Obama

Three threats to our liberties from BHO

After considering Obama's campaign promises and policy statements, one can make these disturbing prognostications. They are related and inescapable if we are to believe what the President-elect and Democratic Leadership claim as their goals. I believe them. Number 1. Criminalize fee for service. Universal health care has implications and consequences that are seen and unseen. Adding the claimed 47 million "uninsured" to our non-emergency system will dictate rationing of care and when any service is rationed, wealth and power work to over come the ration. Politicians will not participate in the rationing of care so only wealth will remain as an alternative mechanism. Prevention of that option requires that the government criminalize the acquisition of medical services by those with the ability to pay. As soon as universal health care is crafted by Congress, hidden within will be the end of American medical excellence.

Number 2. When President Obama signs into law the rebuilding of our nation's interstate highway system he will include a user fee technology that will tax all private cars based upon highway miles and mpg. The case will be made that global climate change and auto industry bailout mandates dramatic action to change our methods of travel and private automobile use. Technology will give the Federal government the option of tracking every mile of interstate highway and transferring a tax statement to private car on the system. Gone will be the free movement of Americans across our own land.

Number 3. Global warming is a fraud. It is not happening. Debate would demonstrate that but the forces of President Obama will foresware any and all debate. They will claim debate has been heard and time is now. Carbon Cap and Trade will be installed. With that Federal mandate, 5 million new "green" jobs will be required as union employees and they will be a voting block directly attached to the fraud of green house gas. With 5 million additional votes there will be no option for coming national elections. The governing class will be forever installed.

Dems feeling cognitive dissonance

Transitions are a great entertainment form, the more so if we get a new party as well as a new President. DC real estate folks always vote against the “in” party because a full blown turnover is always good for business. Casually strolling around Georgetown or similar neighborhoods one notes the frequency of double parked moving vans further clogging the Imperial City’s already impossible traffic congestion. Republicans are holding small parties saying good-bye to old friends; Democrats are holding big parties saying hello to new friends. Democratic parties are bigger because the crowd is swelled by lobbyists and general hangers-on who know that a lot of jobs and money will soon be changing hands and just maybe there might be something for them.

Republican Angst and Democratic Triumphalism have been amply reported elsewhere. A modest consolation for Republicans who so enjoyed watching Democrats carve each other up in the very extended nomination battle is to now see the Donkey Party squabbling over the spoils of victory. A highlight of this entertainment has been the much publicized combat over Senate appointments in Illinois and New York. By comparison the Democratic infighting over the Salazar Succession in Colorado was fairly modest.

If you like underdogs you have to love the way Illinois’ scandal plagued Governor out maneuvered Harry Reid and the entire Democratic caucus through his artful appointment of Roland Burris.

In the “Big Apple” who could imagine that the New York Times would actually assign a reporter to count the number of times (138) Caroline Kennedy said “you know” during a forty minute interview with their editors. Where’s the respect, the love, of days gone by?

Perhaps best of all is the growing indignation spreading through the left-wing blogosphere in response to some strangely centrist impulses coming from the new administration.

Markos Moulitsas, Commandante of the very influential “Daily Kos” huffily announced that he was “absolutely through with Harry Reid” when the latter failed to oust Joe Lieberman from his key Senate committee chairmanship.

The gay lobby-already reeling from three ballot defeats on same-sex marriage ( Fla, Ariz, & Calif.)- went ballistic over Obama’s choice of Pastor Rick Warren to give the Inaugural Invocation.

On a wider front Obama’s generally centrist picks for his Economic and National Security teams has set media tongues wagging and the left-wing wailing.

Barack Obama- closet moderate! Who knew?

Very interesting is the curious “Dual Presidency” we’re experiencing in the eleven weeks between Election and Inauguration. President-Elect Obama properly reminds us that the country only has one President at a time, but someone forgot to tell Joe Biden who’s already off on a world-wide junket meeting foreign leaders ( Joe may become the best Presidential side-show since Billy Carter).

This split-screen effect is most evident in the very different way Obama has responded to economic vs. foreign policy issues.

On the economy- clearly the country’s top issue and the one that elected him- Obama has weighed in frequently, forcefully, and in general usefully. Obviously it is the economy and other domestic issues ( e.g. health care, energy, environment) that he feels the greatest affinity for, as is also the case with Congressional Democrats.

