More Lost Conservatives

It looks like Thomas Sowell saw the same poll that I did. He is another that you always need to take the time to read. He spends more time focusing on the in-fighting in the party than the lack of true conservatism, but it is an excellent read.

One quote from the article that was really disturbing:

Just two nuclear bombs were enough to get Japan to surrender in World War II. It is hard to believe that it would take much more than that for the United States of America to surrender--especially with people in control of both the White House and the Congress who were for turning tail and running in Iraq just a couple of years ago.

Perhaps people who are busy gushing over the Obama cult today might do well to stop and think about what it would mean for their grand-daughters to live under sharia law.

Think about that very carefully.

Where are the Conservatives?

While on vacation I read an article in the USA Today (only thing available in print) concerning the fact that there was no real voice for the Republican party. No one recognized as the leader of the party. When a poll was conducted asking who spoke for the party the top responses were, Rush Limbaugh, Dick Cheney , John McCain and Newt Gingrich. After the obligatory deriding comments concerning old, white, male conservatives, the article actually has a good point: where is the leader of the party? Who is it? What do they stand for? What does the party really stand for? They point out that of the top four mentioned in the poll, only one actually now holds office, McCain, and he just lost the Presidential election.

No real surprise that there is a lack of leadership amongst the Republicans. What was somewhat surprising to me though, was a Gallup Poll also released last week. The poll was on political ideology, what did people think they were? The result:

Thus far in 2009, 40% of Americans interviewed in national Gallup Poll surveys describe their political views as conservative, 35% as moderate, and 21% as liberal. This represents a slight increase for conservatism in the U.S. since 2008, returning it to a level last seen in 2004. Gallup

Not only that, but unbeknown to me, these have been fairly consistent results since at least 1992. It regularly shows results of 40% or better conservative and 20% or less liberal. That being the case, how do we explain the fact that we now have elected the most liberal government, Executive and Legislative, in the history or our country? To answer that I think you have to look at a couple issues:

1. First, the USA Today is pretty much right: there is no true leader stepping up and representing the beliefs and values of the traditional Republican voter. John McCain became the face of the party during the Presidential election, and lost. I think one of the main reasons he lost was because he did not truly represent what his party considers to be important. My opinion is that he added Sarah Palin to the ticket so that he could have a true conservative voice. Dick Cheney and former President Bush do a good job of articulating conservative thought and ideals, but they have no vested interest in the future and no direct input in to current policy decision making. The same can be said for Newt Gingrich: he is perhaps the most seen conservative activist lately and does a good job of voicing the conservative line. I do, however, wonder about his motivations. Is he considering running for office again, or is he just selling books and website subscriptions. But who, that is currently in office, is standing up and taking the high ground?
2. Are their any true conservatives with the will to fight for their beliefs left in elected office? My belief is that the reason John McCain became the Presidential nominee for the party is that the conservative vote was split between Romney and Huckabee: McCain got the fallout. Similar to the reason that Clinton was able to get into office. Given a clear choice between moderate and conservative, a large number of the conservative vote ended up going to Ross Perot. Remember, Clinton never received a majority of the votes in either of his elections, just more than second place. The point is, the current Republican leadership are politicians first and conservatives second. They are more concerned about keeping their jobs by saying what they think people want to hear (and looking good for the media) than standing on principle.
3. We also have to look at how people define liberal and moderate. My feeling is that a large percentage of those that say they are moderate are really liberal at heart. If you breakdown the issues and find out where they stand the pattern will start to become clear. They do not want to be stereotyped as a "liberal", so they call themselves moderate. But when it comes time to vote they are going to vote for more government and less freedom.
   
4. Lastly, you have to consider the overwhelming media (especially television) bias against conservatives. The only place a Republican (much less a conservative) is going to get a fair shot at air time is on Fox News. So, we really do not get a chance to hear from the Republicans on what they are doing, what fights they are taking on, what positions and beliefs they might be standing up for. The only real time they get air time is when they have either compromised their beliefs and sided with the Democrats, or when they have screwed up. Then they are either hailed for their courageous break from their party, or excessively demonized.
   

The point I am trying to make is that there is apparently a true conservative majority among US citizens. But, they are obviously not voting Republicans into office. In my mind, this means that the Republicans are no longer representative of conservatism. If someone would be brave and stand up and clearly articulate conservative values, and fight for them, they would be elected.

Just do some research on Ronald Reagan: Openly conservative; clearly stated vision; elected in two landslides. Reagan carried more than 90% of the electorate in both 1980 and 1984. There has been only one other candidate to come close to Reagan's impressive 1984 margin of 97.6% of the electorate; the also staunchly conservative Richard Nixon with 96.7% in 1972.

In case you are curious: there has been only one Democrat elected with over 90% of the electorate since Roosevelt was elected in '36 - Lyndon Johnson with 90.6% over Barry Goldwater in '64 after Kennedy's assassination.

Contradictory?

