Should The United States Use Military Force Against Syria?

I have not met, or heard, very many people who quickly answer this question "yes" or "no," myself included.  There are many, many variables as to whether the United States should engage in some sort of military action against the Syrian government and President Bashar al-Assad for using chemical weapons against Syrian citizens which killed hundreds of women and children in addition many more men.

When the allegations of chemical weapons being used in the Syrian civil war first arose my immediate thoughts went to something I have said often in the past.  It is in answer to a question no one in the press seems to be asking, "where did Assad get the sarin nerve gas?"

My answer is the same answer I had when no chemical or biological weapons were found in Iraq after the U.S. invasion in 2003: from Saddam Hussein.  Separating oneself from the vitriolic emotions that many experience regarding President George W. Bush and the Iraq War and just looking at times lines and past history there is a strong case to be made that Hussein supplied Assad.  With months, even years, to prepare for some sort of international action against him for biological and chemical weapons (WMD or weapons of mass destruction), Saddam had plenty of time to move weapons across the Iraqi-Syrian border.

Without delving into intense detail, those with a good sense of recall will remember that Hussein had used chemical weapons against Iranians and Kurds during the Iran-Iraq war, told the United Nations after the first Gulf War that he had stockpiles of biological and chemical agents that were weaponized, later when UN inspectors went into the country they were often stalled or refused the ability to inspect sights for weeks or months if at all, and several foreign intelligence agencies besides our own reported that Hussein had chemical and biological weapons.

So how did an arsenal of WMD agents that Hussein acknowledged having, that several countries confirmed him having and that he had previously used suddenly disappear?  Suddenly is not the right word as Hussein had months between the UN passing a resolution calling for inspections and that Hussein better comply or else.  Or else was Congress voting to give Bush the authority to invade Iraq.  There was plenty of time between the UN debates and vote, the debate in the U.S. and subsequent Congressional vote and the invasion for a man who controlled every aspect of his nation to move weapons across the border to a very friendly and receptive dictator in Syria.

So back to the question at hand: Should the United States use military force against Syria?  My answer is yes. But...

I firmly believe that the United States has a moral imperative to strike against anyone who uses chemical and/or biological weapons.  While many Americans are uncomfortable with the idea, we are the world's "policeman."  I see no other nation in the world with our moral compass and our power to ensure everyone plays nice, and for those who don't impose penalties.  While nice to have support from other nations when undergoing our duties enforcing moral imperatives, I do not feel it is necessary. Because of this I strongly feel the United States must act against Bashar al-Assad and his military for the chemical attack(s).

What complicates the answer to this question is the recent history, i.e. since Obama has been President, in the Middle East.  In 2002 then Senator Obama spoke out against the Iraq War, not because Hussein may or may not have had WMD, but because he felt it was "a dumb war."  Saying Hussein "...is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power" Obama also acknowledged Hussein's possession and use of WMD.  His argument against the war was that Hussein "...poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States or to his neighbors." 

Since becoming President the threshold for military force (which in my opinion is the same as war) has loosened considerably.  Obama called for bombing in Lybia to assist rebels in deposing dictator Muammar Gaddafi--there was no imminent and direct threat to the United States or Lybia's neighbors.  While using bombs to get rid of one rogue government, Obama did nothing to assist a growing revolution in Iran, a government that does pose a threat to the United States with its funding of terrorists.  Obama cheered from the sidelines while Egypt's long term ruler Hosni Mubarek was toppled and refused to express concern when the Muslim Brotherhood came to power.  Later when elected President Mohamed Morsi was deposed by the Egyptian military the Administration issued a fairly meek protest.  Syria has been engaged in a civil war with three parties vying for power and until earlier this year when the United States began supplying weapons and training to some rebel forces there was no effort to unseat Assad.

What is the filter through which Obama picks and chooses who to assist in deposing and who to let fight it out?  How is Assad any less worthy of being ousted with strong and direct military assistance than Gaddafi?  Perhaps the answer lies to the north of Syria and Assad's ally Vladimir Putin.  If only Gaddafi had stronger alliances with other dictators he may still be alive and in power.

The primary source of my hesitancy for the United States striking against Assad is my concern the scope of our action will be too limited and inconsequential.  Will the action be akin to bombing an aspirin factory, a la President Clinton in the Sudan?  Unless our military action is strong, severe and has a lasting negative impact on Assad's ability to wage war against his own people then I feel any action we take will be to prop up Obama's "red line" statement.  Anything less than an plan of action that takes out Assad's air force, significantly damages his army and/or takes out Assad and/or his top military officials to me bombing just to bomb.  

A limited missile strike against a few targets is akin to spanking your grown drug addicted son in hopes it will change his behavior.  Assad needs more than a swat on the butt, and does the world community.  Slapping Assad on the wrist by killing a few members of his military, who he sees as expendable anyway, gives tacit consent to future despots who want to use chemical or biological weapons. 

Assad needs to be removed from power, either by terminating him or capturing him and putting him on trial.

As for the power vacuum this would create, from all I have ingested over the past few years on the Syrian civil war there are three factions: Assad and the government, Al-Qaeda and a "Free Syrian" or secular faction.  It is the latter group that the United States should support and act accordingly.

The financial cost to the United States, how the Arab street or other dictators will "feel" about the United States and threats from Putin should not factor in our decision to punish, convincingly, Bashar al-Assad.  What makes the decision to engage militarily in Syria is the moral principles of our nation, using chemical weapons on civilians, whether with missiles or as part of ethnic cleansing is wrong and anyone who engages in such murder needs to be eliminated.

My hope is that very soon President Obama personally lays out the imperative as well as Secretary of State Kerry did in part of his statement on Sunday.  My hope is that President Obama will provide a clear objective as to the intended result of military action in Syria and that the objective is nothing short of removing Bashar al-Assad from power.

Energy

We use a lot of energy. Twenty million barrels of oil a day. Approximately 1 million tons of coal per year, almost all of it for electricity production. We us a lot of energy. The energy we use is a tremendous economic engine as well. Hundreds of thousands of jobs are tied to energy: production, distribution, transportation and delivery. Billions of dollars in taxes are generated by energy: corporate tax, dividend and capital gains tax, income tax, sales tax, state tax, local utility tax, property tax.

We use a lot of petroleum products besides gasoline for our SUVs, SmartCars and Hybrids. Plastics, paint, technological hard ware, look around where you are sitting right now and try to find something that is entirely natural with no petroleum distillates added. Ignoring the petroleum required to power the manufacturing plants and modes of transportation of the items we use every day, the items themselves are made almost wholly or in part by petroleum distillates.

The food we eat is dependent on oil. Not just to power the tractors and harvesters for farming, or the trucks that transport it from distant farms to our local stores. But also in most of the fertilizer that is used to grow crops.

What is happening in America, and around the globe, is an inability to separate "oil" from "energy." This lack of separation is welcomed by the "global warming" crowd and those who seem bent of removing all fossil fuels from our economies and use. But it is important that we consider the energy issue as two issues: oil for consumer consumption and energy for the production of electricity.

Oil is the current dirty word due to the disaster in the Gulf of Mexico as we turn on our televisions and see the gushing oil from the ocean floor. Knee-jerk reactions were unsurprising to call for the cancellation of all off-shore drilling and some calling for the cessation of all drilling in our country. In the next breath these same people decry our dependence on oil produced abroad. But we consume 20 million barrels of oil a day. But we are not permitted to produce what we consume at home. Venezuela, Nigeria, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Canada, Mexico, are just a few nations willing to continue to extract oil from the earth and send it to America to fill the gap between our domestic production and consumption.

We need to drive less and have more energy efficient cars. How much? What is an acceptable amount of oil consumption? Fifteen million barrels per day? That's a 25% cut in consumption, pretty steep. A fifty percent cut to ten million barrels per day? We can cut our driving and increase the efficiency of our automobiles that much? Maybe use more Hybrid vehicles. But don't they actually have larger "carbon footprints" due to their production?

