The Department of Labor released the February unemployment numbers on Friday 3/5 reporting the loss of 36,000 jobs.
Buried in Table B-1 is the fact that the number of persons employed by the Federal Government (excluding the Post Office, which appears to be in a performance free-fall) increased in the last 28 days from 2,174,800 in Jan '10 to 2,190,900 in Feb '10 - an increase of 16,100 more Federal employees while the number of people of people PAYING their salaries decreased by 18,000.
Local governments cut back by 24,100 jobs in Feb; but state governments added 6,000 more government jobs.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid stuck his foot in his mouth (practice makes permanent) regarding the terrible jobs report:
Today is a big day in America. Only, only 36,000 people lost their jobs today, which is really good.
Reid tried to pull his foot out of his mouth on Twitter:
Going from 750K job losses to 36K is a step in the right direction but I don't pretend for a minute that it's enough. Much work still to do.
* The number of Americans in the Civilian Work Force (CWF) grew by 342,000 in January to 153,512,000. The number of employed Americans grew by only 308,000...a difference of (34,000).
* The number of people employed from the CWF in January 2009 (when BHO was inaugurated) was 142,271,000. In Feb 2009, that number is 138,621,000 - a decrease of 3,650,000.
* 2.5 million people were not considered "unemployed" by the DoL data because "they had not searched for work in the 4 weeks preceding the survey"
* The number of people identified as being in the Civilian Work Force is 889,000 lower than it was 12 months ago. For the past 8 months, the number of persons recognized by the DoL in the Civilian Work Force was lower than it was 12 months earlier.
* Before BHO was inaugurated, the percentage of months that saw a reported Civilian Work Force lower than what it was 12 months earlier was 3.3% since 1948 (24 times in 721 periods). Under BHO? 61%. Is the country not growing in population under Obama? Or, is Obama's DoL continuing to cook the books?
* To break this string of 12-month reductions in the Civilian Work Force, we would need to see a reported CWF of 154,164,000 in March - a surge of 652,000 persons. Assuming this implausible scenario, and assuming no jobs added or lost (being kind), we will see an unemployment rate of 10.1%. To keep the number under 10%, DoL will need to reduce the denominator by reporting a number that reflects in this growing country, the number of people in the Civilian Work Force is, again, smaller than what it was 12 months ago.
* The number of long-term unemployed (those jobless for 27 weeks and over) remained around 6.1 million... 4/10 unemployed persons have been unemployed over 27 weeks.
* The number of involuntary part time workers increased from 8.3 million to 8.8 million in February.
* Construction employment fell 64,000 in February; Information industry down 18,000; manufacturing unchanged; retail trade employment unchanged.
Is it all bad news? Possibly not. This morning's report suggests employers may have done their most aggressive payroll cutting at the end of last year. After losing 681,000 jobs in December, the losses were smaller in January and again in February. The differences were marginal, but they could signify that the worst is behind us.
Former NH Governor John Sununu (1983 - 1989) gave an impassioned speech to a breakfast gathering hosted by the Manchester Republican Committee and the New Hampshire Young Republicans.
Congressman Paul Ryan (R-WI), coming off a stellar performance on Thursday 2/25 at the Blair House Health Care Summit, spoke to a group of approximately 125 Republicans today at St Anselms College, in Manchester, NH. Making his first visit to the Granite State since skiing Tuckerman Ravine when he was 18, Congressman Ryan described the critical "tipping point" we face in our nation and urged Granite Staters to action.
A special thanks to Kerry Marsh, Chairman of New Hampshire Young Republicans and Saint Anselms College for hosting this terrific gathering and speech.
Below, in three parts, are the remarks of Paul Ryan.
The chart at the left, courtesy of Data 360 reveals an amazing phenomenon that occurred in the first year of Obama's presidency. For the first time since 1948 (the start date for this analysis) the number of people in the Civilian Labor Force, as reported by the US Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, saw 7 of the 12 months report a decrease in the number of people in the Civilian Labor Force relative to the figure 12 months earlier. Through all of the boom and bust times since 1948, one thing that remained inexorably constant was that the number of people in the US Civilian Labor Force always moved up, year after year. Through wars, recessions, the dot-com bubble and burst...through 9/11. Always, more people were added to the Civilian work force. Our population grew, as did our projected life spans so it is reasonable that we would see an ever-upward march of this data.
Until 2009...
In the 20 years leading up to the Obama inauguration (Dec '88 - Dec '08) the number of people recorded by the US Department of Labor in the Civilian Labor Force grew from 122,612K to 154,587K - an average annual growth of 0.26%. During the 8 years of the Bush presidency, the overall annual growth rate in the Civilian Labor Force was 7.19% with specific yearly growths of: 0.06%, 1.43%, 0.60%, 0.78%, 1.46%, 1.93%, 0.68%, 0.06%.
But in 2009, the number of people in the US Civilian Labor Force dropped from 154,587K to 153,059K. Just as a reminder, these numbers define the size of the total civilian work force - not who is actually employed (that comes later). 1,528,000 people vanished from the Civilian Labor Force in 2009, according to the DoL numbers.
Going back to 1948, there have only been 31 time within the 734 rolling-12-month periods in which the number of people documented by the DoL in the Civilian Labor Force was lower than it was 12 months earlier (once in 1949; eight times in 1951; five times in 1952; once in 1954; once in 1955; once in 1957; and seven times in '61-'62 before the Kennedy tax cuts kicked in).
There has not been a month since July 1962 in which the number of persons employed in the Civilian Work Force was lower than it was 12-months earlier. That is, until Obama's DoL started reporting the numbers.
The numbers reported by Mr. Obama's DoL have had seven such "anomalies" out of 12. Since June 2009, when the number of persons listed in the Civilian Work Force peaked at 154,351K (and at which time it became clear that the "stimulus" would serve only to retard private sector job growth), the DoL numbers for the Civilian Work Force have trended down every month since. The January jobs report was the first time since June '09 where the DoL reported a growth in the Civilian Work Force relative to the month before (In this case, 153,170K in Jan '10 - the same number it was in July '07.)
Whereas the nation as a whole could be counted on to report a growth in the Civilian Work Force over the preceding 12 months 95.8% of the time since 1948, in Mr. Obama's DoL, we see a reported growth in the Civilian Work Force only 41.7% of the time.
So, enough of this inside baseball stuff. What does this mean?
If, instead of accepting the numbers presented by DoL for 2009, we extrapolated the Dec '08 figure by the actual growth rate from '88 - '08, we would have seen a reported Civilian Work Force in Dec '09 of 154, 988K instead of the reported 153, 059K. With only 137, 753K people actually working, we would have seen the reported unemployment rate jump to 11.12% (as opposed to the 10.0% reported by the DoL). An 11.12% unemployment rate would have been politically poisonous for the Keynsian economic team surrounding Obama.
So instead, it appears that they have "changed the denominator" instead. Go against the inexorable march of data and see if anyone is really paying attention. This just smells of cooking the books.
