Sep 10 2009

Credit Where It's Due

The President did, quite specifically, say that the public option will be forced to make a go of it out of premiums, not the Federal Treasury.  No ambiguity about it.  It will be just like the USPS, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae… well, maybe those aren’t the best examples, but I get what he means.

He also said that the public option will realize its savings from being a not-for-profit entity (that should lower costs by about six percent) and by not paying the executives who run it — I don’t think that’s quite what he meant to say but, again, I get it.  And, since the program will only be available to those who seek it, there will be no sales, marketing or advertising expenses. 

No word on administrative costs or taxes, but it looks like the public option will enjoy about a 10% cost advantage over the for-profit insurers who will, no doubt, flock to the exchanges to scoop up the otherwise uninsurables for whom that will be the primary market.  What could go wrong?

I have mixed feelings about his assurance that we will no longer be paying the health care costs of the 12 million or so illegal aliens living and working in this country.  On the one hand, I don’t think that people who entered this country illegally should be given anything, let alone free health insurance, on the other hand, come on, we don’t want them coughing and bleeding all over everything while they’re here.  Anyway, I just don’t believe him when he says that they will not be covered in some way (<cough>taxes<cough>).  I’m not calling him a liar, you understand, just sayin’.


Jun 23 2009

We Were Warned…

DC Metro Trains Collide

DC Metro Trains Collide

It’s hard to see how the Bush administration could have been any clearer about the safety problems of the Washington D.C. Metro (commuter train) system: Railroad Accident Report, November 3, 2004. Regrettably, the Democrat dominated government of D.C. didn’t care.

Three years later Bush’s National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) tried again to have the dangerous conditions in that system fixed: Federal Investigators Question Metro’s Safety, (By Eric M. Weiss Washington Post Staff Writer, Tuesday, January 9, 2007; Page A01) but by then Nancy Pelosi was in charge of the House (of Representatives) — which has ultimate authority over D.C. — and, apparently, had no interest in the lives and safety of citizens who, after all, aren’t part of her electoral constituency.

On January 20 of this year we got “hope and change” in the White House, but no new concern for the dangerous situation on the rails of the nation’s capital.

How many more have to die, Mr. President, how many more?

And before you assail me with a liberal hissy-fit over my interpretation of events, please show me a single factual error in this post. You see: This game can be played from both directions.


Jan 24 2009

The Next Four Years Will Be Challenging for Me

I am really of two (possibly three) minds on this one.  On the one hand, I firmly believe that there should be no arbitrary restrictions on otherwise legal activity.  On the other hand: What the hell is the government doing paying for abortions anyway? 

Is there a Constitutional right to abortion that must be protected at all costs?  No, there isn’t — don’t quote Roe v Wade to me which decided only the rather narrow issue of state governments intervening to impede lawful activity.  For better or worse, you have a legal right to an abortion in this country.  However, it is not apparent (to me, anyway) that you have a right to make me pay for it.

So how should a simple conservative boy, such as myself, view this?  A victory for liberty or a defeat in the struggle against pervasively paternalistic government?  I’m leaning towards the latter.

Oh wait, my mistake.  This is an entirely different matter altogether.  This is not about some Americans paying for abortions for other Americans.  This is about American taxpayers paying for abortions for people in other countries.  Foolish me.  There’s no civil liberty issue in this at all.  It’s all about sending my money out of the United States to support (admittedly legal) activity that a substantial portion of my fellow U.S. citizens find morally reprehensible.

I’m going to give the President the benefit of the doubt on this one, not just because I said I would give him the benefit of the doubt for his first 100 days, but also because this is, in principal, a genuine moral dilemma for me — except the part about sending the money to other countries, but that too, for better or worse, has been deemed legal by our very own Congress.  Have I mentioned today how much I loathe most of the members of the current Congress (but not the Congress itself)?


Jan 20 2009

Don't Be a Democrat…For a Few Days, Anyway

Believe it or not that admonition is intended not for my cousins of the blue state persuasion but for my brethern conservatives and that handful of brave souls who still adhere to the Republican banner (a white elephant lying feet up, trunk akimbo on a field of deficit red).

