Tuesday, March 30, 2010

But States Mandate Car Insurance

I've heard the state mandate for car insurance trotted out so much as a justification or a precedent for the mandate of coverage that it makes me groan.  However, like most talking points, both sides are missing a big issue.

Yes, it's a state mandate vs a federal mandate.
Yes, it's for the priviledge of owning a car and if you don't want to pay for insurance you don't have to buy a car.

The one they are missing is that you only have to carry liability insurance.  The mandate is to carry coverage for injury you may do, not to yourself, but to somebody else.  You can totally take the risk of crashing your car, doing injury to yourself and losing the value of your vehicle with no safety net.  The states haven't mandated that you cover those situations.  The mandate is to ensure that if I hit you with my car, I can pay your medical bills and you don't go bankrupt from the medical bills incurred by my actions.  That mandate is all about responsibility and accountability for what you do to somebody else, not for the government to tell you how to take care of yourself.

For me, the comparison between the auto insurance mandate and the health insurance mandate are no comparison at all for that reason.

Obama Says Profits Are Bad

In justifying the take over of the student loan business from the private sector, Obama says that billions of dollars that could have helped send more students to college went to padding the company's profits.  So profits are bad and government is good. 

Let me ask this, which do you think is higher; a company's profit margin or their corporate tax rate?  Which do you think costs the consumer more?  Considering that the federal corp tax rate is 35% I know my answer to that question.  Adding some of the state taxes of 10% in,  we now have a 45% tax rate built into the cost of our products.  But is Obama speaking out about taxes cutting into the ability to give loans?  Nope.  It's the profits, and we all know what stellar years for profits the banks have been having.

What Obama is hoping to do is rile up anger against companies for being so inconsiderate to their consumers as to actually make a profit.  Oh the horror, oh the travesty of social justice, oh the shame.  Profits I am sure have murdered innocent children, taken food from the mouths of the starving and oppressed the masses into unrelenting poverty. 

This idea that the government should take industries over so that companies aren't "padding their profits" is socialism 101.  He's unapologetic in his belief that the government should run everything and yet he wonders why we're upset and angry.

Monday, March 29, 2010

The Tea Partiers Aren't The Racists

On O'Reilly tonight I was dismayed by Al Sharpton saying that a sign reading "take back our country" was racist.  "What do they mean by 'our' country?" Sharpton asked.  Then I was further dismayed to hear Juan Williams say that we have to consider that the president is a black man and we should be careful about what we say for this reason.

What bothers me here is that Al Sharpton, Juan Williams and most of the hard left see Obama as a black man first and the president second.  And yet the Tea partiers are the racists?  I find it very disturbing to hear that we should meter what we say based on the skin color of the person we're talking to or about.  How can we ever get past the very real, and very horrible problem of racism when we have people telling us that we MUST consider the race of the person and adjust our words accordingly.

It shouldn't matter what color skin the leader has or anybody else for that matter.  We shouldn't see Obama as a black man first and the president second.  As much as I hate it, the man is the president and no assumptions should be made that opposition to his policies has anything at all to do with his race without hard evidence.  The idea that somebody can cast such a broad interpretation of an innocuous statement as to claim it is racist based solely on the color of his skin is tragic, insulting and racist in itself.

I refuse to see an individual by their color first.  Each man and woman will be judged by their actions, and claiming racism where it doesn't exist is keeping a wound open while the rest of us are desperately trying to make the wound heal.

Shame on Al Sharpton and shame on Juan Williams.

Friday, March 26, 2010

Why I'm Angry

I, like so many others, am angry with our so called leadership right now.  I'm even angry that none of the pundints or the politicians seem to understand why I'm angry.

I'm upset of course that they have refused to listen to the will of the people, but that's only fuel to a fire that was already burning a pure, blue flame.  I'm angry because of what is in the bill, but I seem to be seeing it from a different perspective than many others.  Perhaps because I am in the insurance business, and it is a business.  Why are we not looking at what is happening to the insurance companies within this bill instead of looking at the insurance benefits.

The government is now telling private companies what their rate for administrative costs are, what they can charge for their product, what rate of profit they can make, and that they can refuse service to nobody even if serving that person will be financiallly catastrophic.  Imagine for a moment that this was any business but an insurance company.

