TightyRighty.net

The AP is reporting the following regarding the annual July budget update prepared by the Administration:

The release of the update _ usually scheduled for mid-July _ has been put off until the middle of next month, giving rise to speculation the White House is delaying the bad news at least until Congress leaves town on its August 7 summer recess.

So we’re in a huge rush to give over our health care system to the government, with full knowledge that this program is going to cost Trillions of future dollars in the future, yet we are not allow to understand where we stand today financially.  This is the equivalent to a family rushing out to buy a new house without considering whether it has enough income to pay for that house.

President Obama ran on a pledge of full transparency of government.  Now it is time to ‘buck up” and give the American taxpayer all the relevant information necessary to understand the fiscal implications of this plan.

Yesterday, in response to a question from CBS News Medical Correspondent, Dr. Jon LaPook, as to “whether each individual American should be required to have health insurance”, President Obama responded:

I have come to that conclusion. During the campaign, I was opposed to this idea because my general attitude was the reason people don’t have health insurance is not because they don’t want it, but because they can’t afford it. And if you make it affordable, then they will come. I’ve been persuaded that there are enough young uninsured people who are cheap to cover, but are opting out. To make sure that those folks are part of the overall pool is the best way to make sure that all of our premiums go down. I am now in favor of some sort of individual mandate as long as there’s a hardship exemption…

In other words, if you are young and healthy, we need you to pay into an insurance system, whether you want to or not, to subsidize the costs of folks who are not as healthy as you.

This is how you lose your freedom.  You are not allowed to decide how you spend the fruits of your labor. It sounds good – “all of our premiums go down”.  However, if you are paying no premiums today and tomorrow your are paying premiums for a service you do not want or need, how did your “premiums go down”?

First it was rich perople, now its healthy people – who is next?

WOW!!  That’s how much debt the federal government racked up between October 1, 2008 and June 30, 2009.   That works out to about $111 Billion per month, $3.65 Billion per day, $152 Million per hour, $2.5 Million per minute and $42K per second that the federal government spends more than it has coming in.  (BTW – there are 23.6 Million seconds in 9 months).

And this  includes less than 10% of the $787 Billion “Stimulus” package that had to get done or unemployment would hit 9%.  Oh, it did anyway?  Nevermind.

And this does not include the $Trillions to be spent on health care “reform”.  Where does it end?

There are now bills in Congress which provide for a  5.4% surtax on folks making more than $1M.  To tax the productive members of society to pay for the Democrats freedom-robbing programs is ridiculous.

Where this will end is simple.  A 2 line tax form:

How much did you make last last year?

Send it in.

I had an interesting discussion regarding the Obama health care proposal this afternoon while eating pizza after the North Ride.

One of the guys first told us about his 82 year old mother-in-law who has some form of cancer and is about to undergo chemo.  He said the doctor felt the planned treatment regimen had some opportunity for success and he did not indicate he had any issues with the planned treatment given her age or the stage of her cancer diagnosis.

Later in the conversation, he stated the U.S. health care system was a mess and something needed to be done.  When I asked him why, he stated because 45 million Americans have no insurance coverage.  When I asked him if these 45 million were not getting health care, he acknowledged that they were receiving health care, “but we need to do something.”  When asked why the other 85% of the country needs to change its current coverage (to a single payer system) he had no answer.  He also had no answer when I told him his mother-in-law would not be receiving the planned treatment if we have the government managing (read “rationing”) health care.

He also told us about some investigative journalism (the DMN??) which found that the Medicare reimbursement rate in McAllen, TX was double the rate throughout the country.  He then related a plane trip he took where his seat mate explained how several McAllen doctors setup clinics, hired Phillipino nurses, and were bilking the system to the tune of $5M – $10M per year per doctor.  When I asked him why we would want to institute this type of government administered program to all the citizens in the U.S. he said someone needs to clean-up this fraud.

In summary, although this guy knows someone personally who would not receive the treatment they are currently receiving under a government managed program, he admits that we do NOT have people in this country who are living without the health care they need, and that current government managed health care is rife with fraud and abuse, “we need to do something.”

Perhaps that is not a sport drink in his water bottle and is “kool-aid” instead.

1.  Respect for the Constitution

2.  Respect for life

3.  Less government

4.  Personal responsibility

How can you argue with that?

In a piece in the Weekly Standard, Stephen Hays reports that the U.S. is now Mirandizing certain high-value detainees in Afghanistan.  ARE WE INSANE?  This is so wrong on so many levels.

First of all, Miranda rights are meant to protect U.S. citizens.  A terrorist picked up on a battlefield is (usually) not a U.S. citizen.

