Obamanomics Applied to Real Life

I've listened to Obama discuss his idea of ecnomics and fairness over and over again.  I think I understand but you tell me.  The easiest way for me to explain it is with ananologies.

There are 3 neighbors; Person A, Person B and Person C.  They all started out the year with the same job and the same salary. 

Person A plods along doing what they need to do but not striving to excel.  They live paycheck to paycheck and spend everything they make, saving nothing.

Person B works really hard, does as much overtime as possible, makes wise investments and spends only what's needed as they save for their dream vacation to Europe.

Person C plods along like person A, but also decides to spend all of their money on lottery tickets and lives off their credit cards.  They fall behind in their credit card payments and their mortgage.

Under Obamanomics Person B should pay Person C's credit cards and mortgage.  After all, if they can afford a trip to Europe they can afford Person C's mortgage.  If the three go out to dinner, Person B should pay for the meal for all of them.  Again, if they can afford a trip to Europe then they can afford the meal.  If they go to dinner separately, Person A should pay a low tax on their meal, Person C should pay no tax on their meal and Person C should pay a high tax on their meal.  They can afford it so why shouldn't they pay?

In the end, Persons A and C still plod along and save nothing while Person B has to cancel their trip to Europe due to a serious lack of funds.  The rule of Obamanomics, Person B is buggered.

Please let me know if I got this wrong.

There Are More Than Two Options on Healthcare Reform

I saw Obama talking about healthcare reform again and saying if somebody wants to run on a platform against his healthcare plan (gee I wonder who he was talking about there) that it's ok.  They just have to explain to the people why they are voting for the insurance companies and the status quo. 

My cats scattered to the four corners of the earth as I began screaming at the television.

How can anybody believe the man can end the middle east conflict, fix the economy or win a war on terror when he can't even seem to grasp the concept that there are more than two options when it comes to healthcare reform?  He appears wholely inadequate to the task of viewing the healthcare debate in any way other than "my way or nothing."  Well Mr Obama, there are other options.  Lots of other options.  There are some options that would be worse, but even more options that would be much better.  Just because this is the idea that your panel of lawyers turned politicians came up with, doesn't mean it's a good plan.  You might, for just a second, consider the idea that there could be a better way to do this and that the people screaming at their representatives, booing them in public, calling, writing, faxing and begging to be heard don't necessarily want the status quo, they just don't want to make the situation even worse.

I know that the idea that there could be an option better than the one that you had to bribe Senators to vote for is a difficult for you, but try reallly hard to understand.  I know it's hard for you to see things right in front of your face considering you didn't hear anything racist or anti-american out of Rev Wright, but the country would appreciate it if you would at least try to wrap that itty bitty brain of yours around this idea.

The American people know that there are more than two options and every time you say a vote against your plan is a vote for the status quo we get more and more angry.  I can't help but wonder if your plan for transforming America is too make us all so angry with the stupidity and offensiveness of your arguments that all your detractors actually have strokes.  Is that your real healthcare reform plan.  Make the people so angry that they literally drop dead?  It's really beginning to look that way to me.

I find it amazing that you believe we have more options in how to take our coffee than we have in healthcare reform.  God save this country from the stupidity and blind ambition of it's leaders.

Why I Fight

I've been thinking about a way to express just how important the current fight is and how absolutely crucial it is for us to stand up against further government inrusion into our lives, but I struggled to express it adequately.  Then I found the perfect expression of it as written by the Second Continental Congress.

"We have counted the cost of this contest, and find nothing so dreadful as voluntary slavery.  Honor, justice and humanity, forbid us tamely to surrender that freedom which we received from our gallant ancestors, and which our innocent posterity have a right to receive from us.  We cannot endure the infamy and guilt of resigning succeeding generations to that wretchedness which inevitably awaits them if we basely entail hereditary bondage upon them."

Are we not entailing hereditary bondage upon our children and successive generations by allowing the continued and ever growing intrusions into our lives and against our liberties?  How much money do they already owe for the reckless spending of the last decade?  This is exactly why I fight and why I will continue to fight until our liberties are restored or I am silenced by God.