How would people react if this was the auto industry.  What would people think if Congress wrote a bill that said that auto companies could make no more than a 5% profit and have no more than 15% of the money made from car sales in their administrative costs?  How do you think the UAW would react to finding out that Congress had mandated how much their company could spend on their pay and benefits?  Especially if Congress also stated that they could only charge $15,000 for a new car and that nobody could be turned down for financing of that vehicle - which of course the auto company would have to provide.

In what alternate universe is this kind of government control of a private company an ok thing to do?  This is what the people and the corporations should be doing to Congress, not what Congress should be doing to the private sector.

Congress is the only application of this idea where the policy makes sense.  Allow a smile of bliss to drift over your face as you imagine that we had a limit on how many of our tax dollars could be spent on administration costs vs actual federal benefits.  Or what if Congress had a limit on how much they could collect in taxes - all types of taxes combined.  Wouldn't that be glorious?  This is how it is supposed to be; the people limiting Congress, not Congress limiting the people.

Is what is happening acceptable because of the industry chosen to control?  If so, what happens when it's an industry we don't want them to control?  The precadent will already have been set.  They are nudging us in the way they always do.  They expect us to say, "well it's the insurance industry so it's okay."  And why wouldn't they expect us to say that?  Isn't that what we always say?  Congress abdicated their legislative power to the EPA and we said, "well, it's for the environment so that's okay."  A new government agency is created to do the jobs the FBI and CIA are already supposed to be doing and grow the government hugely and we said, "well, it's for national security so that's okay."  The census is sent out asking questions that Congress does not have the constitutional authority to ask and we say, "well, they'll use it for statistics and good things so that's okay."

I'm tired of saying okay and I'm mad at myself and every other citizen who said it was okay for Congress or the president to overstep their constitutional bounds.  It's not okay for so much as a political toe nail or nose hair to poke or flutter over that constitutional line and we should be there, at that line, prepared to block an advance and facilitate a retreat.  We should be the firm guardians of our constitutional lines of power.

I'm angry because while we were supposed to be manning the Constitutional Battlements we were listening to our ipods or watching American idol and our castle of liberty has been stormed and the enemy is no longer at the gate but is inside the castle keep. 

I'm angry because too many people in this nation still think it's okay.  It's not okay.  It should never be okay and I for one will never stand by, shrug my shoulders and say "okay" to such things again.

The Progressive Version of the Declaration of Indpendence

We all know (or at least the conservatives all know) that the Declaration of Independence states that we are endowed by our creator with certain unalienable rights.  These being life, liberty and pursuit of happines.  We also know that the progressive / liberal / socialist / marxist folks are attempting to endow us with more.  So here is that portion of the Declaration of Independence as written by the progressives.

We hold these truths to be something we must teach you by any means possible, that most men are created equal but your governent leaders are the elite; that you are endowed by your government by certain rights which are subject to arbitrary change based on the whims of your leaders; that among these are life - unless you are viewed as inconvenient by the woman carrying you, liberty - unless we think you're doing the wrong thing with it, happiness through no effort of your own, purchasing a home whether you can afford it or not, healthcare, a job, food, higher education and the right to have somebody else pay your bills for you.  That to secure these rights we will rule you with an iron fist and ignore what you have to say unless you agree with us. 

Gee, what were our founding fathers thinking when they wrote THEIR version of this?

Thursday, March 25, 2010

Congress is Surprised by Threats?

Let me begin by saying that I do not condone threats of violence against our Congressmen, even as much as my palms itch to smack each and every one of them into next week.  However, I find it questionable that Congress is shocked by these threats.

Nancy Pelosi even went so far as to say that "words matter" and threats have no place in our political process.  This is particularly interesting because it's the frustration with Congress not listening to the words of the people which is probably responsible for the current threats.  People are angry and frustrated and the avenue of dissent that is acceptable was ignored.  The people tried their very best to follow the accepted process and express their displeasure with the Health Care Insurance Reform bill.  They called their congressmen, they wrote letters, they sent e-mails, they showed up at protests and attended town halls.  All to no avail.  They were crying out their concerns to a Congress who had gone deaf.  Is it really any wonder that the rhetoric would ratchet up to a point that they hope will make congress listen?

Again, I do not condone this behavior, but I am also not in the least bit surprised by it.  Our voices and our votes are the only weapons we have against a government drifting towards tyranny.  When one of those weapons fail, it is only logical for people to find another.  The natural progression from rhetoric to violence when our elected officials refuse to represent the will of the people who elected them is the subject of my book, Capitol Punishment.  A people driven to extreme and violent measures by a Congress apathetic to the will of the citizenry.  Yes, I saw this coming.

