First, an obligatory correction of some revisionist history.  It seems every article referencing the economy starts with the phrase, "the recession which began in December of 2007"; it did not.  We define a recession as two consecutive quarters of negative GDP growth.  All of 2007 GDP growth was positive.  We didn't get negative growth until 2008, and then we didn't get two consecutive quarters until the 3rd and 4th quarter. 
There are those that would like to point at the GDP chart and site the Obama Administration and it's policies as the driving force in reversing a downward trend in economic output. The GDP chart is misleading however.  It is a far better barometer of the nations economic health to observe employment numbers.

It is also difficult to use the published "Unemployment Rate" as a barometer of economic health.  That is because that number consists of two moving variables.  "Total Employed" and "Total seeking Employment" are the two moving variables in the published Unemployment Rate.  Because the "Total seeking Employment" requires a somewhat subject estimate, it's prone to project serious inaccuracies in the published Unemployment Rate.

It is useful to observe the total number of people working as an indication of economic health.  Those numbers are less subjective and quite sobering.  Since a peak employment in December of 2007, the economy has lost almost 8 million jobs.  Almost 6 million of those have been lost since October of 2008, as shown here:


We believe that it is difficult or impossible to accurately define "seeking Employment."  More importantly, we also believe that it's of little difference to the economic health of the nation if those that are not producing are not seeking employment.


To that end, we wish to introduce a heretofore rarely recognized useful ratio - The Employment / Population Ratio

While the statistics on total non-farm employment and total population involve some amount of estimates, those numbers are based on far more empirical data and less subjective than the "persons seeking employment" number.  We contend therefore that the ration of total jobs to total population is not only a better theoretical barometer of economic health, but it is also that it is more accurately measured.

When one observes the ratio of Jobs to Population, it shows a much more disturbing trend than either the GDP or Unemployment rates.  The graph shown below is a close up of the periods between April of 2000 and October of 2009.  The graph shows the "total population" rather than "working age population" because we believe that it is useful to analyze the "size of the cart" that needs to be pulled.  We see some interesting things when comparing these two numbers.  One, it becomes glaringly obvious



that although the United States "employed" more people in 2007 (about month # 95 in the chart) than in any other time in history, the ratio of people working was significantly higher at the peak of the tech boom of the 90's.  While many will offer differing reasons why the EPR (Employment / Population Ratio) of the "2000's" never reached that of the "90's"; it is difficult to argue that the general feeling of economic well being was greater during the 90's than it was in the 2000's.

When the graph is modified to show only "working age population" the trend is similar.

Perhaps most importantly, it is abundantly clear that the current trend is going very sharply in the wrong direction.  Additionally it shows that the ratio of jobs to population is at a level not seen since 1984 - and still declining.  Consequently if jobs do begin to grow, the number of people "seeking jobs" is likely to continue to grow for some time, and it is unlikely that the country will experience any significant change in economic climate until this ratio at least begins to trend in the other direction.

The inventor. 
The entrepreneur. 
The maverick risk taker. 

They are known by many names.  Ford, Debartolo, Dell, Gates, - just to name a few.  These are men that built not only businesses - but empires.  The efforts of each of these men has changed the world for the better, and enriched the lives of hundreds of millions of people, while providing wealth and income for millions more.

Each of these men, to some extent, embodies the "Spirit of America."  That is the spirit that says, "Yes I can."  It is this spirit that drives men to achieve greatly - while risking mightily.

As of November 7, 2009 - that spirit has become dangerously close to being crushed.  Crushed by the Government now in control of the the once great country to which such spirit was born.  If the current version of "Health Care Reform" (HR 3962) becomes law; it will become illegal in the United States to assume the risk of ones own health in pursuit of higher (or even lower) goals.

Consider; it will be virtually impossible for an individual to begin a start up business "on a shoe string" in the future.  In many, if not most business ventures; the principles spend themselves into oblivion to advance their business concepts.   Now, such spending will be illegal.  Before one can strike out "on a shoe string" he must first guarantee that he can pay a $500/ month insurance premium - or risk imprisonment.  Of course, their is "help" for those who can't afford it.

Is there a single one of the bold risk takers listed above that would've submitted to being provided for by the Government?  Is there no understanding of the devastation of human spirit caused by being forced to accept subsidies?

The House finds no downside in requiring individuals to buy overpriced, unneeded insurance coverage - as long as they provide a mechanism to "assist" those of little means.  They have not the slightest idea of the revolt and disgust free men have for government assistance. 

They have no understanding of why the people that they currently "assist" with food stamps and housing revile their very being with every ounce of what souls they have left.  They completely miss the crushing impact of being legislated as "inadequate" to provide even a basic existence for ones self.  So inadequate, in fact, that the government will "help" you buy the disgusting insurance products you don't want. 

They are completely unaware that they are crushing the "Spirit of America".

Or maybe they are not unaware - just purposeful.

Here's what we learned:

The New York GOP is dominated by left leaning moderates and is terribly weak.
NY 23 isn't that conservative.
Conservatism is most successful in elections when it works through the GOP.
It is difficult to win Congressional races relying on primarily "air strikes"
 `That is, high profile endorsements, radio, web, and TV support don't easily translate to "votes on the ground."

That being said, the final outcome in NY 23 isn't the "worst case scenario."  The worst would be a Sczzfzz victory which would  have strengthened left-wing supporters in the GOP.   However, it's foolish to pretend that the Hoffman results are encouraging for those who wish to destroy the GOP in favor of some third party alternative.  Hoffman was the beneficiary of more national support from conservative forces than any Congressional candidate in memory - he still lost.

NY 23 will be contested again next year, it will certainly not get as much attention when it's one of hundreds of elections.  There will be a GOP primary, and hopefully a strong conservative Republican candidate.  Hopefully Hoffman will compete in the GOP primary, and either win - or support the winner, and help build a "ground attack" in New York to put this seat back into conservative control.

Newt SUCKS !!!
Micheal Steele is the DEVIL !!!
BUSH ruined EVERYTHING !!!
HOFFMAN for President !!!
Sczzzafzza whatever SUCKS !!!
You RINOS  all SUCK !!!
Palin is our only hope !!!
We're PRINCIPLED !!!!  YOU"RE NOT !!!
NO MORE MONEY TO THE GOP !!!  THEY SUCKS !!!!
The GOP has abandoned the "conservative base",
we hate them. 
Never again,
principle over party,
down with RINO's,
the party should FAIL.

Heard any more?  Probably so.  It's become the new "conservo-chic" to hate the GOP.  Glen Beck is making a fortune degrading the Republican Party as viciously as FCC regulations allow.  Most of the conservative talk radio, and the conservative "blogoshpere" have piled on.  A drinking game based on Hannity saying "I'm not a Republican" might induce alcohol poisoning.

The message, in general is; Republicans have lost their way and the Party abandoned conservative principles which is why our country is failing economically, politically, militarily, and even morally. 

So, is that true ?

Short answer.  Yes.

What's the solution?

Apparently, according to the self appointed right wing wizards of smart; the solution is to relentlessly bash the GOP, look for better candidates from competing parties, and demand that GOP officials "prove" their loyalty to conservatism by sabotaging the electoral chances of the candidates chosen by their own party. 

Ground zero in this right wing kerfuffle is NY 23. (In the interest of full disclosure, this writer has contributed to the Hoffman campaign)

For anyone unfamiliar with NY23; here's a quick recap of the situation: (if you are familiar - skip the red)

Sarah Palin, and Rick Santorum, lead a list of previous and sitting GOP members that are supporting Doug Hoffman.  Tim Pawlenty and Mitt Romney, and Mike Huckabee have given "wink and nod" support to Hoffman by declaring, "they will not endorse the GOP candidate in this race."  Newt Gingrich and Micheal Steele have publicly stated their support for the GOP nominee.

Gingrich and Steele have since been attacked for their positions.  They've been demonized as representing everything that is wrong with the GOP.  "All they care about is the R - they don't have any principles..." or something like that.  It seems that there is little limit to the vitriol cast toward Newt and Steele, and even those offering "wink and nod" support have generally been cast as "weak" or "voting present."   Glen Beck has been particularly pointed in his attack of the GOP, and is promoting a deliberate movement to destroy the Party, making Beck the likely winner of the "I hate the GOP" contest. 