Grandma Got Run Over By the Congress

Grandma Got Run Over By the Congress
(to the tune of Grandma Got Run Over by a Reindeer)

Grandma got run over by the congress
Just days before this Christmas eve
Now she requires approval from a panel
To get the care her doctors say she needs

Grandma needs a hip replacement
She has cancer in her bone
But the panel says it isn't cost effective
The truth is that the woman's just to old

She needs supplies for Diabetes
Her blood sugar she must check
But the panel has denied her
They say it's all because she's way too fat

Grandma got run over by the congress

Just days before this Christmas eve
Now she requires approval from a panel
To get the care her doctors say she needs

And we can't forget old Grandpa
As his prostate starts to swell
He needs some tests and maybe medication
But the panel told the man to go to hell

All that panel will give grandma
Is a body bag in black
But they approved an augmentation
To give Michelle a slightly bigger rack

Grandma got run over by the Congress
Just days before this Christmas Eve
Now she requires approval from a panel
To get the care her doctors say she needs

Now her goose is cooked and roasted
Her grave we've just begun to dig
She died while waiting for approval
From a government's that's gotten way too big

What will be the fate of Grandpa
None of the Congressmen can tell
The only thing of which they're certain
Is the need to exempt all of themselves

Grandma got run over by the Congress
Just days before this Christmas Eve
For wrongfull death my family is now suing
Both Pelosi and that Harry Reid

A Real Reform Bill

While on vacation I was discussing politics with my father, which I always do, and we came up with a Congressional reform bill. This bill was written by two process improvement specialists but we would love your input on it. If you like what we have come up with, please pass it along. If you have any suggestions on anything that needs to be added or changed, please leave a comment to that effect. I will be sending this bill to my Congressmen and encourage you to do the same.


To the purpose of Congressional reform, reduction of federal debt and elimination of wasteful, and unnecessary, spending the following provisions must be implemented.

Section 1: The Allocation of Dollars for the Federal Budget.

There will be no automatic budget increases for any department. All departments, excepting the department of defense, will initially receive a 20% budget reduction from their previous year’s allowance. There will be an additional 5% decrease each year for the next 5 years.

Any department or area under the Executive Branch which performs a function designated to the Legislative Branch by the Constitution will be immediately defunded.

The White House budget is included in the above reductions. The President may hire as many Czars and advisors as he deems necessary, but they must be paid out of his existing budget.

No money designated for one purpose may be directed to another.

No funding request may be added to a bill less than 4 business days prior to the vote. Also, all funding requests must be directly related to the primary objective of the bill.

Any funding bill, or any line added to a funding bill, must be for the benefit all of citizens. Any item within a bill which directs federal funds to a single state or a pair of states is prohibited in all cases except for national disaster relief. However, the theory of man-made global warming does not now, nor will it ever, fall under the category of natural disaster. Any funding to address damage resulting from an act of war or a terrorist attack is to be considered for the benefit of all citizenry even if the damage is limited to a single state.

To enforce the aforementioned stipulations, there must be executive authority for a line item veto.

Section 2: The Reduction of the Size of the Federal Government

All government agencies created in the last 3 years will be immediately eliminated. There will be an additional reduction of 2 agencies per year for the next 20 years.

One agency may be combined with another agency to meet this reduction. However, in the event of combined agencies, their budget becomes 75% of the combined dollars.

No new government agency may be created without a two-thirds positive majority vote in both houses. The creation of the agency can only be raised for a vote when the first 5 years of funding has been appropriated and the method by which it will be funded must be included in the bill for the agency’s creation.

Section 3: Compensation for Federal Employees Including Congress and the White House

Congress may not exempt themselves from any law, mandate, regulation or legislation of any kind which they impose on the general citizenry.

Travel will be paid out of federal funds only when it directly relates to the people’s business. Family members may join Congress, the vice president or the president upon a business excursion, but no public funds may used for the expenses of the family members. Any exception to this policy must receive a unanimous vote from the Senate appropriations committee.

Congress will no longer be able to vote themselves a pay raise or an increase in their discretionary spending allotment. Their pay and discretionary spending allowance will be directly tied to the GDP of the nation. Their pay will be based on their performance and the growth of the organization they lead just as it is done in the private sector. Each year their pay will be evaluated against the GDP. If the GDP increased, their pay will raise at half the rate of increase. Should the GDP decrease, their pay will be reduced by twice the rate of decrease. For example, if GDP raises 6%, then Congress will receive a 3% increase in pay and their discretionary spending allowance; if GDP drops by 6% then Congress will receive a 12% reduction in pay and discretionary spending.

The pay received by federal employees may not exceed the comparable pay in the private sector by more than 10%.

All federal employees will be held to an increase of the lesser of 2% or the cost of living increase until the federal debt is paid. This excludes those whose current pay exceeds 10% of the comparable pay in the private sector as they will receive no pay raise until the private sector rises to their level.

Section 4: Elimination of the Federal Debt

All excess revenue either not designated to a department or not utilized by a department will be applied directly to the federal debt. The utilization of these funds for any other purpose will require a two-thirds majority vote in both houses.

Section 5: Taxation Protection

No new tax of any kind may be levied on the American people without a two-thirds majority vote in both houses.