What we do know, is in Jan '09, when BHO began cramming down our throats, what would become the $787B 'stimulus" spending on pet liberal projects and, worse, on bribes to states into making Faustian bargains, there were 142,271K Americans employed. One year later, and $3T deeper in debt, we have only 138,313K Americans working - a loss of 3.958 million jobs. When you consider the number of government jobs created in that time frame (145,800 new Federal government jobs in 2009 - not including the Post Office), the impact to the private sector is even worse.
Radical Keynsian policy is the reason for this collapse in the private jobs market. More government spending, like pouring gasoline on a fire, will only make matters worse - as history records in the 1934 - 1937 period shows.
Cooking the books at DoL will only hide the lie so long.
2. Department of Labor Burea of Labor Statistics Economic Releases Table A-1. Employment Status of the Civilian Population by sex and age http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t01.htm
3. Department of Labor Burea of Labor Statistics Economic Releases Table B.1 Employees on nonfarm payrolls by industry sector and selected industry detail http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t17.htm
4. Families would take hit under HHS plan http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/news/statenewengland/597344-227/families-would-take-hit-under-hhs-plan.html
The stimulus law gave Toumpas’ agency (NH HHS) more than a $200 million windfall this year, but it came with strings attached. The law doesn’t permit states to cut benefits for those who had been receiving them or to change standards of eligibility. The only viable option in most cases is for Toumpas to try to get most of the savings by cutting payments to providers.
The main stream media and the left wing bloggosphere didn't waste much time attempting to marginalize Sarah Palin's speech last night to a large gathering of Tea Party activists from around the world. (To see and hear the full speech carried on CSPAN, click here)
First of all, she leads with a marginalization of the Tea Party movement by putting the name in lower case letters inside quotes, as if to imply it doesn't exist? By this standard should we see other stories similarly noted by AP that include 'job creation' or 'stimulus' or 'transparency' or, well... you get the idea...
Sidotu leads with:
Sarah Palin, in a speech that was short on ideas but big on enthusiam...
Let's see, I heard her speak about across the board tax cuts to create an environment in which sustainable private-sector jobs could be created...she talked about a vision of what a successfully prosecuted war on terror would look like ("we win, they lose")... she drew the clear distinction between the morality of the left (government serves to re-distribute wealth according to some model which promotes the 'greater good' (see, I'm catching on with these quoty thingies)) and that of the right (government serves to protect the rights of all Americans). Nope...no ideas there.
But then again, I'm sure were she around in 1776, Miss Sidoti would have said that The Declaration of Independence was 'short on ideas'.
I simply can't believe that Sidotu finished her hatchet job with the following quote:
Her fee was $100,000 for the appearance at the for-profit event.
What she failed to mention and what millions of Americans heard as she finished her Q&A session on CSPAN last night, was that she was returning the speaking fee to the Tea Party movement. #P2 is on fire with Liberals in their echo chamber failing to acknowledge her commitment to return the speaking fee.
Can you believe that a grass-roots conservative movement would actually run a campaign "for profit". OMG. In the land of #p2 they are howling at the thought of an enterprise making a profit. Afterall, in #P2ville money flows from the government whenever it's "needed". Profits are bad and people who make profits are evil... except for those industrious people out there (who shall remain nameless in #P2ville) who, by their consent, allow themeselves to be fleeced to prop-up a corrupt government (that would be us, the minority who pay Federal Income Tax).
Lastly, check out the photo that AP chose to run with its hatchet job story. Could the liberals find a more perfect photo that aligns with their narrative of Palin as an angry hater? Personally, I would rather have seen a picture with those amazing shoes she had on! Haa haa
And before we leave the AP story, for those of you who are morally confused about the virtue of profits, I highly encourage diners at Hugh Akston's Diner re-read the fabulous "Money" speech given by Rand's character from Atlas Shrugged, Francisco d'Antonia.
As reported on NewsBusters and then picked-up by Breitbart, Democratic operative Bob Shrum had the following to say about Governor Palin's speech:
The difference with Ronald Reagan was that he always had an alternative vision of where America should go. And what we heard tonight was more a masterful exercise – masterful – in paranoid politics. I mean, she came across to me as a merchant of hate with an oh gosh smile...
The Liberal Blog 'Think Progress' (do the progressives also have blogs called 'Think Stimulus' and 'Think Jobs' or 'Think Reality'?) posted a blog suggesting that Sarah Palin had answers to questions written on the palm of her hand! #P2 is ablaze with Tweeters claiming she had crib notes in her palm during the Q&A. YGTBSM... that's the sum total of the Left's counter argument? Really?
President Obama and Democrats provided much fodder for Palin's $100,000, 40-minute speech... She concluded with a 15-minute Q&A session of pre-selected questions.
This was the Palin we saw at the 2008 Republican convention, the snarling pitbull in shimmery lipstick. I know journalists aren't supposed to use words like mean and dumb, but I can't help it. Palin is one of the meanest people on the public stage today. She wallows in it. She loves it! Also? Possibly one of the dumbest. But mean works, and so does dumb. And so do lies, and there were many mean, dumb lies in her speech.
The Left is applying some tastelessly pejorative labels to Governor Palin in its Twitter rantings last night and this morning ('Bimbostein', 'Carabou Barbie'). These are the same people who claim to want a fact-based, reasoned dialogue about issues but are thwarted in this noble effort by the knuckle-dragging name-calling morons on the right who are either too stupid or too nasty to engage in meaningful discourse.
Out in #P2ville we find the following contributions toward a reasoned discourse:
So the pathological liar was back feeding raw meat to a crowd of 500 dumb schmucks who were so easily separated from their money tonight. What else is new?
I doubt she wrote any crib notes. How many brain cells does it take to memorize: “Blah blah blah”?
If she spoke more intelligently she would lose all her nascar fans.
Palin is a moron. Anyone with a lick of sense knows this. Obama WROTE his famous acceptance speech. Using a teleprompter is the way politicians have given speeches for a very long time. Only morons like YOU brainwashed by what Rush has TOLD you to think are trying to make hay out of the fact Obama like most everyone else uses a teleprompter. You are stupid and pathetic. Try to stop embarassing yourself so piteously
Sarah Palin this Sunday! What do you want to ask her? // The square root of 4? Her answer: All of 'em!
How is #Palin allowed to criticize Obama on anything, let alone national security issues? Why does @nprnews think this is news? ARGH! (Akston's note: It's called 'Free Speech', a natural right further guarded in our pesky Constitution's Bill of Rights)
Sarah Palin showed up at the national Tea Party convention in Nashville. Sarah thought she was invited for a Tupperware party.
Is no one else vaguely uneasy about her call for a revolution? Sure, it's the same old #Palin BS, but that should still be out of bounds. (Akston's note: Getting a little nervous out there on the lonely Left?)
You guys, conservatives, in the US must be nuts to support Sarah Palin. That woman is to politics what impotence is to marriage.
"What's the difference between Sarah Palin and Al Sharpton? Lipstick."
I hope Sarah Palin does run for President so that she can get her ass handed to her. C-Span's attention to Sarah Palin is a celebration of ignorance.
Watching airport CNN in Miami. Sarah Palin is George W Bush with hot flashes. What are you thinking America???