So how did the GOP come to be the hated enemy?

It's Newt's fault right?

Yes, to some degree it is.  More precisely, it is the fault of Ronald Reagan, - Newt Gingrich/ Rush Limbaugh, and - Carl Rove/George Bush.

"That's right, it's Rove, Bush and Gingrich - but howdya figger its Reagan and Rush's fault?" comes the reply

They were successful at stopping liberal Democrats without  a low level Party apparatus.  They worked nationally. Reagan by  by combining brilliant skills and capitalizing on a dreadful economic climate.  Gingrich combined a National Congressional Campaign Strategy with Rush's new found radio prominence.  Bush's "strategery" of focusing the election on values rather than prosperity was good enough to beat the shadow of the morally bankrupt Bill Clinton .  These successes  allowed conservatives  to become complacent, sit on the sidelines, and wait for the next “stopper” to come along. The GOP not only abandoned conservatives, but conservatives also became increasingly less active in low level party politics. There was no need. Conservatives now view the nominating process as a spectator, rather than participatory sport. They heckle the quarterback, second guess the coach, and deride the ability of the players – all from the safe confines of the internet or radio waves..

Surprise, Surprise, conservatives you're not spectators, you're players. Politics isn't the NFL or NBA, you don't have to be 6'-9” or run a sub 4.5 forty to play. You only have to show up. For years during Reagan you put yourself on the bench, and since 1994 you've sat back in the stands and had a beer while watching the show. The cries for “third party” challenges are vapid and shallow. It doesn't matter how many parties one has; if conservatives think that their only role in the process is to write crap on the internet and spew venom on the radio waiting for their own savior to appear – they will continue to have few candidates in the race. That's because eventually activists will invade and control or at least heavily influence the nominations.

While conservatives are whining incessantly about the “RINO party” and calling Micheal Steele the devil, local GOP conventions are increasingly populated by activist “moderates” - even liberals. (A brief side bar here. GOP precincts usually consist of around 3,000 registered voters. In a typical precinct level convention, I've never seen more than 6 people present. Our local precinct was allocated 6 delegates to the county convention. At that particular meeting, there were only 5 people present – so everyone was a delegate. Two conservatives, one Log Cabin Republican, one moderate, and one mostly liberal. If even one more conservative showed up it would've changed the balance in the meeting. If two more had shown up, we could' have voted to keep the lib out of the county convention.) There seems to be a greater propensity for big government activist types to become activists at the local level. This probably has something to do with conservatives having jobs and owning businesses. With a Party that is committed to local controls and limited “top down” intervention, local GOP candidates have become increasingly moderate. Bottom line, conservatives can't expect any party to be conservative, if they don't participate in that party.

So – back to NY23 . . .

Steele and Gingrich both have made it abundantly clear that they have vast ideological differences with the GOP candidate. Both have been clear that their support is based on honoring the result of the local nominating process. The local nominating process has nominated a poor candidate, all people claiming even minimal conservatism agree on this. The disagreement lies in how it should be corrected.

Newt and Steele believe that it should be corrected, in the long term, by conservative activism at the local party level; but in the short term, the National Party should continue to honor the local nominating process.

Hannity, and most of the “I Hate the GOP” crowd seem to advocate that the National Leadership should review each local selection, and reject the selection if they disapprove. Of course, at the same time they decry the current nominations as being made by “party hacks,” presumably without realizing that is exactly what they are advocating.

In conclusion, it would seem to clear to an objective observer, that a political movement that is founded in individual freedom and liberty, cannot simultaneously support a central authority to unilaterally nullify local party nominations. To do so would likely lead to even less participation on the local level, and the central authority becoming increasingly disconnected with its constituents. In effect, this would create the “Party Hack” nominating system those who claim to “Hate the GOP” claim to despise. If conservatives want to maintain a voice in political power, the only expeditiously available route is to become active in the Republican Party, and make your voice heard.

In the past several days; numerous print and broadcast media outlets, race hustlers Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, an NFL commissioner, a handful of NFL players, a U.S Congressional Representative, and one NFL owner; embarked on a willful campaign of slander and libel in an effort to defame the character of Rush Limbaugh by attributing to him racist quotations that he never made.  This attack was successful in creating enough negative publicity to force a group of investors to remove Mr. Limbaugh from their group that was attempting to purchase the St. Louis Rams. 

While those attacking Limbaugh had no official capacity to prohibit Mr. Limbaugh from participating in the bid to purchase the NFL franchise, the well known axiom, "Capital is a coward," comes into play.  That is, it is well known that capital investment will almost always avoid controversy and negative publicity if possible.  The perpetrators of the anti Limbaugh campaign were well aware that if they could create enough "smoke" about Limbaugh; his presence in the investment group could not be tolerated - without regard to the non-existence of any "fire."

To those who will contend that Limbaugh may not have made the specific statements attributed to him by the aforementioned character assassins, but has a long history of making racist statements - you are wrong.  Mr. Limbaugh has zero history of making racist comments, and this writer defies anyone contending such to cite a specific example.  Rush Limbaugh has additionally been described as "racially insensitive."  This is true - and it is a good thing.

Being "racially insensitive" is antithetical to being "racist."  Rush, and most conservatives, are exactly that - "racially insensitive."  We are insensitive to race precisely because we don't believe it's relevant to anything of importance.  We don't believe that minorities are inferior, we don't discriminate against them, and we don't believe they need to handled with kid gloves.  Yes, making a parody song "Barack the Magic Negr0" (not a misprint - this racist controlled blog site prohibits writing the actual word) was "racially insensitive" - not racist.  It was a lampoon of the LA Times, and an article by an author that obviously believed blacks to be fundamentally different to whites, which is blatant racism.  So, yes, Rush was insensitive to race, while making fun of racists - guilty as charged. 

Yet, the damage to Rush's opportunity to own a minority interest in an NFL team has been done.  In doing so, the NFL has established a new policy of "anti-divisiveness."  In statements made by former Commissioner Roger Goodell, current co-commissioners Sharpton and Jackson, Colts owner Jim Irsay, and Chairmen of the new "House Committee on NFL Ownership" Sheila Jackson Lee - The NFL must prohibit those who have a history of making divisive statements from involvement in the league.

In keeping with this new policy of "anti divisiveness" it is obvious that MSNBC commentator Keith Olbermann must be removed from his panel position on NBC's  "Football Night in America".  Having made such statements as:

 Describing Michelle Malkin as a

"mashed-up bag of meat with lipstick on it."

In referring to either a sitting U.S. President or the U.S. Military,

"Mr. Bush, at long last, has it not dawned on you that the America you have now created, includes cold-blooded killers who will kill people to achieve their political objectives?”

Described American citizens gathering to protest excesses of the current administration as

"just looking for a reason to yell at the black president,"

While we firmly support Mr. Olbermanns right to make such statements, no matter how ignorant and uninformed his opinions might be, they are clearly "divisive" and blatantly violate the new NFL policy of "anti-divisiveness."  In support of this new policy, we are urging all NFL fans to contact the major sponsors of "Football Night in America" and urge them to withdraw their sponsorship of this program until such time that Mr. Olbermann is removed.  In further support we urge all people who support this policy of "non divisiveness" in the NFL to refrain from making purchases from these sponsors or any others who might choose to sponsor this telecast while it features the highly divisive Mr. Olbermann.

We encourage all to contact the major sponsors to advise them of this action.  We believe actual hard copy mail to be the most effective, but email, fax, or phone are better than nothing.  In order to facilitate this action, we are posting the contact information of the major sponsors of "Football Night in America" and the names of the all the minor sponsors.  Additionally the title link on each sponsor name links to a sample letter to the company, all are welcome to copy the sample letter, edit it as desired, and send it to the named sponsor.

It seems that the $2.20 in postage is money well spent to let these companies know, that we will all be voting with our wallets.

Minor Sponsors

Once again, the experts abound.  The pundits proliferate.  The talking heads seem to parrot each other in virtual unison. 

