I have been carefully eyeballin’ the new Congress. How many times before have rookie politicians gone to Washington DC with high falutin’ language, only to turn out to be your typical, hypocritical, money-grubbing office holder? Indeed, elected Tea Party candidates were constantly harangued by veteran politicians and journalists: well, that was just campaign rhetoric. What are you going to do when you have write bills and actually cast votes on them?
I am happy to report that, so far, the 112 Congress has gotten off to a good start, viz:
**They passed a bill to completely repeal Obamacare.
**They passed a $2.5 trillion bill to cut spending, ending subsidies for PBS, Amtrak, administering Obamacare, Fannie Mae, and Freddy Mac. This is actually the more interesting, since all spending bills must originate in the House.
**They had the good sense to refuse to break bread with the Butcher of Beijing.
The next milestone: what will they do when the Senate totally perverts their bills, and they go into conference?
Friday, January 21, 2011
Tuesday, January 11, 2011
note to the Left about Tucson - dona nobis pacem
For the past couple of days, I have been listening to the vitriol being spouted by the Left. They claim that the mass murder in Tucson was caused by the inflammatory and incendiary rhetoric from the Right. They then demand the immediate passage of laws that outlaw such ‘hate speech’: on the airwaves (mentioning several hosts by name), on the internet (webpages that depict the crosshairs from a riflescope), and political campaigns. Not only is this insulting, this censorship is flat out unconstitutional.
I am sure that the left is missing the curious nature of all this, so permit me to illuminate.
1) The censorship laws being mentioned completely mutilates the last thing the Congresswoman did: read the First Amendment on the floor of the House, freedom of speech. This is irony on a grand scale, and I am sure that the Libs have missed it.
2) The volcanic vitriol being spouted by the Left is exactly the type of ‘hate speech’ that the proposed laws would ban. Hoist by your own petard?
3) We know nothing for sure about what motivated the troubled young man. He seems to be one taco short of a combination plate, and, in the end, it probably does not matter. However, the Libs already know not only exactly what inspired the shooter (toxic rhetoric from the Right), but what will cure it (we must all watch what we say, and let us ban certain types of speech, and, oh yeah, Sarah Palin and the Tea Party). If anything, it is more likely that this lunatic was inspired by left wing rhetoric, since we know that he read the Communist Manifesto, written by the Libs guiding light - Karl Marx.
My advice to the Left: give it a rest, already. Let the dead rest in peace. Must you try to reap political advantage from such a terrible tragedy?? Of course you must, it must in your genes. Sigh…
I am sure that the left is missing the curious nature of all this, so permit me to illuminate.
1) The censorship laws being mentioned completely mutilates the last thing the Congresswoman did: read the First Amendment on the floor of the House, freedom of speech. This is irony on a grand scale, and I am sure that the Libs have missed it.
2) The volcanic vitriol being spouted by the Left is exactly the type of ‘hate speech’ that the proposed laws would ban. Hoist by your own petard?
3) We know nothing for sure about what motivated the troubled young man. He seems to be one taco short of a combination plate, and, in the end, it probably does not matter. However, the Libs already know not only exactly what inspired the shooter (toxic rhetoric from the Right), but what will cure it (we must all watch what we say, and let us ban certain types of speech, and, oh yeah, Sarah Palin and the Tea Party). If anything, it is more likely that this lunatic was inspired by left wing rhetoric, since we know that he read the Communist Manifesto, written by the Libs guiding light - Karl Marx.
My advice to the Left: give it a rest, already. Let the dead rest in peace. Must you try to reap political advantage from such a terrible tragedy?? Of course you must, it must in your genes. Sigh…
Monday, January 10, 2011
Mass Murder in Tucson -- wait for it; oh, there it is
First, my prayers and condolences to those who were injured or killed on Saturday and their families and friends.
I watched the Sunday morning talking head shows; I brought along my super-sensitive, digital antenna system, being on high alert for any innuendo that the killings were somehow caused by the Tea Party. Dang; I coulda brought my bent, beat-up old rabbit ears, it was so obvious.
All Dems, to a man, said that it was caused by the tenor of political debate in this country or toxic rhetoric (read: the Tea Party); radio talk show hosts/shock jocks (Rush Limbaugh), and, oh yeah, Sarah Palin was mentioned by name in virtually every news story.
Remember when Clinton did exactly the same thing right after the Oklahoma City Bombings? It is just as immoral and unethical now as it was then. Blaming someone who sticks in your craw for all the evil in the world is, I guess, a permanent feature of the Democratic Party.
Yes, I know: the Communist Manifesto was found amongst his belongings, but it would be just as ridiculous to be blame Karl Marx as Sarah Palin for the actions of one young man who is seriously unbalanced mentally.
Personal Note
Yes, the thought occurred to me, during my candidacy for Congress, that some fruitcake with a 9mm slug would try to use it on me, but I immediately dismissed the thought. It kinda goes with the territory; besides, I have more important things to worry about.
