To Ms. Schultz and the Democratic Party--Let's Follow The Law!

Recently Democratic National Committee Chair Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (FL), when discussing the problem of illegal immigration, spoke about how Republicans actually want to consider being here illegally as being "against the law". Well, I for one do consider being here illegally against the law, and I think anyone here against the law needs to leave. We have plenty of people who want to come here legally, who want to play by the rules and do it the right way. They should have priority when it comes to becoming citizens. There should be no path to an amnesty of any kind. We need to once again become a nation based on the rule of law. It is obvious that the Democrats only want illegals to be made citizens so they can get their votes.
Today, this same person, once again in the name of the Democratic party, made a statement that Republicans wanted to go all the way back to "Jim Crow" and that what Republicans want to do will disenfranchise those who are more likely to vote Democrat. What is it that Republicans want to do that is so racist and horrible? They want to have people show identification at the polls to make sure there isn't any fraud going on. What is Ms. Wasserman Schultz saying? Is she saying that a large constituency of the Democratic party can't produce identification? If they can, why is it a problem? Surely she isn't implying once again that Democrats don't want to follow a law? First illegal immigrants shouldn't be considered as breaking the law, now we shouldn't try to make sure our voting laws are being upheld and we don't have fraudulent people voting. I think it would be better if the Democratic party chair officially recognize that it is against the law to be here illegally, and that it is an affront to our democratic institutions to label a group of people as racist who only want to uphold the integrity of our system.

Health Care Mess

One of the larger problems facing the nation is what the heck to do about health care. I do have to commend Barack Obama for at least trying to do something about health care. However, I feel he and his administration have gone about it the wrong way. The huge new bureaucracies which have been and are being created, the complex exchanges, the coercive regulations facing business, the layer upon layer of government red tape, the need for thousands of waivers to prevent catastrophe and the questions about possible conflicts of interest these waivers create--for these reasons and more the plan known as "Obamacare" should be overturned. It also looks as if it may be unconstitutional from the viewpoint that it abrogates states' rights, but we'll see when that case comes up. Its constitutionality is also being tested concerning the government's ability to force people to buy a product. We'll see how this one comes out as well.
I do think that both of these ideas are unconstitutional, but not because government doesn't have the power to coerce. Government coerces all the time. If you don't buy auto insurance you can't legally drive your car and stiff penalties face you if you are caught. However, this is a power exercised by the states. I think that health care should work the same way. It should be a state issue. States should mandate health care coverage and have a means test which would identify a pool of people who need assistance obtaining coverage. These people would receive their health insurance for free, and their policies should not have deductibles. The means test could even be on a sliding scale so that people approaching poverty could receive some assistance with their health care costs. The details of this and the associated costs need to be worked out, but two points are relevant here. First, if we are going to have universal coverage, it is going to cost a lot of money, no matter what the system. Second, I do NOT think that any system should be federalized. It should be run by individual states. Block grants to cover costs could come from federal taxes, and be apportioned by population, or federal taxes could go down and state taxes go up. Either way would need to be worked out.
The other side of the issue, cost of care, is even more important. If cost of care can be reduced, costs will come down across the board. I have had a brain tumor removed, and my wife has fought breast cancer. My son was recently diagnosed with a rare and potentially fatal disease which almost killed him. In all three cases insurance covered the bulk of expenses, but when I saw the bills I was astounded. Diagnostic tests which cost thousands of dollars, tens of thousands of dollars for hospital stays, doctor visits which cost hundreds and lasted five minutes, the list goes on and on. My wife, who is a breast cancer survivor, needed a certain type of shot when undergoing treatment which cost $3000 per dose! These type of exorbitant costs are ridiculous and to me are about as much of a scandal as a $3000 hammer or a $12,000 toilet, things we saw before when we had a scandal in defense spending. So the following is what I would recommend from a cost standpoint. First of all, I've said in a previous post that I recommend starting a program which would be run like the service academies, only for doctors. Students who were accepted into this program to study medicine would be required to work for six years in government run hospitals such as VA hospitals, or in government run clinics which would service the poorest in our society. They would work for a reduced income compared to others in the field but after their six years they could become a "free agent", so to speak, and go into private practice or join some other form of doctor group. They could also continue to serve their country by staying in their position, which would have a graduated pay system much like civil service.
In addition to this idea, I would give tax credits to doctors' offices and other clinics to buy medical equipment (as long as it was American made) so tests could be done on the premises. When there is a huge supply of medical equipment, costs for tests will go down. An X-Ray shouldn't cost over $1000!! An MRI shouldn't cost $3000!! Testing a patient's blood shouldn't cost hundreds or thousands! These machines and testing equipment should be everywhere, much as you can find blood pressure machines at every drugstore you visit. Granted, those aren't truly diagnostic in nature, but it does show that if you have enough machines it becomes cheap to use them. In addition, I would increase the incentives for people to buy machines made in America. This would help with our employment situation as well as help solve medical costs. We also need to enact tort reform, which would relieve the crushing insurance costs facing doctors, thereby further lowering costs.
So, the health care problem isn't insurmountable--no problem is. If we think of these things in logical terms, we can solve anything. This is America. We've always been able to solve our problems. Our problems right now are many. This is one of them.