Consumer spending.  Consumer spending. Consumer spending.

We're told that "consumer spending" accounts for 70% of our economy.  That we are dependent on "consumer spending" for a full recovery to take place and to return to economic growth.  The point of the message seems to be, "Gee, we've fixed everything wrong with the economy, but these stupid consumers don't have the good sense to go ahead and spend money."  In other words, it's our fault the economy is not in recovery or perhaps even a booming expansion.

Such analysis is foolish.

In terms of economic expansion, consumer spending is a trailing rather than leading effect.  It takes only a modest amount of reasoning to verify this fact.  Before people spend money, they have to earn it.  People earn money by producing something.  It could be a tangible product, or a less tangible service; but in either event money is earned when something is produced.  Such production adds value, or "wealth" to the economy.  In return for creating such "wealth" people are compensated with money, which in turn they spend on whatever they happen to determine is in their best interest.  Clearly, people may not engage in "spending" prior to "earning."

The concept of the "consumer driven economy"; could be analogous to the "tire driven car."  It may be technically correct in both cases to say that "consumption drives the economy" or, "tires move the car."  In truth, it is the "tire" that applies the force to the road that propels the car forward.  Yet, when the engine doesn't start, or the gas tank is empty, it is strikingly pointless to expend much energy fretting about the condition of the tires when the car isn't running. 

To continue with the analogy of the car; it is useful to consider Innovation/Production to be analogous to the "Engine/Transmission" of the economic growth.  Consider for example the economic growth of the past quarter century.  The innovations in the technology sector represent an economic advance that may exceed all the wealth previously created by man.  As the last deep recession in this country drew to a close, (1980) there were no personal computers or cell phones, just to name a few. 

Advances in these technologies lead the way out of the recession of the 70's.  When the economy sagged again in the early 90's there was no internet (to speak of) nor any web based businesses.  Advances in internet technology propelled advances in computer technology and communications technologies in general.  We all got email addresses, and cell phones.  Eventually we wanted to merge the two and came up with "BlackBerry" type devices.

Now, before an innovation can actually work its way into the economy - it must be produced.  Innovations in microprocessors, cell phones, and network technologies all required the production of countless materials and services in order to bring them to market.  While much of the "hard manufacturing" of these items occurs outside the U.S. economy, one must remember that "production" of a good includes everything from concept to delivery. That includes advertising, shipping, retailing, and delivery - just to name a few.  In truth, throughout most of the past 10 years, the U.S. economy functioned at very close to full employment.  Had their not been large manufacturing resources in Asia and India, it is unlikely we could have achieved the capacity to produce the goods necessary to meet the demand.  It required virtually all of the U.S. workforce to produce a portion of the goods sold here and to market, and distribute, and service the goods manufactured in other parts of the world.

On September 24, 2009 Michael Goodson writing for the Chicago Post Tribune (member of the Sun Times News Group), wrote:

 “Maybe Limbaugh should be tried for sedition”

 and then supported the idea with a collaboration of untruths, faulty logic, and plain old stupidity. The following is a point by point refutation of Mr. Goodsons assertions. Direct quotes of the article are in this bold a 10 pt font.

He's argued against every government program under consideration, calling them socialism. He's called our president a socialist, a liar and a racist.

While what Mr. Goodson states here is substantially true, it's difficult to believe that anyone would believe that any of the above should constitute a crime. If these things were a crime, and one were to substitute “fascist” for socialist; then most of the Democrat Party would be guilty of such a crime over the past eight years.

He has called Bill Clinton a "murderer" and Jimmy Carter a "hemorrhoid."

This is simply wrong. Rush Limbaugh has NEVER, called Bill Clinton a murderer. Mr. Limbaugh publishes his transcripts and makes downloads of his show available (for subscriber). I defy Mr. Goodson to prove his allegation via a quotation or audio clip.

Factually, I believe Rush actually called Jimmy Carter a “National Hemorrhoid”. While this was clearly a figurative statement, it's difficult to find evidence of a crime in these words.

On TV, he is ranting, raving and waving his arms. He is, seemingly, on the verge of a stroke.

Odd, Rush Limbaugh rarely appears on TV. It seems that what Mr. Goodson may be referencing is the “ditto cam” clip of Rush mimicking the exaggerated motions of Micheal J. Fox in a commercial where Mr. Fox was speaking in favor of passing a stem cell research bill.

The video described above was actually “looped” to make Rush's single act appear to be a lengthy act of making fun of Micheal J. Fox, and by extension all other sufferers of Parkinsons, and probably by further logical extension all those who suffer from debilitating illness or handicap. This “doctored” video was widely distributed and played on all major networks, most of which never acknowledged that they were playing a purposely altered video clip. To that end, one can forgive Mr. Goodson's ignorance – on this point he's not being disingenuous – simply gullible.

But Limbaugh was quiet about the activities of President Bush and Vice President D*ck Cheney during their eight years.

(can you believe that this "right wing hate site" won't allow VP Cheney's first name)

This is so wrong it is laughable. Rush pilloried the administration on excessive spending, prescription drugs, comprehensive immigration reform, and who could forget the outrage over the selection of Harriet Meyers to the Supreme Court – just to name a few. To anyone that listens to Rush with any regularity, its ridiculous to claim that Rush was “quiet” about anything.

He saw no reason to criticize the war in Iraq when everyone knew we should have been hunting Osama bin Laden in earnest.

Again, Rush offered a great deal of criticism about the handling of the war in Iraq. For example when President Bush agreed to the appointment of an “Iraq Study Group” ; Limbaugh denounced the idea. When the results of this Group were published, Limbaugh blew a gasket. At many points during the conflict Rush railed at the Bush administration for its mishandling of the war.

Yet, at no point did Rush ever intimate that we should not be hunting for Osama bin Laden. Goodsons proposed mutually exclusive dichotomy of doing either A or B is absurd on it's face. The U.S. Government is the largest Political, Military, and Economic entity to have ever existed. The assertion that the U.S. Government could not wage a war and hunt for a single human being is not reasonably supportable. Those that argue that the “hunt for bin Laden” was diminished in favor of the War in Iraq have yet to offer any evidence of the re-direction of resources to support that argument. Rather they opt for the well worn, and ineffective argument technique of “everyone knows.”

Limbaugh didn't complain about the trillion dollars we borrowed from our grandchildren to pay for this misbegotten war

Once again Mr. Goodson is wrong. Both on the “cost” and his conclusion of “misbegotten”. The incorrectness on cost can be shown empirically, the “misbegotten” only logically. But in fairness, Mr. Goodson is correct that Rush Limbaugh didn't complain about the cost of the war.

One can only assume that the reference is to the “Iraq War” which is the war that Mr. Goodson describes as “misbegotten.” The currently allocated cost components of “both” the Iraq and Afghan conflicts totals 915 billion. (Source http://www.nationalpriorities.org/cost_of_war_counter_notes; - which sources congressional spending allocations) The site also delineates the apportionment of funding between the two conflicts as follows:

“To date, the total cost of war that has been allocated by Congress is $915.1 billion, with $687 to Iraq and $228 to Afghanistan.”

The cost apportionment is further defined by the following:

“Please note that the cost of war in Iraq has decreased since our last estimate. This is because a larger proportion of spending was allocated to Afghanistan than originally estimated.”

Clearly, the Iraq war cost is under $700 billion. Recall, that is a cumulative total, amassed over 6 years. Not small change by any measure. Except perhaps by comparison to the 2009 single year expenditure of “American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 H.R. 1, The 2009 Economic Stimulus - of $838 billion, or an “Omnibus Appropriations bill (H.R.2764)” of over $500 billion; all of which are effectively dwarfed by the proposed annual budget deficit which is quickly approaching $2,000 billion.

That's right Mr. Goodson, the current SINGLE YEAR deficit expenditures will roughly TRIPLE the aggregate cost of SIX YEARS or the IRAQ WAR. Perhaps even one as purposefully dense as Micheal Goodson can understand that annual expenditures of $2,000 billion are significantly higher than $115 billion.

Now, as for “misbegotten” . . .

