Big Brother Isn't Just a Show on CBS

Health Care!

It's what the government thinks you need! So here they come to force it upon you. The U.S. House of Representatives (an ironic title since a recent poll only had 25% of respondents thinking the current bill should be passed) passed an unconstitutional bill which mandates all citizens of this great country be covered by health insurance. Sure, there are other aspects of this bill which are debatable and possibly beneficial. But, those are not the things which are going to make this entire exercise a total waste of time. The wholly unconstitutional mandate will get this bill (if it passes the Senate with the mandate still intact) hung up in the courts. So, I want to know why our "representatives" are wasting our tax dollars to such a degree as to spend months developing and debating something which will never become law.

Our government loves wasting our tax dollars. That, at least, is clear to me. What I don't know is why we keep letting them do it. They vote themselves pay increases, then don't read any of the bills they vote on. They make sure they don't have term limits, and then spend entire years campaigning. We are their bosses. So why don't we do our jobs and make sure they do theirs?

Here is my proposal: All Congressional pay is to be based upon votes registered. No vote no pay. There will be a base. About $30,000 should do. Then, each vote they make will give them a bonus, I'm comfortable with $50 per vote. Since congress votes on thousands of bills each year, this could work out to a hefty pay check. But it won't. The reason is I would also require a test be taken before a vote can be registered. The test would judge simply whether the congressmen have an understanding of all aspects of the bill. Guessing would be punished like the good old SAT. But BW, how will we pay for all the tests to be produced? Simple. Eliminate one staff position from each Senator and Representative. That will pay for most of the staff needed to produce the tests, the rest will be covered by the decrease in pay for the congressmen themselves because most of them won't vote enough to match their current salaries. Voting with the actual leaning of the country should be rewarded too. That one I haven't worked out the logistics of yet because polling is so easily misleading and misused.

This proposal would make a Congressional seat a little less cushy. That brings up another way Congress wastes our money: The need to be in the same place at the same time. No more. Telecommuting is the only way. No more flying all over on our dollar. With today's technology there is no reason to be physically there. Twitter could cover a simple "Yea" or "Nay" and more involved debates could be conducted via Skype. Putting this into place is not only cost effective, it's a green policy. I know they do some things in committees which are classified, and those committees would need to continue to meet in person, but most things our representatives do are public record and therefore need not be encrypted.

These things are a start, but one more thing will get our representatives to represent us better. And this is the least radical of all the ideas set forth here. Term limits. Term limits take lobbies down a few notches and put Congress back in the service of the people instead of special interests. I have had people tell me that the opposite is true and lobbies gain more power if there are term limits. They are idiots. It's that simple. Ask Big Oil if they want term limits imposed on the Senators they have in their pockets. Their answer will make the need for term limits very clear.

None of this will happen, not because it shouldn't, but because Congress won't let it. It's their decision, not ours. I know I wouldn't vote myself out of a job. Would you?

Reality Check: My Turn

Ah, thank goodness for President Barack Obama and Congress and their new "transparent" policy making. Thanks to them and the internet, I can now get the "truth" from somewhere other than CNN. The "truth" is, of course, dumbed down without any direct quotes from the health care reform bill currently floating around the Capitol Building, but it is presented beautifully in HD so all the low income families who can't afford private insurance (and yet somehow can afford a video card with HD capabilities?) can marvel at their tax dollars at work.

I know, you're wondering, "Where might I find this beautiful pot o' gold full of valuable information?" HERE.

Let me first say that our nations health care system is in desperate need of reform. However, the one thing that needs reform more than that system is the group trying to enact the reforms. In short, our government reforming health care is like realizing you have a drinking problem and going to your drunken Aunt Mildred for advice on getting sober. It won't work. It can't. But enough about our governments general failings, that's another blog (or 15) altogether.

The title that shows up on the top bar of your web browser reads, "Get the facts about the stability and security you get from health insurance reform." I expected a list of facts. Maybe even an outline of what's in the bill. No such luck. Instead, it's a series of videos "debunking" popularly held "myths" about the proposed reforms. The videos are obviously unbiased since they are on a White House run website and generally feature White House staff members.