So, the fact-based reasoned dialogue has begun. Well done, Governor Palin. Fight's On!
It's an odd time for liberals to feel smug. But even with Democratic fortunes on the wane, leading liberals insist that they have almost nothing to learn from conservatives. Many Democrats describe their troubles simply as a PR challenge, a combination of conservative misinformation -- as when Obama charges that critics of health-care reform are peddling fake fears of a "Bolshevik plot" -- and the country's failure to grasp great liberal accomplishments. "We were so busy just getting stuff done . . . that I think we lost some of that sense of speaking directly to the American people about what their core values are," the president told ABC's George Stephanopoulos in a recent interview. The benighted public is either uncomprehending or deliberately misinformed (by conservatives).
Add @suziplasse to the folks you follow on Twitter... a relentless female John Galt who, ironically, DOES live under the sign of the $. (Vegas)
I sent the following letter on 2/5 to Jennifer Horn, one of the Republican challengers for the New Hampshire 2nd Congressional District seat:
I enjoyed participating in the rally on Tuesday with Stephen Moore at the Marriott Courtyard in Nashua. The speeches were great and there was a terrific buzz in the crowd.
Terrific "stump speech" by you as well! I took a couple extra copies of the Constitution and gave them to a few friends. (I sent your campaign a donation this morning of $25 to help defray those costs.)
As a concerned citizen, whose interest in your campaign extends only to my unshakeable commitment to see a true conservative assume the seat of the NH 2nd Congressional District in November, I highly, highly recommend that you get connected to the exploding Twitter community.
I know what you're thinking, because before this past weekend I harbored the same skepticism you might have (your last tweet on NHJennifer was on 11/3/09). Is Twitter just a way for people to say they're taking the dog out, or "OMG didja see Lost?" Quite the contrary. When the history of the 2010 conservative landslide is written, the impact of Twitter will be showcased as the lubricant of the machine that proved to be unstoppable. The first chapter in that history was written on 1/19 in Massachusetts.
This past weekend I attended, with about 500 other concerned conservative grass-roots organizers in NH, a forum at SNHU sponsored by Fred Tausch's Steward for Prosperity focused on the use of social media in organizing grass roots movements.
So, I took the plunge, opened a Twitter account and started "tweeting". As I saw how the information flowed my jawed dropped in awe at the power that Twitter enables.
Everyday, the movers and shakers of government, conservatism, liberalism and everything in between are using Twitter to shape the messaging of the events of day - effectively emasculating the distorting and destructive power the main stream media has enjoyed and, by which, the liberal monster that we face today sits, nervously, upon Capital Hill.
I highly recommend that you get out there on Twitter. The reach that you will have in a very, very short period of time will be far greater and cheaper than traditional Twitter-less campaigning. Also, your ability to attract the attention of national-level support, as Scott Brown enjoyed (primarily through Twitter) will be exponentially enhanced. Every day - every hour - you will be able to imprint your position on the incredible events of the day and the folks following you will grow every day. We will know Jennifer intimately because she will have been with us on Twitter every step of the way.
I would love the opportunity to speak with you or your staff about this.
Best Regards,
Craig Powers
Early Morning Thread: How to Destabilize and Destroy a Country, Michael Walsh, Big Journalism.com. A chilling interview from 1985 with a former KGB agent who details with clinical precision. the four step process for destabilizing and destroying a country: 1. Demoralize (15 - 20 years); 2. Destabilize (2-5 years: Focus on economic destabilization, foreign affairs and defense); 3. Crisis (6 weeks); 4. "Normalization". 25 years ago, this guy was foreshadowing what we now suffer in 2010.
Don't Blame It on Our Coca-Cola BottlesAcademy Award winning screenwriter, Paddy Chayefsky on European contempt for Americans from the WWII era movie The Americanization of Emily Courtesy of @suziplasse
Citizens Against Government Waste has announced the winner of its dubious "Porker of the Month" Award for January 2010 - none other than the Cornhusker kickbacker himself, Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska. (Your constituents must be soooo proud of you.)
Call Senator Nelson (D-Neb) at (202) 224-6551 and let him know what you think!
In a Guest Commentary in Sunday's Telegraph, Dr. James W. Squires lamented the failure of the 2009 Health Care “reform” effort due to a failure to engage in a meaningful dialogue free from language that he complained stifled discussion and debate. He complained that a focus on the principles underlying the policy served only to end the policy discussion.
I would argue that the reason that the current Health Care bills passed by the House and Senate will never be reconciled is because we did not reach agreement on the principles upon which that policy would be built.
Imagine the discussion between two honest, principled people about what the Giants needed to do to reach the playoffs next year. Without taking the time to agree upon the framework of that discussion what follows would be an incoherent, frustrated cross-talk which fails to find agreement. One argues that the Giants need to work on their pitching and infield play and the other argues that they need to improve their secondary and pass rush. Without an understanding of whether they were talking about the baseball Giants from San Francisco or the football Giants from New York, any attempts at collaboration and agreement of ideas would be frustratingly fruitless.
So it has been with the 2009 Health Care discussion. We couldn’t have a meaningful, fruitful discussion about heath care reform without first agreeing on the core principles and morality upon which any policy would be built.
Every honest poll – and the recent Senatorial election in Massachusetts - shows that most Americans disapprove of the policy contained in the House and Senate health care bills. For the sake of argument, even if we stipulate that the Democrat leadership is motivated only by the noble objectives that they share with the public, let’s agree that resistance to the current bills is not because of any disagreement with their noble goals. Let’s simply stipulate that we disagree with the means by which the bills would attempt (and ultimately fail) to achieve those noble goals because of the violation of the core principles held by most Americans.
One step that “reform” advocates could take to reduce the cross-talk would be to refrain from conflating the premise that most Americans are opposed to the current policy being negotiated with the conclusion that most Americans are against true health care reform.
The reason most Americans reject the current bills in the House and Senate is an unacceptable infringement upon our personal freedom. “Freedom” is not an “incantation” designed to stifle discussion as Dr. Squires mentions in his commentary. Quite the contrary. Reasoned Americans seek to understand how any policy will impact their freedom. The problem the Democrat leadership has created with its 2009 Health Care “reform” is that it has not paid sufficient regard to the concern that most Americans feel regarding the risk to their freedom inherent in these bills.
Most Americans understand that the only power in the world that can strip Americans of their freedom is government. For a people to enjoy hundreds of years of freedom as we have in America is a historical anomaly – an aberration in the normal march of human history. Generations of Americans have willingly risked their lives and livelihoods to secure their freedom and the freedom of the next generation. Most Americans view the policy contained in the two health care bills to be an unacceptable risk to that precious freedom. Voters of all political leanings sent this message last Tuesday in Massachusetts. They felt their cherished principle of freedom was under attack by the current health care bills.
We have seen the enormous capacity of Americans to solve any problem when we work together. Health Care reform should be no different. President Obama and the Democrat leadership can find their place in the annals of history by making a substantive, sustainable improvement to our Health Care system, but they must first spell-out the principles upon which this policy would be built such as:
• The government has no moral authority to compel any American to buy an insurance policy involuntarily and with costly provisions he does not want. The current bills would mandate all Americans to buy insurance or face a fine.