I am begging, pleading that my conservative chums and right-wingmen allay their partisanship through the next few days and join there adversaries in celebrating the most historic Presidential Inaugaration since the first in 1789.  Left or right, red or blue, black or white, Tuesday, January 20, 2009 will be a day for the ages.  And the oath sworn at noon today will mark a great turning point in the history of U.S. politics — if not the history of the U.S. itself.  So don’t spoil it by acting like a Democrat.

Barack Hussein Obama was elected fairly and squarely and by substantive — though not landslide — majorities in both the popular and Electoral College votes cast by the largest voter turnout in history.  For those who are not taking my point, let me more direct: Barack Hussein Obama is our duly elected President, the head of the Executive Branch of our government, and “Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States” (so, please Will Smith and Oprah, stop refering to him as your Commander in Chief unless you have taken up a uniform of the U.S. armed forces). He is neither the pResident Select nor the Commander in Thief.  Like every other president before him (except probably JFK) he will become president legitimately and lawfully.

He will be my president as much any Democrat’s and I intend to give him a fair shot at it.  And I am asking my conservative and Republican comrades to do the same.  For the 100 days following the Inaugaration, he will have my unqualified support.  I will continue to give him the benefit of the doubt for the remainder of this year, but if he hasn’t solved all of my problems by the 2010 election, well, I will consider all Democrats indelibly tainted.

My bill of particulars is drawn in large measure from the criticism of the 43rd administration, much of which — it might surprise you to learn —  I agree with, to a degree.  But these should be no-brainers for the incoming administration:

  • Put an end to the morally indefensible “Don’t ask don’t tell” policy governing the participation of homosexuals in the U.S. military. Why this is an issue is simply beyond me. Either homosexuality is such an impediment to discipline and good order that there shouldn’t be the least compunction about prohitibiting it. Or, more likely, it doesn’t make a damn bit of difference as long as unsolicited sexual advances are strictly off limits. In either case, this issue could and should be resolved with a simple and swift executive order.
  • Close the Gitmo detention center – don’t just order it closed; don’t just lament its existence; close it.  Personally, I have always believed that it was a lousy response to a lousy situation, regardless of how bad the detainees are or were — and they were.
  • Bring the troops home — don’t send them to the sinkhole of Afghanistan.  That war was lost the moment the Bush administration decided to engage in nation building.  Focusing on Iraq has had nothing to do with the failure of Afghanistan.  The misbegotten Afgan adventure — I mean beyond the routing of the Taleban — was doomed from the start no matter how many lives and how much treasure we squander on it.  Afghanistan, as a country, never existed before the 20th century and it never will.  The recipe for success there? Let it simmer in its own juices; bomb from time to time as necessary to remind them that there are consequences to bad behavior.
  • Cure Parkinson’s, Cancer and AIDS. You can do it now that science will once again be unfettered and solidly on the public dole.  I don’t remember who, exactly, but I remember someone saying during the 2004 Democrat convention that “Christopher Reeves would be walking by [then] if Al Gore [had been] elected in 2000.”  Well, maybe not, but I’m expecting miracles from the scientific community now that there will no longer be restrictions on federal funding of human embryonic stem cell (hESC) research.  I expect Obama to reverse the Bush administration and return to the Clinton policy on hESC more or less immediately…er, um…maybe not the Clinton policy of no funding regardless of restrictions, but, you know, the policy Al Gore maybe, might have implemented had he been elected in 2000.
  • End Gobal Warming! Well, the man-made part of it anyway.  The solar and geophysical trends of the last 20,000 years will just have to work themselves out.  Hopefully, once petroleum exhaust and cow farts are under control, all the other warming that’s been going on remorselessly since the last ice age will kind of work itself out, or won’t matter…or something.
  • Save us from economic ruin.  Why should anyone have to suffer the consequences of their own irresponsible actions?
  • If you can’t give us all free health care, at least make someone else pay for it, just like the Europeans and Canadians who get all the health care they can handle without ever seeing what percentage of their tax bill goes to “free” medicine.
  • And while we’re on the subject of Europeans: Can we please let them pay a little more for their own defense?  I mean, does it seem right to you that these people should be forced to ally themselves with a corrupt empire like the U.S. just to keep the ayatollahs and Russians at bay? Think how much better they will feel about themselves if we just let them take care of their own security problems.