My personal favorite is the video titled "Reform will benefit small business - not burden it," (watch it below if you're too lazy to find it while at the above link) in which a staffer "answers" a comment by a small business owner stating he would not be able to hire new workers under the reform. The spin from the White House is that small business pays more currently than big business does for similar coverage for their employees. So leveling that playing field would be a good thing. The truth is that the reform bill will require some form of health insurance for every man, woman, and child in the country and if the employee cannot afford it, the government will pay for some, and so will the employer. Not only is that a burden, last I checked paying is more expensive than not paying, it is unconstitutional. The United States Constitution does not allow for the federal government to tell me that I have to have health care. The United States Constitution does not provide any powers to Congress or the office of the President of the United States which would give them any domain over my employers contribution to my health insurance.

The government wants you to believe they are expanding options and making your life better, when the reality is they are limiting your choices by forcing the choice. Liberty is not a choice between doing what your government says or paying a fine. Liberty is the freedom to be an idiot and not insure yourself if you so choose. While I would prefer that everyone were insured, forcing people to buy something is wrong, and that is exactly what this "reform" would accomplish. Nothing more.

I'll let you watch the rest, and see what the reality really is. By the way, any site that doesn't offer any dissenting opinions should be immediately recognized as propaganda. That is why I was sure to link to their site and include the full video I argued against, while they have no links that don't agree with their views.

Besides the Money We Don't Have...

Bailout, Bailout, Bailout. There seems to be nothing else for the national media to talk about, including the details of the two massive spending packages. So here I am to shed some light on a little talked about and very scary part of the latest bill.

At issue is a stipulation that no company receiving government funds hire foreign workers. The law forbids companies from hiring workers with H1-B Visas (yes, that means educated foreigners with at least a bachelors degree). This bill has companies like Bank of America rescinding offers to perfectly capable and eager individuals who could have the ability to steer the company into safer waters. The Department of Labor has never had a problem with companies hiring people with these visas, so why does Congress? It's wrong to take jobs away from anyone, and an administration that ostensibly wants to correct our reputation with the rest of the world has taken a huge step back with this nationalistic stipulation that does nothing to stimulate our economy. Limiting a talent pool to the people who failed before is no way to turn a country around.

One of my favorite aspects of this "Employ American Workers Act" (besides a name that sounds like a job creating mechanism rather than one that denies qualified humans jobs) is that it was sponsored by Senator Charles Grassley (R-Iowa). In case you hadn't heard, Senator Grassley suggested this week that AIG executives (who took over a million each in bonuses from a company taking TARP money) should either "resign or commit suicide." So, Senator Grassley, you believe that only American executives should be hired but you also recommend digging a mass grave for over seventy who have failed? Where will we find enough MBA's to replace them? About a quarter of the graduate and post-graduate students at Harvard are international students, so I suppose the only way to properly guarantee jobs only going to Americans is to give American students a leg up in the admissions process at such internationally acclaimed American universities. For a country built on, and formerly known for, diversity this is a slippery slope that we are currently sliding down.

Don't get me wrong, I believe in Americans having every chance at jobs in America. But we are removing the level playing field that the Department of Labor allows and replacing it with an extreme uphill battle for diversity and progress. The bill does nothing to ensure that factory workers or any other blue collar jobs are more dutifully protected. It, in effect, makes sure that those executives displaced from failing enterprises can get jobs elsewhere, unless they themselves happen to be on H1-B visas, with lessened competition from foreign applicants.

The last time the United States took an isolationist stance, it didn't go so well. Last time the United States decided to act against the advice of foreign nations, it didn't go so well (at least in the public opinion realm). So why are we excluding these foreign voices at a time of crisis? It's just more head-in-the-sand nationalistic arrogance that this country can't afford.

The Debates

I never did say anything about the debates. The reason being that the debates never said anything to me. Nobody was a runaway winner and whoever you were pulling for probably looked better to you. So, there it is, my complete analysis of all the debates.