• The government has no moral authority to intercede in a private, voluntary exchange of values between a patient and a doctor by limiting the amount the doctor may receive for providing a service to a patient. The current bills would limit the amount that doctors and hospitals could receive for a given service.
• The government has no moral authority to coerce young people to pay a higher insurance premium based on their lower-risk profile in order to subsidize the insurance cost of older people who are higher users of health care. In order to gain the buy-in from insurance companies to provide insurance to people who have pre-existing conditions, the government promised to coerce every American to buy health insurance.
• The government has no moral authority to tell any business, such as a health insurance company, with whom it must do business. The current bills would require health insurance companies to issue policies to risks that would reasonably guarantee that the health insurance companies would lose money.
• The free market, if unfettered by destructive government mandates, mis-incentives and other distortions, is better able to provide health care better than a government-run system. The free market has shown that it is the best vehicle for increasing the availability and quality of products and services while reducing the cost to the consumer. The fact that it hasn’t (yet) been used in the health care industry is due solely to government barriers.
• Providing health care insurance is not the same as providing health care service. Health care service is a product that must first be produced before it can be delivered. A government-issued “coupon” for “universal foot protection”, for example, does not, by itself, produce a single pair of shoes. Similarly, a government-sponsored “coupon” for health insurance does not produce health care service.
• If you pay doctors and hospitals less than it costs them to provide the service, you will have fewer doctors and hospitals providing that service. Setting a price-cap that each person who has a “universal foot protection” coupon must pay for a pair of shoes will not increase the number of shoes manufactured. Quite the contrary. Price-controls will, theoretically and in historical practice, reduce the amount of a good or service whose price is artificially controlled.
• If you have fewer doctors and hospitals producing health care service and we provide “free health care coupons” to every American, either costs will go up or delivery delays will be experienced and / or both.
If the Democrat leadership or any health care “reform” advocate could please address these reasoned and reasonable concerns, then we promise not to mention the corrupt methods (Louisiana Purchase, Cornhusker kickback, $60 billion union buy-off, no CSPAN, etc) by which these unprincipled bills have been crammed down our throats.
We are concerned by the over-reach of Democrats in this health care debate because of the violation to our principles this policy represents. We are concerned that the Democratic leadership is indifferent to the core principles of Americans and that “might makes right”. In Oct 2008, Hillary Clinton sent an email to her supporters that said, “Sixty is the magic number. If we reach 60 Democrats in the Senate, then the days of Republican obstruction are over…there’s nothing we can’t accomplish.” Chilling.
Ayn Rand wrote, “Reason is not automatic. Those who deny it cannot be conquered by it. Do not count on them. Leave them alone.” Principled, independent Americans wish to have a reasoned discussion about health care policy with the leadership in Washington. We are asking for a discussion based on objective reason. We ask that they respect our principles and do not dismiss our concerns as those of unhelpful obstructionists. A reasoned, principled policy will stand on its own merits and its virtues will be easy to discern and discuss. A reasoned, principled policy will “sell-itself” when presented in the disinfecting light of day to reasonable Americans. Expensive buy-offs of critical votes, as we have witnessed, would not be required if the bills aligned with the principles of Americans. Americans will support any policy that they think will benefit them. Let’s have that dialogue.
We at Hugh Akston’s Diner witnessed historic events this week that bode well for individual freedom.
Scott Brown elected to the US Senate in Massachusetts
The biggest news was the against-all-odds election, in the bluest-of-blue states Massachusetts, of Scott Brown to the US Senate. With his election, Scott Brown has turned the political world on its head and stopped our Big Government enemies in their tracks.
The funniest explanation provided for the 31 point swing of independent voters in Massachusetts from the Democrat in 2008 (BHO) to the non-Democrat in 2010 was by Howard Dean, who appeared in the must-see 1/20 episode of “Hard Ball” with the distraught Chris Matthews. Howard Dean said that the vote for Scott Brown was a “message” vote from independents that the Democrat platform in Massachusetts and in Washington was not liberal enough – that they want “real change”. Even Chris Matthews had to ask Governor Dean what he was talking about. This was a marvelously hilarious explanation for the election loss providing the lucky viewer an unambiguous view into the chaos and contradiction that is the liberal mind.
It came as no surprise to patrons here at Hugh Akston’s Diner that the Democrat Machine underestimated the moral strength of Americans in general and the capability of Scott Brown, in particular, to serve as a lightning rod for that moral strength. 234 years ago, we put the king of England on written notice that we, Americans, would not suffer the evils of the British Crown any further.
For the nation to understand what the election of Scott Brown meant, they need go no further than the Declaration of Independence, for this historic election result was no less significant than that first shot fired at Lexington.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
Americans aren’t simply angry, as BHO and his spinmeisters believe. Instead, Americans are expressing the principles penned so eloquently in 1776.
Americans are not throwing an emotional temper tantrum. Quite the opposite, actually. Americans are making a reasoned assessment and action plan given the evils that have been forced upon them by their current government. Americans of all parties are removing their consent to the brand of Big Government being peddled by the current administration and Congress. Americans believe that this form of government is destructive to their rights of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.
On Tuesday, Massachusetts voters, supported by freedom-loving Americans from all over the country, used the most powerful weapon in the world – a vote in a free election – to take the first step toward abolishing the policies of this destructive government. Tuesday’s results were nothing more and nothing less than the expression of the most solemn principle of the proper role or government and its necessary subservience to the People.
Some links to some stories / videos about the historic election of Scott Brown:
We Americans will suffer the offenses of government…we always have and likely always will…but there is a limit to the evils we will suffer. As stated in our Declaration of Independence:
Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.
On Tuesday (1/19/10), we saw the limits to the evils we Americans will suffer at the hands of our elected servants. Massachusetts’s voters weren’t angry. Their votes for Scott Brown weren’t protest votes against anything. Their votes meant one thing that Big Government should hear (and fear): “Americans will not be ruled.”
The principle embodied in our Declaration of Independence and in our Constitution that all men are created equal is at the core of being an American. You will not rule me because you claim to be a divine monarch. You will not rule me because your father ruled my father. You will not rule me because you are wealthier than me. You will not rule me because my skin is a different color than yours. You will not rule me because of my religious beliefs. You will not rule me because you believe you are smarter than me. You will not rule me because I elected you to serve me. You will not rule me…because I will not be ruled. I am an American.
For the past year, every day witnessed the break-neck pace of the liberal administration and Congress in its efforts to rule each of us: to increase our taxes, thereby extending the number of weeks we work solely to pay the mandatory taxes confiscated from us; to coerce us buy a healthcare policy, whether we want to or not; to coerce us to buy a health care policy that has provisions that we don’t want; to pay a made-up tax on a made-up commodity (CO2 emissions) in a made-up market that will further reduce the amount of money that I am able to keep; to force the most productive among us to pay for the least productive and most corrupt; to enslave our children with a mountain of debt to pay for the corrupt spending spree unleashed on Americans. To attempt to shame me with your hollow, populist rhetoric that if I do not sacrifice more, then I am somehow not worry or am un-American. Be off with such drivel!
