A plan for disaster

The Bacaus health reform plan has some serious flaws. One of the big ones is that it forces everyone to buy insurance. If they do not buy insurance they will pay a fine that is reported to be about $1,000 give or take. Insurance premiums are expected to be $4,000 to $5,000. This does not include other "out of pocket" expenses such as co pays and the like.

The math here does not compute!

Knowing that an insurance company will no longer be able to deny someone health insurance, who in their right mind would pay the $4,000 to $5,000 for insurance when they are not sick?? Why not just pay the $1,000 fine, wait until you are truely sick, then sign up for insurance?  The insurance company cannot deny you! You will save lots of money.

Young people, who think they are indestructible, will no doubt see the difference.
This is where the recently released study from the insurance industry determined that premiums will skyrocket under this plan. Of course those in support of this reform claimed it was false, and that the insurance industry was trying to "scare" people. Yet, on at least this point, the logic in the study seems quite correct.
This is what would be called an "un intended consequence".

Another consequence of this plan, although very intentional, is that in order to stay under the trillion dollar mark and be so called defecit neutral, its revenues are front loaded and its expenses are back loaded.

This means that cuts in medicare reimbursements to providers, new taxes on "cadillac" insurance plans and the other host of revenue generating features will happen right away, yet on the expense side, like expanded insurance coverage are not fully implemented until years later(some nearly a decade), so as to allow the reform to build a surplus making it "appear" to be under a trillion dollars and defecit neutral. This is pure gimickry.

Another point on "cadillac" insurance plans is that the government, to generate revenue, calculates that the use of these plans will continue to increase over time, yet that flies in the face of economics 101. When you increase taxes on something, you get less of it, not more. So this is another area that will likely contribute to the reform plan exceeding planned expenses.

As it is now, many doctors refuse Medicare patients, does anyone think this situation will improve after the government cuts reimbursement rates even further?

I am in favor of reform, but only reform that makes sense. This does not make sense!

You Lie!

Well what to say. I probably do not have to explain the comment, but in case you missed it a member of the house from Sout Carolina screamed out to President Obama "You Lie!" during a joint address to congress.

I will admit that I am VERY conservaive.I do not so much identify with the Repblican Party, as I do with conservative prinicipals though. That said, since I've been able to vote, I've voted Republican, and thats not likely to change.

Rep. Joe Wilson, a Republican from South Carolina, yelled out at President Obama "You Lie!" during a joint session of cngress recently. Much has been made of this recently, most of which I agree with.

Remembering that it is not for nothing that the house of representatives is called the people's house, it still disturbs me that someone would have that amount of disrespect for the office! The reference to "the people's house" is indicative of the fact that the "house" tends to be more reactionary than the senate, and hence more raucus than the senate. The senate is a more reserved, if you will, body comprised of "gentleman". You would have likely NEVER heard that type of comment from the senate side of congress.

Now some people will argue that President Obama is lying(about health care reform). So why not call him out on it????

Well, I would only argue that there is a time and place for everything. A joint session of congrees is neither the time, nor the place for it. Agree or diagree, he IS the President and deserves a modicum of respect.

The time and place for that would have been an interview on CNN or Fox News.

The respect I try to give President Obama is often the respect President Bush never got from the other side.

Health Care Reform

I have often posted about what I don't think we should do to reform health care in the U.S. I think I should post on what I thinnk we COULD do to reform health care.

First lets define the problem. Roughly 50 million people in the U.S. have no health insurance. But lets first put some context to that number. Lets subtract the following from it:
1. Illegal Aliens--15 million
2. People who could afford(make over $75,000) insurance but choose not to purchase it--10 million
3. People who are eligble for Medicare/Medicaid and do not sign up for it--10 million

That leaves about 10-15 million peopole who, through no fault of their own, cannot get or afford insurance. Some would claim it closer to 5 million.

Tort reform would be on the top of my list. It is easy to do. Estimates run from 3-10% of every dollar spent on health care goes to lawsuits. This does not even include the millions spent on defensive medicine. Remember though that tort reform is to limit puative damages, not compensatory damages. This means that a person injured by malpractice will still be able to sue for millioins of dollars, if that is what is needed to pay forthier medical care. They will only be limited in how much they can get in as punishment from the doctor.