Obama--Build "Moats" with alligators on the border?

Recently, in a speech about immigration reform, the President of the United States ridiculed those who want to secure the border before moving on to immigration reform by suggesting that those people want to build moats on the border and fill them with alligators.
First of all, I don't think the fact that the border is so porous that drugs, the cartels that transport them, murderers and thugs cross it with impunity is anything that the President of the United States should be joking about. Secondly, the speech was, to say the least, disingenuous at best, and filled with prevarications at its worst. The truth of the matter is that Obama wants to get the illegal aliens here made legal so he can get their votes. Leaving the border unsecured and instead attempting to demagogue the issue for votes is actually quite cynical. The truth of the matter is that people of Latino descent are as concerned with border security, provided they are here legally, as anyone else. To assume that just because someone is of Latino descent that they are for making illegal aliens legal or that they are all for a porous border is racist.
So, here is my suggestion for the southern border. Let's secure it. Let's stop the murderers, thieves and drug dealers from crossing it with impunity. If that means putting troops there, so be it. If that means putting up an electrified fence, okay. To just let hundreds of thousands of illegal people come here every year, who knows with what intentions, is to leave the country unsecured. The first thing the President swears to is to enforce the laws of the United States. This president has abrogated his responsibility to appease his leftist political base. That, in my opinion, is an impeachable offense.

A Tsunami Coming?

I have opined before that I thought the Democrats would lose the House of Representatives in the coming election, and that they stood a chance of losing the Senate. I'm going to go out on a limb now and predict a political tsunami--the loss of both houses of Congress for the Democrats. I've been watching this election very closely, and while I think it's a done deal the Republicans will take the House, I think they will also take the Senate, and here is how I think they'll do it.
In the Colorado Senate race, Ken Buck has been up in every one of the last several polls except for one outlier from PPP where he was down one point. Buck is starting to pull away in this race. This is the first Republican pickup. They need ten to capture control of the Senate.
The second pickup for the Republicans will come from Barack Obama's home state, where Mark Kirk will defeat Alexi Gianoulias. Kirk has been up in the last two polls, possibly due to his decision to focus on the economy and what the Democrat policies have wreaked.
In Nevada, Sharon Angle will defeat Harry Reid. The mainstream media have done their best to portray Angle as a kook, but when you listen to her, she sounds very credible and rational, and she has a long resume and history of serving the people. Her TV ads countered a late Reid surge which had come on the strength of his own TV ads. Angle is up three in the latest poll.