Our servants in Washington would be wise to view any policy to which they attach their name in 2010 through the prism of the post-Kennedy world in which we find ourselves. Sign-onto a bill that reduces our freedom and you will be gone in November. The dynamic is no more complicated than that.
BHO, reckoning, apparently, along the same lines as the chaotic Governor Dean, that America is angry at George W. Bush and his "failed policies" went back on the populist trail. BHO had his own, "let them eat cake" moment on 1/17 after Air Force One made an emergency landing at Logan to help with the rescue efforts of the anemic Coakley campaign that had had its hamstrings cut by the Louisiana Purchase, the Cornhusker kick-back and the union-exemption from "Cadillac Health Care plan" taxes. During a stump speech in a partially filled auditorium at Northeastern University, with tie removed and the shuck and jive tone and "ya knows" and "yawlls" in full voice, BHO flippantly derided Scott Brown's brilliant use of his beat-up old truck with this Maria Antoinette-ism:
What's ironically amusing is that BHO has chosen the populist-approach to counter the momentum lost by Democrats with the Brown victory, under the mistaken assumption that Americans are motivated by anger and not by the reason of their minds. A populist strategy attempts to appeal to the emotional motivations of voters as opposed to their reasoned conclusions. Charles Blow writes in an Op-Ed in today's New York Times:
"Welcome to the mob: an angry, wounded electorate, riled by recession, careening across the political spectrum, still craving change, nursing a bloodlust."
Democrat Governor Deval Patrick, further articulating the view held by Liberals of rational, energetic Americans arguing who argue against Progressive policy, patronized clear-thinking voters with the following statement made this week:
"Be angry - but channel it in a positive direction. It's easy to be against something. It takes tough-mindedness and political courage to be for something."
I sense that BHO feels the same way. Americans are nothing more than a mob. If only the mob can be channeled...if only we can focus that anger. With that, BHO picked up his teleprompter, took off his tie, dusted off his hip-hop syntax and got back on the populist stump and overnight created an enemy toward which he would channel the mobs anger - Wall Street.
Just as it became clear at the end of last week that Massachusetts was a lost cause for the Democrats, BHO began the assault on Wall Street, just as FDR had on the utilities. It's a simple strategy from Chapter 1 of the Populist Progressive Playbook: Step 1: Find an enemy of the people and create the appearance you are "fighting" for the People against this Enemy. Step 2: If there is no such enemy of the People (except those in government who are always the enemy of the People) then create an enemy. Step 3: Assign the reason for every conceivable evil in the world onto this enemy. Step 4: Step and repeat.
So, on Thursday 1/14, the story was reported that BHO plans to announce a new fee on banks because "we want our money back." BHO went on to say, with perfect populist progressive pitch:
"If these companies are in good enough shape to afford massive bonuses, they are surely in good enough shape to afford paying back every penny to taxpayers,"
Yea! Thank you Mr. Progressive President. And who, pray tell, do you think is really going to pay for those fees and taxes that you would slather all over the big bad banks? Of course, all Americans will. We will see higher ATM fees, check fees, overdraft fees, and so on. The Progressive mind is congenitally incapable of understanding this simple fact of economics: THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A TAX ON BUSINESS. All taxes levied on businesses result in higher cost to their customers and reduced capital to fuel innovation, growth and job creation. A tax on business is about the stupidist thing any government can do if it is committed to creating an environment in which the private sector can create jobs faster. Jobs are created by businesses so why in the world would anyone wish to retard the ability of a business to create jobs?
Then Obama raised the ante, by taking another swing at banks using his new-found Populist Progressive voice:
"We have to get this done. If these folks want a fight, it's a fight I'm ready to have."
Investors responding by dropping the DJIA by 5% this week. I wonder how many hard-working Americans (you know, the kind that BHO will always "fight for") saw their 401K's whacked this week because of the reckless populist blather of our President. Or has BHO forgotten that the capital that is harnessed through our free markets is created through the hard-work and innovative spirit of that portion of Americans who actually produce?
It's Still the Fault of George W. Bush
The "It's Not My Fault" tour by the Administration was alive and well this week, as we start the second year of BHO's administration.
The Obama administration’s troubles are the result not of excessive ambition, but of policy and political misjudgments. The stimulus was too small; policy toward the banks wasn’t tough enough; and Mr. Obama didn’t do what Ronald Reagan, who also faced a poor economy early in his administration, did — namely, shelter himself from criticism with a narrative that placed the blame on previous administrations...He could have pointed out, repeatedly, that the continuing troubles of America’s economy are the result of a financial crisis that developed under the Bush administration, and was at least in part the result of the Bush administration’s refusal to regulate the banks. But he didn’t...Whatever the reason, Mr. Obama has allowed the public to forget, with remarkable speed, that the economy’s troubles didn’t start on his watch.
Are you kidding? BHO is physically unable to utter more than three words on ANY subject without blaming GWB for something. As we read above, he blamed GWB for the Coakley loss. But don't take my word for it...
After Obama Rally, Dems pin blame on Bush (Hotline on Call, 1/17/10)
Rep. Patrick Kennedy (D-RI), speaking with a gaggle of reporters after the event, said that while state Sen. Scott Brown (R) offers voters a quick fix, in reality, the problems created by "George Bush and his cronies" are not so easily solved.
Obama Blames Bush for Brown's Win in Massachusetts (Human Events.com 1/21/10)
BHO : “Here's my assessment of not just the vote in Massachusetts but the mood around the country: The same thing that swept Scott Brown into office swept me into office. People are angry and they are frustrated. Not just because of what's happened in the last year or two years but what's happened over the last eight years.”
Obama's New Tack: Blaming BushPresident Points to Inherited Economy (The Washington Post, 3/14/09) Over the past month, Obama has reminded the public at every turn that he is facing problems "inherited" from the Bush administration, using increasingly bracing language to describe the challenges his administration is up against. The "deepening economic crisis" that the president described six days after taking office became "a big mess" in remarks this month to graduating police cadets in Columbus, Ohio. "By any measure," he said during a March 4 event calling for government-contracting reform, "my administration has inherited a fiscal disaster."
Obama Administration Blames Bush for Airport Secuity Failures (Examiner.com 12/28/09)
First she said "the system worked". Now, Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano admits the system failed miserably, but repeatedly points out it was a system put in place while George W. Bush was President. White House spokesman Robert Gibbs made similar statements. The "Blame Bush" mantra helped get Obama elected and has been used as an excuse for his entire first 11 months as President. Now they are using it as an excuse for allowing a Nigerian terrorist to almost blow up a U.S. bound plane on Christmas Day.
Associated Press Analysis: Obama's Buck-Stopping goes only so far (Associated Press 1/9/10) WASHINGTON – He says "the buck stops with me," but nearly a year into office, President Barack Obama is still blaming a lot of the nation's troubles — the economy, terrorism, health care — on George W. Bush... "I don't need to remind any of you about the situation we found ourselves in at the beginning of this year," Obama told people at a Home Depot stop last month.