Today the President issued an executive order authorizing domestic partners of federal employees to receive the same benefits as married partners. There are a whole slew of moral and ethical questions concerning the implications behind this decision: included in those is the devaluing of the traditional family structure; how do you define a "domestic partner" and how do you prove it (do you have to be a couple, or is every roommate of a federal employee going to get benefits? And their children, etc); how do you reconcile this with the stated opinion of most courts as to the definition of marriage? Or is this just an end run to avoid the courts and bypass the majority of American's opinions?

There are a lot more issues at play here and discussions for another time. My main question right now is this.

How do you reconcile the stated goal of this administration to reduce the government expenditures on health care and reduce the federal deficit with this decision to add millions of people on to the government payroll?

And that is essentially what you are doing; they are now part of the expenditures related to the massive federal HR department. The amount of corruption that is going to be related to this measure is going to be staggering! Every single person on the US payroll is going to have a "partner" within 30 days. Wait and see.

Enrollments in private industry insurance are about to drop too as all of these "partners" that had insurance with their employer (that they had to pay a part of) are going to drop that in favor of the cheaper government coverage.

The costs related to this one executive order will be outrageous. The American taxpayer just took another major hit.

Wow! That's gotta hurt!

This week the congressional budget office released three reports that either directly contradicted statements from the Obama administration on health care, or essentially told him "good luck with that".

MSNBC (can't believe I am using them for a source) reported today that the CBO reports were a "Major Buzz Kill" for health care overhaul. Keep in mind a couple of things: this is the CBO, the government accountants, that produced these reports; two of the key points of the Obama plan is that it will save the government (taxpayers) money and that everyone (meaning the 40 some million they say are without insurance) would be able to have health care.

What does the CBO have to say about those goals:

The CBO estimated that if the bill becomes a law, it would cause “a net increase in federal budget deficits of about $1.0 trillion” from 2010 to 2019. But according to the agency, the bill would still leave 37 million Americans uninsured by 2019. MSNBC

A $1 TRILLION INCREASE in the deficit! And there are still 37 million uninsured!?!?!?! Help me make sense of this. It gets better. The article goes on to say:

It was a reminder from CBO that if Obama and Congress intend to redesign health insurance in a way that doesn't add to the federal deficit, they can’t rely primarily on the private sector.

Instead, they will have to do it themselves by curbing the spending that the federal government can control, such as Medicare, which costs $500 billion a year and is growing at a rate of 7 percent annually.

So, according to the government accountants, the only real chance they have of providing health care without adding to deficits and increasing taxes is to cut spending in other areas. There is not a politician in Washington right now with any power that has the will or desire to cut spending.

They even go on to point out that some of the measures that would actually work to reduce overall health care spending would in reality cost the government tax revenue. Primarily through tax incentives for companies to cover more preventive care.

And that $2 trillion in savings proposed by the health care / insurance industry. According to the CBO, while it may be a good thing if they can do it, the reality is it will not save the government any money. Those are all unproven, theoretical savings for the private sector.

How do you create government managed health care reform without adding to the Federal deficit?

Obama’s hope is that an overhaul of health care would reduce federal spending on health care, while improving people’s health. The CBO is reminding Congress of the gap between that hope and actual accomplishment; a deficit-neutral bill may require a lot of revenue through tax increases. MSNBC

Like I keep saying, you have to raise taxes. Go back to the Anyn Rand quote: the government cannot give a benefit to one person with first taking something from someone else.

Vacation Recap

I was on vacation last week and did not spend any of it writing here. But, there were a few items of idiocy that need to be noted. Random Headlines in no order of importance:

1. California near meltdown as revenues fall - Isn't it strange how revenues are falling? CA has a history of continuing to raise taxes, and yet revenues are falling. It is going to be more and more difficult to maintain the "nanny state" services with no revenue.
2. Lumping a couple together: Russia Military: no nuclear cuts below 1500.... Taliban Militants attack in Pakistan, 11 dead.... Iran denies nuke agency camera request.... China warns against Use of force in carrying out N. Korea sanctions.... N. Korea views attempts to impose sanctions as 'act of war'. So tell me, how is that diplomacy from a position of weakness working out.
3. Health care bill to include $600 billion in new taxes - When are they going to run out of people to tax? And this is based on the fairy tale numbers of what this is really going to cost
4. Privacy may be a victim in cyber-defense plan - refresh my memory; wasn't it the Dems that lost their minds over privacy rights being violated by the Bush administration position on wire taps after 9/11? How is this any different?
5. Stimulus Apologies: Biden says 'everyone guessed wrong' - So, we are guessing now? He goes on meet the press and tells the worked that they guessed wrong. The economy was in much worse shape than anyone thought and we will not be able to meet that projection of 3.5 million new jobs. Could it be that 1) the stimulus bill never had a chance of succeeding anyway and 2) it was never intended to. The whole point of the bill was to reward campaign donors and fulfill the promises made to get elected. At least they are going to be 'stimulated'.
6. June's chill in Chicago 'coldest since records began" - global warming activist strangely silent.

