only be the election of a hard left ideologue — a true believer — to rattle us back to our senses. Had the Democratic party filtered out a pragmatic centrist it is possible none of the current hyper-partisanship would be happening.

But as I have opined before, the Democratic party is historically awful at vetting their candidates during the primary process. At least in the last couple of decades (See Mondale, Dukakis, Gore, Kerry). So while we were inundated with commentary that Bush had ruined the Republican brand and that conservatism would wander in the wilderness for a generation, when you look at the big picture, the truth is Bush's unpopularity and the GOP's following slide over those eight years were merely a blip compared to the larger thirty-year decline of the Democratic party.

A decline that has forged that party's angry identity and has led it far from the mainstream.

It is now a party that has allowed its leadership to ratchet their platform and policy way to the left. It is no longer the Democratic party of our fathers and grandfathers. No longer the party of the working man. It's the party of ex-60's radicals and neo-socialist Europhiles and Alinsky revolutionaries.

Kooks in suits. All adopting the appearance of normality. Becoming the man to beat the man. The modern American fifth column of the glorious workers revolution. Down with the long struggle. Patient. Creeping in. Hollowing out the capitalist system from the inside.

It has become something that many Americans find distasteful and scary. A party that welcomes the Cindy Sheehans and Ward Churchills and Noam Chomskys and the 20% or so (my estimate) of people who actually believe maybe we were behind the 9/11 attack — or at least deserved it. While the other 80% — Republican and Democrat — who still cherish the foundations and institutions and goodness of this country find that kind of thinking repulsive and offensive.

It has become a party that is both arrogant and ignorant at the same time. A party that believes it is entitled to rule instead of blessed to represent. More interested in fomenting victimhood in order to sustain voter rolls than to solve real problems.

I believe that while the natural born instinct of most Americans is to resist big government. It is also natural to resist a group which openly works to tear down this country.

The perception that the Democratic party of today doesn't take national security and American sovereignty seriously exists because, well, they don't. They are too busy domestically trying to transform this country into a sunlit dreamland where all needs are attended to by the State.

An ideal and just and "fair" society forcefully created by redistributive social and economic change. A great societal realignment to atone for centuries of imperialist oppression and other perceived global sins. Utopia, at long last — or at least Switzerland.

While the rest of us who live in reality understand that while improvement is a necessity, perfection is a fantasy. And in some cases not a harmless one.

Now the mask is off. And many people — including independents and blue-collar Democrats in Massachusetts — are rejecting what they see. If this is not a repudiation of the current administration's stated agenda what else could it possibly be?

With such a stunningly quick reversal in national opinion, then, how do you explain what happened in 2008 anyway? I'm not sure it can ever be completely understood. But essentially Barack Obama rode an anti-Bush, anti-war wave into office with just the right mixture of superbly canned happy talk about hope and change, GOP missteps and media worship on a level not seen before. No one — except for a few of us — seemed to want to question seriously whether this person was actually right for the job. Whether this former street radical and liberal law professor and cultural Marxist actually deserved to be given the privilege of leading this great nation and the solemn honor of commanding her armies.

It always seemed to me that Obama was just the same old stale populist leftism we've heard for years. Platitudes and cliches. Tired and empty and meaningless words. But many were just taken in by the American Idol marketing, followed the conventional wisdom, and dared not be called out as someone who didn't appreciate the historical significance. After all, if you disagreed with Obama the candidate or didn't care for him, you had the added racial guilt to live with.

Those of us who felt we had the correct sense seem to have been proven right. That this is a man that is all about words and appearances and less about substance and action. So after a year of our President's constant and sometimes bizarre speechifying the backlash has culminated with the stunning victory of Scott Brown in Massachusetts. A Republican from a deep blue state. A regular guy. A moderate. An average American who drives a truck and believes in limiting government and reducing taxes and treating terrorists as terrorists. A citizen legislator who understands that government does not increase the standard of living of people — liberty does.

The result of this victory seems to have many of the left in a simultaneous state of confusion, denial and delusion.

Well, as our President's former pastor would say, the chickens are coming home to roost.

Thomas Friedman officially goes off the deep end

Until he adopted the global warming scheme as his life cause, I was actually a fan of New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman. I thought his writings and views on the Middle East and the Arab-Israeli conflict were among the most intelligent and sharp you could find.

