Our New HCP (My Advice To You - DON'T GET SICK)

Tuesday, July 28, 2009

I been watching the debate on C-Span and as usual doing my homework. The largest problem is that the liberals have designed a new tactic to silence the opposition. They have passed a rule
forbidding any of the members of Congress who are opposed to the bill from sending letters or
emails to their constituency regarding the Health Care Plan or face ethics violations.
In other words they have effectively censored and removed the freedom of speech from opposing Congressmen and women, and with GOOD REASON.

Here is a chart of the liberal Democrat's Health Care Plan. Good Luck trying to follow it but it appears to me to be a massive boondoggle of nothing but "RED TAPE" that creates a new layer of government bureaucracy headed by (you guessed it) another Czar.
This is part of what the liberals will not let those in Congress release to their constituents so it was done backdoor on C-Span at about 1 AM in the morning during floor debate.

Health Care Chart

"I's a little blurry, but if you click on the chart it should enlarge"

Hmmmmmm. so what's it all mean?

Let's take a a little peak at what Obama and his little liberal minions don't want you to see.

Some examples, from a quick inventory by Family Security Matters:

  • Pg 22 of the HC Bill mandates the Government will audit books of all

employers that self insure.

  • Pg 30 Sec 123 of HC bill - a Government committee (good luck with that!)

will decide what treatments/benefits a person may receive.

  • Pg 29 lines 4-16 in the HC bill - YOUR HEALTHCARE WILL BE RATIONED!

  • Pg 42 of HC Bill - The Health Choices Commissioner will choose your HC

Benefits for you.

  • Pg 50 Section 152 in HC bill - HC will be provided to ALL non US citizens,

illegal or otherwise.

  • Pg 58 HC Bill - Government will have real-time access to individual's

finances and a National ID Health card will be issued!

Pg 59 HC Bill lines 21-24 Government will have direct access to your bank

accts for election funds transfer.

  • PG 65 Sec 164 is a payoff subsidized plan for retirees and their families in

Unions & community organizations (read: ACORN).

Pg 72 Lines 8-14 Government will create an HC Exchange to bring private

HC plans under Government control.

  • PG 91 Lines 4-7 HC Bill - Government mandates linguistic appropriate

services. Example - Translation for illegal aliens.

  • Pg 95 HC Bill Lines 8-18 The Government will use groups, i.e. ACORN

& Americorps, to sign up individuals for Government HC plan.

  • PG 85 Line 7 HC Bill - Specifics of Benefit Levels for Plans. AARP members

- your Health care WILL be rationed.

  • PG 102 Lines 12-18 HC Bill - Medicaid Eligible Individuals will be

automatically enrolled in Medicaid. No choice.

  • Pg 124 lines 24-25 HC No company can sue Government on price fixing.

No "judicial review" against Government Monopoly.

  • Pg 127 Lines 1-16 HC Bill - Doctors/ AMA - The Government will tell YOU

what you can earn.

  • Pg 145 Line 15-17 An Employer MUST auto enroll employees into public

option plan. NO CHOICE.

  • Pg 126 Lines 22-25 Employers MUST pay for HC for part time employees

AND their families.

  • Pg 170 Lines 1-3 HC Bill Any NONRESIDENT Alien is exempt from individual

taxes. (American taxpayerss will pay.)

  • Pg 195 HC Bill -officers & employees of HC Admin (the GOVERNMENT) will

have access to ALL Americans' finances and personal records.

  • PG 203 Line 14-15 HC - "The tax imposed under this section shall not be

treated as tax" Yes, it says that.

  • Pg 239 Line 14-24 HC Bill - Government will reduce physician services

for Medicaid. Seniors, low income, poor affected.

  • Pg 241 Line 6-8 HC Bill - Doctors - doesn't matter what specialty - will all

be paid the same.

  • PG 253 Line 10-18 Government sets value of Doctor's time, professional

judgment, etc. Literally, value of humans.

  • PG 265 Sec 1131 Government mandates & controls productivity for private

HC industries.

  • Pg 317 L 13-20 OMG!! PROHIBITION on ownership/investment. Government

tells Doctors what/how much they can own.

  • Pg 317-318 lines 21-25,1-3 PROHIBITION on expansion - Government will

mandate hospitals cannot expand.

  • Pg 354 Sec 1177 - Government will RESTRICT enrollment of Special needs


  • PG 425 Lines 4-12 Government mandates Advance Care Planning

Consultations. Think Senior Citizens end of life prodding.

  • PG 425 Lines 22-25, 426 Lines 1-3 Government provides approved list of end

of life resources, guiding you in how to die.

  • PG 427 Lines 15-24 Government mandates program for orders for end of

life. The Government has a say in how your life ends.

  • PG 429 Lines 10-12 "advanced care consultation" may include an ORDER

for end of life plans. AN ORDER from the Government to end a life!

1 monthly payment to a community-based organization. (Like ACORN?)

After all ITS ONLY MONEY and WE can print all we want RIGHT.....

So you think its more propaganda from the NEOCONS?

Go ahead, read it yourself, I'm sure that there is a whole lot more that is stuffed into this bill that you never imaged. But then you liberals probably are aware of that, RIGHT.


And while you are at it, you might ask yourself why there is a fairly large block of Democrat's that are lining up in opposition to this plan......

In the meantime, I will continue to pray that those of you who continue to blindly follow the party line will do your own HOMEWORK before this country becomes the land
of the "lost" instead of the "free".


