California's dreaming

Well at least the leaders are.  Instead of dealing with the L.A. fires, they're worried about what they perceive as the real threat to citizens of the state: Donald Trump.  I kid you not:

Priorities people

While people are 'busy' misguidedly protesting man's impact on the planet (you know, while they are busy impacting the planet), there's a much bigger problem on the horizon.  Ebola.

I'm not an alarmist about the disease.  I don't think Ebola is a plague about to sweep the planet, but it does seem to be a much bigger problem than health authorities have been letting on.  With an expected 21,000 cases by November,  the WHO sees much bigger numbers on the near horizon:

CDC scientists conclude there may be as many as 21,000 reported and unreported cases in just those two countries as soon as the end of this month, according to a draft version of the report obtained by The Associated Press. They also predict that the two countries could have a staggering 550,000 to 1.4 million cases by late January.

That's right, 1.4 million cases.  At that rate of progression, Africa could be an empty continent in two years, and ebola would undoubtedly spread beyond the continent.  Like I said, it's not a world-killer. And I don't think it's a crisis level problem that rises to the Ukraine, ISIS or national debt at this point  but certainly it's a greater concern than our not-really-warming climate.

Democrat priorities laid bare

This lays bare how Democrats think.  Veterans have been cast aside in favor of illegal immigrants.  How this could possibly sit with the American public, any of it, is beyond me.  This is a glaring example of where Democrat priorities lie - not in what's right, but in what's right for them in vote buying. Disgraceful.

A final effort by Senate Republicans to halt cuts to pensions of military retirees failed late Tuesday, after Democrats blocked an amendment to the controversial budget bill.

The two-year budget agreement, which cleared a key test vote earlier in the day, was expected to get a final vote no later than Wednesday.

Ahead of the final vote, Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., tried unsuccessfully to use a parliamentary tactic to force a vote on the amendment, which he wrote to undo the cuts for military retirees.

A provision in the already House-passed bill would cut retirement benefits for military retirees by $6 billion over 10 years.

Sessions wanted to instead eliminate an estimated $4.2 billion in annual spending by reining in an IRS credit that illegal immigrants have claimed.

He and fellow senators argued the bill unfairly sticks veterans and other military retirees with the cost of new spending.

Spending cuts have to happen, and they have to come from somewhere. But come on, does this seem right to anyone?

Listing President Obama's Priorties

If you had to take all of the Obama agenda items and prioritize them, how do you think they would look? A lot of your answer would depend on how you view the President's motivations, even just from the perspective of a conservative eye. If you view Obama as full of hubris and self-importance the list below would look quite different. However, I personally believe that there is a side of the President that is thinking bigger picture. I think he's thinking about winning a much larger victory and is willing to have a longer term window to achieve it.


And I don't think that is entirely at odds with the hubris view. If the President wants to affect a sea change, a dynamic shift in the political culture that moves the country unalterably to the left, does that not make him a historical President? Even more so than a mundane cap-and-trade victory? So by thinking really-big-picture he is in a sense believing he can transcend the smaller victories and have his name written as one of the greatest Presidents of all time. The Muhammad Ali of Presidents if you will.


With that in mind, here's my interpretation of the priorities of this President:


(1) Ensure a dynastic rule of the Democratic party that will last for decades. Obama wants power centralized and held in Democratic hands for years to come. Closer to home he wants power centralized in his hands for years to come - as many as he can get. This requires a myriad of efforts including - staying popular, staying in the limelight, demonizing the Republicans and/or conservatives at every turn, fudging the the census with ACORN and gerrymandering districting efforts, a re-visitation of the Fairness Doctrine, working more and more closely with the complicit press, assigning control of the positions of captains of industry to a hand-picked, loyal few, rewarding those loyal to him (like the UAW), and punishing those opposing him (like IGs), thereby buying or intimidating loyalty, redistributing wealth to loyal voting blocks in order to ensure loyalty. Pretty much every decision can be viewed in the light of whether or not it will help Democrats retain power.