Pre existing conditions are a tougher nut to crack. I know a person who bought a boat, but didn't buy insurance on that boat....until they day he crashed it. You can't wait until you get sick to buy health insurance. Unless of course you want the insurance companies to go out of business. The only way to get rid of pre existing conditions is to require everyone to have insurance. If we would go to this kind of model I think it should be based on people being required to have catastrophic insurance that pays after the first $5,000 or so of medical expenses. The government could subsidize people who could not afford this.
It goes without saying though, that insurance companies should NOT be able to rescind your insurnace when you get seriously ill becuase you forgot to mention on your application that you had acne when you were 20.

Insurance is part of the problem
If you have insurance, you are not the actual customer in the economic sense. You don't care what it costs. If your doctor wants a test every hour on the hour, you have no incentive to even question it. Think if car insurance covered oil changes, and regular maintenance.....how much more would insurance cost?

This is what I like about HSAs and other types of catastrophic insurance.
With High Deductable Health Plans(HDHP) you are put back in the economic equation, yet if you get seriously ill or injured, you are still covered.

Real insurance competition.
In the U.S. there are about 6,000 health insurance companies, yet Americans are severly restricted as to which ones they can choose by the state they live in. Open up the whole country to all of the insurance companies.

Allow insurance tax deduction
Allow insurance to be tax deductible. This will help to lower the costs of insurance.

Public Education, why not Public Health Care?

Lauren had asked me what I thought about the differences between free public education(k-12) and free public health care. She writes....

“I've been trying recently to figure out the difference between public taxpayer-bought education (k-12) and public, taxpayer-bought health care. Both have (or will/may have) flaws both in spending and results, and both are a public service that a libertarian could argue are unnecessary excesses of large government. However..."

It is an interesting comparison to be sure. Education, she pointed out, is something you can pay for your self. In fact many people already do so. She pointed out that public education is not perfect and it is likely that the health care reform will not be perfect either. The perfect should not be the enemy of the good. So why one but not the other?

Lauren further states.....

"Through government, the taxpayers now give all children a free education UP TO 12th grade, and though admittedly flawed in many ways, I doubt you'll find a whole lot of people who think the US should be without public education. If you want more than that (ie college) then you get to pay for it with money - which not all people have."

As I stated in my quick reply to her comment, I don't think you can lump all "government" together. One of the characteristics of our government is that is a federal style of government. Think of a cake with three layers. One the top is the U.S. Federal government. Below that is the State governments. And on the bottom are the local governments. Now you still don't really know what kind of cake you have....it could be a marble cake where the federal layer reaches down into the state level and the state level mixes into the local level.

When you think about how our government was formed, it was from the states agreeing to give the federal government certain duties, and those only. The state itself was formed from local governments who relinquished certain rights to the state and in turn local governments were formed by the people giving certain powers to the local government. This way the most power was retained by the people, not the governments.

Personally I think we have a marble cake. I can only hope all three layers are chocolate!

Regardless of which view you take, each layer of government has specific areas of responsibility. The Federal government is limited in its powers by the U.S. Constitution. The U.S. Constitution specifically reserves all powers not enumerated to the federal government to the states and or the people.

This is part of the reason why the Federal government does not run education. Education is run primarily by local school boards that are elected by the people they serve. Yes, the Federal government does play a part in education, but it is a very limited one, but like all things that government does its role is increasing. Over the last decade, federal spending on education is up more than 50% from roughly 5% to over 8%. I'll just add that the quality of our education system has not gone up 50%. In fact most people might agree that our education system is in big trouble despite the near doubling of federal money. Hint, hint.

Lauren goes on to say:

"Right now, when I try to translate the US's health care system into public
education, it seems like NOBODY has a "right" to be given the opportunity to
learn to read or do basic math. If there's someone in your life to teach it to
you or your family has enough money to pay for a private school, good. If not, looks like you're going to be illiterate and unable to do basic math like balancing a checkbook, and you'll probably be broke and undereducated for your entire life. Which is something that I know some people would argue in favor of. I wouldn't be one of those people."

Most states require, by state law, attendance to some type of school. Children and parents alike can be issued citations for not attending school. In fact the Nevada State Constitution directly addresses education in its "Bill of Rights". Here is a relevant section:

"Sec: 5. Establishment of normal schools and grades of schools; oath of teachers and professors. The Legislature shall have power to establis [establish] Normal schools, and such different grades of schools, from the primary department to the University, as in their discretion they may deem necessary........"