In the state of Washington, Patty Murray will lose to Dino Rossi. Rossi is up one in the latest poll and the race is a dead heat. However, I feel that the excitement of the Republican voter will propel him over the top, as it will in many races.
The fifth pickup will come from, surprisingly, West Virginia. Here Joe Manchin, a popular governor following in the footsteps of Harry Byrd, seemed a shoe-in to win. But, like in many other states, the people just plain don't want Obama to have a rubber stamp in Congress. Whether national Democrats will admit it or not, this election is all about a referendum on Barack Obama's policies, and West Virginia will be another casualty for the party.
So, I feel that the Republicans will take all five RCP "toss-ups". It looks like the Republicans will take two races that used to be rated toss-ups but moved into the "lean Republican" column some time ago. These two states are Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. In Pennsylvania, Pat Toomey leads by considerable margins in every recent poll over Joe "the White House offered me a job" Sestak. He will take this Senate seat. In Wisconsin, long time senator Russ Feingold finds himself down in every poll, and down twelve in the most recent. It seems that even the power of long term incumbency can't stop this wave.

With Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, the Republican pick-ups total seven. Three to go for Senate control. Enter Arkansas, Indiana, and North Dakota. Arkansas and North Dakota are both rated "safe" Republican in the RCP averages. In Arkansas, Blanche Lincoln, who recently polled the lowest approval rating for a sitting senator, is on her way to losing to John Boozman, trailing in the polls by anywhere from fourteen to twenty-seven points. In North Dakota, the seat of retiring senator Byron Dorgan is up for grabs, and the Republican John Hoeven leads Democrat Tracy Potter by upwards of forty points. Indiana's currently Democratic seat will become Republican thanks to Dan Coats and his decision to come out of retirement. He leads by double digits in every recent poll.
So, there are ten races the Democrats will lose in less than one month. Could there be more? In New York, Kirsten Gillibrand is only up by one in the latest poll. This could be an outlier. We'll see. Also, I want to see the polling in Connecticut which will take into account the debate between McMahon and Blumenthal, so it will be interesting to look in a couple of days. Right now, Blumenthal leads by anywhere from three to twelve points. Lastly, could something be happening in California. After Barbara "call me Senator" Boxer ran a slew of commercials, it looked as if she was starting to pull away. However, Carly Fiorina ran a few commercials of her own, and apparently did pretty well in their debate. The last three polls show Boxer leading by four, four, and three points, all close to statistical ties. Could the momentum be shifting the other way? This one will be fun to watch.
So there you have it--why I think the Republican tsunami of 2010 will sweep away the Democrat party and remove them from power. They will have only themselves to blame, along with the wrong headed policies they foisted on the American people.

Who Wrecked the Car?

Barack Obama has taken to uttering a metaphor over and over again that Republicans wrecked the economy with their policies, and he has likened their stewardship to driving a car into a ditch, the car being, of course, the economy. He says he took the keys and straightened everything out, and now "Republicans want the keys back." He finishes his speeches with the punch line, "Well, you can't have them back. We've seen this movie before."
I have a different take on it. With his work with Acorn and the Community Reinvestment Act, and the Democrats' refusal to investigate Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, you could make the case that it was the Democrats who sawed off the tie rods on the "car", causing it to wreck.
They then used the "wreck" to take the keys away, but look what has happened since the Democrats took control of Congress in 2006, and since the election of 2008, when they got super majorities. High unemployment, the housing sector crashed, runaway government spending, trillions of dollars in debt, a world that, even after multiple apologies, still doesn't respect us, and a pall of malaise which hangs over the nation.
So, yes, Mr. Obama, you took the keys. But you and your party are the ones who sabotaged the "car" in the first place. Now almost everyone agrees that you are driving the car off a cliff. It looks like voters are going to take the keys away in November and give them to the party they overwhelmingly trust more on a wide range of issues--the Republican party. The Democrats have now shown their true colors, and what they want to do to this country. They view themselves as an elite class of people who are the only ones who know what's "good" for the nation. The voters will decide in November which way they want to go. The Democrats are going to get wiped out.