On foreign policy however Obama has been strikingly more reticent, entirely happy to allow President Bush to deal with those “hot potatoes” that have made the front page in recent weeks- rising tensions between India and Pakistan post Mumbai, lengthening casualty lists in Afghanistan, growing evidence of Iran’s imminent nuclear capacity, Russia’s interdiction of gas supplies to Western Europe, and the violent renewal of hostilities between Israel and Hamas in Gaza.

On these issues Obama and his party seem very wary, almost viewing them as an annoying distraction from the domestic issues that they are truly eager to pursue. This discomfort with America’s foreign challenges reveals a deep fault line that has haunted the Democratic party for over forty years. From Vietnam forward the related issues of foreign policy and national security have divided Democrats and cost them several elections.

A great irony emerges: Democrats-desperately wanting to spend money on huge initiatives- are constrained by an economy that is going broke. In contrast those issues which have been the Democrat’s Achilles Heel for two generations are pressing in upon them with an urgency that cannot be met by “referral to committee”.

Barack Obama will not be the first President who won office to pursue one agenda, only to find that History was imposing another.

William Moloney’s columns have appeared in the Wall St. Journal, USA Today, Washington Post, Washington Times. Philadelphia Inquirer, Baltimore Sun, Denver Post, and Rocky Mountain News.

Here comes universal health care

PART ONE: DO IT FOR THE KIDS... Very soon, in keeping with Obama's campaign promises and in retaliation for two Bush vetoes Congress will again introduce legislation to revamp the SCHIP, the State Children's Health Insurance Program. No longer will actual children from actual low-income households be the only ones cared for under the proposed plan, but also ‘children’ up to age 30, whether they still live with their parents or not. Additionally, the wage requirements for households receiving SCHIP assistance will be raised considerably---as much as $80,000 or more per year.

It is a tiresome task to debate liberals on health care, if your only point to make is that hospitals, emergency care facilities and clinics are going broke due to the amount of healthcare that is delivered each year to people with no ability to pay. It does no good to enlighten these folks about the extraordinary costs our medical community has absorbed in providing non-retrievable costs for care to illegal immigrants. Liberals in your neighborhood, nor those in Washington will even entertain this thought process. They will tell us we need to be more compassionate, yet they have no suggestion as to how to pay for this other than higher taxes, and ignore the fact that they, too, are paying the price, not just the evil conservatives. To explain that the more free health care that is given out, the more everyone else must pay, is an exercise in futility. Obama has repeatedly stated he intends to reduce the cost of health care. That begs the question of how he plans to continue to provide state of the art diagnostic and treatment-based healthcare to millions that have no obligation to pay for it and still have it cost less. This expenditure crisis regarding non- citizens, if addressed and solved even to some extent, could go a long way in reducing overall costs, easing the freight that hospitals, insurance companies and those they cover, and self-pay individuals must absorb to provide for folks that benefit from the best healthcare available in the world.

There is little interest at any level to examine the costs incurred in caring for illegals, such as the requirement of staffing hospitals with equal numbers of Spanish speaking people, printing forms and patient education literature in another language, signage throughout a facility, etc. There is no interest in the ‘anchor baby’ matter which grants instant citizenship to both baby and parents once a child is delivered in this country. Having worked in a major hospital in Colorado, I frequently observed unmarried, non-English speaking women and teenage girls that deliberately became pregnant and then ‘sold’ the paternity to a man without legal status. Men will pay money in order to come into a hospital and sign the birth certificate documents because they gain immediate citizenship. Many of these women were recent arrivals in our country. Few had prenatal care or proper nutrition, and some required blood transfusions, surgery and other intensive medical services. Subsequently, it was common for their babies to born early or at a low birth weight, requiring days, weeks, or months in the NICU unit. Once the birth certificate was signed and processed, mother, baby and father were now of legal status and a Spanish-speaking social worker directed them to the WIC program, assisted in getting them signed up for Medicaid and even made referrals to subsidized housing complexes and other government services. Depending on the length of stay of both mother and baby and the services required to return them to good health if that was an issue, the hospital charges can range between anywhere in the thousands to sometimes hundreds of thousands of dollars. Conversely, the new mother in the unit that has health insurance or is a self-pay patient, must then absorb a certain amount of this cost because the Medicaid and Medicare programs can no longer reimburse at a level to sustain the hospital’s costs.

