Big Brother to set wages for everyone.

There is a book out there, well two that everyone needs to read, 1984 and Atlas Shrugged. We are slowly yet surely going to turn into a socialist state. I say small S socialism, because the government won't actually own all that much. Big S socialism is that little thing they have in Venezuela.

1. Step one: Bail out companies that should have died away in the first place, because those companies gave a lot of money to your campaign fund. Check
2. Step two: Create a public out rage at executive compensasion, yet keep the fact that the companies gave heftily to your campaign fund. Check
3. Step three: Use that public outrage to pass legislation for even more government control of wages. In Progress.

But now, in a little-noticed move, the House Financial Services Committee, led by chairman Barney Frank, has approved a measure that would, in some key ways, go beyond the most draconian features of the original AIG bill. The new legislation, the "Pay for Performance Act of 2009," would impose government controls on the pay of all employees -- not just top executives -- of companies that have received a capital investment from the U.S. government. It would, like the tax measure, be retroactive, changing the terms of compensation agreements already in place. And it would give Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner extraordinary power to determine the pay of thousands of employees of American companies.

Of course this leaves the Obama administration as the sole body to determine what pay is "reasonable" or "fair." Hmmm...smells like Chicago politics to me.
Let's see, if you gave money to the Obama campaign and are a good foot soldier, I'm sure your pay will be "reasonable."
If you voted for the other guy and don't have a lot of nice things to say about Obama, I'm sure your pay will be made more "reasonable."
Let's recap. The banks get off, except for a few strawmen at AIG. The car companies get hostilly taken over by the government. Now the Fed can dictate what a person can get paid.
Yep thats small S socialism. I don't know about you, but I have a craving for Tea.

This is why I love Thomas Sowell

A Rookie President

Seeking deals with our adversaries, behind the backs of our allies? France did that at Munich back in 1938. They threw Czechoslovakia to the wolves and, less than two years later, Hitler gobbled up France anyway.

This year, President Obama's attempt to make a backdoor deal with the Russians, behind the backs of the NATO countries, was not only rejected but made public by the Russians-- a sign of contempt and a warning to our allies not to put too much trust in the United States.

Barack Obama is following a long practice among those on the left of being hard on our allies and soft on our enemies.

However much Barack Obama has proclaimed his support for Israel, his first phone call as President of the United States was to Hamas, to whom he has given hundreds of millions of dollars, which can buy a lot of rockets to fire into Israel.

Our oldest and staunchest ally, Britain, has been downgraded by President Obama's visibly less impressive reception of British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, compared to the way that previous Presidents over the past two generations have received British Prime Ministers. President Obama's sending the bust of Winston Churchill in the White House back to the British embassy at about the same time was either a rookie mistake or another snub.

Obama is this years Ryan Leaf.

Gotta Love that ACORN President

From the Philadelphia Bulletin:

A lawyer involved with legal action against Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) told a House Judiciary subcommittee on March 19 The New York Times had killed a story in October that would have shown a close link between ACORN, Project Vote and the Obama campaign because it would have been a “a game changer.”

During her testimony, Ms. Heidelbaugh said Ms. Moncrief had told her The New York Times articles stopped when she revealed that the Obama presidential campaign had sent its maxed-out donor list to ACORN’s Washington, D.C. office.

Ms. Heidelbaugh then told the congressional panel:

“Upon learning this information and receiving the list of donors from the Obama campaign, Ms. Strom [a NYT reporter] reported to Ms. Moncrief that her editors at The New York Times wanted her to kill the story because, and I quote, “it was a game changer.”’

You really have to love the NY Times. They will do anything to make sure there man gets elected.

Epic Fail

"Scenario 2: The main risk scenario (30% probability)

Stimulus fails, leading to continued asset price deflation and sustained contraction in the leading economies—a depression persisting for some years. The stubborn decline in global economic activity is punctuated by occasional rallies that are taken as signs of recovery, but these quickly fade as the underlying downward trend reasserts itself. The prominent role of governments in propping up banks and reviving domestic demand leads to strong political pressure for protectionism, effectively putting the process of globalization into reverse."

I think we are seeing that now.

• The Dow tumbled 254.16, or 3.3 percent, to 7,522.02.
• We are effectively in a trade war with Mexico, soon to be in one with Canada.
• The Fed is printing money like crazy to try and stop deflation, to the detriment of the dollar.
• Now China wants a new international currency, something Turbo Tax Tim says is good...therefore it's really really bad.
  