In my old state Michigan, the Michigan State Constitution also mandates "free public education" as shown here:

2 Free public elementary and secondary schools; discrimination. Sec. 2. The
legislature shall maintain and support a system of free public elementary and
secondary
schools as defined by law. Every school district shall provide for
the education of its pupils without
discrimination as to religion, creed,
race, color or national origin.

I doubt there is a state that does not address education.

I think that translation fails because of different powers granted to the federal government and the state government. It would be more appropriate for a State government to require health insurance and several already have. All states already mandate insurance for cars.

That is the best reason as to why a national "universal public health care" plan has never evolved in this country.

That leaves the issue of Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. These are three programs that are federal and universal.

Lets begin with Social Security. In a nut shell Social Security was originally designed to keep older poor or disabled people from starving. Although many people consider it a retirement plan, they will find it very lacking in that regards. You get enough to survive.

Where I used to work we had people that pulled in over $100,000 of earned income a year, collecting Social Security!!! That is just not right. It should be for people who cannot take care of themselves. I think that would fall in line with the U.S. Constitution.
Personally, I would like to see Social Security severely restricted though. Financially, it is a disaster. By the time I will be able to retire, you will need to be 90 years old to collect it and will be lucky to get $.50 for your trouble. The eligibility age keeps going up. That's how they try to solve the financial mess that is Social Security. They also lower benefits and raise the FICA tax.

With respect to Medicaid/Medicare they also increase premiums, raise the cap on earnings subject to Medicare withholding. And lets not forget that they also plan to cut reimbursements to doctors, hospitals and such. That's where the $500 billion in savings to pay for "health insurance reform" comes from. Medicaid is in way worse financial condition than Social Security. Medicare and Medicaid, unlike Social Security, target specific groups like the disable, poor, and elderly. That makes it easier to see them as part of a federal plan.

Anyways, I hope some of this made some kind of sense.

Twice the price

Today I was listening to a town hall meeting with a Democratic Rep and Howard Dean today.
The crowd seemed more or less a mixture of views.

They originally booked it for a place that held 500 people. They switched to a place that held 3,000 people, and still, not everyone got in. Anyone remember when you couldn't get 20 people to a town hall meeting???

A couple of points I'd like to bring out that they discussed.

1. Out of pocket expenses, under the House Bill 3200, will be limited to $5,000 per person or $10,000 for a family. So not only will I NOT be able to keep my insurance plan that I am VERY happy with, I will have the pleasure of paying TWICE the amount I currently pay. Thats a SWEET deal if you ask me!

2. President Obama has made insurance companies the "enemy" in this debate after realizing that "health care reform" didn't poll well because most people are happy with their health care. Yet, the insurance industry SUPPORTS the reform! Thinking people will ask WHY? It is because the insurance industry is looking at additional premiums from the government to insure 47 million more people.

3. Again today they tried to tell the people that this plan is just like Medicaid/Medicare or the Federal Health Care Plans for Federal employees. If thats so true, why not put everyone in it? Or why not just sign everyone up for the Federal Employee plan. Think of all of the savings to be made from not having 3 or 4 separate bureaucracies to administer health care! If its good enough for the American People, why is it not good enough for Federal Employees and the rest of the government? Because they wouldn't stand for it.

It was nice to see how popular Howard Dean is these days......

Some other broader points to consider:

1. We do have a shortage of doctors, esp primary care, in this country. Who, exactly, is going to care for these other 47 million people?

2. The claim is made that illegals will not be covered. But does the bill say that anywhere? Does it even address the issue at all? NOPE. This bill is, even at 1,100 pages, written very broad, and vague. No doubt, somewhere down the road, an un elected government bureaucracy somewhere, will determine that illegals should be covered. Then it will be too late.

3. Nowhere does this bill address TORT REFORM! Not in the least. Not even mentioned.
Just because we have Doctors, who we are short on, closing their doors because they can't afford malpractice premiums, doesn't mean we need tort reform! Nope, not even a little bit of it!

Now for an analogy...of sorts. Your mileage may vary.

I bought a bird feeder the other day. This bird feeder represents the "health care system". The birds, of course, are "health care consumers". The bird seed is "health care".