Those of Mr. Goodson's ilk will rarely think deeply enough to recognize the connection between 9/11 and Iraq. That's right I said it. (apologies to Levin) The CONNECTION BETWEEN 9/11 AND IRAQ. The connection is not “direct”, there is no evidence that Iraq played an active role in the planning or execution of the 9/11 attack. Yet there are “dots” that can clearly be connected. Strangely, those that widely ridicule the Bush administration for not “connecting the dots” that lead to 9/11 are often the same people who refuse to even admit that the following “dots” exist – let alone deserve to be “connected.” Consider:

-The 9/11 attacks were planned and executed by Osama bin Ladin and Al Queda (sorry truthers.)

-bin Ladin had previously been an ally of the United States.

-bin Laden's “break” in his alliance to the US stemmed from a fallout with the Saudi Royal Family. "During the time Iraq invaded Kuwait, Laden met with Sultan, Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia, and told him not to depend on non-Muslim troops and offered to help defend Saudi Arabia. Bin Laden's offer was rebuffed and after the American offer to help was accepted he publicly denounced Saudi Arabia's dependence on the US military. Bin Laden's criticism of the Saudi monarchy led that government to attempt to silence him." (source Wikipedia -Osama bin Laden)

-The U.S., at the request of the Saudi Royal Family, established permanent military bases in Saudi Arabia to provide a defense against Iraq. Bin Ladin's denunciation of the Saudi decision to allow U.S military on Saudi soil, eventually lead to his banishment from Saudi Arabia, and to declare the U.S. The Great Satan.

In short, the military instability of the middle east, caused to a great extent by Iraqi aggression, necessitated a U.S. Military presence in Saudi Arabia, which lead to the exile of bin Ladin, who turned his aggression toward the U.S.

Yes, it's an indirect connection, but to ignore the existence of a link between an unstable middle east, a despotic and aggressive Iraqi regime, and rise of militant Islam, is to be purposefully ignorant or sand poundingly stupid.


He didn't complain when more than 4,000 American lives were sacrificed in the name of an administration more bent on revenge than finding the real perpetrator of the most horrific attack on American soil.

See the previous explanation.

That would be torture, ridiculed by every honest expert on the subject.

Again, Mr. Goodson is relying on the same “everybody knows” argument, when in fact there is quite a bit of disagreement on the definition of “torture.” A google search of the term “definition of torture” yields over 6 million results with rather wide difference between many. In this case it's widely believed that the reference is to “water boarding,” the act of simulating drowning but actually never submersing the nasal passages of the subject under water.

The current definition of “torture” according to:
U.S. Code TITLE 18, PART I, CHAPTER 113C , § 2340 – Definitions:
(1)“torture” means an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control;

(2)“severe mental pain or suffering” means the prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from—

(A) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering;
(B) the administration or application, or threatened administration or application, of mind- altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality;
(C) the threat of imminent death; or
(D) the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the administration or application of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or personality; and

(3)“United States” means the several States of the United States, the District of Columbia, and the commonwealths, territories, and possessions of the United States.


The debate whether “water boarding” violates any of the above provisions is continual and ongoing. In fact, when President Obama, rescinded executive order 13440 signed by President George W. Bush on July 20, 2007; he replaced it with an executive order of very similar wording, and additionally left a vague “out” allowing his administration leeway under some circumstances.

He sees conspiracies around every corner,

Mr. Goodson seems to have Limbaugh confused with someone else. The fact that Harry Reid, and Nancy Pelosi's husband trade in Real Estate and securities that are affected by Federal Legislation isn't a conspiracy theory. It's information that should be known to the public and the public can regard it as they wish.

A conspiracy theory is:

911 was an inside job.
We're in Afghanistan because of an oil pipeline.
Katrina was planned by George Bush to hurt black people.
Doctors routinely remove tonsils and amputate feet because it's more profitable than treating them.
Oil Companies rig the price of gas.


Limbaugh says he can defeat any liberal in a debate with half his brain tied behind his back.

He doesn't have too. There are plenty of us here with enough simple facts to do it for him.

Yeah, that title might raise a few eyebrows. In our current climate it may even be cause for censorship or investigation. Undaunted we continue . . .

First, some "street creds" if you will. This blogger is not black, is not a former gang member, or previous ghetto dweller, but has had some significant experience with the "black community." Growing up around Cleveland, Ohio gives one a good opportunity for frequent interaction with Blacks. During High School we had several "racial" incidents, a few school closings, and some minor violence.  As an adult professional, I helped organize the "East Austin Economic Development Corporation" and also worked under contract to that Black group to build a significant community redevelopment project in a predominantly black section of East Austin.  In the past 16 years of owning a business I've had numerous black sub-contractors and associates.  

One commonly observed characteristic of the Black community is a strong distrust for Government authority. This is most often manifest in a belief of being profiled as criminals by police, leading to unnecessary traffic stops, requests to identify, etc. Such a manifestation was even evident in President Obama's reaction in the now famous Cambridge incident when he remarked "the Cambridge police acted stupidly."

Black citizens have developed this attitude over a number of years. This seemingly inherent distrust is not completely without foundation. Black people have often witnessed a scenario where a black person is stopped, questioned, asked to identify himself, and if driving is asked to show registration and proof of insurance - then the officer checks the information and finds something lacking, and arrests the black citizen. Often the arrests are for outstanding warrants. Often the warrants are issued due to failure to appear or pay fines for minor or even civil violations.

This becomes something of a self-fulfilling and self perpetuating situation. Often Black people (especially men) harbor a distinct disdain for mandated compliance. Consequently they often refuse to pay minor fees and fines associated with minor violations. That eventually triggers a "failure to appear" warrant, which once issued, leaves a officer no choice but to make an arrest. The other side of this is that most police are aware of this and know that even asking many blacks to simply "identify" may yield an outstanding warrant arrest. Consequently, (in my opinion only) it seems Blacks are asked to "identify" more often than whites.

I am certain that many officers will dispute my "opinion" of blacks being asked to "identify" more frequently, and I'll readily admit the likelihood that my perception is wrong. That's really not the point. The point is that if I, a middle aged white guy, feel like Black men are "ID'd" more frequently than whites - it's a darn good bet that Black people have the same perception.

In fairness to the police, I will admit that I've also witnessed instances where police specifically avoided "ID'ing" a minority because they didn't want to risk having to arrest them.

But on with the main point - Government Mandated Health Care.

In a truly strange twist of purposeful mis-information; it seems that a number of people on both sides of the "Health Care Debate" believe that there is proposed legislation that grants "Health Care" to all US occupants.  I recently had this conversation with a Black business associate.  He was adamant that the current proposed Health Care Reforms (HR 3200) would "provide" health care insurance for all Americans.  This is far from true. The truth is that the proposed legislation HR 3200 "provides" nothing; it simply MANDATES that everyone buy "Health Care Insurance."  In truth, HR 3200 does the following:

1. Mandates all people must buy Health Insurance.  (either through employer or private purchase)

2. Goes into great detail defining all insurance policies to be roughly equal and micromanaging the relationships of Health Care Providers.

3. Establishes the IRS as the enforcement mechanism by which all Americans will be required to provide proof of an "approved" health insurance policy.

While there are various provisions for those that can't afford insurance, the burden to be covered by insurance is placed squarely on the individual. (The exception is that if one is qualified for Medicaid, one will be "automatically" enrolled in some policy chosen by a Government Agency) The proposed legislation would make it a violation of law to exist in the United States without being able to provide "proof of Health Insurance", much the same way it's a violation of law in most states to drive a car on public roads without being able to provide "proof of auto liability insurance."

This conjures yet another scenario for any citizen needing to "identify", regardless of whether it's at a routine traffic stop, a DWI checkpoint, or any routine inquiry. There will now be "one more" credential required of all Americans. Health Insurance ID. If you don't have it - you get cited. If you don't respond to the citation - you get a warrant. Next time you get "ID'd" you go to jail. Your crime - failure to obtain health insurance.