Yea, maybe BHO should be less subtle in his blame of Bush for everything. :-)
Diners, remember. When a house is on fire, regardless of the reason for the blaze in the first place, a fireman can do one of two things. He can pick up a hose with water or he can pick up a hose with gasoline. Yea, the house was on fire when BHO was sworn in a year ago, but since then he has done nothing but pour gasoline onto the fire with his recklessly Progressive policies. We can argue in perpetuity as to the cause of the fire, but BHO's gasoline-like policies have only caused the inferno to burn hotter and to do more damage. We may put this house fire out yet without sliding into a Depression, but that job has been all the more difficult by the BHO policies.
Some good readings for you below...enjoy. See you soon under the sign of the $.
The New Political RumblingMassachusetts may signal an end to old ways of fighting Peggy Noonan in The Wall Street Journal 1/23/10
Air America Radio closing, filing for bankruptcy... certainly a harbinger of things to come for the Progressive movement. Air America, the heavily subsidized radio program spewing liberal blather, finally reached a level of financial bankruptcy to match the intellectual and moral bankruptcy of the Progressive movement.
Obama's First Year: By the Numbers... In his first year as president, BHO:
Speeches, comments, remarks: 411
Addresses or remarks dealing with the subject of health care: 52 ("The problem is we're not getting our message out on health care..." Yea, right. Your problem is that you ARE getting your message out!)
Trips to the Telepromter: 178
News Conferences: 42
Interviews: 158
Town Hall Meetings (including the two held with his constituents from France and China): 23
Domestic Trips: 46 out-of-town trips to 58 cities in 30 states
Foreign Travel: 10 foreign trips to 21 nations (a new record for the President in his first year)
Flights on Air Force 1: 160
Flights on Marine 1: 193
Political Fund Raisers: 28 (Bush did 6 his first year)
Campaign Rallies: 7 in NJ, VA and MA. In each case, the Democrat lost.
Meetings with Foreign Leaders: 74 (GWB, ya know, the Cowboy who never worked to build consensus among world leaders, had only 115 such meetings in his first year.)
National Debt: Was $10.6 trillion when BHO was sworn in...one year later it has grown by $1.69 trillion to $12.32 trillion.
There is still time...but not much... to remind key Senate Democrats that the will of the People should trump the corruption and deal making that history will characterize this awful bill.
Please take 10 minutes and contact these key Senators. Do not provide your consent by remaining silent. Let the John Galt within all of us find his voice.
Saturday December 19th, 2009 could someday be regarded as one of the most profound inflection points in American history. Against a back-drop of an equally larger-than-life blizzard, the Senate Liberals basked in the hubris of the moment as the risk of a filibuster against the Patient Protection Affordable Care Act (PPACA) evaporated with the purchase of Senator Ben Nelson's consent.
The Rushmorian cabal of Reid, Dodd, Baucus and Harkins took to the microphone and started telling the history that they have so craved to read. The comments by Christopher Dodd were particularly illustrative: "Today, we stand ready to pass into law a bill that finally makes access to quality health care a right for every American, not a privilege for the fortunate few."
Senator Dodd has redefined the definition of a "right".
Thomas Jefferson and our Founders recognized rights as "unalienable". Rights can not be taken away or given away by the possessor of those rights. Rights are NOT privileges that the government bestows upon the People. However, Senator Dodd states that the health care legislation that the Senate is cramming down the throats of Americans, against the will of most Americans, bestows a "right" upon Americans that were not there before.
Senator Dodd believes that he and his Senate colleagues have created "rights" for Americans. Given that our Declaration of Independence stated that "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.", how does Senator Dodd reconcile his belief as to the origin of rights with that of our Founders?
In his 1954 book, The Income Tax: The Root of all Evil, Frank Chodorov wrote, "The axiom of socialism is that the individual has no inherent rights. The privileges and prerogatives that the individual enjoys are grants from society, acting through its management committee, the government. That is the condition the individual must accept for the benefit of being a member of society. Hence, the socialists (including many who do not so name themselves) reject the statement of rights in the Declaration of Independence, calling it a fiction of the eighteenth century"
Given that the Liberal Senator from Connecticut presumes to be providing Americans a new "right" and that a "right", according to Jefferson, is endowed by one's Creator, what conclusion might one reasonably reach regarding Senator Dodd's opinion of himself? Correct! He and his colleagues are on the same plane as our Creator... or that "rights" are to be bestowed by government upon the people (and not the other way around, as the Founders intended).
The madness of Dodd's assertion that the cost to recover one's health is to be borne by another is a "right" is furthered by an understanding as to why our Founders documented the Bill of Rights. Every right listed in the Bill of Rights was a defense of individual freedom against the abuse of power by the government. Senator Dodd would have us believe that rogue health insurers are the villains in this story - a classic example of cynical projection. The only risk to any person's freedom is the government. Our Founders had a much healthier fear of the risk to our freedoms by government than do Americans of the 21st century. This is unfortunate and dangerous.
A "right" is not and never has been a legal claim on another person...until Senator Dodd so ordained it. Senator Dodd says, "This bill frees Americans from the fear that if they lose their job, they’ll never find insurance coverage again. This bill frees Americans from the fear that if they get sick they won’t be able to afford the treatment they need. This bill frees Americans from the fear that one illness, one accident, could cost them everything – their home, their life savings, everything."
What he means is, Americans now have a right to claim the product / service produced by other Americans ...as much as often as one wants...regardless of the decisions that one makes that influence the cost of that product / service...and to have somebody else pay for it. Dodd has redefined a "right" as a claim on another human being.
In this Dodd model, two people have their inalienable right to their pursuit of happiness impaired - the health care provider who will be paid less for his / her services than a free market would allow and the taxpayer who will now need to pay not for not only his / her own health insurance but for the health insurance of someone who now has a "right" to it. Upon what moral principle does Dodd make this unconscionable assertion?
None. There is no moral principle underpinning the assertion by Senator Dodd that any human being has a right, enforceable by the unrestrained power of the government, to put a claim on the services of another. Such a condition is rightfully to be regarded as the 21st century version of slavery. Already, those of us who actually pay Federal Income taxes (a shrinking minority) labor until April - May of each year just in order to pay the menu of taxes thrust upon us. With this new "right" we will work longer and longer into the year before we can claim that which we have earned.
It is illustrative to re-read the short essay by William Graham Sumner, The Forgotten Man, which was the basis of Amity Shales' best seller of the same name.
The type and formula of most schemes of philanthropy or humanitarianism is this: A and B put their heads together to decide what C shall be made to do for D. The radical vice of all these schemes, from a sociological point of view, is that C is not allowed a voice in the matter, and his position, character, and interests, as well as the ultimate effects on society through C's interests, are entirely overlooked. I call C the Forgotten Man.
For once let us look him up and consider his case, for the characteristic of all social doctors is, that they fix their minds on some man or group of men whose case appeals to the sympathies and the imagination, and they plan remedies addressed to the particular trouble; they do not understand that all the parts of society hold together, and that forces which are set in action act and react throughout the whole organism, until an equilibrium is produced by a re-adjustment of all interests and rights.