Let us assume that Americans through economical driving habits and advancing technology of automobile manufacturing are able to reduce our gasoline consumption by fifteen percent. Does that cut the oil consumption by fifteen percent? When we are consuming more and more goods made by petroleum by-products? We are replacing books with little plastic devices. We are replacing our plastic cellular phones every year or two depending on your calling plan. We replace our laptops and home computers every few years to keep up with the changing technology. We are buying new iDevices that are somewhere between our laptop, Kindle and handheld phone/calendar/camera. We buy new printers that are cheaper than purchasing ink for the old printer.

Our entire economy and personal consumption habits are dependent on oil, petroleum, fossil fuels buried in our earth. Our political climate is such that we are shutting down the exploration and extraction of this commodity from the earth within the boundaries of the United States. We are becoming increasingly dependent upon foreign nations and companies for the commodity that is most important to our economy.

We have oil, plenty of it. Oil we can get to without deep water drilling, which is what has created the problem in the Gulf. Had the same incident occurred closer to shore on a slant drilling rig the nation would be talking about the financial reform bill working through the House and Senate and not the oil rig accident that was capped in a few days. Had the same type incident happened on a drilling rig on dry land you never would have heard of it. This disaster is a disaster because of where it is located: one mile under the surface of the ocean.

As politics and extreme environmentalism shuts down the ability to operate drilling and extracting operations in relatively safe environments the likeliness of future drilling disasters like the one now occurring increase. We have plenty of oil, off the Atlantic coast, off the Gulf coast, off the Pacific coast, throughout Alaska, we have oil that can be drilled and extracted without incurring anywhere near the disaster of what is happening now. Last night President Obama spoke about the relationship between oil companies and politics and said something to the effect that we need political "courage and fortitude" I believe were the words used, to break our oil dependency.

What we need is political courage and fortitude to encourage and support production of our oil supply within our nation's boundaries and be serious about reducing our reliance on foreign production--much of it in the control of tyrants who repress their citizens. We are not going to reduce our reliance on foreign oil by reducing our consumption if we continue to reduce our domestic production. What we needed to hear last night from President Obama regarding oil production and consumption was a commitment to utilize our nation's national resources for safer and cleaner extraction of this commodity upon which our economy and way of life balance.

Regarding energy production for our electricity needs, Obama gave us the standard pablum of "green jobs" and increasing solar and wind technologies. Which take up huge swaths of land to provide their relatively clean energy (solar panels and wind propellers are mostly petroleum based in manufacturing) and in California are being opposed by environmentalists so they won't be in production any time soon.

What about nuclear energy? Zero mention of this clean energy that is one reason Europe consume less petroleum, natural gas and coal per person than Americans do--most of their energy is now coming from nuclear power plants. We have entire fleets of decommissioned nuclear submarines that can be converted to provide electricity to our coastal communities. Entirely clean and safe. We have approximately twenty nuclear power plants across the country that are stalled from being put into play because of government and legal issues.

We have the solutions to our national energy "problems." Our issues are not lack of solutions, it is lack of implementation. Our issues are due to dishonest discussions that bend public opinion into keeping us trapped in our dependency of foreign oil production and out of date and dirty energy production. Until President Obama and others in politics break themselves away from the extreme environmentalists we will not be able to implement solid strategies that solve our two issues of energy consumption.


DCS06162010

Joe Friday Interviews President Obama

He brought us "just the facts, ma'am" now he comes back to life to interview the President.

DCS06082010

Your Silence Is Your Consent

Teapot Dome. The Whiskey Ring. Tammany Hall and Boss Tweed. ABSCAM. Watergate. Iran-Contra. Add to these historical episodes of corruption and political abuse, "Nebraska Kickback," "Louisiana Purchase," "Gator Aid" and plenty of other promises, carve outs and political bribes that were successful in giving President Obama the only thing he apparently cares about: political victory for himself.

The ends justifies the means, the ends being Obama's presidency and legacy. In the end this is more important than our country's future and health care delivery. Why else would he tell the Congressional Hispanic Congress, as quoted by one member of the caucus "the fate of his presidency" hinged on the vote yesterday? Narcissism trumps duty.

For months we have seen this played out. The three most powerful individuals in American politics: the President of the United States, the Majority Leader of the Senate, the Speaker of the House of Representative, have used every dirty trick, every arm twisting threat, every strong political ally, every deception, mistruth and complete misstatement of numbers and facts. Everything they have learned, and their minions have perfected was brought to bear to first get everyone of their party members in the Senate and then barely the number needed from their party in the House, to pass legislation the people don't want and significant numbers of their party do not want.

And most of you have sat silently by and watched. Some have complained to others. Forwarded an email. Made a comment on an internet posting. Maybe gone so far as to write a letter to the editor. Living in Long Beach and in California, most of my friends and acquaintances are registered Democrats. Many, perhaps most, of them have been somewhat disgruntled or disgusted by the ugly politics and special deals that have had to be put together to pass the legislation. But what have they done about it other than murmur? Mostly they have stayed somewhat silent, not wanting to betray their party affiliation or criticize the people they have voted for. Is it because criticizing them makes it look like you made a mistake in voting for them?

No body supports or endorses everything someone does. We get disappointed or upset or disgruntled with choices and decisions of our spouses, our children, our parents, our friends, our co-workers, and we can either silently stand by or we can say, "hey, I wasn't real thrilled about that because..." It is how we stay spouses, good parents, solid friends and good co-workers. Why don't people do the same thing when it comes to their political representatives?

Why are not the many Democrats who have disagreed with the process, with the political bribery, with the dirty tactics, speaking up publicly and asking their party representatives and leaders to stop and listen? In 2008 they were calling for "transparency" and "open government" and "change in Washington." Well they got one in three, change in Washington. I can recall no Congress and White House that has so completely transformed the economic and social fabric of our nation dependent on so many closed door agreements and pay-offs. And so much silence from those who disagreed.

Are those of you who are opposed to the process that just completed and said nothing to your elected officials worried you would be labelled a "Tea-bagger?" Concerned your friends would criticize your opinion?

What happens now? The President and Congressional Democrats have seen that they can target weak members of their party and buy them off, several hundred million here, a couple of hundred million there, a ride in Air Force One for you, an Executive Order or two, that's all it takes. With your consent they can, and may, continue to govern this way. The opinions and desires of the American people don't matter. What matters is Obama getting his way for his legacy. And with your money, they have learned that can be bought.

In the past few days I have seen comments and postings on Facebook from local Democrats who work in government or are elected officials celebrating the pending passage, and then passage of the bill. In a way I can understand as their own political futures are probably tied to support from the party. But at the same time I can not understand. Why have they not been contacting our local Rep. Laura Richardson (D-duh) and demand she not vote for any bill unless the special payoffs for other states are stripped from the bill, at a minimum. In a week, a month, this summer they will complain that Sacramento is taking money from the city. And they support, or silently stand by, as legislation is passed that puts more of a burden on Sacramento with the feds pushing tens and tens of thousands more Californians onto MediCal. Creating even higher expenses and spending and burdens on local hospitals, the state will have to taken even more from local governments to fund the system. But the win for the President over rides the needs and best interests of our city, its hospitals and citizens.

California gets screwed in this bill. I thought for quite a while for a more appropriate word than screwed, but nothing else fits and still keeps this blog clean. With more people on Medicare and MediCal (Medicaid in other parts of the country), more illegal aliens, more people on public assistance than any other state, California gets nothing from this bill. Already losing businesses to other states due to high costs of regulations and taxes, added taxes and burdens from this bill will further cut into profits and desirability of doing business here. How will our state pay for this legislation? Our Senators and Democratic Representatives don't care, nor do the majority of our local officials who have been cheerleaders for Obama and any health care legislation--as long as something passed.

And the people for the most part remain silent, which is taken for consent from politicians. No letters, no phone calls, no letters to the editor, no rallies, no speaking out against a process that have been wrong. Fraught with payoffs we may never learn about, the bill passed is so bad it immediately required amendments and more pay offs for the votes cast.

What will you do? What can you do? Unfortunately I'm somewhat stuck. As an outspoken person registered with the "opposing" party, my local Representative and Senators find it easy to discount me. But I will continue to speak my opinions, contribute my observations and hope that someone, hopefully several someones, from the "right" party will speak up, will challenge the status quo and blind following of party leadership that has passed for representing the people in Congressional District 37, and in California.

