Dave Ramsey on the President's jobs plan

Radio host Dave Ramsey, who has been mentioned on this blog at least once before, appeared this week on CBS's "The Early Show" to talk about President Obama's jobs plan (incorrectly referred to in this interview as "The American Jobs Act", though that title has now been taken by a quite different bill*).  The video, helpfully enough, appears here:



You can also access the same video at CBS News's webpage here.

Mr. Ramsey, while not saying anything disparaging about President Obama, gives what can only be described as a backhanded compliment by saying "I think the President's a great orator."  I translate that, basically, to "he talks a good game," and I would say he definitely does that.  But Mr. Ramsey, in a very unsurprising turn (for those who know him), doesn't really care for the jobs plan itself.

Some of my favorite quotes from Mr. Ramsey:

• "I resist the tax code telling me how to behave." 
• "A $4000 tax credit is not gonna cause me to hire people that I gotta pay for the next five or ten years."
• "Government's role is...to push the taxes back from the edges...so that, as the owner of the business, I have more money; then I can hire people."

As usual, I think Dave Ramsey is spot on.  Watch the video and see what you think.

* It should be obvious even to the occasional reader of this blog which of the "American Jobs Acts" I prefer.

Obama, Hayward take leisure time...guess which gets reported?

When it comes to the gulf oil disaster, Barack Obama and Tony Hayward have basically been two sides of the same coin.  Neither appears to be helping the situation very much, at least for the residents of the gulf coast states affected.  Just ask Bobby Jindal.

Well, what did I see shouted at me as the top AP headline when I checked my mail this morning?  (Yes, I use a web-based mail a lot...that way spammers leave my home address alone.)  The top headline, complete with a picture of Tony Hayward looking embarrassed at the recent congressional hearings, read "As oil spews in Gulf, BP chief at UK yacht race".  Oh, here's a fun passage from this totally impartial article:*

In a statement, BP described Hayward's day off as "a rare moment of private time" and said that "no matter where he is, he is always in touch with what is happening within BP" and can direct recovery operations if required.

That is likely to be a hard sell in Gulf states struggling to deal with the up to 120 million gallons of oil that have escaped from a blown-out undersea well.

So, apparently Mr. Hayward took a bit of leisure time and attended a sporting event (I'm not going to debate here whether yachting is a sport).  

The coverage Mr. Hayward's excursion has received, of course, is as opposed to the coverage of President Obama, who, it has been said, has been fully engaged in this mess since Day One.  And how did he choose to engage himself in it last night (that would be Friday, June 17, 2010, or Day 60, for those keeping score at home)?  That's right:  he attended a sporting event!

After hunkering down for several weeks to deal with the oil spill, President Obama finally made it out of the house for some fun – and showed up at the Nationals game on Friday night.

(It should be noted that the preceding quote came from the Washington Post's Nationals blog linked by Liberty Scout through the link above.  The blog goes on to point out that coming soon on President Obama's agenda is to congratulate the Los Angeles Lakers at the White House.  Busy times, indeed.)

So, Tony Hayward gets pilloried for attending a yacht race, and Barack Obama gets his usual fawning coverage for attending a baseball game.  That doesn't quite seem fair, does it?  I mean, if either of them were effective at all in solving this huge problem in the gulf, I suppose the disparity in coverage would be justified.  But they haven't been.

And, while this is apparently Mr. Hayward's first leisure time in quite a while, that can't quite be said for certain other people:



Draw your own conclusions as to what I think of the media coverage of this mess.

*Sarcasm detectors for reading articles on my blog may be picked up in your grocer's freezer, if you don't already have one.

Who has the better plan for the oil spill: Obama or Palin?

Those who haven't been distracted by constantly blasting vuvuzelas at the World Cup might have noticed that President Obama gave a speech tonight about the BP oil disaster (on the ever-so-timely Day 57 of the crisis).  The speech started okay (see the transcript here), I suppose, but as it went on, two themes seemed to be clear in the president's message:  1)  you, the American people, need more government; and 2) you, the American people, are going to pay through the nose.  (I suppose there could be a third theme of "BP is evil" in there, too.)

The "more government" idea was hit hard and often, starting with tomorrow's planned meeting with BP's chairman (who does have a name, according to BP's Wikipedia entry but not according to President Obama's speech...perhaps it's easier to demonize people without names, or something) to "inform him that he is to set aside whatever resources are required to compensate" pretty much everyone involved, and that this fund would be "administered by an independent, third party."  Now, did I miss the provision in Article II of the Constitution allowing him to do this, particularly to an international (BP, for the uninformed, originally stood for "British Petroleum") corporation?  But then again, the president has named "czars" for everything else under the sun, so why should we think he would have anything other than a bureaucracy to handle this situation?

(Aside:  there are a lot of czars, aren't there?  You could say there were enough to fill up a clown car.  And then, if there were someone to oversee that, he could be the Clown Car Czar.  But I digress.)

And, of course, President Obama could not let this occasion go by without pressing for a comprehensive energy bill (which, from the name, sounds innocuous enough, but there's nothing about the current Congress that makes me trust that it will be in practice).

All in all, the push for more government, when obviously the one we have has not been doing its job terribly well to begin with, does not appeal to me (which should come as a surprise to exactly none of my regular readers).  But what really irks me about this speech in particular is this portion:

Now, there are costs associated with this transition. And some believe we can't afford those costs right now. I say we can't afford not to change how we produce and use energy - because the long-term costs to our economy, our national security, and our environment are far greater.

Yeah, you bet there'll be costs.  What was the estimate I saw previously that I'm not going to look up right now because I want to finish this before midnight...utility bills under one proposed cap-and-trade bill would go up, on average, something like 57%.  That's what we need during a recession, isn't it?  But President Obama speaks to that issue, in a roundabout way:

This nation has known hard times before and we will surely know them again.

Just as soon as utility rates go up and the Bush tax cuts all expire.  (The tax cuts presently expire in just over six months...Merry Christmas, y'all!)

Really, the whole speech, which was criticized by even such people as Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews, deserves a good solid fisking.  From someone else.