I watched the Sunday morning talking head shows; I brought along my super-sensitive, digital antenna system, being on high alert for any innuendo that the killings were somehow caused by the Tea Party. Dang; I coulda brought my bent, beat-up old rabbit ears, it was so obvious.
All Dems, to a man, said that it was caused by the tenor of political debate in this country or toxic rhetoric (read: the Tea Party); radio talk show hosts/shock jocks (Rush Limbaugh), and, oh yeah, Sarah Palin was mentioned by name in virtually every news story.
Remember when Clinton did exactly the same thing right after the Oklahoma City Bombings? It is just as immoral and unethical now as it was then. Blaming someone who sticks in your craw for all the evil in the world is, I guess, a permanent feature of the Democratic Party.
Yes, I know: the Communist Manifesto was found amongst his belongings, but it would be just as ridiculous to be blame Karl Marx as Sarah Palin for the actions of one young man who is seriously unbalanced mentally.
Personal Note
Yes, the thought occurred to me, during my candidacy for Congress, that some fruitcake with a 9mm slug would try to use it on me, but I immediately dismissed the thought. It kinda goes with the territory; besides, I have more important things to worry about.
Saturday, January 8, 2011
Snappy Answers for Cocktail Parties Where People Like Obamacare
C’mon, we have all been there: you are at a social function, and the partygoers constantly spout off little bumper-sticker-slogans expressing simplistic support for Obamacare. Well, confronted with this same situation over the holidays, I have come up with these snappy rejoinders. Please feel free to beg, borrow, or steal, them; just remember where you heard it first.
It is not ‘Obamacare’, it is American healthcare
No, it is still ‘Obamacare’. He did not get the permission of Republicans, so ‘Obamacare’ is still the correct term (make sure to explicitly and constantly use the word ‘Obamacare’, and take care to enunciate it clearly each and every time).
You cannot simply repeal Obamacare, it is now law
Yes we can. Congress put in a new Medicare provision in the 80’s. It was so danged expensive, that Congress repealed it lock, stock, and barrel a couple of years later.
Hey, I just want my share of free healthcare
Well, it is not free. In fact, Obamacare will force you to spend $3 to 5 thousand more each and every year per family member.
We are going to save a lot of money
No, we are about to spend $1trillion more in federal budget each year. See, all those uninsured people are going to be shoved into Medicaid, and this does not come free. The IRS will take out a huge, new healthcare chunk out of your paycheck.
My kids can be 26 and still be on my health insurance
If you have adult children, perhaps it is time to cut the umbilical cord and them find out what it is like to pay their own bills, including insurance?
Affordable healthcare is a right
No, Obamacare takes away your rights and freedom. It has 2 rather unique features:
**it penalizes inactivity
**it forces you to buy something from me
Nowhere in the US Constitution does it say that inactivity is illegal, or that you have to buy something.
People are not paying their fair share into health insurance
Yes, and what of it? You (or your children) are in their 20’s or 30’s, are virtually immortal and will never spend a dime on prescription meds or prosthetics. Why should they be forced to buy something they will never use? Is it fair to force them to buy health insurance in order to subsidize the cost for an old fart like me?
If you have a health problem, you cannot get health insurance
Simply false. There is a thing called ‘high risk pools’. If you do not believe me, just Google it. They are specifically aimed at people with pre-existing medical conditions, and you must have been rejected for health insurance multiple times to be eligible. The only difference is that these things are being funded by state governments, and the program differs slightly from state to state.
It is just like requiring car insurance
No, it is not (the perspective here is Calif., and the laws in your state might be different). See, in order to meet the insurance requirement, you only need a 30/30 policy, meaning that your policy only has to have $30K in property liability and $30K in personal liability. Anyone who owns a car knows that this is foolish: you will also need uninsured driver, collision, theft, at least $250+K liability, increased medical, etc., etc. However, under state law, 30/30 is all you are required to buy. This is not true of medical insurance. See, each state has something called ‘individual policy mandates’: a minimum set of covered medicals that you must offer if you sell health insurance at all in that state (determined, of course, by the state legislature), and these can include psychiatric, cosmetic surgery, sex change operations, and free abortions. I remember one woman’s rights advocate bragging about how she spent years
lobbying to include female reproductive coverage in the Cal. mandate, so that now 20yo males were subsidizing 50yo females trying to get pregnant. There is no ‘low’ option (covering only catastrophic medical, say over $50,000) that satisfies state law. You are prohibited from selling/buying such a thing. Insurance companies would love to offer such a thing, because virtually everyone would buy it, it would be stupidly cheap, and the insurance company would make a gazillion dollars. However, this is not allowed, because it does not cater to specific political constituencies who make the bulk of political contributions during elections. Yes, I know, this is way longer than a snappy cocktail party retort, but it is extremely important, and you must understand this complicated point/weakness of Obamacare.
The United States spends way more of GDP on healthcare than the Eurozone, yet we are not as healthy
Mostly true: it would be way cheaper for us to simply let old farts (like me) and crack babies die earlier in their lifecycles. But, see, we care about our babies and old folks, and are legally obligated to provide adequate healthcare to old and young alike, regardless of cost or likelihood of success.