Section 6: Term Limits

A Constitutional amendment will be ratified which limits the Congressional terms to 3 in the House of Representatives and 2 in the Senate. Additionally, after meeting the limit in one house, they may not run for another position for at least 2 years.

I believe that these provisions would force our government to become more efficient and effective. Please let me know your thoughts and ideas.

Stop Remaking The USA

Stop Remaking
(To the tune of Rock Me Gently)

Just what the hell is
Happening here
Where are the values
We hold dear
Federal spending Is way out of control
(control, control, control)

On the floors
Of the House and Senate
They vote to raise their spending limit
Sinking the nation into a deficit hole

Stop remaking
Restore today
The Constitution
Of the USA
For we have never been screwed like this before

The people cry
Stop what you’re doing
Congress won’t listen, just keeps moving
Unemployment they refuse to see

Buyers remorse
Is setting in
44% now
Want Bush back in
Return the power, back to you and me

Stop remaking
Restore today
The Constitution
Of the USA
For we have never been screwed like this before

Fredd, if you want to appy you imagination to this one as well it might help to get "The Night Chicago Died" out of your head.

Plethora of Paradoxical Policies

My head has been spinning with all of the potential legislation coming out of Washington so I'm trying to get everything straight.  Here's my understanding of what's going on.

Health care - medical costs and premium costs are so high that people can't afford insurance and Medicare will be bankrupt.  The legislation does nothing to address the medical costs impacting Medicare while simultaneously cutting funding and expanding membership.  This will actually increase the cost of premiums and accelerate the date at which Medicare will bankrupt the country. 
Paradox

Climate Change - We must cut carbon emissions so heavy fines will be levied on those companies that emit CO2.  The legislation will raise the cost of energy so we use less.  People will be unable to afford their energy bill so will not be able to heat or cool their homes.  They'll end up receiving medical care for hypothermia or heat stroke which will drive up the cost of health care.  They could use a fireplace to heat their home but logging permits have been cut back so there will be no wood to use as heat.  The same legislation in Europe has been ineffectual at best and increased CO2 emmissions at worst.
Paradox

The private sector companies are losing money and can't pay their bills.  As a result they are laying people off, closing their doors and freezing wages.  The federal government is losing money and diving deeper into debt but has created new positions within the white house, voted to create additional departments and given raises to all of their employees.  While the private sector shrinks while the government expands.  Paradox.

The House passes legislation which will enable the Federal Government to break up companies they view as harmful to the economy while Congress pursues legislation that is harmful to the ecnomy.  Will they break themselves up?  Paradox.

The people are very concerned about the unemployment situation and request actions which will stimulate job creation.  The government spent $787 billion on pet projects which created no jobs.  Then they held a summitt with unions and community organizers whose suggestion was to pass another bill just like the first one that didn't work.  Employers beg for assistance which will open access to credit or allow them to keep more of their money.  Meanwhile congress is still pushing the health care and climate change legislations which will add costs to employers without generating any cash flow for them.  Paradox.

I know I've missed a lot of things and please let me know if I have any of this wrong.  Even listing it this way I'm not sure what the justification for any of this is.

Obama Speech - America Fights for Feedom out of Self-Interest

You can call me naive, but I have always believed that America was dedicated to the spread of liberty and the abolition of Tyranny because we believe in man's inherent right to freedom.  If our help is sought, we will give it and risk the lives of our people in order to promote the freedom of others.  There have been times when we waited until we were personally impacted before joining the fight, as in WWII, but we have usually jumped in when there was no direct threat or benefit to us.  In my mind, this is who we are and what we believe.

If England were invaded again and asked for our assistance to secure their freedom and liberty, would we first do a cost benefit analysis and ask the "what's in it for me" question before going to their aid?  I certainly hope not, but in his Nobel Prize acceptance speech Obama stated that America liberates others out of self-interest. 

Much of Obama's speech showed an understand of the necessity of a fight that I had previously believed him unaware of - that sometimes the only way to achieve peace is to wage war - and I was with him until he hit this part of the text.  "The service and sacrifice of our men and women in uniform has promoted peace and prosperity from Germany to Korea, and enabled democracy to take hold in places like the Balkans. We have borne this burden not because we seek to impose our will. We have done so out of enlightened self-interest - because we seek a better future for our children and grandchildren, and we believe that their lives will be better if other peoples' children and grandchildren can live in freedom and prosperity."  Say what?  So basically we don't really give a crap about their going through but only how it impacts us.  Really?

From this point on the speech was about how unjustified the war in Iraq was and why it was so wrong for us to go there.  How we shouldn't go to war alone and why the UN (the most ineffectual band of bureaucrats ever assembled) must be utilized and strengthened.  From there it goes in to how he really believes he can stop nuclear proliferation with his rhetoric. 