Did Congress honestly believe that the people calling, writing and protesting would just shrug their shoulders and give up?  Do they really believe that we will allow our representatives to defy our will with impunity?  The vast majority of the people are satisfied with continuing to speak out and to use their vote in November to make a bigger statement, but there are always those on the edges who will take things farther. 

Is Congress shocked, or is this a poor, poor, pitiful me play by the Democrats?  I think the latter, but you decide.

Americans Need To Cowboy Up

Cowboy up.  Is there a phrase that more perfectly expresses who we as Americans used to be?  The people who would dust themselves off, get back on the horse and do what needed to be done, all without whining about it or crying out for government assistance.  Yep, we all need to cowboy up.

The cowboy image that we have in our minds is of a people who lived with a code of honor, worked hard for everything they had, helped those in need and fought against impossible odds for freedom from tyranny and oppression, whether that came from the government, criminals or the rich land owner.  They controlled their own destiny and the very idea of putting their lives into the controlling hands of others was more than just distateful, it was abhorant.  These were men who found it easier to admit to being the spawn of Satan than to tell their neighbors they were on the government dole. 

This is who we used to be, who some still are, and who we all need to be again.  A people who recognize that the only person who can change our position in life is us.  We need our leaders to remind of us our strengths, our individual power over our own lives and our generous spirit so that we are inspired to be the very best people that it is possible for us to be.

We need leaders who, though maybe not a cowboy, express the ideals of one.  The ideal that you ask not what your country (or your neighbor) can do for you, but what you can do for them.  The ideal that what you have should come from the sweat of your own brow, not somebody else's.  The ideal that if you want what somebody else has, you work your butt off to get it.  The ideal that you are grateful for what you have and not resentful of what you do not.

Unfortunately, at times we get a leader who looks like a cowboy, maybe even is a cowboy, but doesn't have the cowboy idea of compassion.  A cowboy knows that you have to learn the ropes and doing the job for you does not help.  They understand that real compassion means allowing somebody to fail and to learn and then being there with a hand to help get them back on their feet should they need it.  That telling somebody they can't do it on their own is the opposite of compassion, but a cruel life sentence of dependence on others.

A real cowboy held himself and others accountable for their actions.  Their honor dictated what was acceptable and what was absolutely not.  They were unafraid to confront somebody whose behavior was dishonest or dishonorable and if you were offended by that confrontation, well then, that was just too damn bad.  They absolutely did not reward people for that bad behavior.

The American people need to stop whining about the personal situation that their decisions got them into and stop demanding that the money another has earned subsidize their own lack of ambition or planning.  Yes, Americans need to cowboy up.

Wednesday, March 24, 2010

Voting Against A Ban On Pre-Existing Conditions

We've already heard the Democrat talking points about how Republicans want to vote against or repeal legislation that grants coverage for pre-existing conditions and extended coverage for young adults under their parent's plan.  Aren't they mean and nasty to want to rescind such wonderfully compassionate legislation.  I've already heard this from a progressive friend of mine.  (yes, I have one.)  But this is tantamount to offereing somebody a hot fudge sundae covered in maggots and cockroaches and then being shocked when they vomit on your shoes.