There were several others to note: the fed continuing their war on cigarette manufacturers; the whole Iran election debacle; support suddenly sliding for the government health care monstrosity. One bit of good news though - at least the NBA season is over.

Just In on HealthCare

Here We Go!
This came in to my e-mail right after the last post. Lots of information on the health care debate (Keep in mind it is the Washington Post; they don't grovel before Obama like NBC or pander like the NY times. But they are not exactly unbiased either). The latest? They are already considering elimination the current income tax deduction for health insurance in order to pay for their plan. Increased burden on business and individual tax payers. Somebody has to pay for all of this. Something tells me I am going to start racking up some "I told you so's" real quick.

Here is an ad from a group that pretty much covers it. It really is life or death.

I'm Not Buying It

A Washington Post article this week starts with the grand headline that Economic Advisers Extol Benefits of Cutting Health Care Spending. The opening paragraphs indicate that the President's council of economic advisers have reported that cutting health care spending across the US by 1.5% would create 500,000 new jobs and "improve the nations overall well being by 'roughly' $100 billion a year."

Here is the part that the article tries very hard not to say: the whole premise behind this "savings" is that the President's nationalized health care plan is already approved and in place. These "savings" (and yes, I think that word needs to be in quotations every time it is used in this context) are what we could reduce the proposed budget by if we reduced health care cost.

First of all, they don't even have a health care program in place yet and they are looking for ways to reduce costs - read, "benefits".

Second, there is no clear plan in place that actually improves the status of our health care system:

This report is nothing more than smoke and mirrors," House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) said in a statement. "Everyone agrees that reducing the cost of health care would benefit our economy, but the administration hasn't offered a credible plan to do so without raising taxes or rationing care. WP

Third, they don't even really think that the 1.5% savings are achievable!

The report contains few details about how those ambitious goals would be achieved, however, and does not address any increased federal spending needed to implement health reform. And the White House economists acknowledge that shaving 1.5 percentage points off the rate of growth in health spending would be extraordinarily difficult -- "probably near the upper bound of what is feasible." WP

The bottom line is there is no possible way to create a nationalized health care program without the economy suffering, the quality of care suffering, taxes increasing and the size of government increasing. Can you even imagine the size of the organization that would be required to run such a program. It could easily exceed the size of the IRS and in my mind could rival the US military.

These are the people you want responding to your claims questions and managing your care? And don't be misled; the government will be running the program. They will insist on it. When have they ever proven that can do anything better or cheaper than the private sector?
Here is my preview of how it will work out:

• After running the numbers the administration will figure out that there is no possible way that they can foot the bill for their health care dreams
• However, this is one of the key issues that got them elected so they have to figure out a way to make it work
• So, they pass the bill to start the nationalized health care movement and start signing people up.
• In order to pay for this they include in this law that all employers will have to contribute $x per employee to cover their health care (they have already made the first step in this direction by requiring that employers cover the cost of the 1st 90 days of cobra)
• Well, contrary to popular opinion, companies are in business to make money: Without the profit motive I have discussed before, there is no point in having a business. So in order to maintain their profit margins (which are generally pretty slim by the way - average after tax profits for most businesses are under 5%) they are going to start laying people off. They will figure out how to get by with less people in order the bear the additional burden placed on them by the government.
• Think unemployment is rising now? Wait until every company in the nation starts laying people off because of mandatory health care premiums. Try double digits nationally.

From there it just starts to snowball. Unemployment goes up, but those people are still going to need health care. So, we have to raise the rate per employee that the employers are paying as well as raising taxes and asking employees to pay a larger share of their own coverage. Some employers will lay off more people; some will move their business out of the country; some will just close the doors. No profit, no business.

In the meantime: with tax revenues dropping (more unemployment = fewer taxpayers, less business profits = less tax revenue) the national health care system is going to have to figure out a way to cut costs. Now comes the rationing of services and medications. It takes longer to see a doctor; the government decides if you need a test, or treatment for an illness; the government decides if you really need the medicine that will make you more comfortable while you are going through cancer treatment (which you will not get if they decide it was discovered too late and your chances of recovery are slim). This is not exaggeration; it is happening this way right now in countries with socialized medicine. Look it up. Read the stories about the health care systems in the UK and Canada.

While all of this is going on, enrollment in medical schools declines to almost nothing (at least among US citizens), quality doctors are closing their practices and no new ones are being opened. Why? Because there is no longer any incentive to become a doctor. The bottom line is that while many people going into medicine may claim that they are doing it to "help people", their real motivation is that doctors generally make pretty good money. Not under nationalized health care they don't! It will begin with the government mandating what they can charge for services (guaranteed to be less than what they are currently charging) and will end with them either being government employees or finding a new line of work.

There is no possible way that the government can effectively and efficiently implement and manage nationalized health care. Period. Not that will stop them, but is going to be a disaster for our economy and our quality of care.