Because the reaction I want to talk about briefly is that of Sarah Palin, who has had quite a bit of experience in dealing with the oil industry (whereas President Obama can possibly see an Amoco station from his house).  As might be expected, she wasn't thrilled with tonight's speech, and thanks to the good folks at PalinTV, here is her appearance on The O'Reilly Factor just moments after the speech had ended:



The Right Scoop has lots of good things to say about Governor Palin's segment that is too good not to steal, er, borrow, er, quote:

Palin told O’Reilly that we can’t just get rid of oil, but we need to develop all three legs of the stool – conventional, renewable, and conservation. She then chided Obama for not understanding the linkage between our energy and national security.

Like it or not--and obviously the president and many, many others don't--oil and other fossil fuels are not going anywhere in the near future.  To state a goal of moving predominantly toward renewable resources is well and good, but regardless of the amount of money we throw at it (and it's gonna be a lot, if some people get their way), we cannot turn the basis of our society on a dime away from oil and coal, and the pie-in-the-sky mentality I saw tonight is not what we need from our president.  The practical, pragmatic approach from Mrs. Palin is what I would very much prefer to see.

Timeline of Obamacare

You may want to print this entry for reference.  Or, just come back to it often.*

Per The Hill, the National Federation of Independent Business has prepared a timeline of when the many different provisions of H.R. 3590 (the bill signed by President Obama yesterday) go into effect.  This has been done to argue against the reconciliation fixes currently under (limited) debate by the Senate (H.R. 4872).

The release, in its entirety, follows:

The healthcare bill passed by the Senate and House will go into effect over a number of years. In 2010, 2011, 2012 and 2013, most of the bill’s provisions involve new taxes and obligations. For the most part, the healthcare system changes begin in 2014, with some aspects of implementation farther in the future. Below is a timeline of some of the major provisions of this bill.
For more information on these provisions, please visit The Kaiser Family Foundation.

This timeline reflects only the Senate bill signed into law on March 23. Now, the Senate is considering a Reconciliation Bill (H.R. 4872) which, if passed, will alter the details of these provisions. We oppose the Reconciliation Bill because in many ways, it takes a bad bill (H.R. 3590) and makes it worse.

2010
§         Small business health tax credit: This will do little to nothing to help small firms afford insurance. The credit is very restrictive and puts small business owners through a series of complicated tests to determine the actual amount of the credit. (1) Very few small firms will receive the full credit (only firms with 10 employees or less). For firms with 11-25 employees, the credit is reduced per employee. Firms with more than 25 employees get NO credit. (2) Only firms who pay their workers $25,000 or less are eligible for the full credit. The credit is reduced as the average wage goes up, stopping at $50,000. The credit is only available for a maximum of five years.
§         Brand-name drug tax: Manufacturers and importers of brand-name drugs will pay a tax of $2.3 billion. This cost will be passed on to consumers.
§         Age 26: Children may stay on their parents’ policies until age 26.

2011
§         W-2 reporting: Employers will be required to report employees’ health benefits on W-2s.
§         HSA & FSA limits: Consumers can no longer use HSAs and FSAs to purchase certain items, including most over-the-counter medication prescribed by physicians.
§         HSA penalty: The penalty for making non-qualified purchases with an HSA increases to 20%.
§         FSA limits: Cafeteria plan FSAs will be limited to $2,500 (inflation adjusted after 2011.)
§         Medicare cuts: Physicians’ Medicare reimbursement will be cut substantially unless Congress enacts the so-called “doc-fix” to restore their payment levels.
§         Medical device tax: Manufacturers and importers of certain medical devices will be taxed $2 billion per year (for 2011-2017) and then $3 billion per year thereafter. These costs will ultimately fall on the consumer.
§         Small business health insurance tax: An annual fee on health insurance providers will be passed on to consumers. This tax will fall on the vast majority of plans that small businesses purchase, but not on self-insured plans (such as most big business and labor union policies). The amounts are $2 billion for 2011, $4 billion for 2012, $7 billion for 2013, and $9 billion per year for 2014 through 2016, $10 billion thereafter, with certain exceptions.
§         Tanning salon tax: A 10% excise tax on indoor tanning services begins.
§         Federally subsidized long-term care: Voluntary payroll deductions begin for the CLASS long-term care program. All working adults will be automatically enrolled unless they choose to opt out. This program will almost certainly cost the federal government far more than what the payroll deductions will cover. So this entitlement is yet another unfunded liability to add to federal deficits for decades to come.

2012
§         1099 reporting: Businesses will have to complete 1099 forms for every business-to-business transaction of $600 or more – a tremendous new paperwork burden for small business.

2013
§         Cadillac tax: The government will collect a so-called “Cadillac Tax” – a 40% excise tax on health coverage in excess of $8,500 annually for an individual or $23,000 annually per family. This tax is inadequately indexed for medical inflation, so as healthcare costs rise, more and more people will be swept into this tax each year. This is similar to the alternative minimum tax – designed to hit the “rich” but reaching farther and farther into the middle class each year.
§         Fewer deductible medical expenses: New limits are placed on the deductibility of medical expenses on individual income tax returns. This provision raises the 7.5% AGI floor on medical expenses deductions to 10%. The AGI floor for those 65 and older (and their spouses) remains at 7.5% through 2016. 
§         Medicare payroll taxes: The Medicare payroll tax on wages and self-employment income in excess of $200,000 ($250,000 joint) will increase to 2.35% and is not indexed to inflation. This tax marks the first time that funds designated for Medicare will be diverted elsewhere – specifically to pay for the insurance policies of people under the Medicare age. This establishes a precedent for treating the payroll tax as a  revenue raiser for other purposes.