Secondly, Miranda rights are provided so that potential defendants do not say things which may be used against them in a court of law.    Enemy combatants should not be tried in a court of law.

Thirdly, the reason that detainees are interrogated is not to obtain information that can be used to prosecute them, it is to gain intelligence about the enemy and its tactics on the battlefield.  If you tell the detainee they have the right to remain silent, why would they provide us with any information, which could save American lives?

This just demonstrates the Obama administrations’ belief that there is no war on terror, just a police action against some wacky jihadis.  This reckless and irresponsible approach to a very real danger is exactly why Dick Cheney is correct when he stated the Obama administration has made us less safe.

Finally, please note the the Red Cross is encouraging detainees to exercise their Miranda rights and not provide information.  You can be assured they will never see another dollar of contribution from me.

And now the other shoe is dropping.  An article in today’s Washington Post indicates “U.S. Targets Excessive Pay for Top Executives“.  Among the troubling statements in this article are the following:

The Obama administration named a “compensation czar” yesterday to set salaries and bonuses at some of the biggest firms at the heart of the economic crisis, as part of a broader government campaign to reshape pay practices across corporate America…

Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner said yesterday that the administration is not interested in “capping pay” or “setting forth precise prescriptions for how companies should set compensation.” Instead, he said, the government wants to rein in pay practices that motivated executives to take excessive risks in pursuit of profit…

“This financial crisis had many significant causes, but executive compensation practices were a contributing factor,” Geithner said yesterday…

And more initiatives to address these practices are coming. The Federal Reserve is examining how regulators can oversee pay at all banks. Geithner and senior White House officials, meanwhile, plan to make executive pay a focus of their efforts to overhaul financial regulation, which officials say will be detailed next week…

Feinberg, who previously managed the government’s efforts to compensate the families of those killed in the Sept. 11 attacks, will control compensation at seven firms that have received large federal bailouts…

He will also have the authority to set overall compensation, but not precise salary levels, for firms that have received smaller bailouts. The goal, officials said, is to curb the practice of tying pay to performance in a way that induces traders and executives to take big risks. Feinberg can also decide whether executives who have received what he considers excessive compensation should return some of that money…

Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), who leads the House Financial Services Committee, said the measures did not go far enough and plans to introduce legislation directing the SEC to outline guidelines for how compensation committees should determine pay…

Administration officials said they also hoped their efforts would pressure firms to rein in lavish pay by giving shareholders the right to vote on an executive’s overall compensation package.

There are so many things in this article to be concerned about.

First of all, do we need another “czar”?  We have an auto czar, a cyber czar, a Great Lakes cleanup czar (I missed this one – did you?), WMD czar, etc.  Why do we need all these czars?  Is it because you can infuse these folks with an incredible amount of power, but since these are not cabinet posts, they don’t require congressional approval?  Sounds very transparent to me.

Secondly, Treassury Secretary (does anyone else have a hard time calling a tax cheat the Treasury Secretary?) Geithner’s statement that the administration is not interested in “capping pay” or “setting forth precise prescriptions for how companies should set compensation” challenges credulity.  This is exactly what they want, and if not done by the administration, they certainly want to open the door so that Congress, the Federal Reserve, the SEC, etc. can do precisely that – manage executive compensation.  His claim the government wants to rein in pay practices that motivated executives to take excessive risks in pursuit of profit is also a canard.  If you do not want companies taking excessive risks, change the rules regarding the types of risks these companies can and cannot take.

Thirdly, how scary is it that the czar can “can also decide whether executives who have received what he considers excessive compensation should return some of that money.”  If the government can step in after the fact, and impose its will on decisions made by companies and their boards, then the term socialism is not too strong to describe the type of government to which we have evolved.

Finally, giving shareholders the right to vote onexecutive compensation is pitiful.  That is why the shareholders elect a board of directors.  Perhaps we should give citizens the right to vote on stimulus packages and health care reform.

The one thing in this article I don’t have a problem with is the management of executive compensation at the 7 firms who have taken significant amounts of taxpayer support, within the framework of existing agreements.  See my prior post located here regarding honoring contracts.   Going forward, if the contracts are too rich for the work being performed, fire the exec so they can go somewhere they will be paid a market rate.

I think all of these are summed up in the comment that “These efforts reflect the administration’s conclusion that companies cannot police themselves on matters of pay.”  But of course the government, in its infinite wisdom, can.  Again, we see the arrogance of our President and his administration thinking that they know better, even though many of them, the President included, have never actually run anything of any size and don’t understand the complexities of running a business in a free market.