There is a bit of ice cream and hot fudge in the bill, but the maggots and roaches are far more plentiful.  Here is a list of just a few things that make the sundae not just unpalatable but quite revolting.
 - Stages a government takeover of the entire student loan business thereby eliminating more than 30,000 private sector jobs and adding further hardship to an already struggling banking industry.  (Bail them out so they don't fail and then steal their business - good plan)
 - Forces people to buy coverage they don't want and levies a fine on them if they don't.
 - Places an excise tax on Medical Equipment which will cause the cost of the equipment to rise.
 - Places a 40% tax on insurance companies which will be passed on to the customer.
 - Mandates that small business owners offer group coverage to their employees whether they can afford it or not.  Businesses will either fail or hire fewer workers in an already struggling economy.
 - Places a medical cost to administrative cost ratio on the Insurance companies which will define them as insolvent in all 50 states.
 - Mandates that Insurance companies will have to refund premium amounts in excess of the medical cost thereby allowing them no cusion for the years when medical costs exceed the premiums collected.
 - Sets up a government program to monitor administrative costs of the insurance companies so that while the admin costs of insurance goes down, the admin costs of the government skyrocket.
 - Limits the amount that you can put in your own FSA to $2,500 per individual.  This serves no purpose except for the government to tell you what you can do with your money.  The FSAs are used to pay for child care, co-pays, deductibles and non-covered medical expenses so what right does the government have to tell you how much you can have deducted from your paycheck to cover these things?
 - Places a cap on how high an insurance premium can be without considering the actual medical costs of the coverage.  And remember that they have left the companies no cusion to cover excess costs.  This is equivalent to telling GM that they cannot charge more than $20,000 for a car no matter what it is.  How well do you think that would work and how long do you think GM would stay in business?
 - Mandates that there can be no more than a 3% variation in premiums across the population which means that a healthy person who takes excellent care of themselves, eats right, exercises and doesn't smoke or drink has to pay more in their premium in order to cover the 400 lb, chain smoking, beer swilling couch potatoe down the street.  If the premiums can't be more than 3% different do you think the sick guy's will go down or the healthy guy's will go up?
 - This is my favorite - The states will have to increase the number of people on Medicaid and raise the Medicaid re-imbursement rate even though many of these states are fighting against mounting debts already.

In the last instance the supporters say, "but the federal government is going to pick up the tab for that," and they are - for a few years - and then it's all up to the states.  The only difference there is that they put the maggots under the ice cream instead of on top of it.

These are not Republican talking points but actual extracts from the Bill.  I read it.  Just some of it, not all of it, so I can only imagine what kind of disgusting additions are in the portions I didn't read.

This bill was supposed to be about health care reform and controlling the rising costs of care but all it addresses is insurance, and it raises the cost of that.  It does address medical equipment, but it raises the cost of that as well.  There are no measures within this bill which will actually address the rising cost of healthcare, and if you're suprised by that then you haven't been paying attention.

Call me crazy, but I prefer my hot fudge sundae without maggots and cock roaches.

Tuesday, March 23, 2010

Why Healthcare Reform Will Increase Premiums

Here is the reality in a nutshell.

Medicare is bankrupting the country because it doesn't collect enough in premiums to cover the benefits paid out.  Now our government is mandating that private insurance pay out more benefits.  In order to stay more solvent than Medicare, the premiums will have to increase at the same rate as the benefits paid.

One way to save Medicare is to increase the premiums to cover the benefits paid, (what a wild and crazy concept to take in more than you pay out) and then Medicare premiums would be just as high as private insurance.

Health Insurance Explained With Food

I like food - a lot - so it becomes a frame of reference for me with a lot of things, but there is a food reference which really helps to explain health insurance and why some of these new provisions have the potential to be disastrous.

An individual health insurance plan is like ordering off the menu.  You pay for what you as an individual are going to eat.  Your cost for the bill reflects what you are costing the restaurant to feed you.  The more you're going to cost them, the more you're going to pay.  A group insurance plan is like a buffet with the same price for every individual.  The buffet works because it's a balance between those who eat enough for 4 people against those who barely eat anything.  That's the insurance premium balance as well.  Those who are sick and will cost the insurance company thousands, hundreds of thousands or even millions of dollars against the healthy people who cost the company nothing or next to nothing.  It balances and, as with a buffet, those who use less pay for those who use more.

However, with a buffet, everybody who uses it is paying for it.  Now imagine that the restaurant has to offer the buffet to people who can't pay for it because it's unfair that some people get the benefit of all you can eat while others do not.  Now the restaraunt has their balance thrown off and are feeding more people with no additional money coming in and no more food.  Some of these new people will also be eating in excess of the average and costing the company even more.  When this occurs, one of two things will happen at that buffet.  Either the cost will go up for those who pay for their meal, or the restaurant will be unable to cover the cost of the new eaters and go out of business.

This of course does nothing to really increase the availability of an all you can eat privilege for all.  It is still limited to how much food there is, how many seats the restaraunt has and the locations of them.  There are still those that will not be able to get all you can eat because there are simply not enough buffets to serve all of the people in the area.  Will the government then mandate that all restaraunts offer an all you can eat option thereby forcing them into bankruptcy?  Probably.

