Reagan on the 50?

Patrick McHenry, R-NC, has proposed that we change our 50 dollar bill from picturing Ulysses S. Grant with our 40th President, Ronald Reagan.  I think this is a fantastic idea (although putting Reagan on the penny would get him more face time under the Obama economy.)  Well, the LA Times is reporting distaste with this idea.  (http://articles.latimes.com/2010/mar/03/nation/la-na-reagan-fifty3-2010mar03) Democrat Brad Sherman said we should have a currency that unites us.  As Rush Limbaugh said, what is less uniting about winning 44 states and then 49 states in two elections?!  Other people have also expressed their disdain because of their love for Grant - seeing Grant's accomplishments more meaningful for the nation than Reagan's.  Oh really?!  Well, once again, we will let the eyes of history be our judge.  Let's list the accomplishments of both and see just whose are more meaningful.

Many historians would probably argue that the Civil War being won by the Union is more important than the Cold War being won.  So, the Civil War ends and what are the results?  We stay together as a nation and we have some important Amendments added to the Constitution (13th, 14th, and 15th).  The Cold War ended with an end to the strangle of Communism that Russia had on Europe it also made America safe and secure as Russia couldn't contend with Reagan's military.  See, we lose the Civil War and the nation is just cut in half.  We loose the Cold War and the nation no longer exists.  The rest of Reagan's accomplishments speak for themselves.  And, these are just a few of the many during his Administration.  We truly can say, as Reagan did, "Not bad...not bad at all."

Let's honor Reagan with a fitting tribute.  The mechanism of economics is supply and demand, but the mechanism of transaction, which ultimately drives supply and demand, is money.  In honor of a great economy Reagan allowed to happen, let's put him on the 50 dollar bill!

Obama Urges Taunting Of Talk Radio On Health Care

The Obama Reich can't get enough of health care.  After telling the Republicans at the summit meeting that if the American people don't want it, we'll just push it through anyway, Obama is now deploying a new tactic.  He is afraid that the message isn't getting heard because of talk radio.  (When, it is quite the opposite: the message is being heard.)  So, Obama has created a webpage that encourages health care supporters to call these talk radio shows and be armed with talking points.  These talking points are designed to hit the talk radio audience in a spot they are perceived as not having - their emotions.  Let's take a brief minute and examine these talking points.  (Go to http://radio.barackobama.com/ for the list)

1.  For most Americans, their health care plan covers too little and costs too much. Far too many people delay or even skip the care they need because they simply can’t afford it.

Covers too little?  Costs too much?  According to http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2010/feb/26/health-care-reform-simple-explanation-updated/ 60% of Americans get their health insurance through work.  These people are not buying their coverage.  Their company is buying the coverage and the employees are able to take advantage of the coverage through small deductions from their pay checks.  So, this "most Americans" is whom?! 

Allow me to translate "covers too little" - if you don't get EVERY service, visit, test, etc. covered, then you don't have the right coverage.  Allow me to translate "costs too much" - if you have to pay for your health care, then it costs too much.  These Democrats are once again just trying to get the federal government into the driver's seat of the American society. 

The notion of "too many people skip care" because they "can't afford it" only seems to exist in these talking points/tv ads.  Many ILLEGAL immigrants are getting the health care they need, free of charge.  Well, not free of charge, it came out of my pay check!

2.  The plan the President laid out includes the largest health care tax cut for middle class families in history and makes coverage more affordable for tens of millions of families and small business owners and expands coverage to over 31 million Americans who are currently uninsured.

Federalizing 1/6 of our economy is not a tax cut for the middle class!  Health care costs are high because we are in desperate need of TORT reform.  Frivolous lawsuits against doctors cause doctors to have more mal-practice insurance.  To pay these premiums, they need to have more income.  Therefore, health care costs MUST increase.  If you want health care to be more affordable - bring us TORT reform!  Nationalizing health care only deals with the symptom (and very poorly at that). 