No, I did not get up early to hear the President’s speech. I didn’t watch it on YouTube either. I read the full text so that I could see what he said and not how he said it. The guy is an unbelievable good orator, but my experience is that he is full of scope and grandeur and very short on solutions. That was my sense of this speech also – a lot of ground covered, he said some good things, he said some scary things (particularly if you are an Israeli) but very little in the way of action plans. Perhaps that is too much to expect in the speech which is supposed to be the start of new relations. Maybe, maybe not.

First, an overall comment. Throughout the speech, he referred to violent extremists. Not terrorists, not Islamic extremists, not man-caused disaster causers, but rather, violent extremists. I think that most Americans would infer he means Islamic extremists, but he was vague on this matter, probably in deference to his hosts. However, sometimes you have to call a spade a spade, and he did not do that.

As I said, he covered a lot of ground, so I cut out a number of sections to comment on, as follows:

I do so recognizing that change cannot happen overnight. No single speech can eradicate years of mistrust, nor can I answer in the time that I have all the complex questions that brought us to this point. But I am convinced that in order to move forward, we must say openly the things we hold in our hearts, and that too often are said only behind closed doors. There must be a sustained effort to listen to each other; to learn from each other; to respect one another; and to seek common ground.

No disagreement here.

And throughout history, Islam has demonstrated through words and deeds the possibilities of religious tolerance and racial equality.

Which Islam is this? I would say that Islam is not very intolerant of Jews, so I have to disagree on this point.

And I consider it part of my responsibility as President of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear.

But that same principle must apply to Muslim perceptions of America. Just as Muslims do not fit a crude stereotype, America is not the crude stereotype of a self-interested empire. The United States has been one of the greatest sources of progress that the world has ever known. We were born out of revolution against an empire. We were founded upon the ideal that all are created equal, and we have shed blood and struggled for centuries to give meaning to those words – within our borders, and around the world.

Very well stated. Kudos for this point.

Over seven years ago, the United States pursued al Qaeda and the Taliban with broad international support. We did not go by choice, we went because of necessity. I am aware that some question or justify the events of 9/11. But let us be clear: al Qaeda killed nearly 3,000 people on that day. The victims were innocent men, women and children from America and many other nations who had done nothing to harm anybody. And yet Al Qaeda chose to ruthlessly murder these people, claimed credit for the attack, and even now states their determination to kill on a massive scale. They have affiliates in many countries and are trying to expand their reach. These are not opinions to be debated; these are facts to be dealt with.

Again, very well stated.

Islam is not part of the problem in combating violent extremism – it is an important part of promoting peace.

My issue with this statement is what is not said. If Islam is not part of the problem, is it part of the solution? On this question, the answer is resoundingly no. How many Muslim clerics speak out against the terrorists? What is the Islamic faith doing to root out “bad” mosques where the Jews and the West are painted as the great satans and hatred is fomented? On this count, the Islamic faith comes up lacking.

Let me also address the issue of Iraq. Unlike Afghanistan, Iraq was a war of choice that provoked strong differences in my country and around the world. Although I believe that the Iraqi people are ultimately better off without the tyranny of Saddam Hussein, I also believe that events in Iraq have reminded America of the need to use diplomacy and build international consensus to resolve our problems whenever possible.

Whoa doggies! By my recollection, the use of diplomacy by the U.N. was an abject failure. Remember the 17 U.N. resolutions which Hussein violated over 12 years? Don’t forget U.N. resolution 1441, under which the UN Security Council voted unanimously to present Saddam with the ultimatum to honor the truce and destroy his illegal weapons programs or “serious consequences would follow.” Since the French, Russians and Chinese would not stand behind their votes, the Americans and British took it upon themselves to enforce the resolution and implement regime change.

Additionally, remember when “W” said “you are either with us or with the terrorists” in the war on terror? I don’t recall that Saddam Hussein was with us. I do recall he was paying bounties to Palestinian families who lost their family members doing their job as terrorist. But perhaps President Obama does not recognize a war on terror, just a police action to deal with extremists who kill innocents in the name of their religion (of peace).

And finally, just as America can never tolerate violence by extremists, we must never alter our principles. 9/11 was an enormous trauma to our country. The fear and anger that it provoked was understandable, but in some cases, it led us to act contrary to our ideals. We are taking concrete actions to change course. I have unequivocally prohibited the use of torture by the United States, and I have ordered the prison at Guantanamo Bay closed by early next year.