2014
§         Health insurance exchanges: Up until 2014, the bill collects a great deal of taxes but does little to change healthcare. In 2014, that begins to change with the opening of insurance exchanges.
§         Premium credits: The federal government begins subsidizing individuals up to 400% of the federal poverty line – around $88,000 today. These credits will subsidize individuals purchasing insurance in exchanges, but not those with traditional employer-sponsored plans. 
§         Medicaid eligibility expands: The income level for Medicaid eligibility rises, bringing tens of millions of new people into Medicaid. This Medicaid expansion will account for around half of the total increase in insurance coverage and will place considerable new financial pressure on states, with higher taxes a likely response.
§         Medicare cost-cutting: Beginning in 2014, Medicare must begin recommending ways to cut costs in the provision of care.
§         Benefits package: Federal government defines essential benefits package. All policies must comply.
§         Individual mandate: Starting in 2014, all U.S. citizens and legal residents must have qualifying health coverage or pay penalties. For an individual, the penalty begins in 2014 at the greater of $95 or 0.5% of household income. In 2015, it grows to $495 or 1.0%. In 2016, it reaches $750 or 2%. (For families, the figure will be $2,250.) After 2016, the amount will rise by a cost-of-living adjustment.
§         Employer mandate: The bill contains a complex employer mandate requiring some firms to provide insurance, pay penalties or both. The penalties are based on (1) the number of full-time employees, (2) whether or not the firm offers coverage, and (3) whether or not one or more employees qualify for government subsidies toward the purchase of health insurance. An employee qualifies for a subsidy if his or her household income is below 400% of the federal poverty line ($88,000 for an individual today). Here are some of the rules:
o        More than 50 full-time employees. Does not offer insurance. Has one or more employees receiving premium subsidies. Penalty = $750 per employee.
o        More than 50 full-time employees. Offers insurance. Has one or more employees receiving premium subsidies. Penalty = lesser of $3,000 per subsidized employee or $750 per employee.
o        More than 50 full-time employees. Offers insurance. Has no employees receiving premium subsidies. No penalty.
o        50 or fewer full-time employees. No penalty.
There are extra penalties for firms who have a waiting period before employees are eligible for insurance.
§         Small construction company employer mandate: In all other industries, firms with 50 or fewer employees are exempt from the mandate. In the construction industry, the exemption only applies to firms with 5 or fewer employees. Consider a construction firm that does not provide insurance and which has seven employees and a payroll of $250,000. This firm will owe $5,250 (= 7 employees x $750). In addition, the law does not define what it means by “construction firm” and leaves that definition to regulators.

* In fact, I urge all my readers to visit this blog every day.  You are also welcome to use the tip jar located in the right column.  You should do that every day too.

My Taxes Aren't Going Up - O RLY? Health Care edition

Now that the House has passed the Senate's health-care bill (H.R. 3590), let's revisit once again the idea, stated very clearly by President Obama, that your taxes won't go up if you make less than $250,000 a year.  Was that true?  Well, let's take a look at the bill, as analyzed by Americans for Tax Reform.  Per their analysis, there are "seven taxes that unquestionably violate Obama’s pledge".  And they are:

Individual Mandate Excise Tax (Page 324/Sec. 1501/Jan 2014*): Starting in 2014, anyone not buying “qualifying” health insurance must pay an income surtax according to the higher of the following (page 71 of manager’s amendment updates Reid bill):

	Single	2 People	3+ People
2014	$495/0.5% AGI	$990/0.5% AGI	$1485/0.5%/AGI
2015	$495/1.0% AGI	$990/1.0% AGI	$1485/1.0%/AGI
2016+	$495/2.0% AGI	$990/2.0% AGI	$1485/2.0%/AGI

Exemptions for religious objectors, undocumented immigrants, prisoners, those earning less than the poverty line, members of Indian tribes, and hardship cases (determined by HHS).

Employer Mandate Tax (Page 348/Sec. 1513/Jan 2014*):  Small business owners pay their business taxes on their personal 1040 forms.  This tax does not exempt startup small business owners even if they make less than $250,000. If the employer does not offer health coverage, and at least one employee qualifies for a health tax credit, the employer must pay an additional non-deductible tax of $750 for all full-time employees.  Applies to all employers with 50 or more employees.

If the employer requires a waiting period to enroll in coverage of 30-60 days, there is a $400 tax per employee ($600 if the period is 60 days or longer).

Medicine Cabinet Tax (Page 1997/Sec. 9003/$5 bil/Jan 2011): Americans would no longer be able to use health savings account (HSA), flexible spending account (FSA), or health reimbursement (HRA) pre-tax dollars to purchase non-prescription, over-the-counter medicines (except insulin).

HSA Withdrawal Tax Hike (Page 1998/Sec. 9004/$1.3 bil/Jan 2011): Increases additional tax on non-medical early withdrawals from an HSA from 10 to 20 percent, disadvantaging them relative to IRAs and other tax-advantaged accounts, which remain at 10 percent.

Flexible Spending Account Cap – aka “Special Needs Kids Tax” (Page 1999/Sec. 9005/$14 bil/Jan 2011): Imposes cap on FSAs of $2500 (now unlimited).  Indexed to inflation after 2011 (added on page 363 of manager’s amendment). There is one group of FSA owners for whom this new cap will be particularly cruel and onerous: parents of special needs children.  There are thousands of families with special needs children in the United States, and many of them use FSAs to pay for special needs education.  Tuition rates at one leading school that teaches special needs children in Washington, D.C. (National Child Research Center) can easily exceed $14,000 per year. Under tax rules, FSA dollars can be used to pay for this type of special needs education.

Medical Itemized Deductions Cap (Page 2034/Sec. 9013/$15.2 bil/Jan 2013): Currently, those facing high medical expenses are allowed a deduction if the total cost of the expenses reduces the filer’s income by 7.5%. The new provision would impose a threshold of 10%. This new tax will most adversely affect early retirees and the catastrophically ill. Waived for 65+ taxpayers in 2013-2016 only.

Tax on Indoor Tanning Services (Page 373 of Manager’s amendment/$2.7 billion/July 1, 2010): New 10% excise tax on Americans using indoor tanning salons

NONE OF THE ABOVE PROVISIONS EXEMPTS FAMILIES MAKING LESS THAN $250,000

It just blows me away that a Facebook friend just praised President Obama for keeping his promises.  If these seven taxes do not totally represent the breaking of a fundamental campaign promise to the American people, I don't know what does.