Now this is a pretty big bird feeder. It holds a lot of seeds. There are also many, many birds around here.

so I go and fill up my bird feeder with seed and hang it in a place to give birds easy access to the feeder. Then I sit in my chair and watch the birds eating the seeds and think to myself, "this is great".

So I come back the next day and my feeder is "EMPTY". I think back, yes I did just fill it up yesterday. So I fill it up again. The next day, again its empty.

So I try to figure out how to fix this problem. What to do?I go out and buy another bird feeder! I fill both of them to the very top. I think to myself, problem solved.
Since it is now beer:30 I dutifully crack one open and watch the birds eating away, thinking to myself that I should be good for a few days now!

In the morning, BOTH feeders are EMPTY!

After purchasing another feeder, plus one of those peanut butter type feeder, I think to myself, "This must fix the problem!"

I get up the next day to find ALL of the feeders EMPTY!

I have concluded that one of two things will happen:
1. I will go broke buying birds seed
or
2. I will have to start rationing the bird seed.

Which do you think I chose? More importantly, when faced with this decision, which do you think the government will choose? I guessing that, like me, they will choose the latter over the former.

While its true that everything in our economic system is rationed in some form or another, usually by price, very little is rationed by the government.
That is as it should be.

People who want to believe that we can have unlimited health care for everyone, for everyone, need to rethink that. It is not possible.

Mis information from President Obama:
1. You can keep your current insurance. NOT true. I won't be able to and I'm VERY happy with my insurance.

2. No health care rationing. Not true. Economics 101 should be enough to convince anyone that this is just not possible. Even today in this country, health care is rationed. But it NOT rationed in the way that other countries with "universal health care" ration it.

Dr Rawlins, who head the NICE in England said:

“be fair to all patients in the National Health Service (NHS), not just patients with macular degeneration or breast cancer or renal cancer. If we spend a lot of money on a few patients, we have less money to spend on everyone else. We are not trying to be unkind or cruel. We are trying to look after everybody.”

That is the truth of rationing in England. The problem is that there never has been, nor will there ever be enough money to provide unlimited health care to all people.
The only conclusion is that it will, in some form or another be limited.

England budgeted 6 billion dollars to build IT infrastructure to run their health system. It costs are now estimated at 30 billion and rising.
This goes to show how the government, theirs and ours, are often way off on the costs associated with its actions.

No Death Council??? I have proof of it!!!

They say there is no death council! But I have pictures of the them meeting.....









I don't like the way they are looking at me! I must be on the list!!!

Another correction

After much protest, Britain will now treat Macular Degeneration before you go blind in one eye.



This is a pretty interesting video. At the end it describes how in Canada it can take a month or more to get an MRI.....unless your a cat or a dog. Pets can usually get them same day or next day!

I'd also like to point out again that the Democrats plan on cutting 400-500 billion from Medicare/Medicaid to come up with some of the savings to pay for this reform.
Also when the Democrats say that you can keep your insurance and your doctor they are not telling the truth. I have an Health Saving Account with Catastrophic Insurance Coverage. This type of plan will no longer be available under the reform plan!!! People with Flexible Savings Accounts(FSA) or Health Reimbursement Arrangement(HRA) will no longer be able to participate in those plans.

Also if you currently have employer provided insurance and lose it, you will be FORCED into the public plan or the public exchange by this new reform.

Health Care Blues

Because I think "health care refom" is so important I want to blog about it again.
I DO realize that health care is an issue in this country.

One often touted fact is that roughly 47 million people in this country lack health insurance. This fact is true. But lets add some context to this. This does NOT mean there are 47 million people in this country who are denied health care. They DO get health care typically provided at emergency rooms and free health clinics and the such. We , as taxpayers, already pay for this in the form of higher costs for proceedures and higher taxes in the form of government payments to hospitals for the treatments of indigents.

So really, we could solve this problem by insuring the 47 million. I'd say insure the 47 million, minus the 10-20 million illegals in this country.

Those of you that support this plan realize it includes illegals! Every dollar spent treating them is a dollar that will not be spent treating you and your family!

The bill also includes reductions in payments to medicare providers and a "government board" to determine what will and will not be paid for!

Britan has N.I.C.E.which is often described as not being very nice! It is the government agency that decides what treatments are available to whom based on things such as sex and age. A board simmilar to NICE will be comming to the U.S.