This statement is very problematic. First of all, it implies that we acted rashly in implementing enhanced interrogation techniques. If you read the memos which the Obama administration released regarding the enhanced interrogation techniques, it is apparent that the decision to use these techniques was very well considered, and not done spur of the moment. Secondly, enhanced interrogation techniques are not torture. See my earlier blogpost. Finally, Gitmo is a symbol of American injustice primarily because the Democrats have made it just that. Dennis Miller was down there a couple of weeks ago and he was raving about the place. Korans are presented to each arriving detainee by a gloved U.S. Military Man, there are arrows to Mecca all over the place, the average detainee has gained 20 pounds since arriving, etc. Sounds like hell. I would rather be there than SuperMax.

America’s strong bonds with Israel are well known. This bond is unbreakable. It is based upon cultural and historical ties, and the recognition that the aspiration for a Jewish homeland is rooted in a tragic history that cannot be denied.

Good point, although it appears he is stating the Jews were given Israel because they were mistreated throughout history, particularly during the Holocaust, rather than because Israel is their homeland because God gave it to them.

But if we see this conflict only from one side or the other, then we will be blind to the truth: the only resolution is for the aspirations of both sides to be met through two states, where Israelis and Palestinians each live in peace and security.

That is in Israel’s interest, Palestine’s interest, America’s interest, and the world’s interest.

There we have it – the two state solution. I don’t believe the Israelis believe the two state solution is in their best interests. The Palestinians already have territories. Are they developing these territories for the benefit of their citizens? Absolutely not. They are using their funds to make war with Israel in order to eradicate Israel. When the Palestinians view Gaza as a launch pad for Qassam rockets (some 7000+ since 2001), why would it be any different if the Palestinians had a state compared to territories? It would not. The Palestinians want a one state solution, and it is not Israel.

No single nation should pick and choose which nations hold nuclear weapons. That is why I strongly reaffirmed America’s commitment to seek a world in which no nations hold nuclear weapons. And any nation – including Iran – should have the right to access peaceful nuclear power if it complies with its responsibilities under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. That commitment is at the core of the Treaty, and it must be kept for all who fully abide by it. And I am hopeful that all countries in the region can share in this goal.

That is one extremely huge “if”. I believe that it is extremely naïve to believe that we can trust Iran with nukes. This just points to the extreme arrogance of our President in that he believes that he can make a madman like Ahmadinejad, the man who has called for Israel to be wiped off the map and who hosted a Holocaust denial conference, to toe the nuclear line. President Obama is so (over) confident in this smooth talking and negotiating ability that he believes he can reason with this nutcase. Has Ahmadinejad given us any reason to believe that Iran would “comply with its responsibilities under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty”? I think not.

So let me be clear: no system of government can or should be imposed upon one nation by any other.

That does not lessen my commitment, however, to governments that reflect the will of the people. Each nation gives life to this principle in its own way, grounded in the traditions of its own people. America does not presume to know what is best for everyone, just as we would not presume to pick the outcome of a peaceful election. But I do have an unyielding belief that all people yearn for certain things: the ability to speak your mind and have a say in how you are governed; confidence in the rule of law and the equal administration of justice; government that is transparent and doesn’t steal from the people; the freedom to live as you choose. Those are not just American ideas, they are human rights, and that is why we will support them everywhere.

So apparently no nation can not impose a system of government on another nation, but the U.S. can impose a two state solution on Israel and the Palestinians.

For instance, in the United States, rules on charitable giving have made it harder for Muslims to fulfill their religious obligation. That is why I am committed to working with American Muslims to ensure that they can fulfill zakat.

According to Wikipedia, zakat is “the giving of a small percentage of one’s income to charity. It is often compared to the system of tithing and alms, but it serves principally as the welfare contribution to poor and deprived people in Muslim countries, although others may have a rightful share. It is the duty of an Islamic state not just to collect zakat but to distribute it fairly as well.”

There are no rules prohibiting charitable contributions to legitimate charities, such as churches and mosques. There are rules prohibiting contributions to terrorist sponsoring organizations, such as the Holyland Foundation. I am surprised that President Obama is committed to making it easier for American Muslims to make charitable contributions when he is proposing rules to make it less enticing for everyone else. Please see my earlier post located here.

The sixth issue that I want to address is women’s rights.

I know there is debate about this issue. I reject the view of some in the West that a woman who chooses to cover her hair is somehow less equal, but I do believe that a woman who is denied an education is denied equality. And it is no coincidence that countries where women are well-educated are far more likely to be prosperous.

Now let me be clear: issues of women’s equality are by no means simply an issue for Islam. In Turkey, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Indonesia, we have seen Muslim-majority countries elect a woman to lead. Meanwhile, the struggle for women’s equality continues in many aspects of American life, and in countries around the world.