Dishonorees #3, 4, 5 and 6

I continue to be somewhat surprised and disappointed at the number of people who run afoul of Snowed In's Theory.  The term to which my theory refers is a pejorative little term ("teabagger") used by people who apparently have little of value to say.  It's very frustrating to hear the term quite so often, and yet there are certain places--and networks--where it is commonplace.

And thus it is that two people from MSNBC, along with a guest, think that using pejoratives to define your political opposition is the funniest thing since David Letterman made a tasteless joke about a Palin daughter.

One such dishonoree--you knew this day would come quickly--is Keith Olbermann, who is so wonderfully objective that there is an entire website set up to him, and this website documents his recent (probably not the first, but the first I've seen documented since I wrote the theory) foray into the land of bad taste, a land with which Mr. Olbermann is quite familiar by now.

Also, as documented by Kathleen McKinley in a nice post here, Rachel Maddow and frequent guest Ana Marie "Don't Call Me Wonkette" Cox are frequent users of the offending term.  (There may be a silver lining to this portion of the story...see the end of this column for more.)  I could have documented Ms. Maddow's use of the pejorative term myself, except that I have seemingly blocked the short period of time during which I had MSNBC from my mind.  :)

Like I said, this is MSNBC about which we are talking, so the use of a term such as "teabagger" from its on-air personalities shouldn't surprise me.  But I expect more from our public officials (except my esteemed representative, Lloyd Doggett, from whom I expect little and yet still manage to be disappointed) than to disparage their political opponents in such a manner.  And thus I found myself a little shocked, I suppose, and very unhappy to hear that none other than President Obama has dishonored himself and his office with a quote such as "Does anybody think that the teabag, anti-government people are going to support them if they bring down health care?"  Lest anyone think this quote must have been made up, it was supplied to the NYTimes by a Dem representative, Earl Blumenauer of Oregon, as reported by the National Review Online.

So, in case there was any question regarding what President Obama really thinks of people with whom he doesn't agree, let's make it clear:  President Obama has no respect for you whatsoever.  If you want to disagree with this, disavow the slur above.  And don't come back at me with "well, your side has said blah blah blah..."  Yeah, so that gives our president an excuse to drop down to the level of some of his critics?  The president has the responsibility to be above that kind of thing.  The end.

Ugh.  Let's move on to a better portion of this sad story.  The above-mentioned Kathleen McKinley, aka @RWSparkle (well worth following, by the way, as she is better spoken than I, and she also blogs more regularly than I apparently will be this month) challenged Ms. Cox in the post cited above to stop her use of the term "teabaggers", as shown in the following Twitter exchange (snipped so as to hold on to what little shred of a G rating this blog still has):

RWSparkle @anamariecox I have a better idea. Why don't you stop using the crude term "teabaggers" in Tony Snow's memory?


annamariecox RT @RWSparkle: Why don't you stop using the crude term "teabaggers"? // if you donate to fight colorectal cancer, I'll never use it again.


RWSparkle Why don't u stop using the crude term"teabaggers"? //RT @anamariecox if you donate 2 fight colorectal cancer, I'll never use it again// U GOT IT!


RWSparkle EVERYONE NOTE! @anamariecox promised not to use "teabaggers" anymore if I contributed. I'm the TOP contributer http://tinyurl.com/ycneyyx


RWSparkle @anamariecox I'm taking you at your word. Tony Snow would approve. A good thing to do in his memory.

If you approve of this, you should consider donating as well.

Epilogue:  since I started writing this thing, I have seen confirmation that Ms. Cox has invoked the offending term once more.  Way to keep your promise.  (courtesy this tweet from RWSparkle)  People should still donate, but Ms. Cox needs to be called out for this.  This may end up as a new corollary:  once a dishonoree, always a dishonoree.  I certainly hope that doesn't hold up as true, but nothing I have seen so far from any dishonoree has changed my perception.  Such is life in the Age of Hope and Change, I suppose.

Stuff I Missed

Well, this is what happens when one's day job eats into time that could be spent blogging.  (Given that the day job pays better*, that is probably the better choice with regard to my time management.  But that's a discussion for sometime around never.)  In any case, here are the stories I would have mentioned earlier if I had had time, but since I didn't, I'll just link to people to did it for me, and you can read it from them.

Rachelle Friberg adds yet another voice to the growing chorus stating that the Republican Party of 2009 does not represent true conservative values, as evidenced in NY-23, where the powers that be chose liberal Republican Dede Scozzafava as their candidate over Doug Hoffman, who is now the Conservative Party candidate.  As she states very well, this same divide is shown in that some of the Republican establishment (who, I suppose, think they know what is best for the party) have seen fit to try to throw Sarah Palin under the bus as well, despite the fact that what she says resonates with many.  And so I suppose we shouldn't be surprised to see her endorsing Doug Hoffman.  Ms. Friberg includes Governor Palin's entire Facebook note, but you can also see it here.

Since then, several other people have weighed in to state their opinion on the happenings in NY-23, given the Palin endorsement.  Conservatives 4 Palin compiles some of these opinions here.

Meanwhile, the Obama administration apparently went right off the deep end with regard to its hatred of Fox News, as Ed Morrissey at Hot Air states.  My favorite quote:

Meanwhile, how bad is this for the White House?  They now have all of the broadcast networks on record defending their competitor as a news organization.  That reinforces reporting Fox News will do in the future, to the detriment of White House efforts to marginalize them.  Plus, obviously, they look completely foolish in having to back down from their threat.

Finally, Adrienne Ross has an update on her crusade against the defamation of Sarah Palin with regard to a display linking her to the banning of books (which, as I said earlier this week, she never did, or even tried to do).  I suppose it's a small victory, but a victory nonetheless.  Check out Ms. Ross's update for details.

With luck, I can get back on top of my workload eventually, so that I can give these types of situations the attention they deserve, not just from me, but from you, the loyal, well-informed reader. 

*Tips might change that.  Tip jar's to the right, with many thanks.

Dreams from Bill Ayers?

Anne Leary at BackyardConservative writes of an interesting encounter with one Bill Ayers yesterday.  According to the discussion she relates, he was speaking to a consortium called the Renaissance Group.