Dirty politics has won. Those who spoke out vocally were able to be demonized by the Democrats and their allies in the press. Those who wavered on supporting a flawed piece of legislation were able to be visited by union strongmen threatening political paybacks and party leaders laying out their future in the party if they voted "no." Dirty politics won.

Governance for the people, by the people and of the people lost. Thankfully the First Amendment remains intact and I plan to take advantage of it. I will not consent and I will not remain silent.

What will you do?

DCS03222010

To My Representatives In Congress

Below is a letter I have sent this morning (3/15/2010) to my representatives in Congress regarding the health care reform bill.

To: Senator Dianne Feinstein
Senator Barbara Boxer
Member of the House of Representatives Laura Richardson


From: Dennis C. Smith
Long Beach, CA

Dear Senators Feinstein and Boxer and Rep. Richardson,

I believe in openness and honest, so I will start this letter with both. I have never voted for any of you in your elections for your current offices. I have never donated to your campaigns for office; to my recollection however I do not believe I have contributed to any of your opponents either. I am a registered Republican. I am married and have two daughters in elementary school. I am a partner in a mortgage brokerage, which makes me a small business owner. I volunteer in my community, currently serving on the Board of Directors of Community Hospital of Long Beach---please note my views below are my views and not representative of the hospital, its staff or any other member of the board (though a few may agree with me). My lack of votes or financial support makes me no less a constituent of yours, just as those who have supported you are no more a constituent than me. You are my representatives in Washington D.C. as such I wish you to please represent me, and California.

President Obama is pressuring Speaker of the House Nance Pelosi, a fellow Californian, to have the House of Representatives vote to pass the health care reform bill written by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, not a Californian, without any conference between the Senate and House to iron out significant differences. The President is calling for this vote because his intention is an end run around the way the Senate and House have worked for decades on crafting legislation that becomes law, especially law that results in major social and economic reform for our nation. Mr. Obama is calling for this vote because he has invested all of his political capital on this measure and needs the House to go along with the Senate bill so he can sign a document and then tell the American people "I have reformed our health care system."

During the political campaign to get health care reform passed President Obama, Senator Reid and Speaker Pelosi have disparaged the Republican party and along with many members of the media have declared the Republicans "the party of No." During this process the three of you, plus many of your fellow Democrats (though not all nor a majority as seen by the difficulty in passing the bills) have become the party of "Yes Sir and Yes Ma'am," with all due respect to Senator Boxer. Yes Sir, Senator Reid. Yes Sir, President Obama. Yes Ma'am, Speaker Pelosi.

You have followed the three leaders blindly and without a peep to your constituents, or for your constituents. The bill that the President is pushing for a vote on in the House was created with bribes, kick-backs, carve-outs, or whatever terminology you wish to use--perhaps something softer like compromise or negotiations. All I know, and most Californians paying attention, is that a State with a small portion of the number of residents on Medicaid/MediCal received assistance to cover the increased costs of the bill being passed. With more doctors than Florida treating patients covered under Medicare, California doctors are facing dramatic cuts in reimbursement, cuts that the bill eliminates for doctors in the Sunshine State. Louisiana, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Nevada, Montana, North Dakota, all received special deals in the health care bill put together by Senator Reid in order to secure votes. And now you are going to vote for special consideration for other states residents at tremendous cost to your own.

Our state is broke and by all accounts should probably file bankruptcy if it could. This health care bill takes a over burdened MediCal system that bleeds funding already and forces tens of thousands of more Californians into the system--with no reimbursement from Washington. We can't pay for MediCal now, how will we pay for it if this bill passes?

Unemployment across the country and in California is climbing. In our City of Long Beach the official rate is over 14%. Every week, week after week, over 400,000 Americans file initial claims for unemployment insurance. Employers are doing all they can to keep people on payroll. During the past year as millions of Americans have lost their jobs the Federal government as added jobs, thousands. During the past year as millions of Americans have seen wages and compensation shrink Federal employees have seen pay increases. Every sector of the economy, except government employees, and more specifically Federal government employees, have suffered. This bill will create thousands of more jobs in the Federal government and over one hundred new departments. How can one of the stated purposes, simplifying the delivery of health care, be done when this bill requires more bureaucracy between me and my doctor?

This health care reform bill is supposed to be so great for the American people. If so why does it not start until after the 2012 elections? It is "scored" to be budget neutral and save money, but this number is chicanery as the taxes required to support the spending start right away with a two year head start before the expenses kick in. Why not calculate the cost when expenses and revenues are in effect? Is it because the bill then becomes a burden on a budget already Trillions in the red?

California is broke and costs are being added to our state budget as a result of this bill. Americans are out of work and added costs and burdens will be added to employers as a result of this bill. The United States is facing skyrocketing deficits and debt for the next several years, our debt burden will quickly approach 100% of Gross Domestic Product, and this bill will add billions and billions more dollars to the budget on the expense side of the ledger. This bill has special deals made to help several states to buy the votes of their representatives, paid for by Californians. This bill is not good for me, my family, my city, my state nor my country. Who is it good for?

This bill is not about what is best of the American people, nor Californians. This bill has become a political scoreboard for President Obama and the Democratic leadership. They want to say, need to say, "we passed health care reform." They are asking you, three loyal Democrats, to support them so they can win a political victory. Not a social victory, not an economic victory, not a victory of reform that benefits the majority of Americans today or in the future. But a personal political victory.

Once the House passes this bill President Obama will sign it and it becomes the law of the land. While the three leaders, Obama, Reid and Pelosi, have promised "reconciliation" to "fix" the bill; once signed there is no requirement to change it. The bill is law and they have gotten the "win." If to get votes they need to promise Democrats in the House that changes can be made to fix what will be the new law, then it should not pass. Do you not find there is something incredibly wrong with the logic of passing a law so you can then fix it? You are being asked to pass and support a broken piece of legislation.

As a constituent I ask you, my representatives in Washington, to please contact your party's leadership. Please communicate to the White House, the Majority Leader and the Speaker that Californians are against this burdensome legislation. Against a bill that must be fixed before it becomes law but will not be until after it is law. Against a bill that most Americans and Californians do not support.

Health care reform is needed. Despite what your leaders say, you know that Republicans and Democrats understand this. I believe that deep down you also know that this is not the way to go about the reform; using tricks and bribes and special deals and arm twisting. Deep down you know that this bill has become not about our country but about egos and politics. Is this really something you can be proud of? Something ten years from now you will say proudly, "I helped with this?"

Please, start over. Together show leadership for the nation. Tell Californians and America, "we believe health care reform can be achieved with the support of the American people and all members of Congress." Put forth a plan for reform, a plan showing a timeline and what issues will be tackled first, a plan that does not turn our entire health care system upside down, which despite the negative news needed to try to get this bill passed works very, very well for the overwhelming majority of Americans and Californians.

Please do not be part of a system that has to use tricks and arcane parliamentary procedure to pass a law that forever changes our nation. We deserve better, we deserve your representation and integrity to do what is best for your constituents.

Thank you,

Dennis C. Smith

To contact Senator Feinstein click here

To contact Senator Boxer click here

To contact Representative Richardson click here

DCS03152010

Update: A DC Musing's reader in the 37th Congressional District was inspired by the post and sent a letter to Richardson as well, also requesting she vote "No" on the Senate version of the health care bill. He shared her response and granted permission for me to reproduce here.

Mr. NAME REDACTED BY DCS
ADDRESS REDACTED BY DCS

Long Beach, CA 90807

Dear Mr. NAME REDACTED BY DCS:

Thank you for contacting me about health care reform. I appreciate the opportunity to hear your opinion on this issue.

As you may know, on November 7, 2009, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 3962, the Affordable Health Care for America Act of 2009. I voted for this legislation because I believe that now is the time for health care reform that American families can believe in and count on to be there when they need it most. Every 1-percent increase in the unemployment rate results in 1 million more people becoming uninsured. Providing health care for the uninsured costs insured American families $100 billion every year. With the unemployment rate at 10.2 percent across the nation, 12.5 percent in California, and as high as 20 percent in some areas of our district, it is even more urgent that healthcare reform be enacted.

