Obama lies about his health care plan to sell it

I got to hear a good deal of Obama's health care speech last night, much to my wife's disapproval. She especially disliked when I started shouting back at him after he commented on how little his plan would cost (only $900 billion). He said that cost was on par with wasteful spending like on the Iraq War or tax cuts for the rich. It was the "tax cuts" line that set me off. "It's my money! It's not the government's money that they can choose to give back to us! Why should I bother earning it if it belongs to them!" (with lots of salty f-bombs tossed in for emphasis).

The scare tactics line bugged me, too. He very obliquely tells us we're all liars and that he will "call out" those who misrepresent the plan. I am not accustomed to being threatened by my President. Is that bullying threat not meant to scare us into silence?

This man has no connection to American ideals. He believes gov't has the right to control us (and, most of all, determine how much of our money we get to keep). He will allow us to keep our doctors. Really? Is that his option? He could have chosen not to allow us to keep our doctors, but he is being nice to us? Where in the Constitution does it give him the power to determine which doctor I will see or which insurance company I will use? Nowhere! You would think a requirement to defending the Constitution, as per his oath, would be the reading the thing and understand how it limits Federal gov't power.

I don't believe his cost estimates. I don't believe him when he says the plan will be entirely paid for by spending cuts (yeah, right -- and he's also not going to raise taxes on the non-rich). I don't believe that the gov't plan will not be subsidized, nor that the final goal is not a takeover of all health care in America.

He says we need a gov't plan because the for-profit insurance companies will always have too much of an incentive to rip people off. He does not mention that:

• There are already not-for-profit medical insurance companies -- if they are not "keeping the insurance companies honest", why would his insurance plan do so?


• The profit motive provides an incentive for efficiency, since inefficiency diminishes profit -- without the profit motive, inefficiency swells (as can be documented in Medicaid and Medicare and just about every gov't enterprise) as well as fraud and corruption (Fannie? Freddie?).

No, he did not mention these things. Does he think we're too stupid to know it? Of course he does, who are we kidding?

Insurance executives don't do this because they are bad people. They do it because it's profitable. As one former insurance executive testified before Congress, insurance companies are not only encouraged to find reasons to drop the seriously ill; they are rewarded for it. All of this is in service of meeting what this former executive called "Wall Street's relentless profit expectations."

What is that if not a declaration of war on profits. Do you know what prolonged the Depression more than anything else? FDR's relentless war on profits. When he stopped battling American manufacturers and enlisted them (for profit) in the war effort, the country finally rebounded. War on profit => Depression.

He complains that 75% of the insured are insured by just 5 companies. Well 70% of all cars sold in America are made by 5 companies. 40 years ago, 3 companies dominated the American market. The shift away from the big 3 automakers was not forced on us by gov't -- the market shifted because of the voluntary choices made by individuals. Did we need a gov't automaker? Don't answer that, Obama. We know your answer.

There was a time when 90% of all PCs were made by IBM. Did that change because of a gov't sponsored PC plan? Industry dominators Microsoft and Intel are losing market share. Is this because of a secret gov't plan? Still, Microsoft and Intel dominate their rivals. Is this a bad thing? Do we need a Federal department of computing to rectify this situation?

So why do we need gov't to increase competition in a market that has thousands of companies and is dominated by no less than five major companies?

He pretends to be mortified that almost 90% of insurance in Alabama is sold by only one company. But it's a free market in Alabama (I hope). They can choose any of the competing companies (if the state let's them). If 90% choose the same company, good for them and good for that company. Why exactly is that bad? A gov't run alternative is not necessary, nor necessarily better.

He says:

...the public insurance option would have to be self-sufficient and rely on the premiums it collects. But by avoiding some of the overhead that gets eaten up at private companies by profits, excessive administrative costs and executive salaries, it could provide a good deal for consumers.

He wants us to believe that this gov't program would be efficient -- more efficient than the privately run alternatives. That would be a first in history.

Then there's this beaut:

It would also keep pressure on private insurers to keep their policies affordable and treat their customers better, the same way public colleges and universities provide additional choice and competition to students without in any way inhibiting a vibrant system of private colleges and universities.

Why are public universities cheaper than private? Why is that, do you suppose? It's because they are heavily subsidized by the taxpayer! Who writes his speeches, kindergartners? They are as thin as tissue paper and about as intellectually heavy.

He claims, "It's worth noting that a strong majority of Americans still favor a public insurance option of the sort I've proposed tonight." That cannot be true. I think that is a load of horse hockey. I doubt it is a majority, much less a strong majority. The last poll I saw showed a majority did not trust him to solve the health care problems, much less support any particular private option.

He is the liar-in-chief, as Thomas Sowell points out. He is attempting to rush this through, even though it will not take effect until after the next Presidential election, because he knows if we see it before it passes we would not buy into it.

Lincoln: Protector of states rights

Many today long for a President and Congress who would respect the rights of each state and its people to control what goes on inside the state. They require their state legislatures to assert protection against Federal legal incursions that have come in the form of state mandates, gun control, heavy taxation and now a body of health care constraints so burdensome that they comprise a form of servitude to the state. I was wrongly taught that Lincoln was a Destroyer of states rights, but in fact he held a respect for them incomparable to any President in our lifetime.