It's well worth a read.  I especially like this part:

Then, unprompted he said--I wrote Dreams From My Father. I said, oh, so you admit it. He said--Michelle asked me to. I looked at him. He seemed eager. He's about my height, short. He went on to say--and if you can prove it, we can split the royalties.

The entire writeup may be found here.  Check it out.

Obama went to Copenhagen and all he got was this lousy T-shirt

Look, I don't necessarily care if Chicago had gotten the 2016 Olympics or not. What annoyed me about the whole process was that President Obama took time away from dealing with a messed-up economy (or a jobless recovery, depending on how you look at it), an increasingly unpopular war in Afghanistan that really needs some attention from him, a national debt that is skyrocketing, and, if you lean the other way politically (hi, Dad), taking over the health-care system and punishing energy consumers.

As Tommy Christopher pointed out to me earlier today, President Bush certainly did not get a free pass when he was seen to be taking long ranch vacations or playing golf a lot.  (Remember "now watch this drive"?)  So why was it okay for President Obama to drop everything to lobby for this?  (Granted, Mr. Christopher was looking at his statement from a different angle than I was, but my point stands.)

It was a lose-lose situation for President Obama to go on this trip anyway.  Why?  Well, if he were to get the Olympics for Chicago, and the conventional wisdom in the MSM was that he would, then charges would be made (and were already being made) that he went just to get his own personal glory about having accomplished this.  (This drive for personal glory does seem to color some of his policy decisions.  Yes, that's my opinion.  It's also my blog.)  And now that he hasn't succeeded (or, as some ecstatic people on my side have put it today, "EPIC FAIL"), that is seen as a personal slap in the face for President Obama and his credibility (further discussion here).  It is my opinion that he would have been much better off had he simply stayed in Washington.

This ever-so-slightly snarky video from Cuffy Meigs appears to sum this whole story up:

Three Responses to the Obamacare Speech

Eighteen hours after President Obama spoke before a joint session of Congress about the urgent need to secure his legacy fix the American health care system, he must be flummoxed to find that most of the attention has been diverted away from what he said. I have found three statements so far that sum up the response to the speech, at least for me. Excerpts only are shown, except for the first one.

1. Joe Wilson (R-SC), whose statement is shown in its entirety and which you've probably already heard 418 times by now:

You lie!

That comment, regardless of its validity, was stated in the wrong context. Rep. Wilson should have gone out and held a news conference to call President Obama a liar, as pretty much every Democrat in Congress did with regard to President Bush.

But was President Obama lying in his statement about illegal immigration which unintentionally solicited Rep. Wilson's outburst? More on that in this next response.

2. Kathleen McKinley, aka Rightwingsparkle:

I didn't hear anything different from the last 28 speeches he has given on health care. He said the same things that have been disputed as well.

[...]

He denies that abortion and illegal immigrants will be covered in the bill, and yet every wording that has been submitted by Republicans that specifically requires those things not be covered , in writing, has been rejected and thrown out by the Democrats. They know that if it isn't specifically rejected in the bill, it will be covered. It will fall under some other provision. It's their dirty little secret. Why else reject the language?

He says "nothing in our plan requires you to change what you have." Notice the nuance there. No, of course nothing "requires" it, but if your employer chooses the public option, then you have no choice but to change. The stone cold truth is that the Congressional Budget Office analyzed the health care bill written by House Democrats and reported that by 2016 some 3 million people who now have employer-based care would lose it because their employers would decide to stop offering it.

Ms. McKinley does a nice job of pointing out what could at best be described as half-truths presented by President Obama. She goes on to make other salient points that aren't covered here because I want you to go read her blog.

3. Sarah Palin:

After all the rhetoric is put aside, one principle ran through President Obama’s speech tonight: that increased government involvement in health care can solve its problems.

[...]

Our objections to the Democrats’ health care proposals are not mere “bickering” or “games.” They are not an attempt to “score short term political points.” And it’s hard to listen to the President lecture us not to use “scare tactics” when in the next breath he says that “more will die” if his proposals do not pass.

In his speech the President directly responded to concerns I’ve raised about unelected bureaucrats being given power to make decisions affecting life or death health care matters. He called these concerns “bogus,” “irresponsible,” and “a lie” -- so much for civility. After all the name-calling, though, what he did not do is respond to the arguments we’ve made, arguments even some of his own supporters have agreed have merit.

In fact, after promising to “make sure that no government bureaucrat .... gets between you and the health care you need,” the President repeated his call for an Independent Medicare Advisory Council -- an unelected, largely unaccountable group of bureaucrats charged with containing Medicare costs. He did not disavow his own statement that such a group, working outside of “normal political channels,” should guide decisions regarding that “huge driver of cost ... the chronically ill and those toward the end of their lives....” He did not disavow the statements of his health care advisor, Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, and continuing to pay his salary with taxpayer dollars proves a commitment to his beliefs. The President can keep making unsupported assertions, but until he directly responds to the arguments I’ve made, I’m going to call him out too.

When it comes to the so-called "death panels", many people, including myself, had not done our homework when it came to the context of the House health care bill (HR 3200, Sec. 1233), but Sarah Palin certainly had.

And none of these excerpts cover the other main objection I have to a lot of these large spending bills, which is, of course, that we have to pay for it somehow. Kathleen McKinley sums that concern up:

He said that he will not sign a bill that will add a dime to the deficit. I don't think there is a reasonable person out there that believes that. The Congressional Budget Office said that the bill the House Democrats have offered would add $220 billion to the deficit over ten years.

And as for the response to these types of responses to the opposition? Again, Kathleen nails it:

Pres. Obama also said " I still believe we can replace acrimony with civility." He might also send that memo to the Democrat leaders who call ordinary Americans who oppose the public option "evil mongers," compared them to "Nazis," and call them "an angry mob."

One need only look at the people who troll the comment section for pretty much every Sarah Palin post on Facebook to see that this memo is needed, not just for the Democratic leaders, but for all of us--the sooner, the better.