I also voted for this bill because the fact that so many Los Angeles County residents are struggling to obtain and retain affordable, quality health insurance places a tremendous strain on hospitals and medical service providers. Within the past years, five community hospitals have ceased operations due to the inadequate level of reimbursement they received for providing millions of dollars in uncompensated care for the uninsured. Growing health care costs are also hampering the ability of businesses to create jobs. Health care costs for California business have increased 138% since 2006.

We need to be sure that any reform effort does not place additional burdens on the middle class or hurt our economy. I believe that real, effective reform needs to include a public option. H.R. 3962 includes a public option that will lead to increased competition and choice which will ensure that all Americans have an affordable choice among insurance providers to choose the plan that works best for their family. 1 in 5 Californians are uninsured or underinsured. These numbers are staggering and if we do nothing, they will only grow worse. Five percent of all the non-elderly uninsured persons in the nation reside in Los Angeles County. H.R. 3962 also eliminates the prescription drug donut hole for seniors so that they will always be able to obtain the medication they need.

Most importantly, I voted for H.R. 3962 because it provides American families with stability and peace of mind. Never again will they have to choose between their health and their livelihood. This bill provides American families with higher quality health care. It leaves important health decisions up to patients and doctors, not to insurance companies. This bill provides American families with greater choice. It creates a high-quality, robust, public health insurance option for families to choose from. Finally, this bill lowers costs for American families. It eliminates co-pays and deductibles for preventive care while putting an annual cap on out-of-pocket expenses for American families.

The hour is late and the need is great. I voted for H.R. 3962 because I believe we cannot squander the opportunity we have this year to reform the health care system so that it provides accessible, affordable, quality health care to all Americans. On December 24, 2009, the Senate passed its own version of the health care bill. I will be guided by these principals as the House of Representatives and the Senate enter into conference to reconcile the differences between their two bills.

Thank you again for taking the time to contact me about health care reform. While we may not agree on this particular issue, I greatly value input from my constituents and I take all viewpoints into consideration when deciding how to vote. As your Congresswoman, I hope you will continue to inform me of your opinions so that I may best represent you in the future.


Sincerely,

Laura A. Richardson

Member of Congress

Of Course It's Partisan, Duh!

The airwaves and blogrolls and editorial pages and lecterns are filled with acrimony decrying the "partisanship" in Congress, but only by Republicans. Those making most noise are either ignorant, hypocritical or stupid, and by the way it it possible to be all three.

From January 2008 well into January 2010 the Democrats have had super-majorities in the House of Representatives and Senate plus the King Democrat in the White House. For twelve months the Democrats have needed not one Republican vote to pass any legislation, but they did need every Democratic vote in the Senate. Despite this incredible legislative advantage Democrats were unable to rush through any health care legislation, evidently because of Republican partisanship.

While the votes are there to pass any legislation, the Democrats have had difficulties because the legislation they have wanted passed that has run into difficulties has been bad legislation. The problems President Obama, Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid have had has not been Republican partisanship, but rather lack of partisanship within their own party. Democrats who have recognized the ruinous bills put forth by Pelosi and Reid for health care reform has either balked considerably to pass the bills, or as is the case with many Democrats in the House, have voted against the legislation.

So Obama decrying the partisanship in Congress, despite being extremely hypocritical, is right. His problem is partisanship, or rather lack of it as members of his party have rejected the hard swing left in policy taken by party leadership. Representing their constituents and not the ideals of a San Francisco liberal or a Chicago party loyalist, so called Blue Dog Democrats have refused to toe the party line. But their not being partisan has become a rallying cry and issue for attacking Republicans.

How ignorant is this form of attack? The elitist mentality that has driven the legislative agenda and pursuit of massive health care reform and full government control of the health care industry in American is one that presumes we are dumb and cannot do the math for ourselves. The arrogance of power and position has enabled Obama, Pelosi, Reid and their allies in the press to lambaste Republicans for blocking health care reform thinking you and I, and Uncle Joe in Oshkosh and Aunt Marie in Albuquerque are too dumb to know it is not Republicans that are preventing them from waltzing legislation through Congress but their own party members.

Fortunately, despite that fact that half of America is below average in intelligence, it does not take much intelligence to figure this one out. Are Republicans being partisan? You betcha! (And thank goodness.) But aren't they supposed to be? John Boehner won a Republican primary in his district in Ohio and then won the general election running, get this, as a Republican! He told the citizens of his district the values he held, the issues as he saw them and the solutions he would have. He was very clear with his positions and that he is a Republican. And he won the election. So did almost two hundred other members of the House who won Republican primaries and then general elections with (R) next to their name.

It is evidently the position of Obama, and Reid, and Pelosi, and liberal media pundits and editors, that now that they are in Congress they are to come under the messianic spell that dumbfounded the majority of American voters in 2008 and cast aside their party affiliations and vote the way our President desires. For Obama and the Democratic leadership their ideological objectives are more important than representation of the people of the United States. The majority of constituents in Pelosi's district in San Francisco are thrilled with her health care proposal, the majority of Rep. Hal Rogers' (R-KY) district however is against it. As are the majority of residents in Rep. Heath Shuler's (D-NC) district.

What is really either upsetting or hilarious is the gall of Obama to try to play the partisan card on Republicans. When he did vote, Obama voted straight down Democratic party lines during his stint in the Illinois legislature and his few years in the Senate. He voted against President Bush nominees for the Supreme Court (twice) against appointments to the U.N. and cabinet positions. Where was he when the Gang of 14 was established? Hiding in the Democratic cloakroom. Obama was a Democratic party hack while representing the people of Illinois, and now he expects the Republican members of Congress to betray their constituents and follow his extremely liberal agenda. His agenda is more important than their integrity. Talk about arrogance, my ideas are more important than your ideals--or those of the people you represent.

Maybe to get around the partisanship he is suddenly so concerned with Obama should scrap the Democrats agenda and listen to the Republican agenda. Put tort reform in any health care bill, allow insurance companies to offer health insurance nationwide to expand competition and opportunities, make permanent the Bush tax cuts. Try those positions on Mr. President and then talk to the American people about partisan politics.

When creating our government the framers of the Constitution put in roadblocks to prevent legislative abuse of power. They established a system of government based upon checks and balances with equal powers granted to the Legislative, Judicial and Executive branches. Within the Legislative branch further checks and balances were created with a bicameral legislature. For over two centuries this form of government has been better than any in the history of man in representing the people being governed and preventing run-away abuse of powers by a small cadre of leaders.

Today, because their own bad ideas, their own pushing of policy that is far beyond the desires of members of their own party Obama and Democratic leadership are failing to push through legislation that forever alters the American landscape. Being true partisans they do not put the blame for their failures where they belong, on themselves and members of their own party who are needed to pass any legislation, but instead blame their political opposition for being partisan. I ask again, ignorant, hypocritical or stupid?

When President Bush was unable to get judicial nominees through Senate confirmation because of the cloture rules (filibuster) and needing sixty votes to get to an up or down vote, being blocked by Senate Democrats like Harry Reid and Barack Obama, many Republicans wanted the Senate Majority leadership (then Republican) to engage in the "nuclear" option and change the rules so that judicial confirmations needed only a majority vote and not be subject to filibuster. Led by John McCain on the Republican side, fourteen Senators came together and agreed to a set of judicial nominees and guidelines to enable some Bush appointees, but not all, to be confirmed and seated. Today the same rules apply in the Senate because level heads prevailed.

Now to get around the rules in Congress the troika of Obama, Pelosi and Reid are cooking up schemes to push their health care legislation through Congress, avoiding their own party members and forever changing how legislation is done in Congress. A word of warning to the Democrats: you will not be in the majority forever, at some point Republicans will have control of one or both the House and the Senate and may follow any precedents you sent.

DCS 02242010

Dear White House.....

Below is a link to House Minority Leader John Boehner's website. The link will bring you to a letter sent from Mr. Boehner and House Minority Whip Eric Cantor to White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel.

The letter was prompted by President Obama's announcement, with only an hour warning to House and Senate Republican leadership, on national television this past weekend of a "bi-partisan" health care summit on February 25th at the White House.

Messieurs Boehner and Cantor raise some excellent questions for the White House to answer before the Republican members of the House accept the inivitation.

Please read the letter yourself and then comment below. Are the questions raised valid? Is Mr. Boehner correct in his statements the past few days that if the starting point is either of the health care bills passed in the Senate or House, bills crafted and passed by Democrats, then there is no starting point for a bi-partisan discussion?