But in the last few years he's gone further and further into koo koo land, and the final push over the cliff and into the abyss of lunacy took place a few days ago in his latest column.

Watching both the health care and climate/energy debates in Congress, it is hard not to draw the following conclusion: There is only one thing worse than one-party autocracy, and that is one-party democracy, which is what we have in America today.

One-party autocracy certainly has its drawbacks. But when it is led by a reasonably enlightened group of people, as China is today, it can also have great advantages. That one party can just impose the politically difficult but critically important policies needed to move a society forward in the 21st century. It is not an accident that China is committed to overtaking us in electric cars, solar power, energy efficiency, batteries, nuclear power and wind power. China’s leaders understand that in a world of exploding populations and rising emerging-market middle classes, demand for clean power and energy efficiency is going to soar. Beijing wants to make sure that it owns that industry and is ordering the policies to do that, including boosting gasoline prices, from the top down.

So, there it is. Communist, oppressive, human-rights-abusing, protest-'discouraging', soul-crushing China is the model for which we free people in democratic America should now be looking to. Because, despite those inconvenient 'drawbacks', their 'enlightened' leaders really know how to get stuff done.

From the 'top down'.

You almost don't know where to begin. So I'll just let it speak for itself.

As with my previous post, there's been a lot of the Liberal-Progressive mind exposed here lately. Call it Libs Gone Wild, if you will. Naked and joyous to the world.

It's both amazing and horrifying at the same time.

Jonah Goldberg nails it here.

UPDATE: But, once again, it should be noted any time someone is complaining about the GOP being the party of "no": The GOP does not have the votes to stop any legislation the Democrats want to pass.

The GOP is not what is stopping Obama and his merry band of Dems from passing their paradigm-shifting, massive entitlement programs during a recession and two wars. What is stopping them is that they simply lack the political courage to ram these things through on their own. They want the political cover of 'bipartisanship' when these ideas inevitably fail.

"They may not know what's good for them"

Andrea Mitchell, of state-run MSNBC, recently had one of those unguarded moments when the true impulse of the Liberal mind reveals itself:



She means you, by the way. The sheep. The cattle.

Only the elite minds of Washington and New York are enlightened enough to guide all of you rubes in flyover country.

Right?

This really shouldn't surprise anyone who understands how Liberals think and view the world. Notice how easily the words rolled off the tongue.

Leftists constantly pat themselves on the back for their 'good intentions' and concern for the poor and downtrodden. Problem is, it's all bull.

The real motivation underlying the Liberal-Progressive mind is quite simply the urge to control. The urge to tell you how to live your life. The urge to force. To dominate.

Moments like this one crystallize that notion.

Friends on my side often complain about the obvious bias in the state-run media. I say fine. Set them free. Let them show their true selves.

They seem to be doing it more and more lately.

Recent must-reads

Pat Buchanan — Socialist America Sinking

After half a century of fighting encroachments upon freedom in America, journalist Garet Garrett published “The People’s Pottage.” A year later, in 1954, he died. “The People’s Pottage” opens thus:

“There are those who still think they are holding the pass against a revolution that may be coming up the road. But they are gazing in the wrong direction. The revolution is behind them. It went by in the Night of Depression, singing songs to freedom.”

Garrett wrote of a revolution within the form. While outwardly America appeared the same, a revolution within had taken place that was now irreversible. One need only glance at where we were before the New Deal, where we are and where we are headed to see how far we are off the course the Founding Fathers set for our republic.

Charles Krauthammer — Why Obamacare is sinking

This is not about politics? Then why is it, to take but the most egregious example, that in this grand health-care debate we hear not a word about one of the worst sources of waste in American medicine: the insane cost and arbitrary rewards of our malpractice system?

When a neurosurgeon pays $200,000 a year for malpractice insurance before he even turns on the light in his office or hires his first nurse, who do you think pays? Patients, through higher doctors’ fees to cover the insurance.

And with jackpot justice that awards one claimant zillions while others get nothing — and one-third of everything goes to the lawyers — where do you think that money comes from? The insurance companies, who then pass it on to you in higher premiums.

But the greatest waste is the hidden cost of defensive medicine: tests and procedures that doctors order for no good reason other than to protect themselves from lawsuits. Every doctor knows, as I did when I practiced years ago, how much unnecessary medical cost is incurred with an eye not on medicine but on the law.