They therefore ignore entirely the source from which they must draw all the energy which they employ in their remedies, and they ignore all the effects on other members of society than the ones they have in view.
They are always under the dominion of the superstition of government, and, forgetting that a government produces nothing at all, they leave out of sight the first fact to be remembered in all social discussion - that the State cannot get a cent for any man without taking it from some other man, and this latter must be a man who has produced and saved it. This latter is the Forgotten Man.
It is tragic that bad things happen to good people every single day in the world. People lose their job, then their health insurance, then a medical calamity befalls them and they are ruined. What heartless villian would stand in the way of remedying such a condition?
The fact is, at its root, this scenario is possible only because of the over-reach of government into our lives. Rationale people, operating in a free market, would never face the kind of disasters highlighted by the Democrats as the reason for further over-reach of the government. The intentions of government officials are often good, but government is utterly incapable of righting the ills of the world without creating greater ills by so doing. Government has never understood the Law of Unintended Consequences.
Why is health insurance tied to one's job? Government policy dating back to WWII.
Why are health insurance premiums so expensive? Because the government forbids the sale of health insurance across state lines and demands "cadillac" plans regardless of what the insured wishes to buy.
Why do doctors run so many tests that are now vilified by the Left as 'wasteful'? Because doctors are afraid of being sued, due to inadequate tort laws.
The root of our health care problems in this nation IS the government.
Once we accept that "rights" are privileges to be bestowed by our public servants upon those whom our servants favor, then there is no limit to the risk to our freedom.
Just when Americans thought the political corruption attending the power grab by radical liberals, enabled by their useful idiots, could not become more blatant and offensive to our Founding principles following the Louisiana Purchase of Senator Mary Landrieu, Senator Harry Reid showed yesterday that there is no limit to the fraud that liberals will perpetrate to seize and hold power.
Reid bought off Senator Landrieu with a $300 million bribe on November 20th, enabling the Senate health care bill to stay alive. Yesterday, he bought off, writ large, Senator Ben Nelson (D-Nebraska), in, perhaps, the most blatant and transparent display of public bribery.
Senator Nelson had made a presumably principled-stand against the liberal bill by refusing to provide his consent to a bill that provided federal funding for abortion. Given his previous position in the highly-charged abortion issue, on the surface, this push-back appeared reasonable. Unless the language in the bill was strengthened to prohibit federal funding for abortion, Senator Reid would not get the 60th vote he needed for cloture from Senator Nelson. Or so the narrative read...
In reality, what was really happening was classic back-room corruption but on a level never seen before. Harry Reid bought off Senator Nelson’s vote, not with the stronger language against federal funding of abortion that Senator Nelson claimed as the foundation of his principled opposition, but with a Medicaid bribe for the state of Nebraska that makes the $300 million bribery of Senator Landrieu look small-time. In return for his nod, Senator Nelson will have taxpayers in every other state pay Nebraska's share of Medicaid expenses... forever.
What makes the bribery of Senator Nelson so transparent is that the language regarding federal funding in the most recent bill is weaker than before Nelson made his “principled” stand. The hypocrisy and vile corruption is so utterly transparent.
As House Minority Leader Boehner writes in a 12/19 posting, "...the Senate democrats' health care bill would require a monthly abortion fee paid by all tax-paying Americans. "... there is no prohibition on abortion coverage in federally subsidized plans participating in the Exchange. Instead the amendment includes layers of accounting gimmicks that demand that plans participating in the Exchange or the new government-run plan that will be managed by the Office of Personnel Management must establish “allocation accounts” when elective abortion is a covered benefit (p. 41). Everyone enrolled in these plans must pay a monthly abortion premium (p. 41, lines 5-8), and these funds will be used to pay for the elective abortion services. The Reid amendment directs insurance companies to assess the cost of elective abortion coverage (p. 43), and charge a minimum of $1 per enrollee per month (p. 43, lines 20-22). In short, the Reid bill continues to defy the will of the American people and contradict longstanding federal policy by providing federal subsidies to private health plans that cover elective abortions. The new language does include a “state opt-out” provision if a state passes a law to prohibit insurance coverage of abortion, but it’s a sham because it does nothing to prevent one state’s tax dollars from paying for elective abortions in other states.
President Obama has promised transparency. We have it. President Obama has promised that the Health Care reform he has pushed will not raise taxes on the middle class or increase the deficit by "one dime". He is correct, It will raise taxes on the middle class and increase the deficit by a gazillion dimes.
Thank you very much for your e-mail wishing me, and my family, a Happy Thanksgiving. I would like to extend the same wish to you and your family.
Many families across our Granite State are struggling this Thanksgiving. As we sit with family and friends to give thanks for all of the good things in our lives and to remember the sacrifices of all of our countrymen serving our great nation, it is fitting that we reflect on the reasons for the suffering felt across New Hampshire and the country in general. More importantly, it is fitting that we reflect on what we can do, together, to reduce the damage being done to many American lives and livelihoods.
The policies pushed by the current administration (and those of the previous administration, too, in fairness) have done damage to America and I respectfully request you to consider your contribution to that damage.
We sent you to Washington, not to solve our problems, but to protect our freedoms. Respectfully, in this regard you have failed the people of the Granite State’s 2nd District by supporting a radical agenda of government growth that threatens the very viability of our great nation. More taxes means less freedom. Government mandates mean less freedom.
• We have seen a $787 billion “stimulus” package that has not, cannot and will not create sustainable private-sector jobs because the “stimulus” is based on the flawed premise that the government can create jobs. The Democrat leadership has vilified the proven strategy of trickle-down wealth creation and chosen a policy of trickle-up poverty by using the force of law to remove capital from our most productive Americans to give to our least productive Americans. Such a policy of “wealth spreading” is not sustainable.
• We have seen an unemployment rate reach 10.2%. We are suffering this waste of the productive brilliance of Americans because of the uncertainty that this government has created in the minds of our small business owners, who, we all know, are the engine of sustainable job growth. Small business owners don’t know what the future holds because of the uncertainty caused by the government’s inexorably relentless crusade in social engineering (cap & trade taxes, health care taxes and mandates, expiring Bush tax rates, Cash for Clunkers, Homebuyers’ tax credit and on and on). Until this uncertainty is reduced, businesses won’t risk hiring. Ask your constituents, as they will tell you.
• We have seen a Cap & Trade bill pass the House that would further erode America’s competitive position in the international marketplace for no apparent gain. The revelation this past week of a system of corruption among the “scientists” pushing the radical climate change agenda should cause all rational thinkers to give pause to any legislation along these lines.
• We have seen a president unhesitatingly apologize for America in front of world leaders only to return from Asia, scolded in disbelief by the Chinese who, appear to have a better understanding of capitalism and its virtues, than does our president.
Please, at this time of Thanksgiving, give pause to what you wish your legacy to be among your fellow Granite Staters.