Lincoln's First Inaugural Address focuses on the issue of states rights. There are a number of interesting passages in it, including this excerpt from the 1860 Republican platform:

Resolved, That the maintenance inviolate of the rights of the States, and especially the right of each State to order and control its own domestic institutions according to its own judgment exclusively, is essential to that balance of power on which the perfection and endurance of our political fabric depend"

Lincoln believed he was constrained to respect state laws, and he explicitly states in the address that this included the right to own slaves where it was then legal and the duty of all states to return fugitive slaves. He explicitly denied any intention to forcibly abolish slavery in any state. Of course, he wished to abolish slavery and was elated at that certain prospect shortly before his death, but he wished it abolished by majority vote, not force.

What I find quaint is his naive belief that the Federal gov't would remain constrained. As we all well know, those who comprise all branches of our Federal gov't no longer exercise such constraint. Consider these two passages (again from his First Inaugural):

Think, if you can, of a single instance in which a plainly written provision of the Constitution has ever been denied. If by the mere force of numbers, a majority should deprive a minority of any clearly written constitutional right, it might, in a moral point of view, justify revolution -- certainly would, if such right were a vital one. But such is not our case. All the vital rights of minorities, and of individuals, are so plainly assured to them, by affirmations and negations, guaranties and prohibitions, in the Constitution, that controversies never arise concerning them.

By the frame of the government under which we live, this same people have wisely given their public servants but little power for mischief; and have, with equal wisdom, provided for the return of that little to their own hands at very short intervals.

Can anyone today earnestly state that the Federal gov't holds "but little power for mischief"? Does that describe our current situation of massive bailouts; phony, crony "stimulus" packages; ubiquitous and oppressive carbon taxes; and now the looming health care slavery? This government intends to deny us the vital right to make decisions about how we care for our health and that of our loved ones, while a bare majority stand by and cheer. They respect no "guaranties and prohibitions". Apparently, some do not even feel the need to read the text of the laws they pass!

Lincoln would not recognize the Union he preserved. But he would remind us of the duty we have come the end of the "short interval" in 2010 when we have a chance to put an end to the power to make mischief, that in so doing we free ourselves from the reimposition of slavery masked as free health care. A revolution at the polls, I expect nothing less. The first shots have been fired this Spring. The next rumble will take place on September 12 in Washington. These are but precursors to the quake in November 2010.

I wish I had calibrated my words differently

"I wish I had calibrated my words differently", said Obama, after saying that the police "acted stupidly" by arresting someone who had let his ego overcome his common sense.

Obama misuses his words about as often as his predecessor, but because he choose Latinate words, and because the watchers of his words tend to be enamored of his style, they fail to properly parse what he actually says. The word calibrate was wrong. One calibrates measuring instruments. One precisely adjusts tools and machines so that they work properly. That is calibration.

To some of us, words mean what they mean and not what we wish them to mean. We use them to express ourselves, albeit sometimes with less precision than we'd like. But to others, words are meant to be twisted and meaning is meant to be distorted for personal advantage.

Am I the only one who finds this abhorrent? I think not. I hope not. The low esteem in which journalists, lawyers and salesmen often find themselves, is testament to the unpopularity of twisting words. "Weasels" we will say, recalling an animal with uncanny skill at bending and twisting its very body to elude capture.

Obama might have said, "I wish I had chosen my words differently" (which is probably what he meant to say, but hoped to sound more intelligent by using the longer, Latin word "calibrated"). He could have said, "I wish I had calibrated my meaning differently", as he could have used words to adjust his meaning or to express a slightly different intention.

Or he could have said, "I wish I had phrased it differently", "I misspoke", or "I spoke rashly", or "I spoke before talking to the cop", or "I wrongly assumed the world would be interested in my ignorant opinion on this or any other trivial matter."

But he didn't. He looks at words as malleable in meaning and devised to calibrate our perception of him. This is canny in a politician or anyone else whose primary job is to manipulate people. However, a statesman is concerned first about the effect of his actions and secondarily about his words. This is why many of us admire W despite his infamous malaprops. It is why we often hear the word "Trumanesque", but never the word "Eisenhowerian" (or hear the word "Clintonian" to mean one who thinks he can spin his way out of anything).

It is why some of us watch plain-spoken Sarah Palin and rejoice. It is why thousands of intellectuals look at her and wince. She lacks polish, but she seems to speak from her heart and that is a welcome change, and quite a contrast to her President.

Cutting muscle

Yesterday my company had a round of layoffs. Everything in this post is public knowledge except for my feelings about the people who were let go. I have removed all references to the company itself, per company policy.


This is the third round they have had since I started working there. In the first round, they got rid of dead wood amongst the permanent employees and kept most of the contractors (including me, at the time). I was new to the company and did not know the people who were fired.

In the second round, they cut the weak performers, people who were making a contribution, but whose work was non-essential or whose salary was high compared to their output or who were otherwise deemed expendable. They also cut most of the contractors. I knew several of those people who were good workers.