Tort reform would yield tens of billions in savings. Yet you cannot find it in the Democratic bills. And Obama breathed not a word about it in the full hour of his health-care news conference. Why? No mystery. The Democrats are parasitically dependent on huge donations from trial lawyers.

George Will — Cold Shoulder to Climate 'Urgency'

The costs of weaning the U.S. economy off much of its reliance on carbon are uncertain, but certainly large. The climatic benefits of doing so are uncertain but, given the behavior of those pesky 5 billion, almost certainly small, perhaps minuscule, even immeasurable.

Fortunately, skepticism about the evidence that supposedly supports current alarmism about climate change is growing, as is evidence that, whatever the truth about the problem turns out to be, U.S. actions cannot be significantly ameliorative.

Mark Steyn — Gaia's Right

Environmentalism opposes that kind of mobility. It seeks to return us to the age of kings, when the masses are restrained by a privileged elite. Sometimes they will be hereditary monarchs, such as the Prince of Wales. Sometimes they will be merely the gilded princelings of the government apparatus — Barack Obama, Barney Frank, Nancy Pelosi. In the old days, they were endowed with absolute authority by God.

Today, they’re endowed by Mother Nature, empowered by Gaia to act on her behalf. But the object remains control — to constrain you in a million ways, most of which would never have occurred to Henry VIII, who, unlike the new cap-and-trade bill, was entirely indifferent as to whether your hovel was “energy efficient.” The old rationale for absolute monarchy — Divine Right — is a tough sell in a democratic age. But the new rationale — Gaia’s Right — has proved surprisingly plausible.

GOP: far from dead

Marc Rotterman, a senior fellow at the John Locke Foundation, wrote a good column in my local State-run media fishwrap yesterday about Obama's "persuasion gap". With the wacky Democratic party unwisely overreaching in all sorts of ways up in Washington, the backlash could come sooner rather than later.

The piece begins:

The cliché that bad policy makes bad politics is beginning to be borne out again with the drop in President Barack Obama's poll numbers. A new Gallup Poll shows Obama's job approval rating at 56 percent -- down from his honeymoon high of 66 percent.

A job approval rating of 56 percent this early in his presidency is still very respectable by historical standards, but the dropoff in key swing states among independents is a cause for alarm for the White House's inner circle.

In the 2006 and 2008 election cycles, independents had virtually voted in lockstep with the Democratic Party, resulting in the Democrats' seizing the majority in the House and Senate in 2006 and the White House in 2008.

Obama and his team mistakenly, in my view, misread his election as a mandate to institute the largest peacetime expansion of government in the history of this country. Now, as unemployment numbers rise and the economy continues to falter, it is becoming increasingly clear that independents are rejecting the Obama administration's expansive and wildly expensive programs.

Reality is setting in, and Obama's soaring rhetoric is not matching the results in communities around the country and at the kitchen table.

Numerous polls reflect the growing skepticism of Obama's programs. The middle class sees no tangible results (jobs) and understands that there is a huge downside to all this debt. People wonder out loud how the government can create jobs or for that matter run General Motors.

Exactly.

Read the whole article here.

Crock

Fear-mongering moonbats at their worst:

WASHINGTON — If the Senate doesn't pass a bill to cut global warming, Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer says, there will be dire results: droughts, floods, fires, loss of species, damage to agriculture, worsening air pollution and more.

She says there's a huge upside, however, if the Senate does act: millions of clean-energy jobs, reduced reliance on foreign oil and less pollution for the nation's children

I grow beyond weary of this nonsense. The whole story from McClatchy is here.

'Extremists' protest ginormous government on tax day

As normal, average, everyday Americans across the country yesterday gathered to protest bailouts, higher taxes and general government bloating, the media and leftwing blogosphere predictably treated the whole affair with the usual snarky, mocking, and dismissive tone. [Examples here, here, and here.]

Here are a few things the mockers should note:

These protests are not about Barack Obama, he's just a catalyst, but not the source of frustration. If anything, Republicans on Capital Hill should be paying the most attention to these protests. More votes in favor of bailouts, amnesty for illegal immigrants, cap and trade, unaffordable universal healthcare, and any other such rushed, non-debated nonsense from those clowns will certainly open them up to future election defeats.