A speech that started out strong, ended with the usual apologetic stance.

The Party of Hell No!

Maybe it's just me, but I would love to see some passionate opposition to what the Demoratic leadership is attempting to do to our country.  The people are passionate so why aren't the Republican leaders?

Instead of trying to overcome the label of "party of no" slapped on the Republicans, why don't they embrace it and add some passion to it?  Wouldn't it be fun to have some leaders coming out and saying with passion and conviction, "We're not the party of no, we're the party of Hell no, not on my watch!"

Hell no to a deficit so crippling we're in danger of losing our credit rating.
Hell no to wasteful spending that serves nobody but the politicians
Hell no to crippling legislation for a problem that may not even exist
Hell no to unprecedented growth of the federal government
Hell no to a transfer of power from the Legislative to Executive branch in direct violation of our Constitutional principles.
Hell no to civil rights for terrorists
Hell no to a new entitlement program which will cripple the American economy
Hell no to putting climate change and health care above job creation

If asked about why Republicans don't have new ideas, they should simply respond, "Are you kidding, we've got our hands full just trying to keep the Constitution from going through the shredder."

Wouldn't it be lovely?

Congress Regulates TP Usage

I initially wrote this six months ago but with the way things are going I thought it would be fun to resurrect it.

In the new green environment of Congress and the Obama Administration, legislation is being passed to control how we use products that impact the planet. When the Cap and Trade was proposed, Republican Roy Blunt said, "Taxes on air my ass!" This gave the Democratic leadership in congress what they believe is a brilliant idea.

"Americans use too much toilet paper," said Harry Reid. "They don't consider how these big wads of paper clog up our sewer systems and put strain on our water treatment systems. They also don't consider how many trees have to be cut down in order to wipe their asses. This selfish lack of consideration for our environment is partially responsible for the global warming / climate change crisis."

New regulations are being put on the toilet paper industry so that 2 ply toilet paper will be banned, and biodegradability will be more important than softness. It has also been proposed to put a per sheet tax on the toilet paper to ensure that Americans are not using more than they need. Questions arose on how to manage this in public restrooms and the suggestion was made to install automatic, coin operated dispensers. These will not be installed in the Capital building or in any other restroom utilized by Government officials and their staff. However, Lindsey Graham (R) offered an alternative stating that we use the numerous copies of the stimulus package as a toilet paper alternative. He said, "all that bill was good for was wiping our asses anyway."

The toilet paper industry is just the first in many publicly owned companies that the Congress will now attempt to design products for. They have decided that they can't get us to buy what they want us to so they will ensure that any undesirable products are no longer created. Enjoy that 2 ply soft toilet paper while you can. If Congress didn't chap your ass before, the certainly will soon.

Obama and 7 Obstacles to Effective Leadership

I'm in a leadership role in my day job and because of this have read several articles on how to be an effective leader; but the most helpful one I found was on what makes you a bad leader.  I've taken the steps from an article by Duncan Brodie on "7 Obstacles to Effective Leadership" and looked at how Obama is fairing.

For my Obama supporters I will admit that Bush wouldn't have faired all that well in this comparison either.

Obstacle 1: Old mindsets
This might not be the thing that you would automatically expect to see at the top of the list. Truth is that when we become a leader it is easy to forget that there are different expectations and challenges. If as a new leader you are still in the manager mindset you are going to struggle. Even if you are not a new leader old mindsets and complacency can be an obstacle.

For Obama this can go either way.  People can claim that he's brought new ideas, but I disagree.  What Obama brought with him is the Saul Alinski playbook and his Community Organization processes.  He has brought his old mindset into this leadership job and he's unwilling to let it go.  He will run his play book the way he has it written and he's not going to change even if the plays are causing him to lose the game.

Obstacle 2: Personal rather than corporate agenda
Ever noticed how someone's leadership career evolves. At the start they are a breath of fresh air, full of new ideas and enthusiasm, after a while, especially if the going gets tough, they start to focus on their own survival rather than on delivering success. Be alert to becoming too focussed on your personal agenda.

Hello!  Forcing his plans for climate change legislation and universal health in an economy that is already struggling.  In this case the coroporate agenda should be job creation, but his personal agenda - which will stymie job growth -- is taking center stage.  He needs to put his personal agenda aside and work on what's best for the nation as a whole.  Which means expanding job creation beyond infrastructure and green jobs.

Obstacle 3: Vagueness about direction
As the leader people will look to you to provide clear direction. After all unless you have a clear direction in which you want to take the organisation or team forward in, how are you going to communicate it and get the support you need.