Before I go on vacation

Friday, July 24, 2009

For the next week, I’ll be away on vacation. I hope to be back and posting on a normal basis by August 3rd. I wanted to take the time to thank everyone who has been joining the debate on this blog and hope to hear from all of you soon.

In the meantime, I want to leave you with this thought.

After Obama’s Wednesday address, Bobby Jindal said the following:

"[Obama] said, he does not want to increase the deficit, does not want government control of health care. He wants people to keep their insurance. He wants to crack down on the abuse, the over utilization. All that's great. The problem is that's not what's in the House Democrat bill.”

Jindal hit the nail on the head with the health care bill and this can be expanded to all of Obama’s policies thus far. When we look at Obama and his policies, the following conclusion is glaringly evident.

Obama is great at talking about the problems in the US. The economy, health care, and energy are very big problems that need to be addressed. He talks about how his policies will create all these great and utopian happy endings. The problem is that none of his policies take us from our current problems to the outcomes he talks about.

• We have a health bill to curb rising health care costs, that increases the cost crisis
• We have a stimulus bill to create jobs and bring the economy out of recession, that is doing nothing beneficial for the economy and may be a catalyst to prolonging the recession
• We’ve seen a cap and trade bill to curb global warming that will have negligible effects on global temperatures even if we assume the IPCC is correct.

This is just the short list, which touches only on his major policies. It’s said that I am part of the “Party of No” and I proudly embrace that title. I will not support policies that do not fix problems. In doing so, I am told that I am acting partisan. In actuality, I am trying to hold the President to his promises and see that the outcomes he talks about actually come to fruition.

I leave you with a list of the posts I’ve done on Health Care so far. When you have time, please check them out.

7/22 – Obamacare does not curb health care cost crisis
7/21 – CBO Confirms Health Bill Neutrality and Batman to the Rescue? Waxman confirms it’s not true!
7/20 – Health Care Debate: It’s about something else
7/4 – Conservative Health Care Myths Rebutted
6/24 – Obama’s Mythical Health Care
6/3 – Top Notch, Affordable Health Care for All and at a Low Cost? Economics says, “No!”

It’s time to settle the debate over Waxman!

Thursday, July 23, 2009

I’m going to interrupt the normal flow of down to earth, no nonsense, hard-hitting political commentary to settle a long standing debate. Over the last few weeks, I have had several commenters and fellow bloggers take issue with my opinion that Henry Waxman (pictured above) is “The Batman.” I want to settle the dispute once and for all. You tell me what you think.



Or Orc

Obamacare does not curb health care cost crisis

Wednesday, July 22, 2009

There is something sorely missing from the health care debate right now and that something is health care (see my post on this anomaly). Let me be clear (my favorite Obama phrase) despite what Obama tells you this debate is no longer about avoiding runaway costs of health care. The cold hard truth is that Obama’s health care does nothing to curb the soaring costs of health care. Instead, he promises to increase them.

It’s not just me saying this. Now Elmendorf, the Director of the CBO, agrees with me and stated that in a recent congressional hearing. He said that the bills proposed by congress are missing “the sort of fundamental changes necessary to rein in the skyrocketing cost of government health programs.” What does this mean? Does it mean that the bill is not deficit neutral? There is so much more to this statement than making the bill deficit neutral.

When people are talking about the cost curve to health care or when Obama says that the rate of health care spending is unsustainable what they are referring to is the fact that health care costs are expanding faster than GDP, which will create a future budget crisis for the government and dwindles the average American’s disposable income.

The official CBO graph as of 2007 is below.

The solid line is the ballooning of federal obligations to pay Medicaid and Medicare and the dotted line is GDP. Basically, if nothing is done to curb growing health care costs we will need to increase taxes or deficits need to rise.

Here is a ten year view of the federal deficit spending on health care should we do nothing (courtesy of Keith Hennessey).

Just remember that the above graph is what Obama is referring to when he says unsustainable.

Here is a ten year view of the federal deficit spending on health care should we add Obama’s government health plans (minus any potential savings due to proposed Medicare/Medicaid legislation)

Do you see the problem yet? What we had was a soaring budget deficit spurred on by increasing costs. Obama is proposing some changes to how Medicare/Medicaid are run creating savings (I’m not sure of the validity of the claims, I will simply assume that at least some of them are real because I don’t have the time to research them and it really doesn’t matter anyways). However, he is using those savings not to curb costs, but to fund a large new entitlement.

C Gen that’s great, we’ve added people, but at least we've found a way to pay for it, “what is your problem?” My answer is, “I thought this level of spending was unsustainable?” That’s what Obama keeps telling us. Obama’s plan merely does some adding and subtracting to the budget, it does nothing to the rate at which health costs are increasing. These rates will outpace GDP and given the laws of economics, adding people to the health rolls only agitates the problem by making health costs increase even further. Don’t get me wrong, deficit neutral is a good idea, but it’s like asking me which leg I’d like to have unnecessarily chopped off with a rusty hacksaw and no anesthetic (the answer is my left leg).