The insurance companies are all risk mitigation.  They exist to cover the cost of your health care.  If the costs you accrue rise, then the premium whose sole purpose is to cover those costs will have to rise as well.  The group policy is nothing but a buffet with the high cost of a few members being offset by the low cost of the majority of the members.  As you increase the number of high cost users without increasing the low cost members as well, the price for everybody goes up.  If you do all of this without increasing the number of doctors - and this new plan has the potential to actually decrease that number - you do nothing to improve access to health care.

What this bill does is give people access to health insurance but does nothing to give them access to health care.  It potentially has the opposite effect.  A health insurance card does nothing but take up space in your wallet if you can't find a doctor.

Thursday, March 18, 2010

Sandra Bullock & Jesse James - The Ultimate Redistribution of Wealth

Does anything express the political ideals of California better than their divorce laws?  It's no fault and you split the assets down the middle.  That's it. 

The divorce is nobody's fault.  It failed but that can't be because of anything either party actually did.  Nobody should be blamed and nobody should have to take accountability.  Cheat on your wife with a tattooed tart and that's ok.  The destruction of your marriage isn't your fault.

The assets get split down the middle regardless of who made the money and who caused the divorce.  Oh, that's right, it's nobody's fault.  So not only did you cheat on your wife, but now you're entitled to everything she has earned through her hard work and dedication to her career.  The career she was off working while you were screwing the tattoed tart.  Talk about redistribution of wealth!

I'm fairly confident that there is a prenup involved in the Sandy and Jesse situation, but the news of their split did make me think of the CA divorce laws and their redistributive philosophy.

Does anybody know any rich, single men in CA that I can marry, cheat on and divorce?  I need some quick cash. 

Self-Preservation Legislation

Is there really any debate that Congress writes and passes legislation simply to prove that they have a job to do and therefore can keep the job they have?  We have been overladen with so much legislation which was written just for the purpose of showing that Congress has something to do.  The reality is that we as a nation would be much better off if Congress focused less on justifying their own position and more on what their job actually is.

The legislation of Congress has two main goals.  To preserve the safety and security of the union, and to ensure the rights and liberties of the citizens.  That's it.

The founding fathers and drafters of the Constitution recognized this and knew that there should be little for Congress to do.  Article I, Section 4, Paragraph 2 of the Constitution states that Congress has to meet once a year.  Once.  That's it.  Only one time each year.  That it was specified that they had to meet at all shows just how little the drafters believed that Congress would really be needed.  We would all be better of if Congress really did only meet once a year.

Instead of passing only the legislation needed to preserve the union and the liberties of her people, Congress has passed so much legislation that they passed legislation to delegate some of the legislating responsibilities.  And hasn't that served us all well.  They passed legislation to fix the problems caused by other legislation which was a result of even more legislation. 

Consider all the legislation that has been passed in the last 75 years and think about how much of that was actually critical to the preservation of the union and the liberties of the people.  There's not much of it.  There is some, but probably less than 1% of the total legislation written.  Now imagine if all of that legislation which did NOT have it's basis in those two categories were wiped from the books by a wave of Harry Potter's wand.  How much better off would we all be?  Especially considering that the vast majority of the legislation written not only does not serve the true purpose of Congress but actually defies it by intruding further and further into the personal liberties of the people.

We could disband Congress all together and it wouldn't make much difference in anybody's daily life.  That is if it weren't for the imbending bankruptcy the government is facing as the result of Congressional self-preservation legislation.  If only I had Harry Potter's wand.

Wouldn't it be nice to have a politician run on a platform of removing any legislation on the books which does not directly and primarily preserve the union and the liberties of the people.  Now there's a fantasy.

Wednesday, March 17, 2010

Deem and Pass the Buck

Congress will use any chicanery available to shove this bill down the throats of the American public.  The worst part of this whole thing is that we could have had healthcare reform if that's what they truly wanted.  Certain parts of the bill would have passed had they been voted on individually, but that's not what the Dems in Congress wanted.  They didn't - and don't - want reform.  They want a takeover.

They could still get reform if they would only do what the American public is asking them to do and step back, break the huge bill into smaller parts, and start over.  But no, they are going to revert to a policy that flies in the face of the specific instructions in the Constitution.

Representatives say that it is Constitutional, though it doesn't follow the very specific set of instructions in the Constitution, and that they've been using it since the 1930's and that it's ridiculous to believe that Congress would use an unconstitutional policy for that long.  Ridiculous? More like highly probable.  The Congress has shown so little respect for and adherence to the Constitution for so many years that the idea that they would institute policies defiant of the Constitution is the furthest thing from ridiculous.  The only reason they've gotten away with it for so long is that nobody knew about it because they've never used it on anything of this magnitude.  The idea of creating a new entitlement program which will bankrupt a country they have already relegated to the poor house and do it all without an actual vote is appalling, offensive and despicable.