Click here for the letter: Dear Mr. Emanuel


Personally, I hope the GOP sticks to its principles on health care reform, as presented many times and ignored previously by President Obama, Democratic leadership in both the Senate and House and the mainstream media. Further, until the White House answers the letter from Boehner and Cantor, and the answers are public, that the Republican leadership decline any invitation to a staged event under the cloak of "bi-partisanship."

dcs02102010

Did Party of "No" Save Obama From Violating Pledges to American People

In his State of the Union speech last week President Obama sounded like leftist media and political types who have labelled Republicans as the "party of 'No.'" First forgetting the blockage Democrats put on President Bush (remember the Gang of 14 agreement so Bush judicial nominees could get through the Senate? Just one example.), then forgetting that Republicans have stood in the way of nothing since Democrats have had enough votes in the Senate and House of Representatives to pass any legislation they want. So because one or two Republicans would not cross the aisle and join the Democrats in bad legislation, legislation so bad it could not get passed with super majorities in both Houses, the Republicans are the party of "No."

It seems to me that the Democrats are the party of "maybe but only if you bribe me or my constituents or special interest group campaign financers." By sticking together as a party the Republicans have actually been helping President Obama from not violating more campaign pledges than he already has.

Throughout the campaign Obama pledged bi-partisan efforts if he were elected. His first year in office his only attempt at bi-partisanship was practically moving in with GOP Senator Olivia Snowe to get her to support the Senate's version of health care reform--in the Democrats eyes all you need is one vote and they can scream, "we had bi-partisan support!" Again in the State of the Union Obama said bi-partisanship was needed for Washington to work properly. We all know the definition of bi-partisan here means, "they need to put aside their principals and pledges they made to their voters and support our legislation without any changes."

Republicans rightfully rejected this definition of bi-partisanship, and Senator Snowe took back Obama's guest key. As a result the Democrats, if they were going to pass health care would have to do so alone. The bill is theirs for all the credit and all the blame. Because no health care bill has been passed, nor Cap and Trade, Obama still technically has not violated his pledge to voters to be bi-partisan. If Snowe had fallen to Obama's pressures then he, and the Democrats would have falsely screamed "bi-partisan support!" and looked like fools to the American people.

On Friday President Obama made the very unusual, and I believe unique, move of appearing before the Republican Caucus House Retreat in Maryland. He gave a televised address and had a question and answer period. Having just lit the GOP up in his State of the Union it was a political gamble for Obama to make this appearance and he gets plenty of credit for doing so.

At the GOP retreat, Obama admitted that the Republicans opposition to the Senate health care bill, and the subsequent inability of the House to pass the Senate version (thus far) has allowed Obama to keep another of his pledges to the American people (thus far).

Said Obama to the gathering:

We said from the start that it was going to be important for us to be consistent in saying to people if you can have your--if you want to keep the health insurance you got, you can keep it, that you're not going to have anybody getting in between you and your doctor in your decision making. And I think that some of the provisions that got snuck in might have violated that pledge.

So had the Senate and House Democrats passed the health care bill that Obama and his Administration were strongly pushing, and denigrating all who opposed it, then they would have passed a bill that was a consistent pledge of the President: no bill would violate the insurance you currently have, no bill would take away your doctor, no bill would get between you and your doctor, and no increase in taxes or fees for your insurance.

So if you hear anyone saying that Obama is doing a decent job of keeping his campaign promises and pledges to the American people you can tell them, "he can thank the Republicans for that because he and the Democrats in Congress wanted to violate those pledges."

But don't expect any credit to be given to the Republicans for making this President stick to any pledges made on the campaign trail, or since taking the oath of office.

Is Obama On Tilt?

Poker is a game that is rich in language and strategy. Good poker players know they are not playing their cards but rather playing their opponents. They read their opponents looking for "tells," signs from their opponents that signify what kind of hand they have. Are they playing with their chips different, slouching and looking upset, anxious to shove chips, giving any sign, or tell as to what their hand may be?

Read tells of their opponent determines if they call a bet, bluff a set of rags (bad cards), limp along trying to show a weak hand, or storm all in shoving every chip in the pile daring their opponent to call the bet. Being able to read the other players at the table is a lot more important than the strength of the cards in your hand.

In poker if a player has lost a hand on a very bad beat, such as his opponent pulling the one card out of 52 in the deck that could give him the winning hand, if a player loses a good stack of chips on a bad beat he can go into a funk. The funk is known as being "on tilt" and is often characterized by a bad decision or two in the ensuing hands. Often a player on tilt plays himself out of a tournament, or all his cash.

The very best players recognize when they are on tilt and become very tight players, folding hands they would normally play and only playing if they get top cards. They take a few hands off to regroup, refocus and reset their internal emotions and instincts.

In poker there can come a time when one player has significantly more chips than his opponents to be able to control the game. Wise poker players with large stacks control the table in a manner where everyone knows they are in control, but at the same time look for hands and situations to eliminate other players from the game. The wise player picking and choosing hands to collect more chips from opponents until game over, using his large stack to put opponents in difficult decisions to call bets and possibly lose it all, or fold their hand having lost just a few more chips.

Amateur players play their own cards and do not have the ability to read and analyze opponents as well as the professional and experienced players. Amateur players with large stacks often begin storming into hands and trying to bully opponents, and often find themselves taking a bad beat or two, finding themselves on tilt and suddenly not in control of the table any more.

At some point there is some luck involved, but a lot more so for the amateur than for the seasoned professional, who more often than not make their own luck. More than luck success is dependent on knowing your opponents, being able to calculate odds for hitting certain hands for yourself and your opponent, ability to out maneuver opponents into betting hands you want them to bet, and managing your resources, i.e. chips, so you can last to the end.

Last January President Obama and the Democrats were starting the new year with the largest stacks of chips in the poker game of American politics. They had plenty of investors having securely won the Presidential election and insurmountable majorities in both houses of Congress. Over the course of the next twelve months they have managed to squander their stacks on bad cards, and bad reads of the others in the game. Most notably they misread the player in politics that counts the most: the American voter.

The first hand was an "all-in" situation by Obama and the Democratic majority in Congress, passing the $787 billion American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. Ostensibly to provide jobs for Americans immediately the ARRA still has over 60% of the funds left unspent. A huge spending bill filled with pork it passed in a matter of days and told the American people "we control the table and will use our chips and position to pass what we want."

After the bill was passed and the cost and where the funds were going became more publicized grumbling began with the voters. Next up was "Cap and Trade" legislation that would add hundreds of billions of costs to American industries, shove more manufacturing jobs out of our country into others and cost jobs. While this was being debated unemployment numbers in American began to grow. The members of the House and the Senate who have more seasoning in the political poker game began reading the public and pulled back on the Cap and Trade bill and let it languish in political purgatory.

On top of this the American automakers were failing and about to go under. Rather than let that happen, Obama and Congress pushed more chips into the game and sent billions to GM and Chrysler, and then billions more. It was seen by the public as not a bailout for the automakers but for the United Autoworkers. Decades of increasingly bad contracts for the companies and increasingly beneficial for UAW members pushed the automakers to the brink. More discontent among the American public caught the eye of a few more players in Congress.

Pushing more chips into the pot, Obama flew off to Europe to try to secure the Olympics for his home town of Chicago. More chips sent him to Virginia and New Jersey to campaign for Democrats running for governor in those states. More chips from Obama and Democrats in Congress when they headed to Copenhagen to craft a global warming agreement that would put America at a severe economic and manufacturing disadvantage and cost hundreds of billions more. Bringing terrorists bent on killing Americans from military lock ups to trial in New York City with the same rights as American citizens. Closing the terrorist prison at Guantanamo Bay. Loss. Loss. Loss. Loss. Loss. Loss.

Chips began to move from the stacks of Obama and Congressional leadership and to the stacks of other players. Power began shifting at the table.

The biggest hand of the game so far was health care. Making secret deals away from the table to gain more chips from other players, Obama and his allies in Congress made deals with three individual states at the expense of others, deals with the pharmaceutical industry, with the American Medical Association and with organized labor. Each of these deals cost the American public more money and gave these groups those funds. Cobbling the deals together it appeared that Obama, House Speaker Pelosi, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and the far-left of the Democratic Party had bought the cards needed to win the hand.