Here is why deficit neutral is really just a boondoggle. Let’s say Obama gets everything he wants on health care, including a deficit neutral bill. What this means is we have found a way to increase revenues via taxes and one time government cuts to get us through until 2019. Great, no new deficit! I’m on board, but what happens in 2019? Well if costs continue to outpace GDP, then we will be talking about how to reform Obama’s reform. The decade from 2019-2029 will show a massive unfunded deficit even bigger than the one in 2019. The difference will be that everyone’s taxes are already dramatically higher, we’ve suffered economically from it, we will have fewer options for simple program management cuts because we’ve already made them and we will have millions more people adding to the cost problem. Obama is basically kicking the can down the road, but in 2019 the problem will be even bigger. It is like trying to fix a punctured tire by constantly refilling it with air. Each time it’s refilled the hole gets bigger.

This bill is massively flawed from the cost aspect. It doesn’t do anything to stop health costs from outpacing inflation. On the contrary, it makes the problem worse. Five months ago Obama said that we were in the worst recession since the Great Depression. He didn't take himself seriously then. Today, Obama says that health care costs are unsustainable. It's clear he's not taking himself seriously, again.

He also doesn't take the American people seriously. Here is the fact check for tonight's speech.

CBO Confirms Health Bill Neutrality and Batman to the Rescue? Waxman confirms it’s not true!

Tuesday, July 21, 2009

I’ve been avidly following the health care debate going on in congress and as early as Sunday the 19th I’ve been finding all sorts of stories on the internet about how the CBO has confirmed that the current Health Plan in congress is deficit neutral.

I was shocked, so I went to the CBO website to confirm their findings. All I could find was their July 17th report showing that the current bill still caused a $239 billion deficit.

The Chart of the CBO Scoring Below

If the stories about the CBO confirming deficit neutrality were true, the major news outlets were ignoring it on Monday. All the articles I found were still touting how the CBO director sunk Obama’s “we must curb the health cost curve” rhetoric. With no viable leads to solve the mystery, I chalked it up to news media misprints. After all Orszag is out there saying the bill is deficit neutral and he used to be the head of the CBO before joining team Obama.

It was Nameless Cynic, of all commenters (hat tip to Nameless), who was able to point me in the right direction. Last night Henry "the Batman" Waxman posted “CBO Scores Confirms Deficit Neutrality of Health Reform Bill” on the Committee on Energy and Commerce’s website. Not only is it neutral, Waxman is confirming that there is a $6 billion surplus. Clearly, the headline cannot be mistaken. Plus, who can dispute the accuracy of the Honorable Henry Waxman? Still I couldn’t reconcile the CBO study showing a deficit of $239 billion. Was there another scoring done that was not released? If so, how in the world could they justify being off $245 billion in less than a week? Then it all started making sense once I read the last two sentences from Congressman Waxman.

“The bill's long-term reform of Medicare's physician fee schedule to eliminate the potential 21 percent cut in fees, and put payments on a sustainable basis for the future, will cost about $245 billion. Those costs, however, are not included in the net calculations above, as they will be absorbed under the upcoming statutory "pay go" legislation that is pending in the House.”

Here is the Math in case you wondered:

$239 billion deficit from Health Bill
-$245 billion reduction in costs from magical Pay-Go bill that is “pending”
Equals $6 billion dollar surplus

So, the CBO has not created any new scoring. Waxman simply, “verbally” removed the troublesome budget deficit in the amount of $239 billion from the CBO scoring on the idea that there is some other bill that is going to fix it all. I understand that in the politics today the word trillion is thrown around as if we had trillion dollar denominations floating around in everyone’s pockets (maybe one day this is true), but $239 billion is still quite literally a very large amount of cheese to cut threw via program cuts or taxes. The $239 billion figure is almost exactly one quarter of the cost of Obama’s overall health plan. Earlier this year Obama proposed small cuts to the tune of $17 billion and congress rejected them before the ink dried on the newspapers. I wonder why they’ve decided to work the amount needed to cover the deficit into another bill and not the health bill so that the CBO could actually deem the bill deficit neutral?

To answer the question of whether the CBO has scored the health bill deficit neutral; according to Waxman the answer is No! I would like to thank Batman for coming to the rescue and ensuring that the title of his committee's post was not misleading in any shape or form (*sarcasm*).

On a side note, deficit neutrality is nice, but not the big issue here. Deficit neutrality is not what the Director of the CBO meant when he said that the health bill did not have “the sort of fundamental changes necessary to rein in the skyrocketing cost of government health programs.” Tomorrow I'm planning on posting the truth about the cost curve debate over health care reform, so please remember to stop by.
Update #1: Democratic Rep-MO Carnahan gets laughed at for trying to repeat what Waxman has debunked.

Update #2:
Looks like AP has finally caught up with me. Just remember I out scooped them by 10 hours.

Health Care Debate: It's about something else

Monday, July 20, 2009

This weekend the media announced that the debate on health care reform will no longer be about reforming health care, but somthing else. It is going to be about Obama. They didn’t come out and say it like that, but I’m good at reading between the lines.

The Politico:

“White House officials and allies brush off any notion that this new sense of unease is meaningful. The only true test, they say, will be results. Obama still might win major health care reform legislation this year that could be the most important new government program in decades. He has a fighting chance to pass regulations on greenhouse gases, in the form of a “cap and trade” mechanism, through the Senate. And Obama continues to press hard, if with no clear progress, for a breakthrough in the Middle East.

“It’s the third quarter, he’s down by a point, and he’s got his best player on the bench – what really is going to be important is the fall,” said James Carville, the veteran Democratic observer.

“If he gets what’s perceived to be some kind of a major health care thing, gets the climate bill through, if the economy recovers, then we’ll all say he had a hell of a summer. Conversely, if the thing falls apart, we’ll say that by July the 19th we could tell the thing was going bad.”