A Conservative Dad's View of the Austin Tea Party

On Saturday, I checked out the Tea Party at the Capitol, and I thought it would be educational to bring the 5-year-old along. The trip turned out to be an educational experience for both of us.

First of all, as we drove into downtown Austin, we saw at least three people with signs saying "I Need Tickets." The 5-year-old pointed out that those people shouldn't have been there because they should have gotten their tickets already. (This makes the 5-year-old wiser than many adults, apparently.) I then explained that many times, these people end up paying much more than the original ticket price, which pretty much solidified the 5-year-old's opinion on the matter.

Finally, we got to the Capitol Parking Complex, where I discovered, to my chagrin, that unlike what I had been led to believe, the first two hours of parking were not free. This led directly to my first real takeaway from this event, which should be passed along to anyone wanting to schedule an event in downtown Austin: never schedule an event in downtown Austin on the day of a UT football game. (The corollary to this would most likely be that people should never drive anywhere near downtown Austin on a UT game day without expecting to sit in traffic.)

We got to the Capitol grounds about twenty minutes before the event was supposed to start. There were already quite a few people there, as I expected. I haven't heard an official count (this site says more than 4000 were there), but we were both given wristbands (so "the media can't say 45 people were there", someone said later). The first person we met asked me if I was aware that Debra Medina (warning: page has embedded autoplaying video) was running in the Republican gubernatorial primary against Rick Perry and Kay Bailey Hutchison (I was). Most others were similarly genial, although there was at least one person shouting about his pet issue (in the case I'm remembering, the right to own guns). The 5-year-old didn't understand why he was shouting, and I tried to explain without going into a lot of detail.

As expected, there were hundreds of signs to be seen at the Tea Party. The 5-year-old wasn't paying attention to most of them, which was a good thing (because the 5-year-old reads quite well, thank you). Of course, everyone who wanted to be there came because we are not happy with the way the Obama administration has handled, well, pretty much every major item (I, for one, am not thrilled that the 5-year-old will have to help pay for this mess), but some of the signs were juvenile at best. I mean, do we really need plays on Obama's name, rude insults thrown at him (mostly...some were thrown at Nancy Pelosi and others), or whatever else? I feel about this about the same way I feel about people who use the term "teabaggers".

Anyway, about five minutes after the event was scheduled to start (and after the 5-year-old had asked me about 15 times when it would start), the canned music was turned off, and the first of many people took the microphone. I won't go into a lot of detail about what was said (the entire event has been posted on YouTube, starting here), but I will note a few things. First, I was surprised to see the event start with a prayer (that our country would do God's will), and I was happy that the 5-year-old got to see/hear someone sing our national anthem. Most of what I heard (I don't always hear too well, thanks to the 1990s and many pairs of earbuds) was about what I expected. Steven Crowder, who emceed the event, was his usual funny self.

With that said, I wasn't thrilled with what others said. Someone, I never knew who, raised the specter of whether Obama would allow elections in 2012. Um, yeah, didn't we hear the same thing about both Clinton and Bush? Besides, there are enough legitimate things to worry about with this administration, such as whether the dollar will have any value left after we print a bazillion of them to pay for everything. My takeaway from this: if you're concerned about a current issue, focus on that, rather than raising what-if scenarios to make things seem even worse. Both sides are bad about this, of course, but for me to be present at this particular event when someone said such a thing made me feel as if I was tacitly agreeing with him. Not so.

And this reminds me of something else I learned: if you didn't enjoy scheduled pep rallies in high school, you probably wouldn't enjoy political rallies such as this one. I always hated having to cheer on cue back then, and I felt rather silly when it was encouraged by the speakers at the Tea Party. Yes, I enjoyed hearing most of the speakers, you know, speak, but I wasn't moved to yell and scream in agreement by most of what I heard Saturday.

I did see some counter-protesters (three) holding signs in favor of a public option for health care and against "big insurance", but I didn't see much of any interaction between them and the main crowd. (One of them yelled about stopping big insurance, but no one knew what to do with such a remark. Seriously, everything stopped for about ten seconds.) But at least there were no hostilities that I could see. Takeaway: it is possible to protest and counter-protest without getting into fights, or, say, biting someone's finger off. (No, I'm not linking to the story, as most of my readers probably have seen it already, and it's gross.)

As it turned out, though, I did not get to see/hear all of the speakers (for example, I missed Joe the Plumber). The 5-year-old apparently has little tolerance for sitting and/or standing around listening to people speak for three hours about topics which are not quite as interesting to a 5-year-old as they are to me. I attempted to explain to the 5-year-old that people were not happy with what the president was doing, but later, the 5-year-old could only summarize what I said as something to the effect of "President Obama needs to stop." (At least she was trying to listen to me explain this.) The 5-year-old also wanted to go inside the Capitol and view the dome, which we did, and after that, we did not stay much longer, as the 5-year-old was "homesick", which I took to mean extremely bored.

And that brings us to the main lesson to be learned in all this, which I think many could stand to learn: don't bring a 5-year-old to a political rally.

You're welcome.

When Sarah knocked it out of the park

On September 3, 2008, at least 37.2 million viewers watched what was basically the coming-out party for Sarah Palin. Her speech resonated with and inspired the viewers, and it made many, including the Snowed family, think that Gov. Palin would and should be part of the solution to the issues facing our nation.

In case you missed it, or you need to reminded that Sarah Palin is not the caricature pushed on you by the elites in both parties, I invite you to set aside 45 minutes and watch that RNC speech, and get to know the real Sarah Palin.



(Video courtesy C-Span)

The transcript, as provided by the NYTimes, may be found here. As can be seen, Gov. Palin truly shone, for example, when speaking about energy policy (applause breaks cut):

I fought to bring about the largest private-sector infrastructure project in North American history. And when that deal was struck, we began a nearly $40 billion natural gas pipeline to help lead America to energy independence.

That pipeline, when the last section is laid and its valves are open, will lead America one step farther away from dependence on dangerous foreign powers that do not have our interests at heart.

The stakes for our nation could not be higher. When a hurricane strikes in the Gulf of Mexico, this country should not be so dependent on imported oil that we're forced to draw from our Strategic Petroleum Reserve. And families cannot throw more and more of their paychecks on gas and heating oil.