Stopping the Madness

This November, voters will deliver a referendum on Barack Obama and his policies. As every major news organization has reported, it doesn't look good for the Democrats. Given how destructive and coercive their policies are and have been, is this a surprise? I have been following the impending elections very closely, and I think Republicans will control both houses of Congress when the dust settles. While I'd like to post my reasons for the House, the sheer number of races makes it too cumbersome. So, let me give you my reasons why I think the Senate will switch parties come November.
First of all, as it currently stands, Democrats control 57 seats, Republicans 41, and there are two Independents--Joe Lieberman (CT) and Bernard Sanders (Vermont). Both of these senators caucus with the Democrats, effectively giving the Democrats a 59-41 majority. So, for the Republicans to take the Senate, they need a net of ten seats. Sounds like a tall order, doesn't it? Well, it may not be so far-fetched. First of all, let's look at open Republican seats that are in danger. The only state where an open Republican state is somewhat in danger is in Florida, where Charlie Crist has left the Republican party and is running as an independent. However, his Republican opponent, Mark Rubio, is running a good campaign, and in fact the latest poll shows him turning the tide and running up by five points. This poll may be an outlier, but I don't think so, especially since Rubio is using Harry Reid's Hispanic gaffe to his advantage.
The other open Republican seats appear safe. In Ohio, Rob Portman has consistently polled higher than his opponent, Lee Fisher, and the gap continues to widen in Portman's favor. In Kentucky, Rand Paul's RCP average is +6.5%, but recent polls put him up anywhere from 8-10 points. In New Hampshire, Kelly Ayotte enjoys commanding poll leads over Paul Hodes, with her RCP average at +8%, and in North Carolina, Richard Burr is running away from Elaine Marshall. His current advantage stands at +7% and is growing.
Now let's look at open Democrat seats. We have Colorado, where Michael Bennett, appointed by Barack Obama, is trailing Ken Buck, a surprise winner in the Republican primary. This is a close race which will become more clear now that the primaries are over. Buck has enjoyed a lead over Bennett in hypothetical match ups--now the match up is real. Keep an eye on this one. In Illinois, Republican Mark Kirk maintains a 2.3% RCP average over Democrat Alexi Giannoulias. This is within the margin of error of most polls, but it has been consistent, and the failure of Giannoulias' family bank seems to be hurting him, especially since he used the bank to tout his business acumen. (Oops!) This would be a great pickup for Republicans since it is Barack Obama's old seat. In Nevada, Harry Reid (below, right) is in a statistical tie with Sharron Angle, but that has come down from a double digit lead. Reid spent a lot of money running negative TV ads when Angle had none , but now that she has money in the bank and is running commercials of her own, she has stabilized the race and erased that lead. I feel that Reid's stand on immigration vs. Angle's will hurt him greatly in the general election.
In Pennsylvania, Joe Sestak (D) has consistently trailed Pat Toomey, and it appears the gap is widening, as the latest poll puts Toomey up by 6%. In North Dakota, John Hoeven's poll numbers show an advantage anywhere from 43-54% in his bid to replace retiring Democrat Byron Dorgan. In Arkansas, John Boozman is cruising to victory over sitting Democrat senator Blanche Lincoln. He currently enjoys a 25% lead in the polls. In Delaware, Joe Biden's old seat will probably go to Republican Mike Castle over Chris Coons, as Castle is currently polling anywhere from 10-13% ahead.
There are two states where normally Democrats cruise to re-election, but not this year. In Wisconsin, Russ Feingold is locked in a race with Ron Johnson that is statistically a tie, but in which the momentum seems to be going Johnson's way, and in Washington State, Patti Murray is in a similarly close race with Mark Rossi. That brings up two states which, to me anyway, are wild cards. In California, Barbara (call me "Senator") Boxer (top left) is only up 4% in the RCP average against former HP CEO Carly Fiorina, which is within the margin of error of most polls. More tellingly, Fiorina has narrowed the gap consistently over the last few months, despite a bruising primary season of her own. Boxer consistently polls under 50%, which is dangerous for an incumbent. Lastly, in Connecticut, Richard Blumenthal leads Linda McMahon by an RCP average of 14%. However, using the Quinnipiac poll as an example, his lead was 33% in March, 25% in May, 20% in June, 17% in July, and currently stands at 10%. McMahon, who once was CEO of WWE and has shown she's not afraid of using her own millions, may be benefiting from Blumenthal's admitted embellishing of his military service. Also, the Republican primary season is now over, and McMahon is now the official candidate, which may help her further. I don't think Republicans will take this seat, but it's not out of the question.
So, here is how I think it will shake out. I think Republicans will take most or all of the currently rated toss ups, plus a couple of open Democrat seats which are definitely going Republican. Specifically, I see Republicans winning in Colorado, Pennsylvania, Arkansas, North Dakota, Illinois, Nevada, Delaware, Indiana, Wisconsin, and Washington State. These are all open seats that Democrats currently hold, and it would result in a net 10 for the Republicans. Add to this mix the formerly crazy notion that Barbara Boxer could lose her seat to Carly Fiorina and that Linda McMahon might just be able to close the gap in Connecticut, and you see that the chances for a Republican takeover of the Senate is within reach. Wouldn't you just love to see Harry Reid go away?