The Washington Post:

“With skepticism about the president's health-care reform effort mounting on Capitol Hill -- even within his own party -- the White House has launched a new phase of its strategy designed to dramatically increase public pressure on Congress: all Obama, all the time.”

The health care reform issue was never an honest debate within the media and with Obama hitting the soap box over the next few weeks, the media is not going to start asking those dangerous, common sense questions that need to be asked. They’ll portray the debate as Obama versus congress. A story about how a popular, but untested President is striving to rise above the tumult and work the political machinery that will make him the greatest President of all time. For many in the media, it's not about health care reform, it's about something else. It’s about getting Obama’s face on Mount Rushmore. Like the media, Obama’s objective is not about health care reform, but about something else.

If it's not about something else: Why do we need a public plan if Obama can get the health care industry to hold cost steady or slow the rate of cost increases?

Obama is constantly reminding everyone that private and public funding for health care, as it currently functions, is unsustainable. He argues that we need to create a system that alleviates the cost burden on the federal budget and create cost savings for the American consumer. This is true. However, where things get fuzzy is Obama’s solution to the problem.

As it stands today, Obama’s plan is nothing more than a large new entitlement program, with a little bit of reform worked in, which is why it makes no sense. Obama may be working (making an assumption here, not a statement) to create health savings for both current government programs and private insurance, but Obama’s health care savings is merely a carrot, dangling for the wanting, to lead you to something else entirely. Something that adds, not subtracts to the liabilities of the tax payer.

On Friday, Douglas Elmendorf the head of the OMB and someone appointed by democrats blew the lid off of Obama’s rhetoric stating that the bills proposed by congress are missing “the sort of fundamental changes necessary to rein in the skyrocketing cost of government health programs.” In fact, he stated that they would pile on to them. Thus putting to bed both of Obama’s stated goals. It is clear we are trading one budget crisis for a much larger budget crisis. It should also be clear that trading large private costs for large public cost is not a beneficial solution for anybody already paying for private health insurance. Even more fundamental is the simple question, “If Obama can make health care cost savings, why do we need a public plan?”

If it's not about something else: Why must we pass health care by August?

Obama’s actions are as flat as his words. Is the health care budget broke 8 years earlier that Obama is projecting? Wouldn’t it be better to ensure that health care reform is effective and responsible? So what’s the rush for August? Perhaps, Obama knows he’ll lose support instead of gain in the long run.

If it's not about something esle: Why won’t the White House address the issues at hand?

The White House announced that they will delay the release of their updated budget projections. I am sure of the reasoning behind this one. Releasing devastating news with regards to the budget only stokes the concern about a devastating budget. They certainly wouldn’t want confusion about Obama’s credibility on health care when he’s losing credibility about his first piece of legislation aimed at fixing the economy.

If it's not about something else: Why is Obama pressuring the Blue Dogs?

Even more interesting is the question of why Obama is hitting the campaign trail to intimidate congress, even as congress is working fast to meet Obama’s demands:

“Conservative Democrats in the House are promising to vote against reform as it now stands, and are preparing two dozen amendments, including measures aimed at lowering the effort's long-term cost. In the Senate, members from both parties are urging the president to break his campaign promise to preserve the tax-free status of health benefits. And a chorus of weary voices from Capitol Hill is urging him to abandon his demand for passage of bills in the House and Senate by Aug. 7.”

If the point is to ensure more and reduce Federal budget constraints then the “Conservative Democrats” ought to be given a hand shake from Obama, not a declaration of war.

Could it be that “something else” I mentioned above is more important than following through on promises or holding an honest debate? I’ll leave you to debate what that “something else” might be. Whatever it might be is irrelevant. What matters is that it is unsupportable and must be stopped.
Update #1:

Obama gave a speech today and tried to clarify, what the "something else" is:

He says:

"This isn't about me," Obama responded. "This isn't about politics. This is about a health care system that is breaking America's families, breaking America's businesses, and breaking America's economy."

Sorry media! Obama says, "This isn't about me." Please stop reporting it that way. I've already pointed out that it's not about saving costs in America.

The report also said:

Striking a more populist tone than in past remarks, the president complained that "health insurance companies and their executives have reaped windfall profits from a broken system."

Are we to believe that this "something else" Obama is after might be to get even with health insurance companies by bankrupting taxpayers and businesses? And the left thinks Michelle Bachman is crazy.

Incompetence Or Evil - You Tell Me

Friday, July 17, 2009

This Post Brought to you by the Kook at KOOK's Manifesto

We have posted on this before, many of us bloggers. I could go down a list as long as my arm, dates, dollars, times, corruption, malfeasance, complete disconnect with mainstream America. But most of you also watch the only non-state run news agency, listen to crazy right wing radio stations, and read blogs like this one, and others. So let me just ask you: ARE THEY REALLY THAT INCOMPETENT, OR IS IT EVIL? Hanlon's Razor states::

"Do not invoke conspiracy as explanation when ignorance and incompetence will suffice, as conspiracy implies intelligence."

or put slightly differently

“Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.”

Occam's razor — States that explanations should never multiply causes without necessity. When two explanations are offered for a phenomenon, the simplest full explanation is preferable. It is often more simply stated as:

“All other things being equal, the simplest explanation is usually the best”

We must also consider the Peter principle, Which states that when people perform well at a lower level function they are allowed to progress up the responsibility ladder until they reach their first level of incompetence where they are neither demoted or terminated, simply put it is expressed this way

"In a hierarchy, every employee tends to rise to his level of incompetence."