Now, as a point of clarification, the above scenario could not take place under the current legislation. The enforcement mechanism in the current legislation is through the IRS, not through local law enforcement. (now that's a comforting thought) One must recall, however, that when the concept of mandated auto insurance originated, the now common measures of required "proof of insurance" documents were not included in the early laws. In most states, enforcement of auto insurance requirements came only during vehicle registration and accident involvement. Now, enforcement is done through routine "compliance stops" and are required documentation along with drivers license and registration. It's only a short leap to conclude that HR 3200, if passed, would eventually lead to required "proof" of health insurance.

Let's wake up here people. All people, but especially Black people who seem to be following an elected Judas Goat, confident that he has their best interests at heart. The currently proposed Health Care reforms GIVE you nothing. The proposed reforms IMPOSE MANDATES on individuals and businesses - not government. The only thing that any of us are GIVEN in the proposed reforms is one more reason to be found in violation of the law, and one more reason to be fined, or imprisoned.

As Americans we enjoy the benefits of the worlds finest medical technology and distributive services. We also endure the burden of a medical system, that due to a number of factors, including the economic reality that it is a limited resource with a virtually unlimited demand, is very costly. In many polls, Americans indicate that they prefer “Universal” health care. Unfortunately, it is likely that what respondents are wanting is the finest of medical technology and service, with the only change being that it be free of cost. It is imperative that we recognize that Americans overwhelmingly approve of the quality and availability of our current health care system - but object to the cost.

Democrats want the public to believe that under their proposal health care will remain unchanged, except the Government will make it universally available and free – or almost free.

Such an outcome is, however an economic impossibility. A resource cannot be made universally available at no cost without altering the supply of the resource in some form or another. The expected result of making any resource that is in high demand available at little or no cost; is that the resource will quickly be depleted and it's distribution governed by some kind of arbitrary rationing, or the quality of the resource will degrade, or a combination thereof.

Therefore, a conservative alternative “health care reform” position must focus on the cost of health care. More specifically, a conservative alternative must focus on the current regulatory and legislative framework that has artificially played a large role in inflating the cost of health care and insurance.  It is imperative that we understand the fundamentals of the economics that drive health care.  At the very core is a demand that is growing faster than the supply.  Much of the increase in demand can be traced back to Government intervention via legislation and regulation.  For example, when the Federal Government instituted a "Prescription Drug" program for the elderly - the demand for prescription drugs was proportionately increased.  When the Sovereign Government becomes a major purchaser of health care, all other potential purchasers tend to be diminsished.  The Sovereign has the ability to print money, and to take money from others by force.  Therefore, with it's almost unlimited purchasing power, it can drive the cost of any good or service dramatically higher by "outbidding" all others for that service.  It is therefore not so much that the Medical infrastructure of the United States need reform - but the regulatory and legislative controls that govern the system that need reform.

When we speak of “health care reform” we need to emphasize that what needs to be reformed are these regulatory frameworks that govern health care. The currently proposed Democrat legislation moves in exactly the wrong direction. The current crisis in health care cost is largely driven by an ever increasing demand for service due to well intended, but poorly implemented public policy. Legislative and regulatory trends have been to place increasingly costly mandates on hospitals, doctors, and insurers, while making no provisions for funding such mandates. For example, insurance companies are mandated to include coverage of alcoholism in 45 states. That is, even if one is a devout Mormon that never expects to have a drink, a pro-rata share of the cost of alcoholism treatment will be included in ones insurance premium. Some other examples include invitro-fertilization (13 states) and contraceptives (31 states). The unintended consequences of well intended health care regulations have left us with a system that produces miraculous innovation at what are often unacceptably high cost.

The current system displays both the creative genius of capitalism and the stifling costs born of excessive governmental meddling. The Democrats seek to cure the excessive meddling with more meddling – but with the promise that this time it will be done correctly. They wish for the Federal Government to openly “compete” for private sector customers with the insurance industry.

If there is to be any respect for private enterprise, government entities cannot, should not, must not, compete with the private sector. Private and public endeavors should be complimentary – not adversarial. The concept that the sovereign taxing authority would "compete" with a private industry is at its core antithetical to the concept of private enterprise.  Imagine the absurdity.  Private insurers who must make a profit to survive and accumulate the capital needed to cover the risks that they insure; would be paying large taxes on these profits, so they might be used by the entity that is "competing" with them for business.  For generations this country as forbidden Public entry into private markets.  Should the direction of "health care reform" continue to move in the direction of "increasing" rather than "decreasing" wrong headed governmental intrusion into this market; the problems we now face will become exasperated rather than diminished. 

The proper direction of an alternative "health care reform" position is not to "soften" or "weaken" the currently proposed legislation.  The proper direction is to provide a clear concise alternative that begins to "walk back" the disastrous interventionist policies that have lead us to the current health care difficulties.  To do so, there are four major cost inflating factors that must be addressed.  It is in addressing these factors that we will begin to correct the deficiencies that burden the current system.  Since it seems no major movement or legislative initiative can survive without an acronym, we'll call this initiative T.H.E.M.

-Tort Reform

-HSA  (health savings accounts) should be tax exempt and eligible for direct medical cost, deductibles, and insurance premiums

-Emergency  Care - definitions and limitations

-Mandate Reform

While this writer is not a health care professional, rest assured that neither is Barack Obama or Nancy Pelosi.  The following observations are based on decades of experience as a consumer and critic of the current system, as well as countless hours of research and listening to doctors, nurses, patients, insurance providers, hospital administrators and employees when addressing the deficiencies of our current system.  The above four items repeated recur as  "villains" in discussions or research regarding health care costs.  Often other commonly mentioned "villains" are merely a subset of one of the THEM.

Summarizing them Briefly:

Tort Reform 
-Perhaps the easiest to understand.  Medical practitioners routinely practice "defensive" medicine by ordering tests and investigating things that they no are extremely unlikely to yield any results - but don't want to be accused of negligence for not doing so.  The financial impact of such practices is difficult to over-estimate.  Tort reform has been relatively successful in Texas.  The Texas tort reform was predominantly based on limiting jury awards for "pain and suffering."  While this is a step in the right direction, it may be even more beneficial to more clearly define and limit "negligence."  In medicine, as well as in much of our litigious society, drawing an incorrect inference based on sound medical reasoning is treated as being negligent.  The medical industry has been tasked with perfection as a norm, and anything less than perfection is regarded as fertile ground for potentially massive damages.  In any event, limitations on the excesses of the "jackpot justice" system that has grown out of the current medical/insurance industry is an absolute necessity if effective cost containment is to be achieved.

HSA's (Health Savings Accounts) 
-This idea has been around for a while.  It's a good idea, but rather ineffective unless the other three parts of the initiative are implemented.  That is because it's only effective if people are actually going to be paying directly for their own health care expenses, and no one is going to do that unless the cost expectations become reasonable.  For example, let's say that an average family can sock away $200.00 a month for an HSA.  That would be fine if they could find a decent major medical plan for the family for $150.00 a month, and they could use their HSA savings to pay either premiums, deductibles, co-payments or direct medical payments.  Under the current system, however, there is no such option; subsequently there is no widespread clamor for HSA's.  Obviously, if only a mandate laden insurance plan is available at $400 + a month, and a simple unexpected two - three day hospital stay costs about $30,000.00 - who the hell cares if they can save $2,400.00 tax free for a year?

Emergency Care - Define and Limit
-As identified in Drill Down blog (at drilldown.townhall.com) "Our current public system is based around the EMTALA act of 1986.  In short, "The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (42 U.S.C. § 1395dd, EMTALA) is a United States Act of Congress passed in 1986 as part of the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act. It requires hospitals and ambulance services to provide care to anyone needing emergency treatment regardless of citizenship, legal status or ability to pay. There are no reimbursement provisions."  Because "emergency care" was never defined in the bill, it has become almost universally interpreted to include anyone, with any ailment, who sits their butt down in an emergency room.  This has become the default health care resource for the indigent and lower middle class uninsured.  Typical "emergency" treatments range from massive trauma to sore throats.  All are treated, some are insured, some pay, many don't.  The costs are arbitrarily munged by the hospital to whatever paying entity they believe they can convince to absorb the costs.  Unless the Congress is going to repeal this act, it is imperative that it be treated similar to a "defined benefit plan" for people lucky enough to reside in the U.S.  That is, Congress must go through a list of defined procedures, either include or exclude them, and stipulate the amount of money the Federal Government will reimburse Hospitals for these procedures.  Additionally, it would be helpful if "emergency care" then became the distinct domain of the Federal Government - with no private coverage competing for payment of "emergency care."  The effect would be to dramatically reduce the premiums of individual hospitalization policies.  This would also largely deal with the "illegal alien" health care problem.  If minor infirmities are not treated in the emergency room as "emergencies" at no cost to the  infirmed, illegals will magically find their way to minor medical centers and magically dig up $50 or $75 for some antibiotics. (On a purely political note - this could be trumpeted by the left as "universal" and a political victory.)