Secondly, it is said that over 31 million Americans who are uninsured would now have coverage expanded to them.  This is prime territory to cause a Lib to jump ship and go to another point.  Here is the poignant question:  What is the reason for being uninsured?  Is it because when the poll was taken, many were in between insurance plans and have since gotten insurance?  Is it because those who used to have work coverage lost their benefits due to tax increases and increased federal regulations on businesses?!  According to http://pn.psychiatryonline.org/content/38/12/1.2.full about half of this number are just in and out of coverage - shopping for lower rates, changing jobs, etc.  So, that takes our number to 15 million uninsured.  What is interesting is that unemployment has been at 10%.  10% unemployment equals out to be about 15 million people.  (http://cbs11tv.com/national/unemployment.10.percent.2.1299266.html) So, it would seem to reason that if we fix unemployment, we fix the number without insurance.  Companies, however, are afraid to hire because any profits gained are in the cross-hairs of Obama.  What's the point of making profit just to have it taken away?!  Exactly, there is no point - therefore, there is no point in hiring any new workers.

3.  This plan will give millions of Americans new choices in health insurance by making coverage more affordable, ending the denial of coverage for pre-existing conditions, putting power in the hands of consumers instead of insurance companies and providing one of the largest tax cuts in history while also reducing our national deficit.

This is the most asinine group of words I've ever read.  Pre-existing conditions exists as a way to KEEP COSTS LOW!  I sell life insurance.  We can offer term plans for pennies on the dollar per thousand because of requiring great health.  If an insurance company is forced to take on ALL risks, premiums will go UP!!  How else is the insurance company going to pay for the claims that will be hobbling in day after day?!  Secondly, this puts the power in the consumer's hand??  The power is already there!  If you don't like the health coverage you have, then go down the street and buy from someone else!  You decide where your dollar is spent, not the insurance companies.  And, thirdly, this will reduce our national deficit?!  How does government spending reduce our deficit?  Obama has already taken our deficit, sorry libs, well past your coveted Bush deficit.  You honestly think Obama is worried about the national deficit?! 

 

4.  Reform couldn’t be more urgent – just this month consumers in California were told their premiums could go up as much as 39 percent.

Then go buy from someone else!  What about tax rates that just went up because you let the Bush tax cuts expire?  Don't patronize us about reform because rates are increasing.  IF WE HAD MORE OF OUR MONEY, WE'D HAVE THE MONEY TO PAY FOR BETTER HEALTH INSURANCE!

 

5.  Too many in Washington are now saying that we should delay or give up on reform entirely, but Americans understand the stakes for our economy and our lives, and we want action

 

Americans do NOT want this bill!  Even Obama at the health care summit said he would just ram it through if he didn't get the cooperation he wanted.  Too many in Washington are out of touch with their voting base and come November, they will be out of touch with Congress.

 

Don't back down from these guys!  Hold their feet to the fire!

Jobs Bill Misses The Mark

Yesterday, the Senate was giddy about passing a "jobs creation bill." The media has been proclaiming how even Republicans are jumping on board with this bill. They are making a big deal out of Scott Brown, R-MA, voting yes since he just got to Congress. But, let's slow down. What is this bill about?

This bill is supposed to be a $15 Billion job creation package. First, let's remind our good friends in Washington that the only jobs Congress can create are Government jobs. Congress cannot create jobs in the private sector. Their policies can hinder or encourage job growth in the private sector, but they are not the ones responsible for any new jobs. Now, Congress wants the credit for jobs creation because then Obama can take credit for it as well.

One of the focal points of this bill is that it frees any company that hires the unemployed from paying their 6.2% social security tax for 2010. If the company retains the employee for at least a year, they get a $1,000 tax break.

So, with less money going into Social Security, Congress will have to go after it somewhere else. And, that somewhere else will be from those who are already employed. Secondly, a $1,000 tax break?! Is that per new hire? And, by the way, companies don't pay taxes anyway - we pay them through their prices they set for their goods and/or services. So, giving a company a "tax break" would actually be giving us a tax break. But, a $1,000 tax break isn't a tax break. That's like letting the couch cushions fund your kid's allowance. If you want to encourage more corporate participation in the hiring game, then do something big. How about eliminate a lot of the taxes and regulations that are imposed upon them and that stifle their ability to be able to afford to hire additional help. Why not suspend and even eliminate the federal income tax - give people more of their money to spend in the economy. This is the real issue, folks. Giving companies "tax breaks" is only a symptom of the problem.