The cost was dear as the American public was amassing its own stack of chips and they were collecting more and more from the center and center left of American politics for the right and center right to play. And play them they did last Tuesday in Massachusetts when a fellow name Scott Brown pulled an Ace on the hole card. Obama and his allies have lost most of their stack on this hand after bleeding much of their stack the previous twelve months.

This past week President Obama had the appearance of a player on tilt, joining him were his allies in the media who have been pushing his agenda and government take over of health care, encouraging Obama to ignore the obvious tells of the other players, especially the American voter, and push ahead betting more chips. Finally taking a read of the American voter Pelosi and Reid seemed to sense that the cards and chips have shifted and have sat back and not made any bets since Tuesday. Obama and his Administration have taken to the airwaves and speech circuit and continue to bet chips.

Of the hundreds and hundreds of speeches and television appearances Obama has made in the past fifty-three weeks as President none has been more important than the State of the Union speech this evening. It will provide a tell for the American public and how to play their chips in the coming year and midterm elections.

Will Obama continue his misreading of an American public that has as many people disapproving of his performance as approving? Will he continue to misread the members of Congress who last February rushed through his stimulus bill? Will he lash out at opponents, lecture the nation and look somewhat petulant? Will he adhere to his belief that he knows better than the public what is good for them? Will President Obama push more chips into the game playing the same cards he had when he lost most of his stack?

Is Obama on tilt?

Back to Jobs

With the defeat in Massachusetts last Tuesday President Obama and the Democrats shifted their focus from trying to force bad legislation through Congress to "putting Americans back to work." Good idea, but then so is reformation of aspects of our healthcare industries.

As a quick recap, in February 2009 with Obama in office less than a month Congress passed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. Quickly signed by the President, ARRA, known at "the Stimulus" had a price tag of $787 billion. The purpose of the Act was to create and preserve jobs and, according to the White House, prevent U.S. unemployment from reaching 8%. Money was going to go to communities across the country for "shovel ready" projects to promote infrastructure development and create local jobs.

As I wrote last January, the Congressional Budget Office in analyzing the bill stated it would have little impact on the recession or creating jobs before the current recession ends. Almost all of the spending in the bill would occur in the months leading up to the 2012 election cycle. Almost all of the funds went not to private sector companies and projects, but rather to state and local bureaucracies. The CBO analysis appears to have been correct, the ARRA would have no impact during the fiscal year it was passed. Unemployment has crested 10%. Because of red tape and inherent government inefficiencies communities across the country have nice signs that say "This work project funded by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009" that sit on corners or streets for months with no visible work being done. Chalk ARRA up as the first misstep, or failure, of the Obama Administration and his Congressional allies who at the time needed not one Republican vote to pass any legislation--and none in Congress voted for ARRA.

In the past year private sector unemployment has been shrinking month after month. This past week another 485,000 filed for first time unemployment claims. The number of Americans on unemployment roles has stayed somewhat constant because the number of Americans falling off the unemployment roles has about equalled the number going on. Stretched out because part of the ARRA funds went to states to extend unemployment benefits--a jobs stimulus bill that paid states to pay those not working longer, an oxymoron only government cannot understand--the true, or real, unemployment number in the United States is in excess of 10%.

Almost all of the jobs lost in the current economic cycle are from the private sector. Amazingly while Americans working for private companies have seen lay-offs, business closings, salary and bonus cuts, and other economic hardship, government employees have been mostly untouched--especially Federal employees. In California the economic reality of a broke state and many municipalities has caused many workers to share the pain of the private sector with furlough days, but overall employment in the sector has not shrunk, especially compared to their private sector neighbors.

Nationally, the number one industry for job security and growth has been working for the government. While the number of Americans paying taxes has shrunk, the number of Americans benefiting from tax revenues in the form of salary and benefits has increased. And incredibly many are making more today than they did in 2008. This past week it was announced that for the first time in history the number of Americans in public employee unions exceeds the number of those in private sector employee unions (while government owned I believe the GM members of UAW are counted as private sector).

So in the past year Congress and Obama dedicated $787 billion for job growth and protection. Millions of Americans have lost their jobs in the private sector, millions more have seen cuts in salary and benefits. Those collecting paychecks and benefits for working in government jobs have seen increases in their paychecks and an increase in co-workers on the job as government payrolls have grown not only in salary but in numbers of checks issued.

Now as Obama talks about focusing on jobs Americans need to hold on to their pocket books because we know more spending is on the way. Blessed with the inability to acknowledge mistakes, missteps and the people, Obama, Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid do not see ARRA as the rush-to-spend that it was, but rather a success. Their myopia, as seen with their reactions to Massachusetts, leads them on a collision course with more bad legislation and policies that will not increase jobs in our country, but more likely add to the dissonance in the private sector preventing investment and growth.

Step one of the next misstep is Obama attacking banks. Trying to rally the mob, Obama attacked the bonuses and salaries of bank executives, bemoaning their paying themselves but not lending and extending credit to start and aid economic recovery. He stated he was going to reform the banking system and establish new rules for them. Ignoring, or ignorant of, the incredible Federal oversight currently going on of U.S. banks, Obama has promised more oversight and accountability.

But banks are not lending money because they have no idea what the repercussions of lending to small and medium businesses will be. Under attack since the TARP funds were put into the system, whether some banks wanted them or not, banks have been very tight on credit. Seeing the PR damage to their industry and to the executives who make the decisions, banks are not going to stick out their necks making small business loans. Risky loans invite federal scrutiny. Federal scrutiny leads to federal takeover. Better to not make risky loans and instead invest in more secure investments like Treasury bills and overnights to major corporations.

Jobs are created by entrepreneurs and those with vision. In a bad economic environment most business owners hunker down. They cut expenses, the number one expense almost always being payroll. They hoard cash and do not expand or invest. Advertising gets cut. Marketing gets cut. A little bit lower grade of supplies are used. This behavior maintains or worsens a recession. To reverse the process risk takers are needed.

Small and medium businesses are the number one employers in America. Towns and cities across the nation are dependent on these companies for economic health and growth. For growth they need capital. For capital they need banks to loan them money. For banks to loan them money they need some room from regulators to be able to extend some risky loans to those willing to expand in a shrinking economy.

Until the rules are set for banks. Until banks are secure in knowing they can extend credit with some risk attached. Until banks are not governed to a zero-loan loss expectation. Until a small business owner with a plan and an idea that needs ten, twenty, fifty thousand dollars to implement is provided the capital. Until these happen our economy will be stuck on unemployed.

Obama's Administrations says they are focused on jobs in America. Great. Connect the dots. Jobs need employers. Employers need capital. Capital needs banks. Banks need firm and set rules.

Quit the rhetoric and playing to the fawning press. Rhetoric is killing the markets and investments in America. Let the banks lend and see what happens. Quit trying to legislate to prevent failure and instead allow for some risk to enable growth.

Turn On The Cameras, Open The Doors

It is increasingly clear that Joe Wilson spoke some truth, not with much decorum but nonetheless his outburst as President Obama addressed a joint session of Congress is showing to be not far off the mark. Of course he could have been addressing Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid or House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. This Gang of Three, Obama, Reid and Pelosi, are trampling all over their prior statements and pledges to the American people as they conspire to complete a health care reform bill.

Our nation is a republic, it is a nation governed by laws not by (wo)men. While the laws are crafted by elected representatives, signed by elected Executives and presided over by judges both elected and appointed by our elected representatives, it is the law that rules not those who create and enforce them. Today our republic is in transition to being a nation ruled not by law but by men, and one tough woman. And if they are successful our future will be changed, not only because of the changes in health care delivery and coverage for all future generations, but because of the precedent they will have set in ruling our country. Not governing but ruling.