With Russia wanting to control a vital pipeline in the Caucasus and to divide and intimidate our European allies by using energy as a weapon, we cannot leave ourselves at the mercy of foreign suppliers.

To confront the threat that Iran might seek to cut off nearly a fifth of the world's energy supplies, or that terrorists might strike again at the Abqaiq facility in Saudi Arabia, or that Venezuela might shut off its oil discoveries and its deliveries of that source, Americans, we need to produce more of our own oil and gas. And take it from a gal who knows the North Slope of Alaska: We've got lots of both.

Our opponents say again and again that drilling will not solve all of America's energy problems, as if we didn't know that already. But the fact that drilling, though, won't solve every problem is no excuse to do nothing at all.

Starting in January, in a McCain-Palin administration, we're going to lay more pipelines, and build more nuclear plants, and create jobs with clean coal, and move forward on solar, wind, geothermal, and other alternative sources. We need American sources of resources. We need American energy brought to you by American ingenuity and produced by American workers.

And, while she ended up not being part of a McCain-Palin administration, as it turns out, she did have a pretty good idea of where government would go under an Obama administration (again, audience reactions cut):

What does he actually seek to accomplish...? The answer -- the answer is to make government bigger, and take more of your money, and give you more orders from Washington, and to reduce the strength of America in a dangerous world.

America needs more energy; our opponent is against producing it. Victory in Iraq is finally in sight, and he wants to forfeit. Terrorist states are seeking nuclear weapons without delay; he wants to meet them without preconditions.

[...]

Government is too big; he wants to grow it. Congress spends too much money; he promises more. Taxes are too high, and he wants to raise them. His tax increases are the fine print in his economic plan.

It's worth giving Sarah Palin another listen, isn't it?

Doggett, BOR Take Cheap Shot at Retired Lady

Austin's tolerant left has set their sights on...a retired lady in Fayette County.

The backstory, as has been reported at statesman.com and elsewhere, is that Fayette County Judge Ed Janecka called Chris Boyle, VP-Secretary of the Fayette County Taxpayers Coalition, to ask her not to protest the opening this week of a Veterans Administration clinic in La Grange, an event at which Rep. Lloyd Doggett is scheduled to appear. Ms. Boyle, as might be expected, is protesting Rep. Doggett's support of HR 3200, the so-called Obamacare bill; she also added in a statement that Rep. Doggett had nothing to do with having the clinic in La Grange.

Rep. Doggett of course, said that he had everything to do with it, saying "With meetings in both Washington and Texas, I have been working on getting this clinic to La Grange since 2006. Last year, I invited the VA to a meeting with veterans at the Fayette County Courthouse to involve them in the planning for this clinic." (Figuring out how much holding meetings had to do with the actual placement of a clinic in La Grange is left as an exercise to the reader, but given that he didn't claim credit for getting the money appropriated in the first place, I'm gonna guess it happened before La Grange became part of his district.)

Then, with his usual grace, Rep. Doggett added, "These Teabag extremists have every right to protest my unwavering commitment to health insurance reform anywhere that I go..." One gets the feeling that he's making a sly reference the same unfunny euphemism to which people losing the public-relations war have clung since April, "teabagger". (Finding out the definition of this phrase is also left to the reader, with the caveat that the definition is NSFW.)

In reporting this, as might be expected, the Burnt Orange Report threw the offending term right into the title of both its two posts covering it. Along with this, the writers there have no problem coming right out and calling Mrs. Boyle "crazy", telling her to "seek psychiatric help", and so forth, while also making up viewpoints for her, such as that she wants Congress to "[s]top meddling in the lives of those veterans and giving them medical care." (Yes, it was probably hyperbole. But yes, it was also disrepectful.)

Until both sides can have a discussion without resorting to names and insults, expect this sort of behavior to continue.

Sidenote: And why would people feel the need to protest Lloyd Doggett at this event? Possibly because some of them were refused entrance into his townhall meeting Saturday, as shown:

"He told me, 'This crowd would not want you in there anyway.'"

And why were there so many people who would not want a dissenting opinion about health care? According to Ramparts 360, MoveOn.org members were bused in from Dallas and elsewhere to pack Rep. Doggett's meeting. As for those people against the current health-care bill, there are reports that people were verbally and physically intimidated by people up to and including the senior pastor of the First United Methodist Church of Austin.

With this sort of behavior by Rep. Doggett's supporters, is it any wonder why people have taken to protesting?

Cash for Clunkers: An Extremely Non-Scientific Observation

We've all heard the about the Cash for Clunkers program--specifically, how it's slow to pay and is therefore causing some dealers to pull out of it, or how some people were claiming that the cars.gov website would allow the government full access to your personal computer--but the fact remains that new car sales are up as a result of this program. (As far as I know, neither of the Snowed family vehicles is eligible because, darn it, our mileage was too good to qualify.)

I hadn't really thought about the program very much until this morning, when I decided to pay attention to the new cars I was seeing on Manchaca Rd. (I could tell they were new, of course, because they didn't have license plates yet, though I suppose they could have had those new Texas plates I've seen in a few places.) In my relatively short drive to work, I noticed at least four plateless cars. Not surprisingly, one was a Ford Focus, which has proven to be quite popular. At least two others were "imports", that is, not one of the "Big 3" American automakers.

Not really a surprise to me? None of them were produced by partially-government-owned GM or Chrysler. Yeah, I wouldn't buy their cars either at this point.

(Disclaimer: the Snowed family vehicles were made, fittingly, by GM and Chrysler. Both were bought used, a long time ago.)

Dispelling Obamacare Falsehoods: 5 Freedoms You'll Lose

(Hope you enjoy this post...it's likely to be the first of many in a series.)

After hearing from Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Lloyd Doggett, and dozens of others that Obamacare will save us all, we have nothing to fear from it, everybody wants this, and whatever other talking points they have on a particular day, I decided that my blog (with its incredibly tiny sphere of influence) needed to point to some actual truth about it. Let's face it: people on both sides of this have made some pretty absurd statements.