Gee, I really don't know about this one.  He's communicated his specific plan on all of the issues so clearly hasn't he?

Obstacle 4: Micromanaging everything
One of the areas that differentiates the best from the poorer leaders is their ability to let go of things. When a leader spends all of their time micromanaging everything they get lost in the detail of the day to day stuff and lose sight of the bigger picture.

Hmm, a weekend visit to the Senate to push his agenda springs to mind.

Obstacle 5: Failure to act
We have all probably encountered this situation at some point in our career. The organisation is facing some struggles, needs to make some decisions and most importantly act on them. Yes it takes courage but failure to act is a recipe for disaster in the long term.

Dithering about Afghanistan for 3 months, finally addressing jobs after 10 months.  Of course you could say he acted quickly with the stimulus, but you could also say he didn't considering that the vast majority of the money hasn't been spent yet. 

Obstacle 6: Having to be right
Of course it is great to be the person who comes up with the ideas, turnaround or transformation plan or initiative. On the other hand when this becomes essential to you as the leader you stop listening, taking ideas on board and potentially miss out on real opportunities.

I'm going to let an evil witch cackle serve as my response to this one.

Obstacle 7: Failing to adapt
Every situation requires a different response. Failing to adapt leads to a situation where you become stuck. In the worst case scenarios this failure to adapt can result in a whole organisation collapsing. Always be ready to adapt to new and changing circumstances.

The public support for health care is dropping in the face of the unemployment rate and the way the bill is shaping up, but instead of adapting to this change he is willing to lose Congressional seats in order to acheive his personal goal (see obstacle 2).

Bottom Line - Obstacles are an inevitable part of leading. The question is are you going to successfully deal with them and deliver great results?

So how do you think Barack Obama is doing in dealing with these obstacles.  I'd love your opinion.

Silos, Self-interest and Citizenship

I wrote a letter to leadership and posted it on my facebook page.  The letter was all about asking Congress to slow down, focus on the economy instead of personal projects and do something right instead of fast.  This is a basic request for the citizenry, something that will serve the interest of the nation as a whole, but what happened?

The first real comment was the equivalent of "but what about me?"  Then it got into debates on social issues, a justification of current actions because of what the Republicans did and a total loss of the initial message.  So because Repbulicans weren't great we should sit silently by while the situation gets worse?

A little over a year ago my family and I went through the belongings of my grandmother who had passed away.  One of the things we found were ration booklets from WWII.  I've kept them not just because they were my grandmother's, but because of what they represent about us as a nation.  The nation banded together and everybody sacrificed much in order to battle the enemy and win.

On December 7th 1941, Japan attacked Pearl Harbor and more than 3,500 people were killed or injured.  We declared war on Japan and on Germany and finally entered the great war.  The cost in lives and in money was astromical and tragic, but we banded together, set aside our individual agendas and worked together as a nation to win.

On September 11, 2001 Al Qaeda attacked the world trade center, the Pentagon, and another target that, due to the bravery of average citizens, they failed to hit.  Nearly 3,000 people were killed in this attack and the country banded together in a dedication to fight against Al-Qaeda and stop this from ever happening again.  In WWII we were fighting against the Nazi goal of forcing their ideology on the rest of the world, now we are doing the same against radical Islam.  In WWII we lost 418,000 military personel in the fight and we maintained the will to win.  And we did win.  In the War on Terror we have lost 5,500 and our determination to win waned as soon as the war began.

Although in WWII we stayed dedicated to winning in spite of any personal sacrifices that we had to make, the philosophy now is the opposite.  Though there are many who still believe in a shared sacrifice in order to achieve a common goal, there are many who support the sacrifice of the common goal in order to avoid any personal hardship.  The wars have cost a lot of money which is absolutely true, but should we sacrifice our battle against terror because it's too expensive?  While at the same time passing sweeping legislation that will cost the country trillions and never, ever go away.  At least the wars will end, badly written legislation on government run healthcare will be will us forever. 

This, "give me what I want or I'll take my ball and go home" philosophy is destroying us from within.  Is radical Islam getting what they want by our refusal to band together and fight?  Are they glorying in the idea that they have divided us and now we're ripe for conquering?  Do they use our obsessive need to push our own personal agenda in the face of broader, more wide sweeping issues as proof of what is wrong with western civilization?

We may all have different ideas on how to make things better, but we should all be looking at the big picture instead of focusing on our own small piece of it.  We should disagree and discuss, but we shouldn't be telling the other side, "you lost so sit down and shut the hell up."  We should look at what is happening now and analyze it based on what is happening now instead of justifying a new bad policy because we think somebody else wrote a worse one.  In other words, we need to stop behaving like bickering children and start banding together to save the country from economic collapse and bankruptcy. 