As change comes to this issue, we look toward covering more and more people without concern of ability to pay. The SCHIP program funding is so ironic it is laughable. These additional ‘children’ from families making up to $80,000 will be financed through increase in cigarette taxes. Yet, in cities and states around the country, smoking is being banned and is often illegal. For over 40 years, we’ve been bombarded with warnings to not smoke. How does Congress expect the observer to interpret this? Should we all start smoking now in order to raise enough tax to cover all the additional children? Which is it? Smoking is unhealthy and should be banned, or should we encourage more smoking in order to fund an expanded government project?

Kids are basically inexpensive to care for in terms of healthcare costs. Unless a child is seriously ill, the average child can go through early years with not much more care than immunizations, routine medical and dental check-up’s, and occasional care for childhood illnesses or minor injury. There are a multitude of private organizations that work diligently to raise money to provide medical care for kids in need and kids that are seriously ill. If we want government intervention in our healthcare decisions, a child in need is certainly one situation that prompts most people to agree that help should be made available from one source or another. The Medicaid system has been in place for some time to make sure poor children do not suffer needlessly or go without necessary care. As with all government-subsidized programs, there is rampant fraud and abuse. Thus, the system is bankrupt and there is potential that those in true need will soon not be able to get it. Americans would not deny a child healthcare. That mindset is not in our make-up and should never be. We have programs in place to care for the misfortunate and we need to reshape them so the services continue. Adding people up to age 30 from households making up to $80,000 only takes healthcare resources away from poor children that have no source of help otherwise.

Tom Daschle, who has no healthcare experience other than strong opinion, is going to head up our future in terms of how health services are delivered. There will no longer be any accountability in terms of parents making sure that they set aside even a small portion of money to prepare for inevitable trips to the doctor their children will need. Poor families that have nothing to set aside need to rely on Medicaid and other assistance. Mr. Daschle does not talk about reform or how future funding of Medicaid will occur. Rather than fix an existing program that was initiated for the very purpose of calling on taxpayers to help those among us less fortunate, he instead sets about to create more layers of government red tape that has a proven record of failure.

Somewhere along the road to entitlement for most every aspect of our lives, we stopped thinking that we should plan for and provide medical care for our children. We may save money for household emergencies or auto repair, and certainly have no qualms about putting a vacation or tickets to a ballgame on a credit card, but when it comes to sustaining good health and recognizing our personal obligations to obtain it, we sometimes fail the test miserably.

There was a time in this country when ‘children’ in their twenties, approaching age 30, were long gone from their parents’ scope of responsibility and were out on their own, making their own way and providing for themselves. Those that are disabled or have other significant health-related issues have historically received assistance from Medicaid. There are already provisions in place to care for those that cannot care for themselves. Any 20-something person that expects the taxpayers to pick up their tab for healthcare when they are able to do so on their own exemplifies the abuse that will become more commonplace as new government interference is forced upon our country.

FIRST IN A THREE-PART SERIES

Mr. Bush: What class

"Always act first class," has been my husband's coaching philosophy in 33 seasons of high school football. He expects first-class behavior of his players not just on the field but also inspires them to live their lives by that motto. Whether it's in their family relationships and home life, conduct at school, church, in the community, etc., he has impressed upon them that if they set the tone of acting first class they will achieve more, gain more respect and maybe most importantly, induce the same type of behavior from others. The presidential luncheon hosted yesterday by George W. Bush was an example of acting first class. A gathering of living presidents in the Oval Office has not occurred since 1981. President Bush has been vilified by every man in that room with the exception of his own father, yet, he recognized the monumental point in history we are experiencing and he wanted to commemorate it. This morning, cable news pundits remarked about Jimmy Carter standing an arm's length away from the others and questioned why. Perhaps he felt a bit uncomfortable in light of his many derogatory comments about President Bush. To be offered a hand of friendship and understanding may have caused him to feel restive.