I would ask that you advocate:
1. Return of unspent “stimulus” money to the Treasury. No more slush fund for pet projects. That’s not how our government is supposed to work.
2. Reject the current Health Care bills in all forms and incarnations and start over. Frame the solution by the principles of a just and proper government (one that protects freedom) rather than the wealth-spreading colossus the deliberations upon which we Americans are watching in horror. No one will blame you if you change your position. No one will call you a “flip-flopper”. Reject the current Health Care approach of Reid & Pelosi and your NH constituents will elect you year after year.
3. Help create the environment for sustainable job growth by adding stability to the political landscape. Stop tinkering. Lower payroll taxes and personal income taxes and sit back and watch what unfettered Americans can do.
4. Support an investigation into the fraudulent “data” that is the lynchpin of the climate change crusade and the self-destructive Cap & Trade bill. Send an email to your constituents stating that in light of the new evidence, that you can no longer support Cap & Trade until a full investigation has been conducted.
5. Stop the spending. Please. For the sake of all Americans, please stop the spending, even if you think the cause is worthy. Please.
6. Support the audit of the Federal Reserve. The dollars you allow the Fed to print on a 24-7 basis aren’t real to politicians, but they are real to us. A dollar used to represent a claim on the BEST that any of us could produce. Currency was once our sacred bond to each other as a store of the value that we created through our hard work and risk taking. Congress has devalued that sacred bond by turning the greenback into the laughingstock of the world. No country has ever devalued its way to prosperity, yet this seems to be the course set by this Administration, the pathetic claims to the contrary by Secretary Geithner notwithstanding.
I understand your request that we all give of ourselves during this holiday season to help those in need. But sir, respectfully, this government has already established the framework to take, at the point of a gun, a larger portion of what I have earned and give to whomever our public servants have deemed in “need” than ever before in modern history. High taxes and government mandates are inconsistent with Freedom. You’ll forgive me if reject your plea for further sacrificial offerings until such time as you address the concerns that I have presented to you.
Again, I wish you and your family a Happy Thanksgiving; I look forward to hearing from you soon. I would enjoy an opportunity to speak with you for a few minutes the next time you are in the Nashua area.
President Obama's weekly address to the nation today focused on creating the link between reducing health care cost and growing jobs in small businesses.
"I hear about it from small business owners who want to grow their companies and hire more people, but they can't, because they can barely afford to insure the employees they have."
If this is the problem - that is, it's costing too much for small businesses to provide health insurance to their employees - then is not the solution the de-linking of health insurance from the employment process? I don't buy my auto insurance from my employer so why should I continue buying my health insurance from my employer? Why doesn't President Obama and the Democrat leadership come out and say, "Effective Jan 1, 2012, all tax breaks to companies based on the cost to ensure their employees will expire; States are forbidden to add any mandates to health insurance policies that infringe upon every American's right to buy the right health insurance, across all state lines, in accordance with Article I Section 8; Meaningful tort reform will be enacted."
Imagine that glorious day when we are unfettered in our ability to buy the health insurance that is right for each of us; to take it with us as we change jobs; to be an active participant in the market-based process for reducing cost; for seeing billions and billions of our tax dollars returned to us as we shrink the Health and Human Services department; when we realize that we are free, in this one important part of our lives, from the meddling and corruption of government; when we taste freedom again.
Unless WE THE PEOPLE demand the de-linking of health insurance from the terms of employment we will never get this millstone of rising health costs from around our necks. However, liberal democrats don't want to touch the third rail of employer-provided health care because union members typically have the best health insurance in the country.
Employers don't want to lose this tax break because more of the compensation they provide to their employees will be in direct pay as opposed to indirect health care (fringe) benefits. Because future pension payments at many companies are based on direct compensation, businesses would face higher pension costs if they were forced to stop providing tax-deductible health insurance to their employees. Also, businesses know that employees are willing to suffer more in a dead-end job that has health insurance than make the jump to a new venture that may not have health insurance. In this way, many people feel trapped in their current jobs and employers would just as soon not see a higher turn-over rate at their companies.
So, who wins if we move to transportable, individual-purchased, "right sized", boundary-less health insurance? Well, WE THE PEOPLE, do.
We will get government out of our lives; we will be able to buy a policy that fits where we are in our lives; we won't be chained to a dead-end job for fear of losing our health insurance; we will eliminate a raging river of corruption by getting government bureaucrats out of the health care delivery system; we will regain our sovereignty.
Below is the letter I wrote to President Obama asking him to consider an alternative solution to the problems he discussed in this week's address:
Dear President Obama,
I listened to your weekly address today (10/3) and share your concern about the impact of rising health insurance cost to the prime generator of jobs in this country - our small businesses.
The solution to the problems that you so clearly articulated is right before us, if we are willing to compromise with a spirit of civility and seriousness of purpose. If the cost to small businesses is too high to ensure their employees' health, then de-link health insurance from business and make the purchase of health insurance similar to the purchase of auto insurance or home owners insurance.
Eliminate all federal laws that give business tax breaks to ensure their employees and establish, instead, an environment in which all Americans can buy the health insurance policy that is best for them.
Encourage Congress to employee the Commerce clause to rid the process of purchasing health insurance by individuals of cost-driving mandates that vary state-by-state. Just as our Founders recognized the benefits of having interstate commerce unfettered by the whims of the several States, we see clearly that the local mandates have made the purchase of health insurance far more difficult and costly than it needs to be.
Establish an environment in which a young, healthy American is not required to pay for ridiculous coverage that he /she does not want. Establish an environment in which a person’s health insurance is as transportable as their auto insurance as people change jobs and pursue their entrepreneurial dreams. Create an environment in which small businesses can focus on growing their business and not shopping for health insurance in the arcane labyrinth that our government has created with simple health insurance.
This vision can be realized and your place in history as one of our greatest presidents can be guaranteed if only you see this obvious solution - to de-link health insurance from businesses - and act with the boldness and passion that is within you. De-linking health insurance from business, implementing meaningful tort reform and creating a safety net for those among us who can’t pay for the maintenance of their own health – simple acts, really, will guarantee you re-election in 2012.
Allow Americans the choice - without government mandates or even "nudges" - and marvel at our ability to create wealth for the benefit of all Americans. However, should you cling to the notion that a bigger government involvement in health insurance will unleash America's great capacity, then you are, respectfully, quite mistaken and the damage in Nov 2010 and Nov 2012 will be monumental. I fear you will be regarded by history as the victim of the tyranny of circumstances.
We have given you the power to lead America, but not to ruin us. Please, reflect on my words in the civil manner in which they are presented. I look forward to hearing from you.
Best Regards -
Craig Powers Hudson, New Hampshire
PS – Thomas Jefferson suffered the same “tyranny of circumstances” that you face now. He rose to the challenges of the office, set aside the bitter acrimony of the partisanship that characterized the election of 1800, and laid the foundation of America’s future greatness. Please, President Obama, put aside the partisan jabs at those of us who see a different solution to our common problem and listen to us as you have asked us to listen to you.
The Department of Labor released the February unemployment numbers on Friday 3/5 reporting the loss of 36,000 jobs. 
Posts