But then again, I can see why your personal issue may be far more important that the safety and economic stability of the nation as a whole.  That whole United we stand divided we fall slogan is probably just propoganda anyway.

Following the "Un"

With all of the discussion on climategate and the United Nation's goals as it relates to global warming, I have to wonder why we ever do anything in line with the UN.  Over the last decades they have earned their initials.  Sadly, if you want to know what the United Nations can do, just list your expectations and still their initials in front of it.  That is what they really are.

un - objective
un - ethical
un - effective (not a real word but you get the drift)
un - truthful
un - cooperative
un - productive
un - helpful
un - supportive

Yes indeed, the organization has lived up to its initials.

Schoolhouse Rock!

If you're like me and of a certain age, you remember well the short clips that made up Schoolhouse Rock.  Most people around my age can still sing the preamble to the Constitution as a result of this educational tool.  Watching it again now, I think what I like most about it is the way it shows the progression of time and how those principles still apply.  The times may change but the principles of our government should not. 

Thomas Jefferson once said, "Educate and inform the whole masses.... They are the only sure reliance of the preservation of our liberty."

What are we teaching as far as American History in our classrooms today?

The Sinatra Philosophy

I was watching Glen Beck this afternoon and he was talking about picking yourself up and starting over, and well, it got me thinking. A couple of songs popped into my head and they had the common theme of "when you get knocked down, get back up."

One of my favorite songs is Frank Sinatra's That's Life. And what a message it is. So true and sung with such strength and power. "That's Life. That's what all the people say. I'm flying high in April, shot down in May, but you know I'm going change that tune, when I'm back on top, back on top in June."

What a great philosophy of when I find myself flat on my face, I pick myself up and get back in the race. How shocking that he's not saying, I found myself flat on my face, blamed society and sued the whole damn place. Another song comes to mind for me too. This one from Chitty Chitty Bang Bang (yes I still love that movie). The song, From the Ashes of Disaster Grow the Roses of Success. It's all about learning from your failure and starting over again. Another great message.

Finally, the song that comes to mind is an Old Fred and Ginger tune with a refrain of "I pick myself up, dust myself off, and start all over again."

What I find particularly interesting about these songs is that they're sung positively. The last two in particular have a really peppy tune indicating that this is a really good message. But it's a message we have shied away from. Life is hard and unfair. There will be times when you are flat on your face, dropped to your knees or knocked ass over tea kettle. Your life is not defined by how many times you get knocked down, but by how many times you get back up. If you get knocked out and decide to stay down, then you deserve to get stepped on by those who do rise again. People will reach out a hand to help you, but you have to take the hand and exert the effort to pull yourself up. Pick yourself up, dust yourself up and start all over again.

This is a hard thing for me personally to do. I over analyze everything and sometimes get to the point where I see so many negative possibilities that it's hard to move forward; but I was raised with the philosophy that the only person who can improve your situation in life is you. I have literally fallen off the horse and gotten right back on. I got bit by an ostrich that same day but that's a whole other story.

I write -- not just the blog but novels as well. I've never been published and the whole industry is really tough on the old ego. I wrote my first novel when I was 25 and I have to admit that it really sucked. But hey, it was 1991 and I wrote it by hand in a series of composition books. I didn't write another one until I was 30 and I had technologically advanced. This one started on a word processor and then progressed to a computer. I attempted to get it published but was inundated with rejection letters. A very demoralizing experience. I wrote another one a few years later, again I was rejected. I received some very nice and very encouraging rejection letters, but they were still rejections. But I didn't give up. At least not for long. I will continue to try.

My latest book is, I believe, my best chance for publication so far. It's a political suspense thriller where there is a plot to wipe out Congress and start fresh. Who doesn't want to read about Congress reaping what they've sown? But I'm still, in the eyes of the publishing industry, a first time author and it will be very difficult to get this published, and yet I've already started another novel. I won't give up. I can't give up. Being a published author is a dream I've had for most of my life and it is not one I will give up easily.

Hearing that something your poured your heart and soul into and worked on for months, maybe even years, is worthless in the eyes of the marketplace is one of those situations that will drop you to your knees. It's hard to hear once, it's even harder to hear over and over again. I once received four rejection letters in the same day. That was really hard to bounce back from, but I did.

What saddens me is that the message has changed from the get back up and try again, to a message that you can't possibly succeed so let the government take care of you. It's such a cruelty to so many people. Many of the American people need to relearn the lesson that life isn't fair and instead of dwelling on it you need to just suck it up and move on.

Failure is never an excuse to stop trying.