For example, if you have advanced breast cancer, you get no treatment. Macular Degeneration? No treatment until you go blind in one eye. Then they will treat your remaining eye.

Recently Paul Krugmen was at a "health care" conference. He asked if there were any Canadians in the audiance. 7 people raised thier hands. He asked if any were "un happy with thier health care?" All 7 raised their hands!!!!

A correction

I my post about health care I made a mistake. Union members would NOT be expempt from the "reform". They would be exempt from paying taxes on thier health insurance as is now propsed as part of at least one of the proposals. This correction was brought to you by the person who has been correcting me for 42 years now.....my father.....

I'm on the way to the hospital

to get a blood infusion. I've bitten my tongue so many times I'm low on blood. I try not to make this blog political, people that know me know where I stand, but damn.

First I'll say that I did not vote for Obama yet he is, for better or worse, my President. I had hoped he would campaign from the left(as he did) and lead from the middle somewhere(he is not, at least domestically)



His health care imitative is just un real. Its not really his though, he has turned that job over to Congress.

Only one action would convince me that this "plan" was a good plan.

Only one, very simple action would convince me to fully support this initiative.

And this one action would save the government money.

That action would be for ALL federal employees to be put in the plan also.
From the President down to the lowliest janitor in some long ago forgotten federal agency.

I mean if its so good for the American People, it should be good enough for Federal Employees who are, by definition, our employees. Have you ever worked at a place where the workers had better insurance than the employees? Me neither.....

President Obama was asked this exact question. His response was to try and say he was giving the American People the same thing that Federal Employees have, then he tried to blend this with Medicare saying that its just like Medicare, in fact its just like what federal employees have....government provided health care.

Does anyone really believe that????? If you do, wouldn't it be easier for the government to open up the plans to all Americans? Ain't going to happen!

Itroducing a "Public" option is a horrible idea. It will not be long until the government begins to subsidize this "Public" plan to the dis advantage of every other insurer out there. Soon the "Public" option will be the only one available.

So how do you get more health care for less money? How does that work?
President Obama want us to think we can achieve that through efficiency.
Their is no doubt a ton of money to be saved from efficiency, but not enough to pay for this plan.

And why are unions exempt from this "reform"??? The UAW, SEIU among others...I wonder why? Payback???

And this very complex(1,600 pages or so) "reform" has to be done by August??? Sorry, I'm tired of Congress not reading laws they pass!!!!

Our health care system is far from perfect, but when I look around I don't see anything better.

I do not like "pre existing condition" being excluded but it is a necessary evil. Otherwise people would only get insurance when they were sick. You can't get sick and then go buy insurance just like you can't crash your car and then go buy auto insurance. So the only real way to get rid of "pre existing conditions" is to require everyone to have health insurance.

As long as were on cars and health insurance....
Everyone knows they are at risk of getting sick. Pneumonia, flue, colds etc. These are minor ailments. Sort of like maintenance items much like changing the oil in your car is a maintenance item. Imagine what car insurance would cost if it insured against needing an oil change or a car wash!

Indeed, if the insurance workings of cars and health care were interchanged, this debate would be about the cost of car insurance!

Insurance is to mitigate a risk. How risky is a cold? Or a twisted ankle? or a fever over a short time? The normal, routine illnesses that come from being alive. The risk is infinitesimal.

My health insurance is a Health Savings Account. To me it is perfect. I put money, albeit tax free, away in a savings account every payday.I can go to ANY doctor, anywhere in the world! I have a debit card I use to pay the bill. I use that card to pay for all prescriptions and tests also. I can use it to pay fom many maedical related things that insurance will never pay for, like asprin or bandages. My "out of pocket expenses" are limited to $5,000 per year so if something catastophic or serious occurs I know what my expenses would be, and I've already saved for it towards the $5,000. After $5,000 I pay nothing. the insurance picks up ALL cost from therapy to doctors to prescriptions and hospitals. It is what is called High Deductible Health Plan and it pays for any catastophic event or ilness over $5,000.
So for about $130 a week, Karen and I are totally covered.