The good news is that everyone that wants to see Obama fail will see EPIC FAIL.
The bad news is he will take everyone down with him.

Skeptics are growing.

It's nice to see scientists start to question the validity of Man made Global Warming. The newest Thinker to add his name to skeptic column is the eminent physicist Freeman Dyson. The NY Times of all places, writes about his skepticism.
One thing I find particularly interesting is the notion of consensus. Most AGW (man made global warming) purveyors use the idea of a consensus as a bludgeon. They want to stifle debate by saying "Science has proven," "All scientists," or "Any intelligent person must believe that man is the cause of global warming." The truth of the matter is that nothing in science can ever be proven. I firmly belive that when every scientists come to and believe the exact same thing, the science itself is dead.
There is a new religion in town and it's called environmentalism. Like any religion, it started out as a force for good. Cleaning up the planet, curbing polution, and protecting dying species are good things. We want to leave the planet in as good a condition as we found it. Yet, it had now been perverted by the cult of AGW.
Al Gore, the cheif Propoganists relies too much on computer models and his hockey stick graphs. As more and more data come to light that casts doubt on the validity of the models, people just keep making excuses. They can't possible fathom, why in the last 10 years, when Carbon Dioxide emissions have spiked, global tempuratures havn't. Dyson was saying. “They come to believe models are real and forget they are only models.”
Dyson is one of those skeptics that thinks increased Carbon Dioxide is...wait for it...good for plants. He contends that AGW alarmists don't look at the biology, that plants actually like Carbon...something about a Photosynthesis?

Far from expecting any drastic harmful consequences from these increased temperatures, he says the carbon may well be salubrious — a sign that “the climate is actually improving rather than getting worse,” because carbon acts as an ideal fertilizer promoting forest growth and crop yields. “Most of the evolution of life occurred on a planet substantially warmer than it is now,” he contends, “and substantially richer in carbon dioxide.”

This comming from a man with an Obama sticker on his car. True scientists don't just bow down to ideology. Ideological driven science is a cancer that must be irradiated. The quasi-religous AGW backers will try to slander people like Dyson. It's always easier to kill the messenger than actually debate the message.

Dyson says it’s only principle that leads him to question global warming: “According to the global-warming people, I say what I say because I’m paid by the oil industry. Of course I’m not, but that’s part of their rhetoric. If you doubt it, you’re a bad person, a tool of the oil or coal industry.” Global warming, he added, “has become a party line.”

I predict more and more people will actually look at the data, look at the models and see that the models are full of it. All those people that depend on models and consensus don't want a debate, since they know real debate will show their position to be lacking.

Mandatory Volunteerism?

The House passed the The Generations Invigorating Volunteerism and Education Act, known as the GIVE Act by a vote of 321-105.

The really scary part is the creation of a commission on "whether a workable, fair and reasonable mandatory service requirement for all able young people could be developed and how such a requirement could be implemented in a manner that would strengthen the social fabric of the nation."

I'm sorry but this is just way too scary. Does anyone remember history? I wonder who will be forced to "Volunteer?"

Fiddling While Rome Burns

The depiction of Nero fiddling while Rome burns in the background has become synonymous with both incompetence and a total detachment to reality. It’s a metaphor that has been increasingly used to describe the Obama Administration. The Economy is in the tank, thanks to a carefully crafted campaign by Obama to depict it as a “Catastrophe” waiting to happen. All the while, the Administration has yet to give a solid plan to recovery.

While the Economy burned, Obama took a hands off approach to crafting the Reinvestment and Recovery Act. The result, a partisan mess that deflated, rather quickly, the much talked about era of post-partisanship. It didn’t receive one Republican vote in the House and only enough to barely pass in the Senate. It didn’t even meet Treasury Sec. Geithner’s conditions of temporary, targeted and timely.

Obama’s budget calls for even more spending; while at the same time saying it will cut budget deficits. It assumes an overly generous assessment of economic growth in order to semi-balance its books. Tim Geithner recently went to the Senate to defend Obama’s budget, getting a dressing down by Judd Greg, Obama’s choice for Commerce Secretary. Gregg told Sec. Geithner, “The argument that it cuts the debt in half in four years is, ah, is truly spurious.” He even went as far to say “When you take the deficit and quadruple it and then you cut it and half, that’s like taking four steps back and two steps forward, That’s not making any progress; you’re still going backwards.” Much of the details of Obama’s budget will be filled in later.