Well from my perspective it is difficult to believe that there is a wide conspiracy known to all 535 voting members of congress, plus the executive branch. BUT, it is somewhat easier for me to believe that there is a small group who heavily influences this larger group. Still more plausible in my mind, although more sad, is that over time we have allowed a sickness to enter into a once envious system of government. I think it started in academia, spread into journalism and completely took over government. The system the way we have perverted it from what it once was now attracts the duplicitous, greedy, and foolish.

This is one of the two questions which are tied together in my mind which I still cannot adequately answer. 1) Are they just that Stupid, or are they Evil? 2) why on earth did we allow this?

An Intervention for Obama's Debting

Thursday, July 16, 2009

It’s time to hold an intervention for Obama. We need to get him into Debtors Anonymous as quick as possible. With the economy on the ropes and hopes of economic recovery bleak, Obama has decided it’s time to spend more money, a lot more money. Obama’s health care will cost $1 trillion dollars. I’ve long been warning that our options available for stabilizing the economy have been dwindling over the last few months and new developments have been buried under the news of the Sotomayor confirmation hearings. Obama’s health care initiative was always a bad idea, but given recent economic news, moving forward with the legislation has never been more foolish.

An example of the program Obama should follow thanks to SNL.

Let me begin by summarizing the White House’s and Fed’s strategy for stabilizing the economy. The Fed has slashed interest rates to zero to lower the cost of borrowing and boost capital expenditures. At the same time the White House has been spending and sending trillions of dollars to political cronies in boxes with blue ribbons. To fund Obama, the Fed has the money printers working overtime. In short, the policy is to expand the money supply as large and fast as possible. The effects of which create inflation. Generally, no one worries about inflation during a recession because prices are usually deflating.

Great, the boring part of the post is out of the way.

So the economic wisdom in Washington has been, we can keep the economy limping along so long as we keep spending. Sounds like a party when you’ve got your hands on America’s credit card. No one seemed to ask, “What happens if things get worse?” You can’t cut interest rates when they are zero (Hat tip to Nick). Two months ago, Paul Krugman would have responded, “Well, we may not be able to cut interest rates, but since there is no such thing as inflation, we can just keep spending more.” Last month, we saw the largest increase to the CPI in a year, a jump of .06 percentage points to .08. Normally, this wouldn't be cause for alarm except, inflation is not supposed to occur when the economy is still retracting. The FOMC came out this month and is predicting that it will continue to retract throughout the rest of the year.

Let me sum this up for you. We can’t cut interest rates anymore, because they are at zero. We can’t continue to deficit spend, because our economy is so sensitve to inflation, that inflation is increasing when it shouldn't be. Inflation would have a terrible impact on people in the middle of an economic recession and a time where 16.5 percent of people are unemployed or underemployed. How are we going to keep pushing those great Obama policies without tacking onto the deficit?

Congressman Rangel gave us the answer earlier this week. We are going to raise taxes and we are going to raise them so high we are going to beat out Clinton. Everyone in the left, please take a sigh of relief. It looks like we may have Pay-Go. It looks as though Obama is not going to blindly spend our country into an inflation avalanche that buries us all (he already has). Oh, I forgot to mention that dramatically raising taxes causes higher unemployment (see my post on tax incidence). What was that figure I said again? Yes, 16.5 percent unemployed and underemployed. The best part is that raising taxes has a negating effect on stimulus when your strategy is deficit spending, which happens to be Obama's plan. So Obama’s first major bill was to stimulate the economy and his second major bill will be to cancel his first bill out.

It’s not too late to stop the madness. Please support the Obama spending intervention and tell your representatives to oppose all Obama spending sprees for the rest of his Presidency. Remember, when the addict is the President, they don’t hurt themselves, they hurt everyone else around them.

Hubris from a Nameless Cynic

Wednesday, July 15, 2009

Two days ago, I wrote a post entitled “While the Left was busy making fun of Michelle Bachman.” In the piece I made the point that Michelle Bachman is not crazy for having concerns about a one-world currency being pushed by other foreign governments. My supporting argument was that there has been talk at the last G20 and current G8 meetings about adopting a supranational currency. My conclusion was simple; you cannot be labeled crazy for believing that there are governments talking about one-world currency when there are governments talking about one-world currency. A good discussion formed with some of the esteemed and high-minded, left-leaning bloggers who follow my posts and I have a great deal of respect for. Now enter Nameless Cynic.

Nameless Cynic said:

“ConGen: Well, I suppose you could determine that "several other countries seriously calling for and trying to establish a world currency." If, that is, you had absolutely no idea what "reserve currency" means.

I mean, let's go to that same Bloomberg article you linked to.

Russian President Dmitry Medvedev has repeatedly called for creating a mix of regional reserve currencies as part of the drive to address the global financial crisis, while questioning the dollar’s future as a global reserve currency.

See, what that means is, he isn't calling for making a Unified World Currency: he "called for creating a mix of regional reserve currencies." He's diversifying his portfolio instead of investing everything in USA Corp.

A "reserve currency" isn't the money you spend, it's the currency held by a central bank on a permanent basis as a store of international liquidity. They don't want to hold dollars because dollars aren't worth as much now.

So calm down. We aren't facing the One World Government you've been storing canned goods and ammo in order to fight against.”