These protests are a backlash against decades of growth in Federal power, including growth under Republican administrations. So by all means, save the 'bitter clingers who just don't like Obama' criticism for something else.

These protests are not just a bunch of radical right-wing Jesus Campers out looking to network. Read or watch just about any [unbiased] report about any of the hundreds of gatherings and that's clear. Beyond that, I personally know a few registered Democrats who attended the event in Raleigh, NC. Apparently, not every Democrat is on board with the current direction of this country. Who knew?

Despite the constant talking point mantra, this was not some carefully crafted Fox News conspiracy, that's just another straw man argument that the left are masters of. Fox was simply the only network giving these protests any coverage beforehand.

Finally, it can't be coincidence that our current Department of Homeland Security just recently issued a report to law enforcement agencies nationwide about the rise of "right-wing extremist activity". Apparently, the DHS secretary feels "right-wing extremists" are every bit as dangerous to Americans as Islamic terrorists — and other than being absurd, that's just sick and sad. Especially when you consider the fast and loose definition of "right-wing extremists" given in the report.

Truly shameless.

John Stossel: Bailouts and Bull

John Stossel has always been one of my favorite all-around dudes. No one points out how we're pretty much idiots, who get led around by even bigger idiots (politicians), quite as well as he does.

If you missed his recent 20/20 special called "Bailouts and Bull", here are my favorite parts:

The dismal tide

Should any of this surprise us?

The Dow is crashing.

Job losses are mounting.

The general unease is growing.

Universal Health Care that is neither constitutional nor affordable is creeping.

The Global Warming swindle — with its boring and brainwashed moonbats — is marching forward.

The War on Capitalism is in full swing.

The War on Terror is in full retreat.

But again I ask, should any of this surprise us?

When you elect someone with zero executive experience, who marinated in radicalism their entire adult life, who learned the art of the "manufactured crisis" from Moonbat-in-chief Saul Alinsky, who pretended to be a centrist during an unvetted campaign — should any of this surprise us?

Thanks, Obama voters.

Are you eating crow yet?

10 reasons to disengage

Some may have wondered why I've been posting less frequently — and when I have, it's been of the more frivolous variety. *

Well, I guess all the gloom and doom is actually starting to have an effect. It certainly makes one want to disengage and turn off the news.

Here are 10 reasons why I'm getting less and less interested in our current state of affairs:

1) We have a President and a political party that constantly tells us how broken, destitute and horrible our country is. It's kind of a buzzkill.

2) Nationalization becomes the norm as Federal power bloats. The Era of Big Government is reborn and most people seem to be just fine with that.

3) Barney Frank and Chris Dodd have not been tarred and feathered for their culpability in the housing mess, nor have they taken any responsibility or shown any contrition, and no one seems to care.

4) Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Chucky Schumer, Dick Durbin and Henry Waxman are all prominent leaders of the Democratic party in Congress. This reason alone could pretty much trump all the other ones on this list.

5) Thugs like Hugo Chavez essentially become lifetime dictators through "democratic" elections in Venezuela, and not only does no one care, the Left in this country and much of the media praises his "spunk" and "revolutionary socialism".

6) The "go green" nonsense will not go away, and in fact only seems to be getting stronger. I still believe (hope?) in 10 years or so it will be viewed as the junk science-fad-trend-thing that it is — just a ridiculous product of the worst kind of groupthink. But through wacko policy decisions that will ultimately do nothing but control more of your daily life and constrict movement, prosperity, and liberty, a lot of damage can be done before then.

7) Secretary of State Hillary Clinton perpetuates further an absurd moral relativism by apologizing for past Christian indiscretions while in Indonesia. This is just one example of a wider weakening that continues to disturb me. I keep wondering when the West will stop apologizing and start demanding one instead.

8) Ultra-rich puppetmasters like George Soros have entirely too much hidden influence.

9) Real journalism is dead and buried.

10) "Lost", "24" and "BSG" are all back on, stronger than ever, and serve as welcome distractions from the real world.

So, what does all this mean? In the grand scheme of things, not much. But for this blog it could mean you'll see a little less politics and maybe a bit more about other things that interest me: Pop culture, science, music, Mongolian agricultural trends...okay, maybe not that last one.

There will always be plenty of nutty Leftwingery to mock, and I'll never get bored with that, but for my own sanity I may need to rant about other things as well.