As you have probably been aware both the House and Senate have now passed health care reform bills. Both were passed with the minimum of votes. In the House of Representatives one Republican, who is in office because he replaced a Democratic Representative arrested after $90,000 was found in his freezer and despite efforts by his party to save him ultimately gave up his seat in a district that is as deep blue with registered Democrats as you will find in America. In the Senate the bill passed despite never leaving Reid's office for a reading or public debate. Whoever on the Democrat side of the aisle spoke out against the bill and what may have been in it got a call from Reid's office and the White House and invited to a sit down. Most left with something nice for their state to buy their votes. Nebraska got their Medicaid deficits created by the bill covered and guaranteed by the Federal Treasury, Louisiana got a cap on Medicare premium increases for all recipients, current and future, Florida got guarantees that Medicare reimbursements for providers would not get cut and in some instances where providers in other states get cuts Floridian health care providers would get Medicare payment bumps. A vote in the middle of the night and it was "Here you go Mr. President a bill."

Throughout the debates Obama stayed out of the fray, publicly saying it was not his job to craft the legislation and to let the process work. Despite his constant rhetoric on the campaign trail about inclusive government, reaching across the aisle, open debate for Americans to see and experience, he said nothing of Reid's behind closed door meetings, nor members of his Administration arm-twisting Democrats to back any bill presented. In the end several closed door meetings with just the President and Democrats, if your registration says "GOP" you're not welcome, resulted in a bill.

And now we are on the precipice of, as defined by Obama and Reid and Pelosi, the most significant legislation to change America since Civil Rights legislation in the 1960s. Crafted behind closed doors. With legislative bribes used to gain passage. That an overwhelming majority of Americans oppose.

At this point the legislative process calls for a reconciliation of the two bills passed by the Senate and the House so one bill can be presented for passage by both. A Conference Committee is appointed by the leadership of the Senate and House, typically bi-partisan with membership determined by party representation in each chamber. Thus a Health Care Reform Conference Committee would consist of Senators and Representatives with a majority of each being Democrats; as is their right they have the majority in both houses as a result of the elections in 2008. This committee with argue and debate and trade and eventually should reach agreement and produce a bill--often not resembling at all the original bills presented. This bill is then voted up or down by both chambers and then presented to the President for signature and passage into law.

Small problem. The gaps between the two bills are so great that everyone appears dissatisfied. As evident as it was before that the purpose appears not to reform health care so much as to give the President a huge legislative victory before his first year in office is over, it is becoming more evident now. It is not about listening to the American people, or the members of their own party, for Obama, Reid and Pelosi; it is about passing any bill to say they passed monumental legislation reforming health care. Consequences be damned.

As evidence of this consider the plan being worked on by the Gang of Three to obviate the Conference Committee and instead work over members of their party behind closed doors and control the reconciliation process. Instead of having an open Conference Committee with representatives of both chambers of the legislature and both political parties, Obama, Reid and Pelosi are planning to shut out the opposition party and the American people and craft a new bill to gain passage. This is not about health care reform, this is about personal victory for narcissists ruling our country.

Promises of transparency from Pelosi in her campaign to gain Democratic majority in the House, promises of open leadership from Reid in his support of Obama's Presidential campaign, speech after speech by Obama about new day, and change, and transparency, and no more back room deals or governance by lobbyists. Rhetoric or deceit? You decide. In the meantime the representative elected by the American people are aiding and abetting their take-over of the government and disregard for the rules and laws which govern us. And complicit in the take-over is the majority of the American people who have elected those representatives. Will they continue their complicity in 2010? Will it be too late? Obama, Reid and Pelosi are betting it will be too late, that they can get to their fellow Democrats to pass their version, the Gang of Three version, of health care reform before the American people get to them in the ballot box in 2010.

I am not a Democrat, that should be pretty obvious by now. My Congressional Representative, Laura Richardson is, my two Senators, Diane Feinstein and Barbara Boxer, are, the majority of my neighbors and fellow Californians are Democrats or historically vote that way. Will those neighbors and Californians that Richardson, Boxer, Feinstein and other Democrats in California depend on for votes and support contact their elected representatives and demand openness? Demand they tell Reid and Pelosi that the American people deserve and demand open debate on reconciliation of the health care bill that will not only change their lives but also their children and grandchildren? I am hopeful but doubtful.

In the end I'm just a guy in Long Beach, California with a laptop a teeny piece of space on the internet and lots of opinions. Opinions that are not too popular for many in my region but mine nonetheless. Hopefully however the American people who voted for Hope and Change and a new attitude in Washington will follow the lead of C-Span Chairman and CEO Brian Lamb who wrote our Congressional leaders asking that cameras be allowed to cover health care reconciliation. Hopefully other guys, and gals, across Long Beach, California and the United States with laptops and pencils and phones will contact their elected representatives and demand the same thing. Don't hide from us, don't forever change our country behind closed doors.

One can hope.

Here again is link to C-Span letter

UPDATE 3:00 PM 1/6/10: Here is collection of video showing then Senator Obama promising 8 times to have televised health care debates and transparency. Click here.

Psssst....It's Too Big!

There is much furor among left wing Democrats and the far left over Independent Senator Joe Lieberman standing in the way of the Senate passing the 2,000 page health care bill from Harry Reid. From the beginning Lieberman has said he will oppose any bill that expands MediCare or has a government insurance option. Evidently when Reid sent his minions to write his bill he either did not listen to Lieberman, figured Lieberman would not be able to discern the provisions in 2000 pages of legal gobbly-gook, or did not believe he would stand firm on his position. Playing political poker Reid included the provisions for both expanding MediCare and a public option; calculating Lieberman would not want to tick off Democrats and be the lone vote in the way for passing historic legislation.

Desperately needing Lieberman's vote to reach the magic number of 60 needed to end debate and get a floor vote on his bill, Reid publicly has made no statements regarding Lieberman and his position. Instead Reid has focused his ire on Republicans for blocking the legislation--comparing the Republican position to that held by Democrats in the 1800's who blocked anti-slavery legislation and 1950's Democrats who blocked Civil Rights legislation.

Reid has shown he is not the brightest person in the Senate. Lieberman owes nothing to him nor the Democrats. Reid forgets that in 2006 Democrats ran a candidate against Lieberman in the primary election for his Senate seat and defeated Lieberman. Immediately following the election Lieberman announced he would run as an Independent. Reid quickly announced that the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee supported and endorsed Lieberman's opponent, Ned Lamont. The campaign was quite heated and vitriolic with Lamont and the Democrats tying Lieberman to President Bush in every speech, every campaign piece, every interview. For the DSCC and Lamont's campaign it was as if the Evil Axis crafting war on the American people was Bush-Cheney-Rove-Lieberman.

Lieberman won quite handily, beating Lamont and the GOP candidate combined. The people of Connecticut spoke, "We like Joe more than we like Harry." Back on Capitol Hill Lieberman received a chilly reception and many Democrats wanted Reid to yank his seniority on committees and any leadership positions he held. When 2008 came around and Democrats held 59 seats in the Senate plus Lieberman who has continued to caucus with Democrats everyone quickly realized that unless a Republican or two jump the aisle, Lieberman is critical to all Senate votes. He therefore needs to be listened to, everyone understands this but the Majority Leader, Harry Reid.

Hence where we find ourselves this morning. In order to get Lieberman's vote Reid needs to scrap, at minimum, the government insurance option and expansion of MediCare. In doing so he upsets the far left Senators and can lose more votes. While that fight goes on the next ones to rear their heads are the abortion provisions and costs. Some Democrats will not support a bill that provides any federal funds to pay for abortions or loosens regulations on abortions, other Democrats say they will not support any bill that does not include abortion assistance nor tightens regulations. Some Democrats actually care what the cost of this legislation is to Americans today and tomorrow, and the day after tomorrow, and the day after that.

And on and on the battles within the party continue on this massive legislation. All the while trying to cobble together the 60 votes he needs from within his own caucus, Reid is blaming Republicans for blocking the legislation--such a bold false statement as to be comical. Members of Reid's caucus are balking at the cost, balking at specific provisions and balking at the lack of information, but because the Republican members of the Senate have stayed united thus far in opposition to such a massive bill and its costs it is their fault Reid cannot deliver a bill to President Obama.

This bill is a disaster as written and a disaster if passed. Politically it is guaranteed to cost many Democrats their seats in the 2010 elections, and again in 2012 and more in 2014 when the laws begin to take effect. Because it aims not to reform the health care system in our country but rather to build a brand new one at enormous costs it is destined to end many political careers. Ignoring that almost 60% of Americans oppose the bill, and the more than 45% who strongly oppose it, Reid and the majority of Senate Democrats continue blindly down the path of trying to pass a bill that has not yet been fully released and disclosed and not yet had a full and accurate Congressional Budget Office cost analysis.