Here Cynic is denying the idea that anyone is looking to create a supranational currency. From the article I referenced, Cynic argues that Russia merely wants to mix up their currency reserves by divesting in the dollar and diversify with other currencies as well.

I replied:

NC - LOL!!!!!!

Do you start and end all of your arguments with condescension and accusations? The offer to reply in-kind is tempting, but pointless.

The part of the quote you left out was:

“Russia’s proposals for the Group of 20 major developed and developing nations summit in London in April included the creation of a supranational currency.”

It’s fairly easy to remove the line of the quote talking about one-world currency and then say, “hey, ignoramus, they’re not talking about one-world currency.”

While I have a very good understanding of reserve currency and have taught college classes about it, you seem to be a little clueless of the term “supranational currency.” It is not the same as reserve currency.

Go look it up! If you are going to drop insults, know what you are talking about.

Some definitions for you:

A reserve currency is when a country’s central bank holds other nation’s currency/currencies and/or commodities such as precious metals to ensure liquidity and stabilize their home currency value.

A supranational currency occurs when a group of countries establish a central banking entity, via treaty, to establish some form of uniform currency. A supranational currency is not necessarily limited to being used as reserve currency. The Euro is a supranational currency that is used as currency throughout the EU.

Russia is proposing a supranational currency to be adopted by all nations that will be used to resolve trade balances. Meaning, it will replace the dollar as the currency of trade and the standard for reserve currencies. So to clarify for the Cynic, yes, reserve currency is not used by average people in day-to-day transactions. Yes, Russia is not simply looking to diversify their country’s reserve currency, but replace the dollar as the currency used by the world. Yes, it requires a global form of government or organization to run and regulate it. Yes, whether you think it is plausible or not, it’s a bad idea for the US to consider adopting any form of supranational currency. The economic consequences would be traumatic for our country. Runaway inflation comes to mind.

I’d love to go into detail about how Russia’s supranational currency will work, but at the moment they have only made proposals and have no clear outline. Could the supranational currency be more than just currency reserves? Who knows? A few years ago an international panel of astronomers met to discuss the possibility of including three other celestial bodies to the nine planets of our solar system. By the time they were done we did not have twelve planets in our solar system, but eight. Additionally, there is already a supranational currency called the Euro and it’s used for more than currency reserve.

The Law, a common reader and left-minded blogger, pointed out that it is not likely to come to fruition and I am inclined to agree. However, it’s not crazy to think it’s possible.

Cynic’s reply?

Oh, yes. Look, here we are, all concerned. Dmitry Medvedev has recommended that we create "a supranational reserve currency"!! Oh, god! It's a...

...it's a reserve currency not tied to the dollar. Like I said.

...additional comments redacted and posted below…

My reply?

Cynic. It is not like you said. Reserve currency and supranational currency are not the same by definition. You were discussing Russia adjusting their reserve currency for their own central bank. In reality, they are pushing as many countries as possible to adopt a supranational currency to hold in reserve. They are not analogous, not even in outcome. There is a big difference between Russia adopting a mix of reserve currencies for their central bank and the world adopting a single currency based on a basket of currencies. The biggest difference is the effect on the US dollar and the US economy.

The rest of Cynics reply from above…?

Jesus, you're a schmuck. (Oh, sorry. I probably shouldn't use Hebrew insults. You'll assume I'm part of the Worldwide Jewish Conspiracy...)

You've taught college classes about it? Then why don't you seem to know anything on the subject?

…Baseless insults. Cynic…when you make comments like this it does not make you look witty or intelligent. It makes you look like an ass. From now on I’ll return your comments from whence they came; the garbage.

Additional articles on the subject:



Washington's Illiteracy Crisis

Tuesday, July 14, 2009

According to recent federal studies, the illiteracy rate in the US is around one in seven. As with everything that Obama is trying to “fix”, this is truly a crisis. However, this crisis is directly affecting our politicians as it seeps into the halls of our government with dramatic, breakneck speed. I fear if the crisis continues to go unchecked, Americans everywhere will suffer the consequences. Today, I declare we have a literacy crisis in Washington and it is those on the left that has been hardest hit.

It’s government’s literacy crisis that led to Joe Biden’s comments that the Obama administration misread the economy. During Obama’s stimulus speeches in January, he kept reminding us that our current recession was analogous to the recession that caused the Great Depression. I’m afraid to ask what his new assessment of the economy has been updated to, mostly because I think that the movie Waterworld will be referenced.

This may have been the first visible sign of illiteracy in the Obama administration. I’ve since realized that there are more. Today, the NY Times announced that Obama may have misread how hard it would be to close Guantanamo Bay. I also remember reading an article in January from the NY Times outlining Obama’s Guantanamo Bay strategy. The plan was that since Bush was out of office, Obama should be able to talk countries into taking the prisoners. Apparently, Obama misread how difficult it is to accomplish foreign policy. He’s since modeled all foreign policy after his Guantanimo strategy.

It looks as though his administration has also misread how apocalyptic the average weather had been. His Science Czar Holdren (more to come) has predicted a billion global warming deaths by 2020 (hat tip to Right Klick), but looking at my local weather I see a different story. Temperatures tonight will only get as high as 50 degrees, more than 10 degrees below average. Looks like I'll be lighting my furnace tonight and turning on the heat in my house so I don't freeze. Maybe the CO2 will bring the temperatures back to normal(still more to come on this)

It is shortsighted to think that illiteracy is only occurring in the White House. It appears that Congress cannot read their bills. Quote House Democratic Leader Steny Hoyer:

“If every member pledged to not vote for it if they hadn’t read it in its entirety, I think we would have very few votes’’

Nobel prize winner Paul Krugman can’t read the economy. In May, Krugman promised that:
“…when it comes to inflation, the only thing we have to fear is inflation fear itself.”