Competion With Insurance Industry

The public option will create competition has been said over and over again, and Kathleen Sebelius has now stated that there needs to be competition with the insurance industry. But shouldn't the competition be within the industry? And doesn't it already exist?

Blue Cross has to Compete with Aetna, Cigna, Humana, UHC, etc in order to get market share so we do have competition within the industry, but the government wants competition from outside the industry. Say what?

Aren't they saying that competition within any industry is not enough to tempter the greed of those big bad corporations so a government option is needed "to keep them honest". This is exactly what Obama has said, that a government option is needed to keep the insurance companies honest. So he is in effect stating that insurance companies are dishonest.

How about we apply that same logic to government monopolies on ..... let's say......taxes. How about we create some competition within taxation and the application thereof. Shouldn't we have somebody other than the IRS collecting the money, just to keep them honest you know. Or how about competition with Congress for spending it? Just some good old fashioned competition to keep them honest. The American people could then decide which policies to purchase, those of Congress or those of their competition.

If we need options from outside of a specified industry to keep them honest -- because all companies within an industry meet at a summit to figure out how they can gang up against the consumer and rob them blind don't you know -- then shouldn't that apply to government monopolies as well?

Misinformation Volume III

The third piece of so called misinformation is that the public option will put private insurance out of business. Obama says this isn't true, so I guess that's the end of the argument, unless of course we want to do the unthinkable and apply some logic and deductive reasoning to the situation. How very unamerican of me.

Competition is a good thing, it is the cornerstone of capitalism and controls costs by giving the people an option and the companies an incentive to keep costs low. Competition within the insurance industry is good as well and the industry is seeking to eliminate waste and reduce costs because there is not a current monopoly. There are several different companies all competing for the same market share and good coverage at a reasonable prices is what they are all striving for. So I'm not averse to fair competition; as a capitalist I know we need it to keep things working the way they should. But we need fair competition.

The big problem with the public option competing with the private sector is that the public option will be non-profit while the private sector needs to make a profit, therefore the private sector will not be able to compete with the public option on price, but never fear, there are other ways to compete, right?

The private sector could offer different types of plans, setting themselves apart from the public option and giving people a choice -- Or they could if HR 3200 didn't specify that they will have to offer what is deemed "acceptable" by the same people writing the public option.

The private sector could continue to work with companies who decide to be self-insured and change their line of business to administering these plans -- Or they could if HR 3200 did not give government the right to decide whether or not a company can self-insure.

So by page 24 of HR 3200 the real competitive options have already been eliminated by dictating what insurance will have to cover, and by taking the option of self-insuring from other companies. After those two options for competition are eliminated, what is left? Not much.

The bill is not written with the statement that private insurance will be eliminated, but the 5 year grace period for employer based benefits before they must comply with government "standards" and the limitations it places on competition will lead things in that direction.

Ignoring the fact that there is a possibility that the public option will drive private insurance companies out of business is irresponsible and short sighted. President Obama uses the Post Office as the shining example of competition between the private sector and a public option, but let's not forget that the post office is bankrupt and continuously raising prices; is this what we want for our health care? So maybe there is hope. If the public option in health care works as well as the post office then there won't be a problem, but on the other hand, the post office doesn't dictate to UPS and FedEx what services they have to provide or how much they can make. Nor does the post office give themselves the prevent private companies from using other carriers.

Where it not for the language in HR 3200 which limited the options for competition I would not be worried, but that language is there; and as long as it is I will see an uneven playing field designed to make one side the winner and one the loser.

Real Stimulus

The administration keeps telling us how the recession is ending and we're on the road to recovery; claiming the stimulus package is responsible even though only 10% of the money has been spent, and most of that unwisely.

New polls show that the majority of Americans believe the stimulus money should be put back in the coffers to reduce the deficit, or given to the people. Either one of these would work just fine for me, but if we really want to stimulate the economy further and we're going to use the money, then it should be in the hands of the taxpayers; 72% of Americans agree with me.

If we took the roughly $708 BILLION dollars remaining in the stimulus fund, and divided that by the roughly 92.3 million people in the country who actually pay taxes, then each person would receive $7,670 each. Think about what we could do with that money.

If you're in debt it could go to pay off that debt and boost the banks.
If you need a new car, you use it for that and boost the auto industry (buy a Ford)
If you aren't in debt and your car is fine then you could really do some shopping, increasing retail sales and boosting other companies resulting in new jobs.

Just imagine how the economy would be stimulated if 92 million people got to go on a spending spree with $7,000 of their own money. Now that's some stimulus!

Misinformation Volume II

The idea that a new government program for health care will explode the deficit or cause an increase in taxes is "misinformation" according to the white house. President Obama (I really hate having to type that) has stated firmly and repeatedly that the program will be deficit neutral so why do we insist on applying our own brands of logic to the claims?