Our daughters can contribute just as much to society as our sons, and our common prosperity will be advanced by allowing all humanity – men and women – to reach their full potential. I do not believe that women must make the same choices as men in order to be equal, and I respect those women who choose to live their lives in traditional roles. But it should be their choice. That is why the United States will partner with any Muslim-majority country to support expanded literacy for girls, and to help young women pursue employment through micro-financing that helps people live their dreams.

This is such a hedged statement, it is of little or no value. I count at least four statements which soften the point he is trying to make. Additionally, it appears to be focused purely on educational opportunties for women and neglects many of the other ways women are mistreated in the Muslim world.  Again, sometimes you have to call a spade a spade and call out the Muslims on this point.

On science and technology, we will launch a new fund to support technological development in Muslim-majority countries, and to help transfer ideas to the marketplace so they can create jobs. We will open centers of scientific excellence in Africa, the Middle East and Southeast Asia, and appoint new Science Envoys to collaborate on programs that develop new sources of energy, create green jobs, digitize records, clean water, and grow new crops.

Mr. President, in case you have not noticed, we are not really in a position to fund this kind initiative due to your enormous budget deficits. Perhaps we could ask Muslim countries who are deriving billions and billions and billions of dollars from our gas money to fund this initiative. Again, let them be part of the solution, rather than the U.S. doing all the heavy lifting.

So there you have it. While not as apologetic as his prior speeches, he also took little credit for all the good the U.S. has done for Muslims and in the Middle East. He also went very light on holding Muslims accountable for many of the problems with which they are dealing. Additionally, he committed to spend a lot of money we don’t have to address these issues, rather than holding the Muslims accountable to drive a lot of these solutions.

I am sure this went over well on the “Arab Street”. I would guess they heard more apologizing for the U.S. and the West and very little of the very little chiding of the Muslims and Middle East which was contained herein. I am also certain they heard loud and clear that the U.S. commitment to Israel is much weaker than it has been in the past. Finally, I am sure they view this president in much the same way – much weaker than in the past. Based on the recent actions and statements of North Korea, Iran, etc., it appears the rest of the world feels the same way.

So it seems that Colin Powell thinks the Republicans need to dump Rush Limbaugh and move to the center.  He made a speech last month in which he stated:

The GOP is “getting smaller and smaller” and “that’s not good for the nation.”

“I think what Rush does as an entertainer diminishes the party and intrudes or inserts into our public life a kind of nastiness that we would be better to do without”.

Regarding Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, Powell said she is “a very accomplished person” but became “a very polarizing figure”.

“The Republican Party is in deep trouble,” he said. “The party must realize that the country has changed. Americans do want to pay taxes for services. Americans are looking for more government in their life, not less.”

This is from the same man who supported Barack Obama, by far the most liberal (dare I say “socialist”?) presidential candidate ever.  He doubled down on Face the Nation when he said:

“If we don’t reach out more, the party is going to be sitting on a very, very narrow base.  You can only do two things with a base. You can sit on it and watch the world go by, or you can build on the base.”

“What we have to do is debate and define who we are and what we are and not just listen to dictates that come down from the right wing of the party.”

I think that General Powell has it all wrong.  Americans did not support John McCain because they don’t want Democrat-lite.  Without Sarah Palin on the ticket, Barack Obama would have won the election by twice or triple his winning margin.  The conservative base is floundering because we feel unrepresented by the Republican party.  I consider myself a Conservative and no longer consider myself a Republican.  Every single piece of mail the RNC sends me goes straight into the waste basket. And I know I am not alone.

The Republican party needs strong conservative leaders who can stand up to the MSM and clearly define the virtues of conservatism and stand for what is right – not mealy-mouthed politicians who are afraid to take a stand because they might offend some special interest group.   Thank God that Rush and Dick Cheney have taken on this mantle.  Although I agree with Newt Gingrich that the Republicans need a big tent, that tent must be built on the bedrock foundation of conservative values.

Perhaps Ronald Reagan put it best when he stated in 1975:

“Our people look for a cause to believe in. Is it a third party we need, or is it a new and revitalized second party, raising a banner of no pale pastels, but BOLD COLORS which make it unmistakably clear where we stand on all of the issues troubling the people…” –

The American people must be given a real choice between Republican Conservatism and Democratic Statism.  So on this matter, I guess I am pro-choice.

Referring to Joe Biden’s statement (gaffe) that he wouldn’t go into confined spaces like an airplane due to swine flu concerns, Dennis Miller asked Liz Claman of Fox Business:

“Can you tear someone a new one who already is one?”

Classic Dennis Miller!!

ps      Is it necessary to refer to statements by VP Biden as gaffes, or is that redundant?