Another upside is that I question the doctor now becuase I am the consumer! although I have yet to refuse what a doctor ordered for me, he knows that I will question him. He recently ordered 2 tests for me that checked for the same thing. I aksed him if he really needed both. He said that because of my family history, he would feel better with both. I completed both...and they both came back "ok". But the point is that if I had "regular" insurance I would have never even questioned him about the need for both.

And, if I ever get to retire, if their is any money left in it, I can use it for whatever.

Much like "energy reform", this bill will have many un-intended consequences. Congress knows well about those little buggers!

We know all about "energy conservation" out here in Nevada. They have been preaching that for a long time here. Our local electric company recently began offering "interest free" loans for you to add a solar water heating system to your house. Not a bad idea on the surface. Las vegas, much like Pahrump and most of Nevada, have been trying to conserve electricity for many years.

The problem comes when the power company gets your payment for your lower electricity use. You save $50 on your normally $200 electric bill. You think "Great"! The power company thinks "Wow! I didn't make enough money last month!" and drives right over to the State Utility Commission and asks for an increase to bring your bill back up to $200! This exact scenario has already played out in Las Vegas. The power company will get their money, that's why they are in business!

So if your in it for the "environment" go for it....and that's an ok reason. But don't think the electric company is doing you any favors trying to lower your bills.

I can't hold off

any longer. I've tried not to post too many political post in this blog because it is not really a political blog. I'm sure many of my friends and family probably secretly suspect I voted for Obama.

While I will listen to suggestions about birth certificates, and such I usually dismiss them. At this point, it doesn't matter because you can't change it. It is President Obama...like it or not.
I was also hopfull when he was elected. That hope was misplaced, to my mind.

Firstly, where is the "change?"
I fully supported both wars. In 2008, the country decided it wanted a "change". I accepted it and though...."Ok, lets see where your way gets us...."

Well, on foreign policy, the country got "Bush Lite"
Obamas campaign promises were to:
Close Gitmo.....We will see if it actually closes. Never charged or convicted of a crime you say? Fine, release them, but does it have to be in the USA???

Extraordinary rendition....well, to their credit the Obama administration will only allow ordinary renditions. No longer would the U.S. allow the torturous practice of extra-ordinary renditions.

No more torture. Yet President Obama has left open the window for "Harsh interrogation methods upon his approval.

End the Iraq war. Does anyone really still believe this?? He is not ending it any sooner than Bush would have. And he will still leave troops in Iraq.

His whole foreign policy is nothing but Bush lite.

More to follow....

I didn't want to believe it,

but apparently it may happen. President Obama appears to be bent on releasing some Gitmo detainees into the United States! Up to 20 are under consideration to be released to U.S. soil. Among them 17 Chinese Muslims. It appears that some will also stand trial in civilian courts also. The icing on the cake is Obama's plan to disarm airline pilots! May God have mercy on him if their is another attack because of these actions, because I will not have any!!!

On a lessor topic, but still important, Democratic Senator Chris Dodd admitted today, after denying it, that he was indeed the Senator that put language into the bill that allowed AIG to pay out 176 million dollars to top employees!!!!! First he denied it, of course, but he was more or less caught with his hand in the cookie jar, so to speak. Is it a coincidence that Chris Dodd, and many other congressmen, received hundreds of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions and then went on to approve billions of dollars of taxpayer money to AIG?????

Just saying

if you spent one million dollars a day, every day, from the time Jesus was born, until today, you would have spent less that the Congress and President Obama did in the first 30 odd days of his Presidency!!!!

Its really, really

disgusting. After pouring in more than $150 BILLION dollars into AIG, we are now giving them another $30 BILLION. We are quickly going to reach the $.5 TRILLION dollars to just one company!!!!! LET THEM FAIL!!!! After giving them $150 BILLION, they report a $64 BILLION dollar loss, and we give them another $30 BILLION. where does it end????? $.5 TRILLION, a cool TRILLION????? FUCK'em, we can't be any worse off if they fail. They need to pay the price for their stupid decision!!!! God knows the working stiff is. Recently a lady who had refinanced or bought a house in one of those exotic home loans acknowledged that she got into a mortgage that she didn't understand. She also acknowledged that it was her fault for entering something she didn't fully understand and accepted the consequences, mainly loosing her home. But, she asked, why are all of these so called "financial" firms, not reaping what they sowed when they got into financial arrangements that they did not fully comprehend????
Simply, they are being bailed out by the government!!!! The individual suffers the consequences of their poor choices, as they should, but companies do not have to??? We are bailing out these companies for their mistakes, yet the CEOs keep their jobs????