From the beginning I have said this bill and effort by Democrats is too big to succeed. Politically the Democrats and the Obama Administration would be better off taking smaller steps in reforming health care. Put forth a legislative time line that goes beyond 2010 that would entice voters to re-elect their Senators and Representatives so they can maintain their majorities. Instead of a legislative mantra and mandate from the White House of "just pass something" it should be "one-step at a time."

Tackle first the biggest external cost to health care delivery: tort reform. Instead of going against the people who voted for you, go against the trial lawyers who contribute to your campaigns. Simple tort reform eliminates billions of dollars in defensive diagnosis, defensive tests and defensive procedures.

Then tackle insurance costs. Allow insurers to compete nationally. Democrats love to tout how the marketplace needs competition but they will not allow insurance companies to compete. The competition is restricted by federal and state laws.

Once these two low hanging fruit have been knocked down then tackle fraud and abuse in MediCare and MediCaid/Cal. Obama has admitted it costs Americans billions and billions of dollars (most estimates are 10% of the total program budgets). So do something about it separate from massive legislation. Instead of paying for the fraud and abuse by lowering payments to health care providers, save the money being wasted and stolen by cracking down on it.

If Obama were to lead a concerted, continuing and successful effort to pass health care reform piece, by piece, by piece, he would fulfill the promise so many put in him in November 2008. He would show leadership, foresight, vision and success. Re-election in 2012 almost guaranteed and poll numbers slipping into the low 40's turning into high 50's or low 60's. Instead he sits on the sidelines until the last minute when it appears his pre-written legacy may need some editing and admonishes, scolds and tries to frighten Legislators to quickly pass a bill. Time being more important than substance or consequence.

Joe Lieberman is taking considerable heat from Democrats and liberals for maintaining his stand, on the other side he is being applauded for sticking by his word--that he gave Reid very early on in this debate. Hopefully his stance and the resulting altering of Reid's bill will derail this current health care reform effort and we can start again. But smaller and in targeted detail that does not obfuscate the provisions nor costs from the American people.

In the meantime why all the heat on Joe for standing by his position and no heat on the other 59 Senators who caved into his position and abandoned theirs?

Uh-Oh! Obama and Dems Talking About Jobs Again

In Washington the White House and Congressional Democrats are working on another spending spree that is meant to create jobs in 2010. Given their inability to understand the $787 billion "stimulus package" passed in February the American taxpayer, and worker, has cause for concern. You remember the stimulus package, it was supposed to limit unemployment to 8% (now over 10%) create or save millions of jobs (three and half million jobs lost since its passage) and help our economy recover.

It appears the Obama Administration and Democrats cannot remember what they passed since the bill was set up for almost none of the $787 billion to be spent in 2009. The spending from the stimulus package was meant to begin in 2010, to coincide with re-election plans in November and maintaining the majority in both Houses. Further, over $540 billion of the funds are not scheduled for expenditure until 2011. Ooops.

It is now evident that the severity of the economy was misjudged and perhaps more of the funds from the bill should have been spent this year. At the time the timeline was to inject some funds before the 2010 midterm elections and then have the bulk of the funding hit in 2011 so by the 2012 elections, including one for President, the economy will have recovered and Congress and Obama could point to the spending as being the cause.

Now looking at the political and economic landscape, the House Democrats up for re-election in 2010 are pressuring the White House to do something so they can pump more money sooner into their Congressional Districts before unemployed voters go to the polls and vote them out. Not willing to wait for the money already scheduled to be spent in 2010, some are worried their constituents (and by that we do not mean voters do we?) will be out of work, furloughed or otherwise facing reduced paychecks and with those reduced checks comes reduced support.

From a Press-Telegram article on the jobs issue here are some statements from Congressional Democrats showing how out of touch they really are:

The stimulus boosted employment but "did it in a way that was not as highly visible as a lot of people would like," said Rep. Betty Sutton, D-Ohio, one of the House members devising the jobs bill. "It did so in somewhat of a scattershot approach - a job here and a job there, trickled out over time. ..."

Ms. Sutton, it is not high visibility people want but actual jobs. When doling out pork the results tend to be scattershot, a skate park here, a walking path there, raises and not jobs over there...

"I hope we don't play around the edges with this and we do what will work. Invest the money now," said Rep. Barbara Lee, D-Oakland, who chairs the Congressional Black Caucus.

$787 Billion is playing around the edges? But when you voted for and passed the bill Obama said it would create millions of jobs, that's not the edges.

"The American people have an anger about the growth of the deficit because they're not getting anything for it," she (Speaker Nancy Pelosi) said in a conference call.

No, we are angry about the deficit because we are having to pay for it, and we will not get anything for it today or tomorrow. It appears her approach is give something to everyone out of the public trough and we will be happy. Typical politician trying to find the price point when buying votes. This works for special interests, like unions and fellow government employees, but it fails for most Americans who think beyond today when they vote.

The one line in the article that really showed how limited the group intellect and how narrow-minded the thinking is in Washington was this:

"House members also are considering a plan to funnel aid to state and local governments with the assurance the money would be used to preserve jobs."

Whose jobs would they be preserving? State and local governments that are cash strapped and facing huge deficits need to cut spending, the number one expense as with any business is salaries and benefits. By giving a one time shot of cash to a state or city to "preserve jobs" are we putting off the inevitable correction to budgets for one year, and adding another year of future benefit payments? This is a direct payment to government employees, the only organized labor sector that has grown in the past decade, who vote overwhelmingly Democrat, and who would be able to keep their jobs until the 2010 elections.

Let's review the attack on jobs and businesses thus far from the 111th Congress with encouragement and support from the Obama White House. Keep in mind two things: first, businesses, particularly small businesses, employ the overwhelming majority of Americans--they also lay off the majority of unemployed workers; second, our economy is Consumer-centric, with consumer spending responsible for approximately 70% of our economic activity. Fewer jobs means fewer consumers means fewer businesses able to stay in business--and hire workers.

The stimulus package was passed and added $787 billion to the budget and deficit. The funds are primarily targeted to public works, which puts most of the funds through government bureaucrats which leads to inefficiencies and loss of funds as it trickles down to the job site; as well disproportionate amounts of funding go to public works contracts not with private contractors but with public employees--keeping those jobs on city, county and state payrolls and budgets.

Congress tried, and thankfully thus far has failed, to pass Cap and Trade. A massive tax burden on American businesses meant to prevent "global warming." News is coming out that much of the scientific study has been skewed and the books cooked to prevent dissenting views and research on the subject from coming to light. The Cap and Trade bill would increase taxes on American businesses hundreds of billions of dollars with no return. It would lead to job losses in the United States as manufacturers take even more jobs out of the country.

The Senate and House are working on massive health care bills that if passed will increase taxes across the board for health care insurance, medical devices (virtually everything you buy for health and personal care from tampons to toothbrushes), employers and individuals. More taxes means less money to spend on other items, such as microwaves and bicycles, which dampens further the economic engine of America.

My reaction to the Democrats and White House working towards another jobs bill is that we will end up with another couple of hundred billion dollars in spending with them looking for who to pay for the tab. You can bet that whoever gets stuck with the attendant tax bill are those who are currently employing millions of Americans, or have the ability to hire as many if they had the funds to do so.

If they are serious about creating jobs they need to get over their "the rich must pay" rhetoric, quit defining "middle class" as their union supporters, and enact tax incentives for businesses and consumers. After the Bush tax cuts in 2000 the annual revenue to the U.S. Treasury from tax collection increased every year until 2008. Making those cut permanent and adding marginal cuts across the board will put money back on the balance sheets of small businesses, increase disposable income for the American consumer and boost the economy as spending and hiring slowly increase.

Unfortunately Congressional Democrats and members of the Obama Administration think they can spend money more wisely and efficiently than the average American, who evidently cannot be trusted with their own financial decisions. Unfortunately they have no sense of history, economics or memory as to what bills and spending packages they have already passed.

Bad news for the American worker and economy, the people who brought us Stimulus I are working on Stimulus II.