Bill Clinton had somewhat of a frozen smile on his face. In recent years, Mr. Clinton has enjoyed a friendly relationship with both 41 and 43, so it is likely he reveled in the opportunity to share some time with them. When portraits of the Clinton's were unveiled and hung in the White House, George and Laura Bush welcomed the Clinton's as graciously and warmly as possible, yet, both Bill and Hillary had spoken out harshly about the President and his policies. The Bush's also have been exceedingly helpful and cooperative in the transition toward the Obama's. Politics aside, it would be difficult for anyone to discount the good-hearted intentions and forgiving nature the Bush's have shown toward those that may not be undeserving of such generosity.

George W. Bush went to Washington with the intention of creating a "new tone", and he was invigorated by the opportunity to serve the country as a "compassionate conservative". He made the statement yesterday that the office transcends the person. That is an important and profound ascription that he found out the hard way. In many ways, it has taken eight years for him to have the opportunity to exhibit his idea of bringing a conciliatory tone to the office. He probably had very different expectations of his presidency in terms of how he was received, especially by the press. As a politician, he expected a reasonable amount of disagreement and discord from his opponents, but I doubt the level of hatred was ever anticipated. Yet, he has stood firm in his resolve and has weathered the controversy and criticism with as much courage and mettle as we will likely see for a long time to come. In the face of the MSM and political opponents often not acting first class in order to best serve the nation, Mr. Bush usually did try to be congenial and treat others with Christian charity.

The President's agenda eight years ago looked very different than what history will reveal it to be. He campaigned on the ability to cross the aisle to get things done for the people. He promised to change Washington. He wanted to bring about tort reform and revamp Social Security. Early in his administration, he aligned with Ted Kennedy and other Democrats in signing the No Child Left Behind Act into law. Few other pieces of legislation caused him as much heated debate and criticism.

As President-Elect Obama begins his career in the White House he promises change of all sorts, especially bringing change to how things are done in Washington. He has an aggressive spending agenda he feels will jump start the economy and create jobs and equality in the standard of living for all Americans. He promises transparency and a willingness to get along with his political opponents. He promises to change our environment, our methods of transportation, how much we are taxed, what amount of time each of us will serve the government toward the common good and other progressive ideals. During the campaign when John McCain was adamant about stopping earmark-laden legislation, Mr. Obama dismissed that by saying earmarks only account for a very small portion of government spending. Today, he is talking a lot about denying Congress their earmark projects. Sometimes the more things change, the more they stay the same in Washington.

President Bush acted first class yesterday. His presidency was forever transformed by the attacks of September 11, 2001. While many in the world disagreed with him, he adjusted his agenda, put aside his own pet projects in order to keep the United States of America safe from further attacks. Domestic issues he feels passionately about have taken the back burner. He knows better than most that a president may well not be able to accomplish his campaign promises and focus solely on domestic issues.

Keeping the country safe is the president's primary responsibility. If we could rewind the clock and 9/11 would not have occurred, I wonder what the legacy of George W. Bush would be today. Would we have seen true education reform, a shoring up of Social Security and some sustainable policies made in the delivery of health care? A president goes to Washington with high expectations. What happens along the way sometimes is determined by forces beyond his control and the real change is in the agenda. Nonetheless, Americans need the leadership, strength and resolve of a president that always acts first class.

Nevadans, please fire Harry Reid

Once again, Sen. Harry Reid has overreached his elected authority and exposed his lack of moral authority in the Roland Burris issue. The people of Nevada could do a great service to our country in making sure that Harry Reid is defeated in 2010. He reportedly is concerned already about holding his seat and has begun interviewing campaign managers, while vacationing in Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands recently, met with important campaign finance sources. Reid was quick to race to microphones declaring that Burris would not be seated in the Senate despite being legally appointed by Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich. Yesterday he commented that the Senate chooses who is seated and who is not. This morning Reid reportedly said he'd seat Burris if he promises not to run for reelection. Dick Durbin and Barack Obama have shown the same disrespect, yet today have completed flip-flopped on the issue in hopes this latest Democrat saga quickly goes away.

In the past few weeks, the Democrats from the top leadership down, thought they would quickly destroy Gov. Blago in order to ensure there were no dots connected between him and the incoming president. Why did they cave in the last several hours? They don't want to be accused of participating in a race matter, and they want to pacify Blago because they fear there is damaging info yet to come as that investigation moves forward.

Time for Nevada to assist Harry Reid in finding other work.