And people wonder why I wrote a novel about Congress getting wiped out.

Tuesday, March 16, 2010

I Didn't Think It Was Possible

I thought I had reached my limit and couldn't get any more disgusted with our Government than I already was.  I was wrong.  With the Dee and Pass announcement the government has reached a new low in their shady deals and obvious belief in the stupidity of their constituents.

Generating a way to vote to pass the bill without actually voting on the bill will insulate at risk Congressmen and give them the cofidence to vote against their constiuency - or so Pelosi believes.  Do they honestly think that we will be any less irate at the passage of this pile of untreated sewage that they call healthcare reform?  Do they really believe that embattered Democrats running for re-election will be safe by saying, "well, technically I didn't vote for it."  Do they really believe that we'll sit back and shrug our shoulders as they shred the very Constitution they swore to uphold?  Unfortunately for us, perhaps too many people will. 

Our syste of governent works only as long as those in the governent adhere to the system.  It is time to kick anybody who does uphold their oath to support and defend the Constitution to the curb. 

It's time to clean House, and the Senate too!

Capitol Punishment

My novel, Capitol Punishment, is now available for sale here.

It is a story of average people driven to desperate measures to take back their country and two average citizens trying to stop them.  The plan, to remove the power hungry politicians from office in a single and targeted act of domestic terrorism which would change the face of the country and her government forever.

The question isn't just can the plot be stopped, but whether or not it should be stopped.

Friday, March 12, 2010

Weiner Is a Weiner

During an interview on Fox News, Anthony Weiner, the Congressman for NY 9th District, behaved in a matter which illustrates why so many people are so frustrated with politicians.  What was the behavior .... to blatantly and willfully mislead the public about what is happening.

Weiner stated that the Republicans are refusing to vote for any healthcare reform and are blocking the legislation to side with the insurance industry.  He began his answer to every question asked with this reminder.  This is so frustrating because it has been made very clear that there are reforms that the Republicans would like to pass but that they object (as most Americans due) to the All Or Nothing /  Take It Or Leave It bill that is being forced down the throats of the American people.

Both sides of the isle do this, but I'm so disgusted with the political spin which is nothing but lies and the willfull misleading of the American populace.  Then they have the audacity and unmitigated gall to wonder why we don't trust them and don't believe anything they tell us.

Only a politician (or a crazy person) could lie to you repeatedly and then wonder why you don't believe what they are telling you this time.

Just once I would love to hear a politician attempt to make their point and sway the hearts and minds of the people WITHOUT lying about the opposition.

Life Lessons From Children's Books

I finally watched Where the Wild Things Are last night and as I perused the trailer to decide whether or not I could trust the interpretation of the book I loved as a child, my mind took off on a wild tangent (as my mind often does) and I began thinking about how much I loved to read as a child - a love I brought with me to adulthood - and what was so special about those books.

Childrens books don't tell us that everything is wonderful.  They don't tell us that there are no winners and losers.  They don't try to scew our perspective as liberal leaders would like to do.  The great childrens books teach us about the hard and sometimes cruel realities of life in a gentle manner, and more importantly they teach us how to deal with these challenges with grace and dignity.  My tangent took me back to the Ramona Quimby novels by Beverly Cleary and all of those children on Klickitat St.  Romana's life wasn't perfect, but often stressful and difficult, which is why the books were good.  There was a lesson to be learned and Beverly Clearly was brilliant in teaching that lesson.

When I decided to go ahead and watch Where the Wild Things Are I decided to look for the lessons in that story and was shocked at what I found.  As I watched, the little boy Max reminded me more and more of Barack Obama.

Max shows up in the land of the Wild Things and at first begins destroying their village.  When confronted with it he claims to be King in order to save himself - a position he is wholely unqualified to fill.  As king he promises to make them all happy then procedes to build a Utopia.  Unfortunately he finds out that everybody has a different idea of what their Utopia is and that you can't make everybody happy.  He claims that all people will be equal but then gets questioned over why he is favoring some over others.  In order to bring the back together and heal the rift his leadership has caused, Max decides to separate them into good guys and bad guys and start slinging dirt at each other.  My favorite line was when he was deciding who was good and who was bad.  "I can't be a bad guy," he said, "I'm King.  I'm a good guy."  The dirt slinging of course does not bring them all together but drives them even further apart.