Insanity is...

It was announced this past week that Christina Romer (left), President Obama's top economic advisor, is leaving her job. This is the same Christina Romer who, when Obama was selling us his snake oil "stimulus", promised that if it passed, unemployment wouldn't exceed 8% and it would have been 7% right now as of this writing. Oops! It actually went over 10%, and is now stuck at 9.5%. Most economists, as I've said before, believe that it is only that low because hundreds of thousands of people have given up looking for work and left the work force. We don't count those people as unemployed for some reason.
In a previous post I linked to a list showing how preposterous some of the "stimulus" spending really was. Collecting ants for study, replacing new sidewalks, and replacing windows in closed visitor centers were just a few of the wasted expenditures. The point is that the massive, almost $1 TRILLION boondoggle didn't target the money correctly. I pointed out that we could have just made up jobs and that we'd have been able to put 7.5 million people to work at $40,000 per year or longer with that money. I also pointed out how ludicrous that would have been--almost as ludicrous as what was passed. How should the "stimulus" have been spent? It should have gone to spur investment, and investment creates jobs. Imagine that! But of course Obama couldn't do that. The left wing would have howled that we were "cutting taxes for the wealthy". They don't want to cut taxes for those who create business and, therefore, jobs. They want to tax them and tax them and tax them some more. That is how Democrats claim they will pay for everything--by taxing the wealthy and making them pay "their fair share". Forget that the wealthy already pay a disproportionally high tax rate and that 49% of Americans pay no tax at all. Logic doesn't enter into Democrats' thinking.
So what do the Democrats want now? You guessed it! Another round of stimulus spending! Don't they get it? Don't they understand that they are bankrupting this country? Under Obama's budget blueprint, the deficit will be almost $20 TRILLION by the year 2020, at which time debt service (i.e. the interest on the deficit) will be the #1 expenditure in our budget. This is, of course, assuming we don't implode like Greece before then. However, chances of that happening grow every day. If that happens, this country will be ruined, millions more will be out of work and will have to turn to government handouts to survive. I believe that is what the Democrats want, and how they plan to control the population. But what I believe isn't relevant. The point is that they want more "stimulus" spending, when the first trillion dollars didn't work at all. I was in business for many years, and there is a saying in business that applies here too. Do you know what the definition of insanity is? Doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. So, by this definition, the Democratic party has become the party of the insane..
Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid are the ones pushing this agenda. They have been in charge of the US purse strings since 2006. Will the American people continue to let them run things, hoping it will be different as well? If they do, then the American electorate is also trying the same thing and expecting different results. That would also make the American electorate, well...insane.