There is no such thing as ‘death panels’
Oh yes there are: Palin was correct and you know it. Your president has just instituted the first ones. OK, technically, they are not called ‘death panels’ they are called ‘end of life advisory choice commissions’ or some such thing, but if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck…
Hey, he is ‘our’ president, not just my president
No he is not: I did not vote for the SOB, and it is one of the best things I have ever done.
Can I get a refill?
Sure, pal; here you go. Cheers (resist the temptation to add a snappy rejoinder; it is, after all Christmas; we are celebrating the birth of Jesus Christ (who was actually born in September, but that is a whole different blog post), so give it a rest).
It is not ‘Obamacare’, it is American healthcare
No, it is still ‘Obamacare’. He did not get the permission of Republicans, so ‘Obamacare’ is still the correct term (make sure to explicitly and constantly use the word ‘Obamacare’, and take care to enunciate it clearly each and every time).
You cannot simply repeal Obamacare, it is now law
Yes we can. Congress put in a new Medicare provision in the 80’s. It was so danged expensive, that Congress repealed it lock, stock, and barrel a couple of years later.
Hey, I just want my share of free healthcare
Well, it is not free. In fact, Obamacare will force you to spend $3 to 5 thousand more each and every year per family member.
We are going to save a lot of money
No, we are about to spend $1trillion more in federal budget each year. See, all those uninsured people are going to be shoved into Medicaid, and this does not come free. The IRS will take out a huge, new healthcare chunk out of your paycheck.
My kids can be 26 and still be on my health insurance
If you have adult children, perhaps it is time to cut the umbilical cord and them find out what it is like to pay their own bills, including insurance?
Affordable healthcare is a right
No, Obamacare takes away your rights and freedom. It has 2 rather unique features:
**it penalizes inactivity
**it forces you to buy something from me
Nowhere in the US Constitution does it say that inactivity is illegal, or that you have to buy something.
People are not paying their fair share into health insurance
Yes, and what of it? You (or your children) are in their 20’s or 30’s, are virtually immortal and will never spend a dime on prescription meds or prosthetics. Why should they be forced to buy something they will never use? Is it fair to force them to buy health insurance in order to subsidize the cost for an old fart like me?
If you have a health problem, you cannot get health insurance
Simply false. There is a thing called ‘high risk pools’. If you do not believe me, just Google it. They are specifically aimed at people with pre-existing medical conditions, and you must have been rejected for health insurance multiple times to be eligible. The only difference is that these things are being funded by state governments, and the program differs slightly from state to state.
It is just like requiring car insurance
No, it is not (the perspective here is Calif., and the laws in your state might be different). See, in order to meet the insurance requirement, you only need a 30/30 policy, meaning that your policy only has to have $30K in property liability and $30K in personal liability. Anyone who owns a car knows that this is foolish: you will also need uninsured driver, collision, theft, at least $250+K liability, increased medical, etc., etc. However, under state law, 30/30 is all you are required to buy. This is not true of medical insurance. See, each state has something called ‘individual policy mandates’: a minimum set of covered medicals that you must offer if you sell health insurance at all in that state (determined, of course, by the state legislature), and these can include psychiatric, cosmetic surgery, sex change operations, and free abortions. I remember one woman’s rights advocate bragging about how she spent years
lobbying to include female reproductive coverage in the Cal. mandate, so that now 20yo males were subsidizing 50yo females trying to get pregnant. There is no ‘low’ option (covering only catastrophic medical, say over $50,000) that satisfies state law. You are prohibited from selling/buying such a thing. Insurance companies would love to offer such a thing, because virtually everyone would buy it, it would be stupidly cheap, and the insurance company would make a gazillion dollars. However, this is not allowed, because it does not cater to specific political constituencies who make the bulk of political contributions during elections. Yes, I know, this is way longer than a snappy cocktail party retort, but it is extremely important, and you must understand this complicated point/weakness of Obamacare.
The United States spends way more of GDP on healthcare than the Eurozone, yet we are not as healthy
Mostly true: it would be way cheaper for us to simply let old farts (like me) and crack babies die earlier in their lifecycles. But, see, we care about our babies and old folks, and are legally obligated to provide adequate healthcare to old and young alike, regardless of cost or likelihood of success.
There is no such thing as ‘death panels’
Oh yes there are: Palin was correct and you know it. Your president has just instituted the first ones. OK, technically, they are not called ‘death panels’ they are called ‘end of life advisory choice commissions’ or some such thing, but if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck…
Hey, he is ‘our’ president, not just my president
No he is not: I did not vote for the SOB, and it is one of the best things I have ever done.
Can I get a refill?
Sure, pal; here you go. Cheers (resist the temptation to add a snappy rejoinder; it is, after all Christmas; we are celebrating the birth of Jesus Christ (who was actually born in September, but that is a whole different blog post), so give it a rest).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)