The main difference between the story and what is happening now is that little Max realized that his attempt to create a Utopia made the situation worse and not better.  He realizes that he is just a normal person and not qualified to lead and he steps down and goes home.

What I find so interesting is that Obama has failed to realize what we learned in a children's book.  You can't make everybody happy and you cannot impose your idea of happiness upon others.

Considering that the Producer of this movie was Tom Hanks, I do not believe the makers saw the same message I did.

Thursday, March 11, 2010

California's New Database

While $40 billion in debt and unable to meet the existing obligations of the government, the CA Senate Majority Leader proposes a new government program to create a database for identifying convicted animal abusers.  I love animals and the abuse of them makes me physically ill.  I believe that those who torture animals should be locked up in institutions and be subjected to the same toruture they inflicted.  I believe that punishment for abuse and neglect should be harsher, but I also don't believe that CA is in any condition to spend more money at this point.

Were the state in a sound financial situation and they were persuing this database, I wouldn't think anything of it.  I don't believe it can be fully effectual since many people give pets away for free and anybody on the register would just check the newspaper and get their pets from somebody without access to the register list, but if it would help at all and the state had the money to pay for it, then good for them for looking after our furry little friends.  However, CA is teetering on the edge of bankruptcy and currently can't meet the obligations to the people of their state much less the animals.

This database is simply one more illustration of how out of touch politicians are with economics and budgets.  How, when the state is in the financial situation it is, can anybody propose a new program to be paid for by the state?  It's absurdity at it's most glaring.

There should be nothing coming out of the California Legislature except ways to SAVE money and reduce the deficit, and yet they persist in suggesting new ways to spend money they do not have.  It's an epidemic in houses of politics across the nation and as yet no cure has been identified.

Wednesday, March 10, 2010

Obama Explaining One More Time

Poor President Obama must be horribly frustrated with his perceived stupidity of the American people.  In spite of polls, protests and outspoken citizens at town halls, the president believes that if we only understood the bill then we'd support it.  He can't even fathom that we actually do understand it and this is why we DON'T support it.  I wonder what it feels like to be the leader of a nation of people you consider to be absolute dolts.

He has thrown everything he has at a horrible healthcare reform bill that will increase spending, bankrupt the country, not cover everybody, do nothing on this urgent problem for four years after it is signed into law and will do nothing to bring the cost curve of health care down.  Gee, what's not to support?

One of my biggest problems with the bill is that analysis has already shown that 60% of every dollar for healthcare services is for administrative costs.  The fastest and most efficient way to bring down the cost of healthcare is to eliminate or at least mitigate administrative costs.  Does anybody with more than a single brain cell believe that the big government organizations which will be created as part of this bill actually decrease administrative costs for your healthcare?  I sure don't.

By failing to do adequate research around what is causing the rise in costs, they cannot effectively fix the problem.  This is proven by them increasing, via their big fix, the largest current cost in healthcare.

I'm Back

Sorry I've been gone so long but there has been a lot happening in my life.  My mother had double knee replacement surgery, my uncle has cancer which has progressed to the point where we will lose him soon, I've had house guests and I've been working on getting a book published.

The good news is that my mother is progressing well and my book is now for sale on Kindle.  I am now going to take the opportunity to shamelessly hawk my book as anybody who reads this blog would be the target audience.

"Capitol Punishment" - They synopsis:  At a time when those in power have shifted almost completely from serving the people to serving themselves, a revolution is brewing; but what if this revolution was not one of guns in the streets but one waged quietly, with a targeted plan respecting the value of human life? What if the first indication the nation would have of the revolution is a single act of such magnitude that it would change the face of the country and its government forever? And what if you, an average citizen, discovered this plan and faced the moral and ethical dilemma of whether to stop the revolution or allow those in power to reap what they have sown? What decision would you make? Tabloid reporter Daniel Callahan and geneticist Samantha Mallard are about to find out. Together they will embark on a journey filled with twists, turns and surprises which has them fighting for their lives, their country and each other.

I'm still awaiting the proofs of the hard copy but the novel is available on Kindle now.  I won't say it's great literature, but it is a fun read.