* No one has wondered.

Greeniness

Oh boy. Here it comes.

From The New York Times:

The Environmental Protection Agency is expected for the first time to regulate carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases that scientists blame for the warming of the planet, according to top Obama administration officials.

The decision, which likely would play out in stages over a period of months, would have a profound impact on transportation, building standards, manufacturing costs and how utilities generate power. It could accelerate the progress of energy and climate change legislation in Congress and form a basis for the United States’ negotiating position at United Nations climate talks set for December in Copenhagen.

The E.P.A. is under order from the Supreme Court to make a determination whether carbon dioxide is a pollutant that endangers public health and safety, an order that the Bush administration essentially ignored despite a near-unanimous belief among E.P.A. experts that the research points inexorably to such a finding.

As expected, the junk science of man-made global warming is rearing its ugly head in what is quickly becoming a disturbing presidency.

Fortunately, there are some voices of reason in Congress according to Human Events:

Last year, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR), proposing new rules for greenhouse gas emissions. If passed the new rules would mean that the EPA would have sole power to regulate greenhouse gases and define what constitutes as a greenhouse gas.

Under the proposed rule businesses that use fossil fuels would be regulated, products and buildings would have requirements and even farm animals would be subject to taxes.

So far this new rule -- which would have enormously negative effects on our economy -- has sat on the back burner. But under an Obama administration, with the environment a hot button issue, the new rules could become a reality. That’s why some in Congress are taking steps to try and stop action before it happens.

H.R. 391 is a bill being spearheaded by Congresswoman Marsha Blackburn (R-TN). This amendment to The Clean Air Act would provide that greenhouse gases are not subject to regulation by the EPA.

More on this topic soon.

Tea with Soros

I'm a reformed conspiracy nut, but?



From Politico.com:

Currently burning up the tubes: Rep. Paul Kanjorski's description, late last month, of how close to the brink the global economy came on September 18. That was the day, recall, when Congressional leaders emerged stunned from a meeting with Henry Paulson, and gave him broad authority to spend $700 billion.

Part of what he said:

On Thursday at 11:00 a.m. the Federal Reserve noticed a tremendous draw-down of money market accounts in the U.S., to the tune of $550 billion was being drawn out in the matter of an hour or two. The Treasury opened up its window to help and pumped a $105 billion in the system and quickly realized that they could not stem the tide. We were having an electronic run on the banks. They decided to close the operation, close down the money accounts and announce a guarantee of $250,000 per account so there wouldn't be further panic out there.

If they had not done that, their estimation is that by 2:00 p.m. that afternoon, $5.5 trillion would have been drawn out of the money market system of the U.S., would have collapsed the entire economy of the U.S., and within 24 hours the world economy would have collapsed. It would have been the end of our economic system and our political system as we know it.

More on this at Media Splatters.

Sleep tight.

Camille Paglia on the Fairness Doctrine

I haven't had a chance to really write much about the Fairness Doctrine, but you can be sure I'll have more to say about it in the future. I don't think there's any doubt a serious debate is coming on this issue. Although, in the end, I don't see any meaningful legislation being passed. When all is said and done, I think most Democrats won't have the guts to vote for it.

Of course, there's always the chance I could be wrong and this blog will soon be coming to you over pirate WiFi from a "reeducation camp" somewhere.

Anyway, there will be much more on this topic in the future but in the meantime I thought it was worth pointing to this very good piece by Camille Paglia at Salon.com. She's certainly no conservative, and the main thrust of the column is about Obama's rough start as President and the economy, but she goes into a bit about the Fairness Doctrine and makes some fine points:

Speaking of talk radio (which I listen to constantly), I remain incredulous that any Democrat who professes liberal values would give a moment's thought to supporting a return of the Fairness Doctrine to muzzle conservative shows. (My latest manifesto on this subject appeared in my last column.) The failure of liberals to master the vibrant medium of talk radio remains puzzling. To reach the radio audience (whether the topic is sports, politics or car repair), a host must have populist instincts and use the robust common voice. Too many Democrats have become arrogant elitists, speaking down in snide, condescending tones toward tradition-minded middle Americans whom they stereotype as rubes and buffoons. But the bottom line is that government surveillance of the ideological content of talk radio is a shocking first step toward totalitarianism.