Then enter the Omnibus bill, which even though people are hurting in this economic downturn, has over 9,000 earmarks of Pork. Obama didn’t want to tarnish his image so he had his friends strip his name off of earmarks he put in while still a Senator. It was signed behind closed doors the day after it passed Congress, a direct slap in the face to all the rhetoric of transparency and accountability.

While Rome burns, Obama wants to spend. It’s not his money; it’s not even our money. Most of the money will be borrowed. Creating a huge debt that will have to be paid of eventually. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) recently said

“In just 50 days, Congress has voted to spend about $1.2 trillion between the Stimulus and the Omnibus. To put that in perspective, that’s about $24 billion a day, or about $1 billion an hour—most of it borrowed. There’s simply no question: government spending has spun out of control.”

While Rome burns, instead of actually giving, instead of just promising, hope and confidence in the economy. He has his staff attack the critics of his economic and social plans. Meanwhile, Americans have lost 18% of their worth due to the decline of the Stock Market. Instead of taking any responsibility, Obama keeps blaming others.

While Rome burns, the Obama’s have been busy trying to get their place in the DC social scene. According to the Washington Times;

“Earlier this year, the Obama administration invited top editors of three of Washington’s local luxury lifestyle magazines to a meeting where they discussed, among other things, how President Obama and first lady Michelle Obama can embrace Washington’s glittery social scene.”

It amazes me that a President that so wants to be part of the in crowd, doesn’t even know how to treat a valued guest and friend, in UK’s Prime Minister. It is absolutely scandalous how Obama treated Gordon Brown. I personally apologize to any Brit for the way Brown was treated. Michelle definitely didn’t do dignity to the title of First Lady by giving Mr. Brown’s children $15 souvenirs of Marine One. It shows a serious lack of class on the Obamas, and in turn the American people.

While Rome burns, Obama want to pass his, very partisan version of Health Care Reform. To bad his initial pick for Health and Human Services Secretary couldn’t have the grace enough to pay his taxes. Instead, he wants to spend our tax money to help create a new entitlement program that will cost the taxpayers billions, $600 billion is after all just a “down payment.” Silly me, my plebian brain, actually thought “toxic” assets were the root cause of our economic downturn. It was lack of health care all along, why did we spend $700 billion, which Obama voted for in the Senate, for TARP? What about TARP II? Why the hell is Pelosi calling for a second stimulus package, if all we need is affordable health care?

While Rome burn, Obama is pushing for a Cap and Trade scheme for carbon emissions. Let’s totally ignore the fact, that cap and trade has failed Europe. Let’s totally ignore the fact, that cap and trade is another tax, a tax that will be passed on to the consumer. Consumers are experiencing hard financial times, how many economists out there say that raising any taxes during a recession is a good thing to jump start the economy.

While Rome burns, Obama is using the fires to recreate the Government in his own image. Obamanomics is already a failure. Geithner doesn’t know how to answer the simple question of what is a saved job? Geithner, who was assured by Obama, was needed in order to turn the economy around has offered a sum total of Zero plans. His lack of a plan, help precipitate the biggest decline of the Stock Market since Obama took office.

Obama seems totally ignorant of the fact that most Americans have much other life savings tied to the Stock Market. He even says he doesn’t care about the day to day “gyrations” of the market. Hell he doesn’t even know that “profits and earnings” are the same damn thing. Are the American people that are seeing their worth go down the tubes mean anything?

If the President cared a damn, he would have the SEC get rid of the Mark to Market rules that helped cause this mortgage meltdown. He would actually have to take his eye off the fiddle and see the fires burning around him. It’s clear to me and a lot of other people, that Obama was more interested in becoming the President than actually being the President. His “hands off” approach to governing is the epitome of Nero fiddling. I just hope that the American people have enough buckets to put out the fires that Obama doesn’t seem to notice.