Racing the Race

I truly believe that this election, only hours away, will come down to one thing, and it is very sad indeed. I know it shouldn’t affect an election with such great importance to the future of our country (everyone keeps saying that as if every election isn’t important), but I believe it will. That one thing, it, is race. With African Americans accounting for roughly 13 to 14 percent of the population and with 10% of all voters saying they won’t vote for a black man, what is Obama’s true statistical chance at winning? Let’s assume that we have the highest recorded voter turnout in history, 65%. And let’s say that 70% of blacks of voting age turn up at the polls. This means that the “black vote” will account for roughly 15% of the overall vote, a four percent jump from four years ago. And, if the polls are correct, we may as well give Senator Obama all of that 15% statistically speaking. Well, that should put Obama up by five percent overall and into the White House. However, roughly 35% of this country’s population resides in the, historically racist, south. I’m not saying that everyone in the south is racist, but denying that it still exists is pure ignorance. Always remember the first step is admitting the problem. With McCain leading 51% to 44% among white voters, I believe that many states currently polling slightly to Obama will be swayed by this very thing. States like Florida, North Carolina, and even Virginia will move into the “red” column. I also believe Colorado and Nevada, despite being a light blue color currently, will be painted red come tomorrow night. I even believe that Ohio may fall into the red, giving John McCain 274 electoral votes and Barack Obama 264. Not all of this is necessarily fueled by race, but I do believe, if this scenario unfolds, the election will be had by John McCain because he is more susceptible to sun burns than is Barack Obama, and that, my friends, is wrong.

The numbers herein are based on US Census Bureau Data and the last Gallup Poll before Election Day.

Debates

At the end of all the debates I plan on a full rundown. I'd rather not say anything until everything has been said.

Why Congress Bailed Out

Hurray partisan politics! Thank you so much for sending the New York Stock Exchange to its largest freefall ever. Thanks to the House sending the $700 billion plan to a vote without having the numbers on either side to carry the issue, the bill that looked as good as passed scared Wall St. into a huge hole. Their is only one reason either party would put this to a vote without knowing it would pass: elevating ones own party against the other. It is petty, and in this case horribly detrimental and irresponsible. Another couple days of amendments and hammering out details would have proved much less problematic. When people see a sure thing go down in flames it worries them that a deal may never get struck. I personally am very torn on this issue. I see the credit crunch and the gap left by fannie, freddie, and aig, as a serious economic burden. I also see $700 billion of funny money as a serious economic burden. We don't have that money to spend, and our children and grandchildren shouldn't have to spend it for us. Why don't we give one one-hundredth of that money to the lenders who didn't overextend and give too many risky loans in order that they may lend to entrepreneurs and families who will pay them back with interest?

Partisan

Partisan:

This word is a champion at describing our national political landscape. Dictionary.com defines it thus:

–noun 1. an adherent or supporter of a person, group, party, or cause, esp. a person who shows a biased, emotional allegiance.
2. Military. a member of a party of light or irregular troops engaged in harassing an enemy, esp. a member of a guerrilla band engaged in fighting or sabotage against an occupying army.

There are also two adjective definitions but they are both "of, or pertaining to," the two nouns, so they are omitted here. I have so many problems with our partisan system because it fits both definitions surprisingly well. Let me break down why they fit and why I wish they didn't.

"An adherent or supporter..." I have no problem with people supporting a cause. I have a huge problem with people who are blindly adherent to a "group, party, or cause." Our nature should preclude us from this herd mentality.

"...Biased, emotional allegiance." Wow. Looking at this part of the definition makes my head spin. We should always show emotional allegiance to issues and causes we truly believe in. Not to a political party whose sole interest is to remain in power. You should vote your conscience and your heart, not your party. People who get behind every position which their party represents are narrow-minded sheep. Therefore, most of Washington, both sides of the aisle, are narrow-minded sheep and should be treated as such and replaced with the more evolved free thinkers.

"...Irregular troops...harassing...an occupying army." A group simply doing everything it can to hold its ground and if possible gain a little territory too. This is what a political party is and does. And are they ever irregular!

That being said, I am a registered Republican. Not because I ever want the overturn of Roe v. Wade (I don’t). Not because I am against gay marriage (I’m not). Not because I support the war in Iraq (mixed bag). Not even because I find their Vice Presidential candidate to be the most attractive politician in our history (not saying much really). No, it's because I agree with one thing. I know that big time taxing on big business actually takes more money out of my pocket than the business itself. And, as far as I can see, the only legislation that will be very different depending on who wins is fiscal legislation. And I want to choose what charities I spend money on, not support the families of workers laid off due to higher taxes at the top.

But don't, please don't, take this as gospel. Read, watch the news, inform yourself, and decide what matters to you. Then figure out if that issue is really going to be, in practice not speeches, treated any differently by each party. If it is, then you know who to vote for (or against).