One of the nuggets I've gleaned from several radio sources is that Michigan Sen. Debbie Stabenow, who has been in the aggressive forefront of the campaign to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine, is married to Tom Athans, who works extensively with left-wing radio organizations and was once the executive vice-president of Air America, the liberal radio syndicate that, despite massive publicity from major media, has failed miserably to win a national audience. Stabenow's outrageous conflict of interest has of course been largely ignored by the prestige press, which should have been demanding that she recuse herself from all political involvement with this issue.

The rest is here.

Arrogant career politician insults curious taxpayers

Chuck Schumer of New York, who served in the House of Representatives before becoming a Senator, has been in Washington since 1981. He doesn't think you care about wasteful pork spending. Why? Because he thinks you're a stupid, annoying member of the "chattering class".

How dare you question where your money is being spent. Fools!

Adjective
smug (comparative smugger, superlative smuggest)
1. Irritatingly pleased with oneself; self-satisfied.

The Great Global Warming Swindle

It's Sunday. Be lazy. Enjoy this informative movie while I continue to recover from a cold.

Sunday must-reads

A new feature, when there is time — or will. A round-up of the the best columns of the week, or recent times, or from whenever I feel like pulling them. Enjoy.

Mark Steyn — Obama, All at Sea

Charles Krauthammer — The Fierce Urgency of Pork

Victor Davis Hanson — Our Brave New World

Ike Brannon and Chris Edwards — Barack Obama's Keynesian Mistake

Monica Crowley — Change We Can Roll Our Eyes At

Wall Street Journal — The Stimulus Tragedy

Deroy Murdock — President Obama May Reverse Damage of Ghetto Culture

Marc Sheppard — Save The Children (From Global Warming Propaganda)

Fouad Ajami — Obama Reassures Despots

Charles Krauthammer — Obama's Unnecessary Apology

Taking a left turn at the crossroads

I feel it, can't you feel it? We're at one of those points in history, one of those turning points. A point where we can reconnect with our history of limited government, self-reliance, and personal responsibility — or we can continue the hellish leftward lurch toward the soft ways of socialist Europe. Where centralized governments make up the majority of jobs and economic activity of a nation, and where the desire to please all people all the time leads to financial and cultural suicide.

Dick Morris wrote a swell piece about our direction at TheHill.com:

2009-2010 will rank with 1913-14, 1933-36, 1964-65 and 1981-82 as years that will permanently change our government, politics and lives. Just as the stars were aligned for Wilson, Roosevelt, Johnson and Reagan, they are aligned for Obama. Simply put, we enter his administration as free-enterprise, market-dominated, laissez-faire America. We will shortly become like Germany, France, the United Kingdom, or Sweden — a socialist democracy in which the government dominates the economy, determines private-sector priorities and offers a vastly expanded range of services to many more people at much higher taxes.

Obama will accomplish his agenda of “reform” under the rubric of “recovery.” Using the electoral mandate bestowed on a Democratic Congress by restless voters and the economic power given his administration by terrified Americans, he will change our country fundamentally in the name of lifting the depression. His stimulus packages won’t do much to shorten the downturn — although they will make it less painful — but they will do a great deal to change our nation.

In implementing his agenda, Barack Obama will emulate the example of Franklin D. Roosevelt. (Not the liberal mythology of the New Deal, but the actuality of what it accomplished.) When FDR took office, he was enormously successful in averting a total collapse of the banking system and the economy. But his New Deal measures only succeeded in lowering the unemployment rate from 23 percent in 1933, when he took office, to 13 percent in the summer of 1937. It never went lower. And his policies of over-regulation generated such business uncertainty that they triggered a second-term recession. Unemployment in 1938 rose to 17 percent and, in 1940, on the verge of the war-driven recovery, stood at 15 percent. (These data and the real story of Hoover’s and Roosevelt’s missteps, uncolored by ideology, are available in The Forgotten Man by Amity Shlaes, copyright 2007.)

But in the name of a largely unsuccessful effort to end the Depression, Roosevelt passed crucial and permanent reforms that have dominated our lives ever since, including Social Security, the creation of the Securities and Exchange Commission, unionization under the Wagner Act, the federal minimum wage and a host of other fundamental changes.

You should read all of it. Or not.

More stimulus illustrated

From Suitably Flip

Oborg

From Black and Right