-Mandate Reform
This issue was alluded to previously.  It might be considered the "deregulation" of health care insurance.  More appropriately, it should be considered the "return to market driven" health insurance.  Medical care mandates have become so onerous that there is almost no consumer choice involved in hospitalization insurance.  Both special interests and well meaning legislators have placed so many requirements on insurers that it is a virtual impossibility to create or market a competitive medical insurance product.  If, a healthy 20 or 30 something could purchase private medical coverage that excluded emergency care (that's covered above), excluded auto accidents (covered under auto) with a $5,000 deductible (covered in a couple of years of HSA contributions) it would probably cost them less than $50 a month, and it would probably be profitable for the insurer. 

Would a healthy 20 - 30 something actually do that ?  Sure, if they had the choice to opt out of their employee plan and take home an additional $300 a month.  The employer would probably also save $100 a month.

Of course the currently proposed legislation tilts in exactly the opposite direction.  The Democrat solution is to further mandate that insurers must cover those that are already sick.  Excuse me, that's not insurance.  Insurance is the act of assuming a small certain loss, while eliminating the risk of a large but unlikely loss.  The insurer assumes the risk of the unlikely loss by aggregating the value of a large number of people that agree to pay the small but certain loss.  The Democrat proposal isn't insurance, its either welfare or charity.  To mandate that insurance providers become welfare agencies or charity organizations will only guarantee one thing.  There will be fewer and fewer insurance companies. Eventually only one - the U.S.

Currently there is no "Yin / Yang" to this debate.  The legislative initiative has been ALL "Yin" by the Democrats.  The Republican response to the "Yin" so far has been "mini Yin"  That won't do it.  The Democrat assault on personal liberty, freedom, and private property needs to be countered with more than a "not so much" statement.  It is a "Yin" that must be countered with a "Yang".  This is the "Yang" position.  The solution is not a takeover of Health Care by the U.S. - the solution is T.H.E.M.

Ok, this is purely conjecture.  Or perhaps more honestly - it's wishful thinking.

Sarah Palin's resignation as Governor of Alaska stunned everyone.  Over Father's Day weekend, the Presidential hopes of Governor Sanford expired, now over 4th of July weekend many would say the political future of Sarah Palin has also expired.  This leaves Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee as the only semi-recognizable potential Presidential challengers left in the Republican world.  A primary fight between these two would be a Democrat dream come true, and virtually assure us of another four years of "hoping for change."

But . . .

Sara Palin could be of great value in supporting "real conservatives" in the 2010 Congressional races.  It's about money.  Ronald Reagan became a serious candidate because a small number of wealthy backers supported his political endeavors.  Under todays campaign finance laws, Reagan could not have financed his initial political activities.  No group of wealthy backers can support a candidate to any great extent and not break campaign finance laws.  Democrats have found a way to effectively circumvent these laws with powerful exempt groups like "Move On.org" and "Media Matters".  Republicans have been less successful in finding such legal loopholes.

Here's where the "Palin Factor" could succeed.  There are numerous house seats that will be contested in 2010.  The RNC has been woefully ineffective at fielding and supporting strong conservative candidates.  The existence of campaign finance laws may be tieing one hand of the RNC behind its back, but it is it's own incompetence that has disabled the other.  There are no existing campaign finance laws that limit contributions to a person that is not running for anything.  That makes private citizen, Sarah Palin potentially the most powerful enemy of the radical left, and the most sought after endorsement of the conservative right.

Sarah Palin is the biggest draw in the Republican Party.  Her appearance at a fund raiser or rally gives instant credibility to any candidate.  She would be able to give immediate name recognition and energy to any candidate who might challenge a vulnerable Democrat, or pose a primary challenge to a weak Republican.  There are eight particular Republican Congressmen that come to mind.  (Perhaps Mary "Donno Jack" is listening).  Of course the same would be true for Senate races. 

Crazy ?

Perhaps.  But consider the following recent Senate example . . .

In 2004, Pat Toomey challenged Arlin Spector in the Republican Party Primary race for Senate in Pennsylvania.  Spector, in accordance with tradition recieved the support of the President, the RNC, and even Rick Santorum.  Spector managed to defeat Toomey by 2% in the primary.  Of course Spector went on to win the general election and then cast the deciding vote for the Obama stimulus package that may effectively bankrupt the U.S. Government. 

Now, consider the above closely contested election, and introduce the "Palin Factor."  Imagine a couple of well timed joint appearances with Sarah Palin, crowds swelling to the 10's of thousands, and the huge energy that surrounds Palin's appearance.  The media couldn't help but report, even though they'd be trashing Palin - the free media time couldn't help but work in the challengers favor.  It's hard to imagine that in a case like the PA primary, that Palin wouldn't have been able to energize enough of the base, and convince enough of the doubtful, to swing the primary in Toomey's favor.

Had Toomey won the general - we'd have 2 trillion dollars less future debt.  If he would've lost, we'd be exactly where we are now.

If Palin proves to be successful in supporting challengers, she would become both politically powerful in her own right as an "outsider", and possibly return to political viability for a future Presidential bid.  As such Sarah Palin could become a true "King Maker", and a means by which real conservatives could regain control of the Republican Party.

Perhaps just wishful thinking . . .

But Perhaps not.

While most on this and other right leaning sites have expressed polite condolences at the passing of Michael Jackson, some have rudely mocked his fame and questioned the relevance of both his life and death.  It seems though that neither the polite nor the rude have expressed the true significance of Jacksons life and success.

Jackson is more than an entertainer.  His life iconifies an entire generation.  Jackson became a star at the age of 11 during what was then the most turbulent time of most of our lives.  It was 1969, the country was torn with anti-war strife, racial unrest, and simmering civil unrest.  Jackson was a black child - but his appeal was to ALL Americans.  His success at an early age faded as he entered adolescence.  America also faded.

America, stunned by a humiliating military defeat in Viet Nam, numbed by the rapid succession of murders of King, and Kennedy, weary of years of civil unrest, and finally repulsed by the criminal acts of a disgraced President; fell into a deep malaise. Most of the supposed "smart" people of that period believed that America needed to just "get used to" 20% interest rates, double digit inflation, and high unemployment.  We were told that American greatness was a thing of the past. 

In 1981, Ronald Reagan became President of the United States.

In 1982, the Dow Jones Industrial Average "surged" above the 2,000 threshold for the first time in history.  Americans began to believe in themselves again.  National confidence began to grow.  Young American adults frequented restaurants and night clubs more than any time in recent past - and they danced.  More than to anything else, they danced to Michael Jackson.  Having moved from Cleveland, Ohio to Houston Texas in 1981, this humble blogger was at times surprised by the cultural differences exemplified by cowboy hats, pointy boots, and belt buckles that could easily be used hub caps.  It was admittedly uncomfortable to watch grown men dressed up like Roy Rogers, drinking beer by the barrel and dancing around doing something called the "two step."

But . . .

In 1982, in every bar or night club in Texas, (and everywhere else in the country) at some point in the evening there would be the a grinding 3 beat percussion, followed by a familiar base line, and finally ...

"She was more like a beauty queen - from a movie scene" ...

Before the first line of "Billy Jean" was complete, the dance floor would be jammed with people.  All kinds of people.  White people, brown people, black people, and every other variety.   They danced.   They danced like Michael.  (well, they tried to)  They felt good about dancing to Michael Jackson - they didn't care a bit about race.  And neither did Michael Jackson.  Americans sensed a returning strength to the land called America.  As that sense became reality, as often as not, the music in the background was performed my Michael Jackson. 