Krugman argued that expansionary monetary and fiscal policy does not create inflation during a recession. Hat tip to Robert Verdi at The 46, it looks like we have had our second month of increasing inflation. June had a huge jump from .02% to 1.8% in CPI. Last time I checked, we are still in a recession. Obama’s planning on fighting this trend with more expansionary fiscal policy.

While the Left was busy making fun of Michelle Bachman

Monday, July 13, 2009

I’m amazed at how far out of touch the left is with regards to the possibility of a one-world currency. It’s a concern Michelle Bachman has become known for voicing. Yet, the left has littered the internet with commentary about how crazy Bachman is for believing that there is a movement for a one-world currency. I find myself both amused and frightened by their myopic and baseless need to denigrate someone over an issue that is absolutely true. Regardless of whether you think Michelle Bachman is a crackpot, there are very real, very serious, and very plausible movements in the world to bring about a one-world currency.

If you are out there on the left, you may want to stop reading right now and turn on MSNBC. What I’m about to tell you is very disturbing and likely to damage your mantra of hope and change. Honestly, the opinion of the world is that the US monetary/fiscal/banking system caused the recent economic downturn. Everyone on the left says, “That’s common knowledge. America is to blame for all problems in the world.” Here is where the lefties jump off the train; Obama’s Spend Big, Spend Often, and Spend Irresponsible fiscal policies solidified this perception and now there are governments in the world seeking to diminish the role of the dollar in the world and implement a diversified one-world currency.

This is very true. Bloomberg reports:

“Russian President Dmitry Medvedev has repeatedly called for creating a mix of regional reserve currencies as part of the drive to address the global financial crisis, while questioning the dollar’s future as a global reserve currency. Russia’s proposals for the Group of 20 major developed and developing nations summit in London in April included the creation of a supranational currency.”

The key here is to connect the terms “one-world currency” and “currency diversification. The popular thought for a one-world currency is to create a currency that is based and "pegged" to a large basket of world currencies.

A little economic history lesson for you:

The world does not do business with a hodgepodge of currencies, but with the dollar. Either by literally trading in US dollars or by foreign currencies “pegged” (when a government has a store of dollars to give their currency value) to the dollar. With recent out of control spending by Obama, governments of the world are beginning to question the US’ solvency and ability to pay its debts.

The Bloomberg article I linked to above shows that India is getting on board with the idea. Russia, China and Brazil are already on board. Today, Geithner is in Saudi Arabia trying to stem the one-world currency train. Laughably, Geithner is arguing the stability of the dollar even as the administration he represents is talking about more stimulus.

So, while you on the left were busy making fun of Michelle Bachman for bringing the “one-world currency” development to the forefront of debate, the rest of the world was busy laughing at you and trying to find a better way to protect their nations from your destructive and narcissistic economic policies.

More Ridiculousness from Media Take Two

Friday, July 10, 2009

Yesterday, I pointed out how silly NY Times looked theorizing why Russia was not getting weak-kneed for Obama.

Today, ABC and Good Morning America tried to provide Obama some cover on his recent G8 gaffe pictured above. Click the link below to see the ABC video, which clearly exonerates Obama over the issue of whether he was recently considering the nationalization of the young female's personal assets or not.

Video Clears Up Obama Photo

Luckily, he did not knock the woman standing behind him over as he was watching his footing and letting the woman pass.

Shared via AddThis

Why You Shouldn't Trust Russia

Thursday, July 9, 2009

While the Obama fawning media is a primary source of malaise and frustration for those of us strongly opposed to Obama’s policies, there are those moments where their adulation and their prostitution of their profession is so outrageous it is even laughable. I came across one of these little state-run media gems the other day in the NY Times.

The President, unable to stem nuclear production in Iran and North Korea, decided he’d go to Russia where the situation was a little easier. While the media headlines ate up Obama’s success in arranging a nuclear disarmament deal with Russia the Russian media acted like it was Tuesday.

NY Times reports:

“MOSCOW — Let other capitals go all weak-kneed when President Obama visits. Moscow has greeted Mr. Obama, who on Tuesday night concluded a two-day Russian-American summit meeting, as if he were just another dignitary passing through.”

Hold the phones. No one got weak-knees in Russia? How dare they treat Obama as a “normal person.” Lefties, are you sure you want to trust Russia when they seem immune to Obama’s teleprompter dazzle?

“Crowds did not clamor for a glimpse of him. Headlines offered only glancing or flippant notice of his activities. Television programming was uninterrupted; devotees of the Russian Judge Judy had nothing to fear. Even many students and alumni of the Western-oriented business school where Mr. Obama gave the graduation address on Tuesday seemed merely respectful, but hardly enthralled”

I sure hope that the NY Times gets to the bottom of it all. In short, this is devastating news and I need to know why the Russians aren’t in love with our President. I suspect fowl play.

“Some Obama aides said they were struck by the low-key reception here, especially when compared with the outpouring on some of his other foreign trips. Even Michelle Obama, who typically enjoys admiring coverage in the local news media when she travels, has not had her every move chronicled here.”