Obama says deficit neutral but the Congressional Budget Office says $1 trillion in set up and then an explosion of costs.

Obama says that Medicare is bankrupting us so the best solution is to expand it to everybody. (I still haven't figured out how that is logical.)

Obama says that he can pay for it with savings from cost controls. Ummmm, OK. What are those cost controls going to be exactly? Will it have anything to do with stopping doctors from whacking off your limbs willy nilly in an attempt to charge you more?

Obama says that by having everybody covered the costs will go down because people won't be going to the ER as much, but aren't the highest volume of people using the ER those already on Medicaid? I'm missing the logic again.

Obama says that he won't vote for any bill that grows the federal deficit - this claim is a little hard to swallow considering that he's already quadrupled it in 6 months. Yep, Mr President, we can see you're a real fiscal conservative.

As a cost savings initiative Obama plans to lower the re-imbursement rate to health care providers for the services they give Medicare patients. The re-imbursement rates are already pretty low so if they go much lower it's going to start costing the doctors to do the test. Forget making money, they'll be bleeding it.

Hmmmm, an interesting way to implement rationing isn't it. If the government tells a doctor they will be re-imbursed $1,000 less than their costs for a particular procedure how long do you think those procedures will continue to be performed? If it's a break even I think many doctors would still do it, but if it throws them into a negative balance I can't see them continuing. Wouldn't it be interesting to require a bailout of our medical professionals due to the new Medicare re-imbursement rates. Especially since Obama already think the doctors get $30,000 - $50,000 for taking your foot when they actually only get #350 -$750. He's only 10 times higher than the actual so we should definitely be able to trust his numbers.

There are only 2 ways to make the public option (path to single payer) deficit neutral and that is to either raise taxes or to charge premiums for the public option which will cover the medical cost payout. Considering that the people don't want or can't afford the premiums of the private sector, I doubt the public option would look much better.

How about you first do a little research, real analysis into what is driving the cost of health care up. Hire an independent team of process improvement analysts to determine exactly where the issues lie (because I frankly doubt that doctors really are cutting off people's feet just to get more money) and fixing those first and see how it goes.

One last little tidbit that I just have to share -- As much as Obama talks about the importance of routine care and how we need to expand Medicare type coverage to all, he might want to keep in mind that routine care is not covered under Medicare.

Misinformation Vol I

The largest piece of misinformation that Obama is perpetually poo pooing is that he supports a single payer system. So where did the pesky American people who, will believe anything, get that silly little idea. It couldn't have anything to do what he has actually said could it?

As far back as 2003 (wasn't he still in the state legislature at that point) Obama said that he was a proponent of a single payer system, but I guess he could change his mind about that; it's just not right to hold him to what he said 6 whole years ago.

More recently Obama has said that we have an "illegitimate" concern that the public option is a trojan horse for a single payer system. He's right about that. They don't have their goals hidden in anything but their own rhetoric, but I don't see the concern over moving to a single payer as illegitimate.

In May of 2007 at a health forum for the SEIU Obama said "My commitment is to ensure that we have universal health care for all Americans by the end of my first term as president.....But I don't think we're going to be able to eliminate employer coverage immediately" (so we are going to eliminate it eventually?) "There is going to be potentially some transition process. I can envision a decade out or 15 years out or 20 years out.." So eliminating employer coverage eventually is the goal? But that was still a whole 2 years ago. How could we possibly hold him to something he said that long ago. Silly, silly us.

On the campaign trail Obama told us that he was going to lower costs by taking on the insurance companies and make them lower their premiums while offering to the uninsured the option to join a government plan or policy. How exactly can they force the insurance companies to lower their premiums? Would this be the government dictating prices in the private industry? And what if the insurance companies can't cover their costs with the premiums set at the government approved amount? Wouldn't the companies then go out of business leaving only the government option -- the single payer? Sounds like that to me. But again, this was back in Octoboer of 2008, ten whole months ago. Anything can change in ten months.

Next we have Barney Frank stating that the public option is the best path to the single payer system, and numerous other congressmen touting that the public option will put the private companies out of work and achieve their ultimate goal of a single payer system. A goal which Obama himself validated with his previous statements.

So what are we supposed to believe? Is it really misinformation to question what is said now against what was said in the past, or is that just being a smart consumer? Since we'll be the ones paying for this health care plan, in essence the buyer of the product they're pitching, shouldn't we question the integrity of the marketing plan?

According to Obama now, as compared to Obama ten months ago, and according to Robert Gibbs, we should ignore all of the previous statements and believe what Obama says now. A politician would never lie to the American people in order to get what he wants.....would he?