Later that year the IBM PC became a commercial success, two years later another Michael (Dell) started a company to "clone" IBM PC 's and the "information age" burst into full swing. 

Micheal Jackson did one thing better than anyone else before, or since.  He succeeded.  He was the biggest individual commercial success in the world.  He did it all with out ever leaning on a race baitor or looking for some government hand out.  He transcended race without trying.  He was what Barack Obama can never be.  A pure accomplished achiever whose success paralleled the rebirth of a great nation.  He achieved a level of success that had been heretofore unknown, and may never be reached again.  His gross revenues dwarfed the GNP of small nations.  His face, his name, his music, were all immediately recognized throughout the world.

Yes, Michael Jackson was wierd.  No attempt is being made to make excuses for, or minimize his oddities.  He was, in fact, bizzarre.  But, Michael Jackson was purely an individual.  He not only transcended race, he transcended every other demographic type cast -  he wasn't Black/White, Gay/Straight, even Male/Female - he was just Michael Jackson.  It is this extrardinary individuality that made Michael Jackson uniquely American.  He emboddied the spirit of the individual. 

It is the individual that is currently under attack in America.  Individuals in America are being asked, and even demanded, to surrender their individual liberties for the sake of the collective.  We are being told that "the climate", "health care", and "the economy" are all in peril - and that to save them we'll all have to act as a "collective" for the benefit of the common good.  Michael Jackson didn't believe in surrendering his individuality for the sake of the collective.  He developed his individual talents into unparalleled success.  He proved that the strongest "collective" is one that is made up of the strongest "individuals" - not vice versa.

Like Michael Jackson or hate Michael Jackson, the enormity of his success is undeniable.  So to, is the fact that it his success flourished under Ronald Reagan, languished under Clinton/Bush, and died under Barack Obama.

We can only hope that the parallel does not continue.
 

Why not - Everyone else has a fix.  Only difference is, this one works - but it won't make everyone happy.

A major problem with Health Care, as it now functions is that we already have a Public Health Care system, we just refuse to define it and deal with it as such.  Consequently the costs of Publicly funded health costs are spread among insurers, taxpayers, and direct payers in a rather arbitrary manner.  This process only succeeds in making everyone feel cheated - and probably everyone is cheated.  That is except the recipient of Public Health Care.

Our current public system is based around the EMTALA act of 1986.  In short, "The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (42 U.S.C. § 1395dd, EMTALA) is a United States Act of Congress passed in 1986 as part of the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act. It requires hospitals and ambulance services to provide care to anyone needing emergency treatment regardless of citizenship, legal status or ability to pay. There are no reimbursement provisions." (Source Wikipedia)

Among the basic problems with the act, is that it didn't clearly define "emergency" and it made no provision for how such treatment would be paid.  Consequently, most hospitals have defined "emergency" as anyone who visits the emergency room.  Over the past 23 years this has evolved to mean everything from auto wreck trauma, to children with sniffles. Because no specific formula for payment has ever been established, most hospitals have kludged together some arbitrary method which combines; the submitting request for indigent care treatment to city, county, and state governments, inflating the charges to paying users, and attempting to limit payments to caretakers as well as absorbing some level of indigent care cost.  Because of this haphazard cost distribution, it is not unreasonable to say that no one really knows what this policy really costs.

Another aspect of this quasi-public funding program is that it has place an upward pressure on overall prices due to the economic realities of absorbing scarce medical resources and the presence of public funding.  The existence of this system cannot be underestimated in it's role in the dramatic upward spiral of health care costs. Combined with a runaway "jackpot justice" system which also burdens health care providers with extraordinary liability to accompany the obligation to provide "emergency treatment" the recipe for a "health care crisis" is almost complete. 

The solution to this self imposed crisis is simple. Define EMERGENCY, and limit care accordingly.

Of course, this would require legislators to make hard decisions - and actually DENY something from the public coffers rather than give it away.  This is not as difficult as it sounds.  For years insurance carriers have established "defined benefits" where they have clearly enumerated virtually every known medical procedure.  Each governing jurisdiction needs to get a copy of such a "defined benefit" list, and start identifying what procedures will qualify for "emergency" treatment. 

Some decisions about "emergency" are clear.  Setting broken bones from an auto accident - for example.  That's clearly an emergency.  What about follow up care ?  Not so clear.  Either way, it simply has to be decided, defined, and then funded.  This is not rocket science.  Every public hospital can make a reasonable estimation of how many of each emergency procedures will perform per year.  Accordingly, it can estimate the cost of such procedure - and apply for city, county, state, or federal funding for such costs.  If these "public benefits" were clearly defined, private insurance could be tailored to provide the necessary care over and above the known and limited "public" care.  This way, everyone only pays once.

That is, the "public" would pay for only very limited and defined emergency care.  Every citizen would then be knowingly funding such defined care through an identifiable public budget line item.  Defined care could be expanded or contracted based on public input and available funds.  Accordingly, insurance providers (in a competitive environment) would lower their premiums to account for public care that they would not have to cover.

This would require State and Federal Insurance "mandates" to be eliminated.  Mandates are laws which require individuals to buy, and insurers to provide coverage for ailments that the neither party may want to cover - but the Government "mandates" they be included.  If there is any possibility of reversing the upward trend in medical premium coverage - it is vital that "mandates" be reduced if not completely eliminated.

This would allow for a much greater consumer choice in insurance products.  Healthy young people could buy a policy that only covers major medical, and chose to simply pay for any "cold / flu " treatment out of pocket.  Such policies would probably be both inexpensive for the consumer and profitable for the provider. 

Couple these changes with the support of Health Savings Accounts where individuals could save for and pay insurance premiums with tax exempt income - and suddenly "Health Care" is not such a hopeless proposition.

This isn't really such a radical proposal.  Consider the property insurance analogy.  Virtually every property owner carries some level of fire/casualty policy on their property.  Yet, almost none of them include covering the cost of local  fire protection.  The cost of maintaining fire trucks, fire stations, and paying fire fighters and EMS are almost always public expenditures.  Not so amazingly, if one resides in an area with highly regarded fire and ems services, they fire hazard policy rates are generally lower than if one resides in an area served by a poorly funded volunteer fire service.  The public portion of fire protection is clear and defined.  They put out the fire, the home owner has to deal with repair of the damage. A similar relationship exists for police protection.  The public police force will investigate crimes against private property, but the owner pays for security systems, theft insurance, and of course a couple of decent hand guns to protect private property.

The template where there is a defined public "nugget" of service, and an unlimited availability of private supplemental service is proven.  It works well in police, fire, ems, and even transportation (think public roads - private vehicles).  There is no reason that it can't work in health care.

Such a health care structure would return some level of consumer choice to medical costs, continue to allocate scarce resources according to monetary value, and begin to return some sanity in our health care system.  Most importantly, it would tend to strengthen the private sector system - and help stem the current tide toward Government control that is slouching ever closer and closer to a totalitarian tyranny.

As the debacle of Cap and Trade legislation looms ever closer, the public is often treated to the corresponding promise of a "New Green Economy" or "New Green Jobs" as a result of our "Transformation from Carbon to Renewable Energy."  President Obama recently made this argument in a speech from a solar panel manufacturing plant.  The New Green Economy is characterized as creating a large number of high paying jobs that are similar in size and scale to current manufacturing jobs.  This characterization that suddenly the U.S. will suddenly employ millions of people building wind mills and solar panels lacks any reasoned analysis. 

Consider . . .

Current "Carbon based" fuels already employ a small but significant sector of the economy.  To the extent that our energy sources are "transformed" we will obviously destroy many of the jobs that currently exist in that industry.  Consequently, at the very start of the "transformation" the new "green economy" will first have to create enough jobs to make up for those that it destroyed. 

One might argue that alternatives will never completely replace carbon fuels - so many of those jobs will still exist.  This is probably true, there in lies the other side of this energy conundrum.  Since carbon based fuels will continue to exist, new "green energy" must be at least somewhat competitive in price with carbon fuels.  Yet, to the extent the carbon fuel economy shrinks, there will be at least some marginal decline in jobs in the carbon fuel sector. 