Obama loves Pork

Good news kids, Obama has broken another campaign promise today. Remember back during the debates when Obama said he would go "line by line" to cut unnecessary spending? Yeah, I knew he was shoveling BS, but people bought it. Well today Pres. Sunshine signed, behind closed doors, the bill that contains 9,000+ earmarks for about $5.5 billion dollars.
Remember this bill also contained Earmarks by Obama that conveiniently had his name stricken from them.
Even more hypocritical is that Obama issued a signing statement along with the bill. He has attacked Bush in the past about the use of signing statements. What do you expect from Obama though. Peter Schweizer needs to have a whole volume of Do As I Say (Not As I D0), sepecifially for Obama.

I need that job!

Is this a distraction too?

“In just 50 days, Congress has voted to spend about $1.2 trillion between the Stimulus and the Omnibus,” McConnell says. “To put that in perspective, that’s about $24 billion a day, or about $1 billion an hour—most of it borrowed. There’s simply no question: government spending has spun out of control.”

Maybe there all at the gym?

It seems that the Obama administration really has no clue on how to run a government. It should be no surprise to anyone, who actually looked at Obama's past. He might be a great organizer, but organization and management are two completely different things. Case in point, Obama's totally and complete amateurish handling of Gordon Brown's state visit last week.
Since the MSM here in the US thought that talking about Michelle Obama's arms were more important than talking about the Brown visit. You have to look at the UK press for the information.
Simply put Obama was too tired to care.

They concede that Obama aides seemed unfamiliar with the expectations that surround a major visit by a British prime minister.
But Washington figures with access to Mr Obama's inner circle explained the slight by saying that those high up in the administration have had little time to deal with international matters, let alone the diplomatic niceties of the special relationship

Hey guess what President Sunshine, you wanted the job! If you can't handle it then GTFO. Giving Brown a $39.99 stack of DVD from Wal-Mart isn't how you handle the US's best and most revered ally for the last century. British and American soldiers bleed on the same beaches, trying to rescue Europe from Socialist Dictators like Hitler and Mousolini. British and American diplomats and Military worked together to fight the Cold War. British Intelligence is vital to keeping not only Europe safe, but also America safe from global terrorism.

Obama and his staff (Clinton holdovers who know what to do and how to handle foreign dignitaries) have had the worst transition in the last 100 years.

You have a Tresury that has no staff, in times of "Catastrophe." If the economy is so bad, why doesn't the Obama Administration have 100s of staffers working around the clock to help in this financial crisis? Are they all at the gym?

But yesterday, Sir Gus O'Donnell, Britain's most senior civil servant, exposed transatlantic tension when he protested that Downing Street was finding it "unbelievably difficult" to plan for next month's G20 summit in London because of problems tracking down senior figures in the US administration. "There is nobody there. You cannot believe how difficult it is," the Cabinet Secretary told a civil service conference in Gateshead.

To quote Dowd, "Let’s face it: The only bracing symbol of American strength right now is the image of Michelle Obama’s sculpted biceps." Seems like she is onto something. The Obama administration doesn't know what to do, maybe they need Michelle to whip them into shape. I guess we know who wears the pants in that family now.

What if he succeeds?

There is a lot hubbub on Rush Limbaugh’s comments about wanting Obama to fail. People on the Left are accusing Rush of a great many things, my favorite being that Rush is guilty of treason. Now coming as someone that criticized Bush on a lot of things over the last 8 years, I know most of the arguments and especially the treason argument is intellectually dishonest and frankly really low brow. Dissent is still patriotic, no matter who is in the White House. It’s hypocritical to say any different just because a Democrat is it’s resident instead of a Republican.

Only Rush knows exactly what he meant, when he said it. My personal interpretation is that he was talking about particular economic, social and foreign policies that he wants to fail. It’s his right as an American citizen to say whatever he damn well pleases. I don’t have to agree with him but I have no right to forcibly shut him up. Those that do probably never learned much in History class, particularly the lectures on Fascism and Stalinism. Yet it brings up an important point, what if Obama succeeds in implementing his economic, social and foreign policies?

What if Obama passes his Health Care “Reform?” How will that affect the average you? There are many things to consider in the long term, that isn’t being talked about in the media. What will happen to the quality of Health Care? Above all, this is what I consider the most important question. I think most proponents of a Universal Health Care system, think that the quality of care will remain the same as they are now. That the only difference is that more people will have access. They are delusional.