In the third round, they have cut some people who were indisputably making a genuine contribution, including two members of my team of eight and some managers who had been at the company a long time. Everyone acknowledges that as these people walk out the door, essential operating knowledge leaves with them. The cuts may be justified and unavoidable (and essentially protect the jobs of those of us lucky enough to still have a job), but they were brutal. We still need those people, we just cannot afford them. Brutal decisions like this are what keep companies alive in hard times.

If before they had been cutting fat, today they cut muscle. They just sold off part of the company. The argument is that, with that part out of the way, we will have less work to do and hence, we will need fewer workers. The reality is that, for the next several months, we will have more work to do in transition, we will have longer nights. But we will have the satisfaction of knowing we are helping to keep the company going.

The company's majority investor, has invested hundreds of millions in the company since February. This sale brings in $millions and once the sale is complete those stores will no longer be bleeding cash from our company. I am confident that these steps will bring the company back.

I have no way to judge the worth of our product: I am not a woman and have no taste in clothes besides. I have to trust the talent of those who know the industry and know their customers. I do not know all of the things upper management is doing to make this company profitable again, and some of what I do know I should probably keep to myself. They have replaced a key person with a more talented person. They have streamlined operations and are working to make things more efficient. We are exploiting free, open-source software to make ourselves more productive. The people who are running this company are doing a very good job in a difficult time.

I am surprised that I still have a job. I will not survive the next round. I hope there is no next round, but there is another financial reporting period before the Christmas season and the survival of this company depends on our customers coming back to the stores to spend.

But when I look at the economy and the direction of the country, I am not optimistic. The unemployment trend is atrocious and could have been predicted. Some of this could be blamed on the frightening collapse of financial companies, but some of it is also to be blamed on those who for more than a year did their damnedest to convince the American people they were suffering from the worst economy since the Depression last year: Obama and Hillary, chiefly. Well, now they have their wish, and it is up to them to fix the problem.

Clearly, what they are trying is not working, and let's face it, it never had any prayer of working. If they had wanted to give American industry a shot in the arm, they could have forgiven in taxes an amount equal to the inaptly named "stimulus" plan. How many jobs would have been saved?

They could have put a moratorium on various gov't regulations (e.g. Sarbanes/Oxley) which cost tens of thousands of jobs annually. That would be a stroke of the pen and real jobs saved -- not just phantom jobs as Obama claims to have saved without offering any evidence whatsoever. As many people have pointed out, the gov't does not measure jobs saved, so where does Obama get his numbers, if he is not making them up? He's making them up.

They could have borrowed this year's payroll tax revenue and let the people keep that extra money. People cannot spend what they do not have. Instead, they borrowed and printed the money, but have given it to banks who are not lending it. Even if banks want to lend it, they depend on the borrowers' confidence to repay, a confidence that is clearly absent nowadays.

Before he was elected, I predicted that Obama would be known as Carter 2.0, but now I fear he will take a place beside Hoover. Nothing he promised has come to be except for the thing he droned all last summer: This is the worst economy since the Depression.

The need for federalism

Some say we should outlaw unfunded or partially funded mandates, with the naive hope that the burden of funding the implementation would make the federal gov't more responsive to the taxpayers. I hope it is clear now that there is bipartisan support in Washington for irresponsible borrowing and little aversion to taxation.

However, when it comes to taxation: They should never take this much of our money without getting better agreement from the people before doing it. The magnitude of the sums they will shortly require of us, call for significant deliberation and debate.

But Congress repeatedly ignores us. They specialize in the cramdown. They've very nearly lost sight of all principle.

There is no antidote to this other than to take back the power due to us at the state and local level. Let us decide. Let the federal government back away. We do not like having our money taken from us with the promise that somehow it'll all be best for everybody sometime down the road. Depriving the public of open deliberations leaves us with only vague promises that Father Law knows best. Where is our skepticism?

They continue to promise us a retirement and medical care when we get old, but all the actuaries tell us that these retirement and medicare funds are unfunded. It is not prudent to depend upon such an insecure system. And yet we do.

Those who have so carelessly abandoned the sound financial future of this country and its currency are not to be trusted with bigger responsibility. And yet they are intent on seizing control of the medical care community, an area most of think requires a very high degree of local control. How can the left tolerate such interference given that had nationwide laws prevailed prior to Roe v Wade they would have prohibited abortion at a time when states like New York had legalized it?

Are we to accept federal control over where your doctor can cut and how deeply? We need to let some states disagree with each other and tolerate the diversity. This is how the gay marriage issue is being decided today. The states don't all agree. That's federalism.

Nationalized health care is the most dramatic grab of Federal power in nearly 100 years.

Is it too much to ask that our Congressmen read and understand, and logically argue about the laws they pass before they pass them? The Obama "stimulus" package was no more debated, much less read, up front than was the Patriot Act. Both required careful consideration before passing. We were cheated of that debate. And even if 100% of all these bills were to survive intact after significant debate, we would still be richer for having hashed it out in public.

But we don't do that.

Awareness test: How many times is the ball passed?

The Earth is "carbon starved"

Trillion dollar question

Someone at our local "tea party" group did this video. I thought it was pretty good.