The list could go on, of course, but I’ll settle for just that little to-do list.  I would, however, like to remind the incoming administration of something that should not be overlooked:

Al-Qaeda is determined to attack inside the United States.  They might use airplanes or truck bombs or suicide bombers.  They might highjack airplanes and hold the passengers hostage or they might crash the airplanes into buildings or into other airplanes or for find some other nefarious purpose.

They might use the truck bombs against public or private buildings or just explode them in public places with a lot of people around.  They might do something similar with suicide bombers.  Or they might place cell phone triggered bombs on commuter trains or in hotel lobbies.  They might have guys with machine guns, hand grenades and satchel bombs attack airports, hotels and restaurants.

I don’t know how I can be more specific than this — I mean I’ve just detailed several scenarios that must surely be on AQ’s drawing board right now.  And anyone can imagine this happening at any time.  So President Obama, if any of this happens on your watch: It’s on you buddy — just like Bush is saddled with 9/11.


Nov 11 2008

Ready to What???

U.S. Presidents don’t “rule” they govern. This may seem a bit nitpicky, but it is an essential constitutional principal. And, by the way, the President of the United States does not “run the country.” The POTUS runs the Executive Branch of the Federal Government. An important job, to be sure, but not equivalent of a king.

Continue reading


Nov 7 2008

A Vote to Nowhere?

I’m probably making too much of this but, for me, this was the biggest surprise of election night.

Ted Stevens was one of the Republicans the Democrats were most certain they would be knocking off on their triumphant march to total domination of Congress.  It seemed obvious to everyone that there was little chance he would retain his Senate seat having been convicted of a felony just a few days before the election.  But, here he is, leading in the count with 99% of counties reporting.

Of course, it’s unlikely that the Senate will actually seat him on January 3rd.  The chamber has the right to refuse membership to anyone it deems a discredit to the body.  Still, I don’t think there is any actual law or rule prohibiting a convicted felon from serving out a duly elected term.  That might prove a bit inconvenient if he is actually incarcerated.


Jul 27 2007

Bulls, Bears and Donkeys

The First President Overlooks the Nations Premier MarketIt’s easy to say: “I knew it all along.” So I’ll restrain myself. But, I have to wonder why other people are just noticing that Wall Street has been slouching toward the left for a decade or more now.

I mean, you knew that John Corzine is a Democrat, didn’t you? And not a “Reagan Democrat” but a real, live, redistribution Democrat. And so is Warren Buffett.

Continue reading


Jul 9 2007

Commuting Scooter

lewis_libby.jpgI had every intention of avoiding the Lewis “Scooter” Libby sentence commutation altogether, expecting that the story would just go away after a few days because, really, the President has the constitutional privilege of commuting any sentence he wants, anytime he wants, for any reason he wants.

It’s no surprise, I guess, that of all the commutations of all the presidents in the history of the United States, this one has the distinction of being the most intolerable ever.  The Liberal pundacrocy is certain beyond doubt that this exercise of executive clemency is irrefutable evidence of impeachable corruption and reason enough to remove the President from office.

I’m no particular fan of Lewis Libby, or for that matter, his boss Vice President Richard Cheney.  I agree that the revelation of Valerie Plame’s name to Robert Novak and other journalists at least warranted an investigation, and that Libby was duty bound to cooperate in that investigation.  I also believe that Patrick Fitzgerald proved his case that Isidore Lewis Libby deliberately obstructed his investigation and was justly found guilty of the crime.  I would have preferred to see Libby serve some time for the crime.

Continue reading


Apr 13 2007

Anything's Possible, I Guess.

New York Times front page headline today: “Missing E-Mail May Be Related to Prosecutors.”

But then the first paragraph of the article is just a little less certain about the significance of the missing e-mails: “WASHINGTON, April 12 — The White House said Thursday that missing e-mail messages sent on Republican Party accounts may include some relating to the firing of eight United States attorneys.”

Finally, we get to the crux of the matter with this resolute assertion: “As to whether the missing e-mail related to the prosecutors’ dismissals, Mr. Stanzel said, “It can’t be ruled out.”

NYT, are you sure you want to be this unequivocal: “It can’t be ruled out?”