One thing the government does really well is put price controls on anything they touch. The Left claims it’s all in the name of fairness, for the poor. It’s easy to attack insurance carriers about the high cost of health care, but when the government becomes the insurance carrier, will dissent still be patriotic? Think about this, if the government wants to cut costs on health procedures, the easiest way is to put price controls in place to stop doctors from charging “exorbitant” fees. The Government already does this with Medicare and Medicaid, which causes the doctors to have to charge more to private insurance carriers in order to pay for little things like, equipment, supplies, nurses, diagnostic equipment, even conferences to learn new techniques and learn about new medicines to help extent human longevity. The doctor might still have medical school loans to pay off and he might have the audacity to think he deserves some compensation for his/her years of training and hard work helping those with medical needs.

So what are we going to cut? The doctor will have costs that vary depending on market conditions yet will be saddles with a fixed income from the Government. Will the doctor trim the fat on equipment and diagnostic tools? The patients will suffer from an inability to properly diagnose illnesses.

Former Sen. Tom Daschle, the would be architect of Obama’s Health Care system even said in his book Critical, that people will have to forgo expensive procedures in order to cut costs, “Those items, procedures, and interventions… that are found to be less effective and in some cases, more expensive, will no longer be prescribed.” Some of these unnecessary procedures are things like, CT Scans, MRIs, Experimental Cancer and AIDS treatment, pretty much anything that involves cutting edge technology and research. They are expensive because they are still in trials and haven’t been streamlined by industry and business. Daschle talks about his desire to create a federal planning board to make Americans’ health care decisions. This system is the same as they have in Britain. This same system denies patients with new treatments for Alzheimer’s and breast cancer. I really would like some to explain how that is in the best interest of the patient.

Let’s look at the hypothetical, what if the doctor is forced to take a pay cut as well. I can hear the argument now; doctors make too much money off the backs of the poor. It is unfair to pay $100 for a Cortisone shot and just like CEOs, the doctors are making too much money. This totally disregards the fact that a doctor has to charge $100 to a Cortisone shot to make up for the lost $3000 because Medicare has a cap on what they pay. I’m of course talking about the present situation, but a Government run system will on exacerbate the problem.

So in order to cut costs, doctors must take a pay cut. Who do you think will want to become a doctor, when they can make much more money as a lawyer suing doctors for malpractice? It’s simple economics, a person can make $X as a lawyer or $X-100, 000 as a doctor plus have to pay for sky-high malpractice insurance. What would you choose? As a result, the best and brightest will go to Harvard Law instead of Harvard Medical. Who will be left to fill those spots at Harvard Medical? It’s easy, the second tier candidates. Then who will be left to fill the spots at those second tier medical schools? The third tier medical students, you see where I’m going with this. If you think the quality of doctors coming out of the Island of St. Thomas Medical School is a joke now. Just wait until after Obamacare. Lower quality doctors mean higher rates of malpractice, which in turn means more lawyers, creating a positive feedback system that only lowers the quality of health care for all.

This of course leads to a second point in Obama’s Health Care Plan. Much like his Stimulus Bill and Mortgage Bill, it fails to address some fundamental issues that contribute to rising health care costs.

As I mentioned above, a lot of the costs attributed to cost control measures put in place under Medicare. According to the American Medical Association, Medicare will cut payments to doctors by 40% by 2018. Assuming Obamacare doesn’t pass, this extra 40% will be carried by private insurance and people paying out of pocket. If a procedure cost $5000, and Medicare will only pay $4000, the other $1000 will have to be picked up by someone. Insurance companies will pass this extra cost onto the consumer via an increase in premiums and/or increase co-payments.

A hospital is required by law to offer medical care to anyone regardless if they can pay or not. So if person A comes in to the hospital with an illness, the costs attributed to that patient will be transferred to the people with the resources to pay, increasing insurance premiums and out of pockets hospital fees. The hard luck cases about people that can’t pay their medical bills, means that the hospital must charge more for the people that can pay and/or the people with medical insurance in order to stay running. Hospitals kind of need electricity, doctors, nurses, beds, orderlies, surgical equipment, diagnostic equipment, technicians to operate and service the equipment, janitorial staff, … etc, and the staff must be competent in order to stay clear of lawsuits. Lawsuits are driving up the costs of health care thanks to a failed Tort law. Tort reform is a must if we are really going to help reform health care.

This of course is only one tiny part of the health care debate. The economics are simple; it will cost a lot of money to pay for Obamacare. Will the top 2% be able to afford universal coverage?