In 30 days or so

Obama has crushed any hope I had for him leading from the middle. Yes I knew that, like most politicians, he campaigned from the left during the primaries, and then moved to the center during the election. I was hopeful that he would govern from there. That hope is now gone. Although I know that elections have consequences, never in my wildest nightmares imagine them to be like this.

Our true deficit, often cited as roughly $460 billion in 2008 is actually over $5 trillion dollars!!!! How is this you ask??? Well its a neat accounting trick the government has been using for years called "cash accounting". When they collect a dollar for Social Security they send that dollar on anything from a F-22 fighter jet to a "Bridge to no where". Its a simple subtraction of "Cash in" minus "Cash out".
The problem with this is that Social Security money is supposed to pay for, well....Social Security! "Cash Accounting" does not account for future expenditures.
"Cash Accounting" is deemed acceptable for small businesses as seen here.

This is how President Clinton could claim(with a straight face) to have had a "budget surplus" when in fact he was running a budget deficit. Under the governments accounting method, there was no deficit because they spent all of the Social Security monies. Not to fault President Clinton in particular, because administrations have been raiding the Social Security pot since....well since there was one to raid.

The true deficit under President Bush was just over $5 trillion dollars. Under President Obama it will be in the area of $8-9 Trillion dollars. And that's JUST the DEFICIT!

I do have to give credit where credit is due though. President Obama's position on Iraq does seem reasonable at this time. He is, more or less, withdrawing troops within the time frame negotiated by President Bush under the terms of the SOFA(Status of Force Agreement) last year while still leaving open the ability to re evaluate the situation as needed.

Speaking of President Bush, its kind of ironic to see how many of his positions that President Obama is adopting:
Rendition? Yes.
So called torture: With his approval.
Position on Iraq: More or less the same as Bush's
Denying trial to enemy combatants: Only some held in Afghanistan
And a host of other.....

Staycation

Well there I said it.I have 2 weeks of vacation time for this year and I don't know what to do with it. I'm getting a big enough tax refund to do a staycation or a vacation. There are lots of places and things I would like to do....a 14 day cruise to......well where ever...would be nice. Considering the economy though, that is likely not a wise choice. I would like to save most of my return to help pay for the lost hours at work. I know I want to return HOME for the Dream Cruise. I will do everything I can humanly possible to be there for that. It is, more or less, a family re union!!! Especially since moving to Vegas. Its to special to miss!!!!

I should feel guilty for having to try to decide what to do with my vacation time I suppose. Many people today are just flat un-employed though no fault of their own. Our work load is going "ok" at this point. My main issue is that I do not know if we can survive on 32 hours a week. If we find a way to survive until things pick up, all will be well. If not, at least they are re building the I-15 and I can live under a new overpass!!!!!

Part of me says that "what ever will happen, will happen" and $1,000 for a staycation will not make much difference anyways. Part of me argues that "Hey! thats almost a months rent dumbass!"

Again I am drawn back to the conflicting ideas of "Americans spend too much money" remembering that the American economy is 2/3rds consumer spending, and that, IMHO, much of our problems now stem from Americans being un-willing to part with their cash because they are fearful of what the future may hold.

If people would spend money, things would be better, yet who in their right mind would spend a large sum of money in this economy???

It is a viscous circle feeding on itself!

Our

economic problems boil down to 2 things in my mind.
1. Lack of consumer spending.
2. Lack of consumer confidence.

Over the year I remember hearing the all to common refrain that Americans spent too much money and didn't save enough. We were often compared to Japan which, apparently, has a much higher savings rate.
Now when Americans get any extra money they are paying off debt or saving the money.
People often look to Japan and how thier economy is faring, yet they fail to remember the almost 2 decades of Japaneese history in the late 80's and 90's when thier economy stagnated much like ours is now. They indeed had a housing buble just as we have now. They poured billions upon billions of dollars into thier economy, and yet it made no noticeable difference. We are about to embark upon that path, but in a much bigger way, and I fear it will not improve things, but only make them worse.