Jobs are created based on two simple things: Supply and Demand. If demand is higher than supply, then companies need to hire more workers to get supply back even with demand. If we had more of our own money to spend, demand would start to increase, companies would begin to hire more to meet the demand with more supply and two things ultimately happen: the economy is back on its feet and unemployment falls. Companies do not just arbitrarily decrease their work force. This bill suggests they do by virtue of it focusing on the corporations and their hiring practices. Jobs exist for one reason - a company needs to make money and they need workers to make supply to meet demand. If the demand isn't there, then the need for employees decreases. Companies are not going to keep an employee on the books at 20k/year or 30k/year just to get a 1k tax break. That's like the common practice of hanging on to a mortgage because of the tax write off. So, you send 10k to the bank in interest so you don't have to send 3k to the IRS in taxes?! (By the way, if your CPA suggests that you do that, then fire their sorry carcass and get one that can actually do math.) Frankly, this bill is insulting to private business.

The Government that has given us this economy and this deficit are now the ones who are going to fix it?! The Government that hates the private sector now are seen as their savior? Don't fall for it - these people want one thing only and that is full government control over business industry - and you take that to the bank...well, don't take it to the bank because they will be taxed more for the TARP money they've already paid back.

Capitalism Works

In light of the Thanksgiving holiday, I want you to think about this story. During the reign of King James I, those who did not recognize his total ecclesiastical authority were hunted down and often killed. A group of these separatists fled to Holland and eventually for America. The Pilgrims landed at Plymouth Rock in 1621. Deciding on a socio-economical system, the Pilgrims set up a common wealth system. Each Pilgrim was given the same amount of land and they were to take equal shares of food from the social food stock. Everyone had their common share. That year, the Pilgrims suffered through hunger and economic disaster. The next year William Bradford, the community’s mayor, had had enough of the common wealth idea and set up the good old free market. The Pilgrims were allowed to obtain the amount of land they wished, and keep or sell what it produced. Bradford said in his journal that it “made all hands industrious.” The colony flourished. Believe it or not, supply-side economics existed before the 1980s. What took the Pilgrims a year to learn has yet to be learned by countries hundreds of years old. What did the Pilgrims learn? They learned that Socialism destroys morale and the economy.

Advocates of Socialism try to persuade people using terms like “equality” and “fair” and "spread the wealth." They believe that since we are all equal, there is no reason why some should be more fortunate than others are. They believe that wealth should be distributed evenly. To achieve their wealth distribution goals, citizens are willing to allow the near total-control of the Government over themselves; as we see in France, Germany, and Sweden, etc. Therefore, because of this belief, freedoms are stolen from the citizens.

The only real defendable position on equality is that we are all equal under the law, the Constitution. We are not created equal in ability or talent. That’s why we are all not a Beethoven or large success stories, like Rush Limbaugh. Socialism never permits us to achieve our potential. And as for fairness, even the Bible doesn’t teach fairness. Christ, the Just, died for us, the unjust. However, what fair is is giving citizens the opportunity to apply themselves and then succeed to the limit of their ability. Is this not what we do at school? Those that are studious received good grades; and those that take refuge in poor study habits receive bad grades. People do not create fairness. Fairness exists by its own merits. Therefore, based on our actions, we are rewarded or chastised—my friends, that’s fair.

Once someone applies themselves, wealth, in most cases, will be directly proportional. Why should someone working beyond what is required be forced to subsidize those that slack off or those who have chosen a lower paying vocation? The proper distribution of wealth should be performance based. Socialists are afraid of risk, but they don’t hesitate to demand a share of the earnings, confiscated through taxes, from the risk takers. People who fall victim to the snares of Socialism usually remain enslaved by Socialism’s empty platitudes. Only those who strive to be more like the Pilgrims actually fight back and escape. If the Pilgrims had stayed with socialism, they would have likely died out. Be forewarned, if we would ever sell-out to Socialism, we would enter our second Great Depression.