But here is some truth, as disclosed by CNN, of all places: you'll lose 5 key freedoms under Obama's health care plan. The article discusses these in detail, but in short, those freedoms are:

1. Freedom to choose what's in your plan
2. Freedom to be rewarded for healthy living, or pay your real costs
3. Freedom to choose high-deductible coverage
4. Freedom to keep your existing plan
5. Freedom to choose your doctors

Do please check this out, since some of these items have been routinely misrepresented by President Obama and others. The gist is this: did you like the HMOs of the early 1990s? Then you'll really love Obamacare. If you didn't, then tell your representative and senators before it's too late.

(Hat tip: Conservatives 4 Palin for the link)

Congressman Doggett, Meet Reality

Congressman Lloyd Doggett seems to be doing a good job of milking the attention he's gotten from his August 1 town hall meeting at Randalls (see here and here for examples), but apparently he has not taken the time to get his facts straight about the controversial Obamacare bill before speaking about it publicly.

Case in point: at a meeting at a local Holiday Inn today (as covered here by KXAN), Rep. Doggett responded to a "what's the rush?" question thus:

"Maybe it was a rush when Harry Truman proposed it," responded Doggett. "But, it's not a rush anymore. We have been working on this bill since last year."

To the credit of at least some of the audience, he was rewarded with a fair amount of jeering laughter. It is obvious that the Democratic leaders are trying to rush this bill through. If nothing else, their own words say so, as shown:

"This debate is not a game for these Americans, and they can’t afford to wait any longer for reform."

[...]

"Number one, I’m rushed because I get letters every day from families that are being clobbered by health care costs. And they ask me, can you help? So I’ve got a middle-aged couple that will write me and they say, our daughter just found out she’s got leukemia and if I don’t do something soon we just either are going to go bankrupt or we’re not going to be able to provide our daughter with the care that she needs. And in a country like ours, that’s not right. So that’s part of my rush."

--Barack Obama, 23 July 2009 (courtesy the Wall Street Journal)

"Now — with Americans strongly supporting health insurance reform, with Congress reaching consensus on a plan, and with a president who ran and won on this specific promise of change — America is closer than ever to this century-deferred goal.

"This fall, at long last, we must [emphasis mine] reach it."

--Nancy Pelosi & Steny Hoyer, "'Un-American' attacks can't derail health care debate", 10 August 2009 (courtesy USA Today)

Afterwards, [President Obama] told reporters that what he heard only strengthened his conviction that health care reform is needed now.

--"Obama Steps Up Campaign for Health Care Reform", 20 July 2009 (courtesy Voice of America)

It is time for Rep. Doggett to step up and be truthful with his constituents. It would be a lot more productive than continuing to complain.

Doggett Gets an Earful...Again

It seems that Lloyd Doggett (D, TX-25) can't go anywhere without hearing from people not happy about the health-care bill. As most people heard Saturday (except me, because I was apparently not keeping up with anything that day), Rep. Doggett was met at his town hall meeting at a local Randalls by such a group. As I'm two days late with this news, I'll simply refer people to Michelle Malkin and Robbie Cooper. And, I'll go ahead and post the video everyone's already seen (or not, if they stay as well-informed as I did this weekend).



Commenter "Sara" at Robbie's blog had an interesting fact to add:

It actually started after he decided to cut his “office hours” short by 40 minutes and leave in a huff.

It doesn't appear from that as if Rep. Doggett was interested in hearing what people had to say. And while the Stateman's writeup of the event indicated that the crowd was angry and yet respectful (according to someone present at the event), Rep. Doggett felt the need to issue a statement denouncing the protesters as a "mob, sent by the local Republican and Libertarian parties". (Writeup, again per the Statesman, may be found here.)

And after that note of camaraderie, Rep. Doggett apparently held a press conference today on an unrelated matter. I say "apparently" because the KXAN report I saw covering it had more to do with his complaining about the protesting, complaining that they don't want anyone else to be heard, blah blah blah. It should be noted that KXAN reporter Jenny Hoff stated that she did not observe any protesters at the event today. That report is right here:



So I guess the question at this point is: why complain about protesters if no one was there today protesting, Rep. Doggett? Is it because you want people opposed to the health-care bill to shut up, as you accuse them of wanting of you? And if so, doesn't that seem the slightest bit, well, hypocritical?

And, more importantly, if this was so organized, as you claim, why didn't I know about it?

My Taxes Aren't Going Up - O RLY? - Part 2 of infinity

Let's make things perfectly clear. President Obama and the Democratic Congress do not want to reform health care. They want to transform it. Want proof?



Yes, government-rationed health care, coming soon if it isn't stopped. And what does it mean? Higher taxes, worse care.

(Hat tip: Hot Air)

An Open Letter to Anderson Cooper, Janeane Garofalo, Mike Dahmus, and way too many others to mention

Dear people who think that the use of the word "teabagging" (in talking about the over 300,000 people nationwide who attended the various Tea Parties on April 15) is the funniest thing since President Obama insulted the Special Olympics:

It's not: 1) funny; 2) original; 3) worth responding to. Mr. Dahmus, at least, had a point to go with his slam. (Said point was, however, totally irrelevant, and if Mr. Dahmus believes that taxes really are going to be decreased for 95% of the American people, he seriously needs to research how much cap-and-trade policies will cost the average household.) As for the rest of you, feel free to continue to destroy whatever credibility you guys still have. I'll probably not be watching you, because I'll most likely have to cancel my cable to help pay for our portion of the cap-and-trade tax.

Jindal: When is Hoping for Failure Okay?

Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal took time Tuesday night to explain what certain people mean when they say they want the president to fail. Do they want the country to fail? Of course not, but judging from the screeching of some talking heads, not only does my side want for the country to fail, but for it to be utterly destroyed (presumably so that it can be remade as some sort of Republic of Gilead).

Gov. Jindal's money quote is as follows:

So…my answer to the question is very simple – “Do you want the President to fail?” It depends on what he is trying to do.

As they say, read the whole thing.

(Hat tip: Hot Air)