When will the bad news end? Please tell me that you’ve figured out who is behind this scandal?

“Many here noted that Russia went through an enthusiastic phase with President Bill Clinton in the 1990s, when Russians were reaching out to Americans. Mr. Clinton conducted a town hall meeting in Moscow that was broadcast across Russia (and featured a woman in the audience jumping up and hugging Mr. Clinton on camera).”

Interesting? So they loved Clinton, shouldn’t they love Obama too? Obama is like Clinton on steroids and growth hormones. What’s the difference between the two? I sense a race card about to be played here.

“In the background is the question of race, which Russians view through a complicated prism. For decades, Soviet propaganda hammered home the idea that the United States was an irredeemably racist country, as opposed to the Communist bloc nations. But Russia in recent years has been plagued by racist violence against people from the Caucasus region and Central Asia, as well as other immigrants.”

There it is! So let me see if I got this? The Russians thought that the US was more racist and that justified their own racism and now that Barak Obama’s elected the US can’t be seen as racist as they were…and so…er…I’m lost on the logic and explanation. Could someone explain the line of reasoning that the NY Times is using here? I must be thinking too hard here. After all, it is the NY Times. I’m going to guess that NY Times thinks Russia is racist.

“By contrast, Mr. Obama’s speech on Tuesday, billed as his third major foreign policy address after speeches in Cairo and Prague, was not shown live on any of the major Russian channels, to the White House’s disappointment.

Mr. Obama used the speech, at the New Economic School, to declare that Russia and the United States “share common interests.” The Kremlin tightly controls Russian television, and it was not clear why officials chose to disregard the speech.”

So there might be more than just racism going on here. The plot thickens. The Kremlin didn’t want Obama to be heard. I feel a conspiracy theory in the works.

“They may have believed that there would be little public interest, or they may not have wanted to provide Mr. Obama with unfettered access to the country, which might have allowed him to overshadow Prime Minister Vladimir V. Putin or President Dmitri A. Medvedev.”

Those evil tyrants! They are keeping hope and change from their fellow man. A second ago it seemed as though Russians in general were racist and uninterested in Obama. However, that cannot be the only cause. Putin and Medvedev are jealous.
If only we had someone in the US who could back up this theory from the NY Times. Here comes Malinowski. Don’t ask. He’s an expert. Trust the NY Times.

“He said Mr. Obama’s facility with language gives him the ability to talk around governments directly to people. Mr. Obama, he said, has the talent to “do that in every part of the world, except possibly Russia.”

So there you have it folks. NY Times has done a great job ignoring the economic recession, Iraq, Afghanistan, North Korea, Iran, and all of the criminal investigations of the dozen democrats currently underway to bring you what’s really important. “Why isn’t Russia fawning over Obama like the rest of us.”

Cronyism, Cronyism, Cronyism

Wednesday, July 8, 2009

If I had one word to describe Obama’s accountability policies or his methods for creating a responsible administration, what would it be? Is there one word that describes the actions and motivations behind the decisions made in the Democratically controlled congress, how would I define it? If ever there was one word that links all of this together it would be; Cronyism.

The definition of cronyism – the practice of favoring one’s political allies; at least according to dictionary.com. According to Webster, it is partiality to cronies especially as evidenced in the appointment of office without regard to their qualifications.

As I write this I’m reminded of a Times article talking about Bush’s cronyism. I’m impressed by the list Time was able to compile, especially since it took them five years to weed through all the low level government appointees. If that was news worthy, then Obama’s cronyistic practices should be a monumental journalistic work of art.

In February, Congress passed and Obama wrote into law his stimulus plan making ACORN eligible for billions of taxpayer money. Surely, this is not cronyism. Then in March, he decided to partner with ACORN to conduct the census. Apparently, having 14 voter fraud investigations is still within Obama’s definition of responsible and cannot be considered cronyism.

If you were wondering, the definition of responsible – Able to be trusted or depended upon.

In April, Obama turned the rule of law on its head and rushed a bankruptcy proceeding on behalf of Chrysler that placed the UAW, not the autoworkers, over the interests of the company bondholders. The word cronyism comes to mind.

In June, Obama fired Inspector General Walpin as he was closing in on an investigation tying Obama supporter Kevin Johnson to fraudulent use of AmeriCorps funds. One might call this act cronyism. Perhaps this was a new form of executive accountability?

The definition of accountability – an obligation or willingness to accept responsibility or to account for one’s actions.

In July, Obama announced his new financial regulations to mitigate the likelihood of future bank failures. Obama was originally considering the notion of breaking up some of the country's largest financial institutions, but changed his mind. Or shall I say, GE Capital changed his mind for him. If you didn't know, GE owns MSNBC. Can anyone say, “Cronyism?”

I won't go into the fact that GE and Al Gore are heavily invested in Cap and Trade, the Bar Association is against tort reform, or that DC teacher unions are against school vouchers.

Or how about congress?

Today, newly sworn in Democratic Senator Al Franken gets a high profile appointment to the Judiciary Committee. Democrats are rallying in support of the decision despite the fact that Franken is a former comedian and knows nothing about law. Don't pay attention to the fact that he is replacing a lawyer to be on the committee. I would expect Franken to receive some form of sinecure for his leftist viewpoints, but appointing him to the Judiciary Committee at a time the President desperately needs his 60th vote? Who could possibly call this action cronyism?