Before us lies two paths. Each with the same end result. The path to the right, not coincidentally, leads to lots of pain, and I mean way more than we have seen so far, but over a shorter period of time. The path to the left leads to less intense pain, but it will be stretched out for generations. Both paths will eventually lead us to the same place. The question is, to my mind, do we want a lot of pain for a shorter time, or a lesser amount of pain for a longer period? I prefer the former!

Obama

has declared he will close Gitmo within a year. That leads me to ask what will become of the people held there? Most of thier native countries will either not accept them, or will not garuntee that they will not be tortured. By that I mean "real" torture, not waterboarding, or humiliation, or being made to be un comfortable. May I suggest that instead, we send Rep. Murtha to GITMO?Real torture is shoving bamboo under finger nails, or chopping fingers off. Should these people be brought to U.S. soil where they can access criminal courts all of the way up to the US Supmreme Court? I say no! They are not criminal defendants caught up in a criminal trial. They are illegal combatans, as clearly defined by the UN. As such they can be held indefinately until the end of hostilities.

To treat the actions of Al Qaeda as criminal events is a big mistake. One that Obama seems determined to make. They are acts of war and should be treated as such. Of the 700 or so individuals held at Gitmo around 500 have been released. The ones that are left for the most part, the worst of the worst. Rep John Murtha invited them to be sent to his state. May I sugest instead, that we send Rp. Murtha to GITMO? I doubt most Americans would cozy up to the idea of having Al Qaeda terrorist in thier back yard....unless it was for a hangingThat way he can get up close and personal with each of these fine individuals.......I'm quite sure he will go over in a big way there.

Are we to really think it is a good idea to bring them to U.S. soil? That would make Ted Rall happy but I doubt most Americans would cozy up to the idea of having Al Qaeda terrorist in thier back yard....unless it was for a hanging, that might be ok! Just think of what would happen if one of these upstanding citizens were to get his day in court in the 9th circuit court.

Treating these people as criminal defendants is a BIG mistake. We will see what ultimately happen. President Obama, like most presidents, has left himself a great deal of wiggle room.

Clear problems...Blurry solutions

Today, in a historic time for the United States of America, the 44th President of the United States, Barak H. Obama was sworn in. While I did not vote for the new President, he won the election, and I accept that. It is over. It is time to get behind our new President and support him as best we can. There are many Democrats that I know that refused to accept Bush as the 43rd President of the United States. Regardless of what you thought of that election, he was, after the "process" finnished, declared the winner. They should have accepted that. You win some, you lose some.

Personally I don't think that President Obama has the answers to our country's financial problems, but then again, I don't think the government can solve our financial problems, I think the government created them in the first place. To expect them to "fix" them is just throwing good money after bad. The government is notthe answer. Every company, and every individual that made poor decisions, should bear the consequences of those decision. From AIG that got involved in "Credit Default Swaps" to the person who bought a house they couldn't afford using a "Liar Loan" should suffer the consequences of those actions.

That said, I hope that President Obama proves me wrong. I hope that he can move the country in the right direction. I do realize though that no one can live up to the expectations layed upon this President.

It is always great to see this country change leadership without shedding blood. The strongest memories I have of Presidential elections is the last flight of the President flying away from the White House. I have now watched Reagan, Bush, Clinton, and now Bush make that flight. In 4-8 years(hopefully 4) I hope to watch President Obama make that flight. They are moment that are forever seared in my memory.

2 more days

Thats all that is left of President Bush's term. Despite his low poll numbers which, by the way, are higher than Congressional poll numbers, I think Bush did a failry good job considering all that happened on his watch.

The other day I was listening to the NPR show called "Wait, Wait, don't tell me"(I think it was anyways) and they were talking about how President Bush had spent roughly 2 of the last 8 years on vacation. Ofcourse everyone on the show was delighted at that statistic feeling that it showed how poor a President Bush was. No doubt most listeners were noding thier heads in agreement.

Most reasonable, thinking people would take exception to that statistic knowing that the President of the United Staes is NEVER on "vacation". "Vacation" is only something that the President can dream about. But why let the truth get in the way of a good story??

News reports are already surfacing of President Elect Obama begining to feel the "pressure" of not being able to live his life as he wants to, yet the "Presidential Cocoon" has not even fully enveloped him yet. Soon he too will understand that a President is NEVER on Vacation. If he thinks trips to get "shaved ice" treats is difficult now, what will those trips be like in a week??