It must be pointed out that our current energy industry produces energy rather efficiently, therefore by definition, doesn't employee a large percentage of the population.  For example, Exxon, the worlds largest publicly traded oil company, employs about 107,000 people worldwide.  By contrast, General Motors, the troubled flailing auto maker employs over 252,000.

When comparing the revenue per employee the contrast becomes more stark.  The 2008 numbers are:

All the great ones can do it.  Jordan, Kobe, Lebron, and now Obama.  It's a quick move to the right, when the opponent "bites" on the move, accelerate to the left and leave your defender looking helpless as he's "posterized" by a thunderous slam dunk.

In Obama's case, talk up the Afghanistan conflict, cite it as the "real war" on terror.  Escalate troop levels, request international help, increase unmanned drone attacks, and continue the strong rhetoric of Afghanistan being the central front on terror - while Iraq was a distraction.  Many who are skeptical of Obama's proposed policies and actions have already taken the bait and applauded this "aggressive, muscular, foreign policy" with respect to Afghanistan.  The response has be become almost automatic, "Yes, but I support his increasing troop levels in Afghanistan."

But ... Is this really good policy ?

Why did the Bush administration avoid a larger Afghan conflict ?

Why are there even fewer nations willing to join the Afghan "coalition of the willing" ?

Could it be because it is wrong headed and destined to fail ?

Further, could another grand U.S. Military failure, after having collected the support of all the potential "Iraq" heroes, be exactly the domestic political goal of this administration ?

Admittedly, the final premise in the above argument borders on being hyper - cynical.  Keep in mind, however, that this is the same administration that fired the CEO of GM, publicly stated it's intent to back GM warranties with the full faith and credit of the US Government, place new directors on it's board, and then proclaim, "we have no interest in running General Motors."  To that end, please forgive the cynical point of view when evaluating this administrations stated goals in Afghanistan.

Consider, the previous administration routed the Taliban, secured the Capital, and supported a democratically elected government based in Kabul.  They elected to not attempt to fight the tribal guerilla  forces that were able to coalesce in the mountainous hinterlands along the Afghan / Pakistan border.  The rationale - the unlikely probability of success.  This region has been in an almost continual state of conflict for about 160 years.  It was first a territorial dispute in which England and Russia battled for the bragging rights to to this land of questionable worth.  Later it was the USSR that eventually left in an embarrasing defeat at the hands of the Mujahadeen, (yes the Mujahadeen was supported by the US and OBL)

Now it is Barack Obama, wearing his military hawk hat; charging headlong into the hinterlands of the Afghan / Pakistan border; claiming the offensive in the real war on America's enemies and the hunt for Osama bin Ladin.  A realistic evaluation of this strategy struggles to find a way that it can succeed.  It is hard to visualize a scenario in which conventional forces can defeat an non-uniformed nomadic guerilla force that is irregularly dispersed throughout some of the most treacherous terrain on earth.  Is it not more likely that this advance into Afghanistan be an advance into the very "quagmire" that the left has been lamenting since the invasion of Afghanistan in 2001 and then Iraq in 2003?

It is far easier to imagine the Afghan war in terms of domestic politics.  The military increase helps keep the right wing in check, and offers some level of cover for the media idiots who continue to call this President a "moderate."  It allows for a slow but steady rumbling by the anti-war left; which also adds to the "moderate" credentials of this Statist President.  Then after two plus years of increasingly damaging losses of troops in Afghanistan, all with little or no impact on the marauding tribal fighters - Obama announces the withdrawl of US forces from Afghanistan.  The military humiliation becomes Obama's "proof" that even with his "uniquely qualified superior judgment" - military action is simply ineffective in today's world.  His newly found "superior judgment" will be heralded by the world as virtual omniscience, the anti-war left will re-embrace it's returning prodigal leader, re-united families will praise the great wisdom of Obama on nightly news clips of returning troops, and money will flow like never before into the coffers of the OBAMA 2012 campaign fund.

Surely, this cannot be the possible.  No President could want a US military defeat for political expediency.  No human could be that brazenly duplicitous.  Really .... remember:

"we have no interest in running General Motors."

Meanwhile, the military will be humiliated, demoralized, depleted in funding and supplies, and soon to be relegated to a second class status among the worlds military elite.  The US will no longer be a superpower.  For Barack Obama:



 

In true "Poltergeist" fashion . . .  Theyyyy'rrreee   Baaccckkk,

The proponents of "Comprehensive Immigration Reform," that is.

During the fall of 2007 the pro-immigration forces of the left, joined with the sympathetic forces of the right (Bush, McCain, Graham, etc.), and came within an eyelash of passing a thinly veiled "amnesty" bill.  Only a ferocious public response lead by the voices of talk radio, stirred enough opposition to defeat the proposed legislation.  That was when Republicans held the White House, and a near tie in the Senate.  The numbers are different now.

Obama supports sweeping immigration reform, as do Pelosi and Reid.  Republicans have no numbers in the House, and they spot the Democrats at least two, and probably four votes in the Senate.

In other words - this time, "Immigration Reform" will happen.

The only bargaining chip left for those that oppose blanket amnesty, is to attempt to gain some measure of restriction on immigration in return for making the legislation appear "bi-partisan."   This isn't much, but it may be enough to get at least some concessions from the Democrats to hopefully retain some restrictions on immigration and amnesty.  The question, this time is not win or lose, it is - What can we do to limit the damage ?

This blog comes from a different point of view than many conservatives on this subject.  Having lived and worked near the Texas / Mexican border for more than two decades, this writer has had mostly positive experiences with Mexican immigrants - both legal and illegal.  San Antonio, for example,  has had a majority Hispanic population for decades, yet remains one of the countries most popular tourist destinations.  Similarly the city of Laredo is populated with over 90% Hispanics, yet is as hospitable and friendly to Caucasians as any city in the world.  Despite the recent problems of violence in neighboring Nuevo Laredo, one would be hard pressed to find a city that boasts a more industrious and productive population than found in Laredo.  The point here, is that this writer does not believe that increased Mexican immigration is - in itself - automatically a bad thing for America.

That is not to say there are not problems.  There are. 

The problem is "Assimilation".

We simply don't do a good job of requiring recent immigrants to assimilate to our culture and values.

Ironically, we have the same failure with our own youth.

Our schools don't only do a poor job of teaching American traditions, values, and goodness to immigrants.  They don't do a good job of teaching such things to our own youth. 

Could we possibly address both issues at the same time ?

Most conservatives don't like the idea of a Federal Department of Education.  But we have one, and it seems unlikely to go away any time soon.  If we are going to lose the immigration debate, perhaps we can leverage what little bargaining power we have to gain some ground in the "assimilation debate."  In return for supporting immigration reform, we should require that every 6th grade student pass a full year long course that studies the "Federalist Papers", and that every graduating High School student pass a full year long course on "The Constitution of the United States."  The requirement should further condition the design of the course work to follow a fairly concise curriculum that would preclude anti-American interpretations of these historic documents. 

If every graduating High School Senior was taught specifically of the struggles and arguments that make up the founding documents of our country, and the unique value of the individual liberties designed to be protected by, not in fringed on, by our Government - it would matter very little if the graduate were Hispanic, Caucasian, Asian, or Black.  Perhaps it's a pipe dream to think that Department of Education could be legislated into requiring students to learn an accurate and vital aspect of American History.   Most High School graduates currently don not even know that the "Federalist Papers" exist.  Many are taught the 3/5ths clause of Constitution as an example of inherent racism, rather than the truth of its origin and purpose. It seems imperative, if the conservative movement has a chance to survive, it will need to get a some control over the liberal indoctrination process we now call "Public Education."  This seems as good an opportunity as any to do so.

It would appear to be politically difficult for Democrats to oppose a "Comprehensive Education" requirement as a concession for "Comprehensive Immigration."  It is, after all - "for the children."  Additionally, if the public debate could be steered toward the subjects of "Federalist Papers" and "The Constitution" perhaps it might inspire some adults and educators to take a moment to read these documents, and realize the extent to which our precious liberties and individual freedoms are at risk.