(2) Federalized Health Care - this is sort of an offshoot of the first point oddly enough. It's not about saving money because there are smarter options around than having the government take over. It's not about providing coverage to the uncovered, because there are non-governmental ways to ensure that as well. Governmental solutions run counter to the American way. But not the Chicago way. It's all about control. Health Care is a means to control who gets what health care, and thereby help enforce loyalty. They want to put Republicans in a position to have to cut back on the unsustainable costs so they can point out to the newly coddled class that "the Republicans don't like you - and this proves it." Don't buy the straw man argument that they'll use to say conservatives say the government can't compete so why are they so worried about a market-based government provider. The truth is the government is supposed to be the referee so it can't be a player in the game too or the bias in it's own favor will naturally seep out into it's actions. Ultimately it's a takeover. and takeovers are all about power.


(3) Environmental Reform - whether it's a cap and trade system or a tax, this is about two things - generating government revenue, so they can redistribute wealth in any social engineering way they desire and about, once again - control. The government can push you to behave in certain ways if they control the taxes and rules governing that behavior. They can subsidize behavior they like and penalize behavior they don't like. They can do it at a corporate level too if they want to do so. Are they really that interested in the environment? Are they really convinced Al Gore is right and thousands of dissenting scientists are out-to-lunch? Maybe. It doesn't matter - that's not the Obama motivation. The environmental movement has become the home of many socialists and communists and it's all about more government control.


(4) Hubris-related accomplishments - getting peace in the middle east (at any cost, including abandoning allies like Israel and embracing tyrants like the regime in Iran and ignoring those that won't play ball like North Korea), maybe getting an airport or a highway or 500 schools named after himself, dramatically scaling back on the military which will raise his star with the left quite far. Heck, why not cure cancer? All of these accomplishments would boost his own image. It may or may not be a top priority, but it would seem like it's still part of his thought process.

(5) Bankrupting the economy. This one I'm not sure about. In a perverse way, bankrupting the nation could be an act of hubris. He'd certainly be remembered for it. Conversely, perhaps the President sees the spending as an absolutely essential step to consolidating power. If that's the case, the money is inconsequential, it's a by-product of trying to achieve his objective. Or perhaps he is so far to the left, he secretly wants to see America fail so that he can have it re-built in a more socialist way. If the government collapses and the creditors are left holding the bag, when you start up the People's Republic of America, where can the bill collectors go? Nowhere. And who in the US will complain when they are told they're not going to be held responsible for the debt their government incurred? In fact, they'll argue, no one will be held responsible - voila - we've provided you with a 70 year free lunch (dating back to the Roosevelt days) and all you have to do is swallow this giant red pill.


What fits best with my previous assumptions is that it's all about obtaining and maintaining power. Those of you still enthralled by Obama have to wake up to the reality that the United States is the greatest country in the history of the world for one reason and one reason only: FREEDOM. Capitalism works because it is founded on freedom. Innovation is inspired by freedom. The pursuit of happiness is an option because of freedom. The rights enshrined in the Constitution are not 'negative rights' they are the most positive rights imaginable. Whether I have the Obama motivations right or not you've got to consider this; the actions entailed in the above points are all actions that will lessen your freedom. The question you have to ask yourself is this; Is that what you really want?

MoveOn fails Economics 101

I was checking out the moveon.org website this last Wednesday - to see if there's any new radical progressive lunacy worth reading for a good laugh. There was the usual stuff to be expected -an article and video about Al Franken needing help because Norm Coleman is obviously evil. An article of talking points on John McCain. Complaints about Iraq. The usual stuff. By the way, I didn't see any apology to General Petraeus. Maybe I missed it.

What caught my attention was the front page pseudo-mission statement:

Hundreds of thousands of us voted, and now the results are in. We now know what to focus on in 2009: universal health care, economic recovery and job creation,building a green economy and stopping climate change, and ending the war in Iraq.

Two things struck me. Firstly, that's a lot of stuff for 2009. And for MoveOn.org, I have 3 words: Go For It. 4 top priorities being focused on means you'll accomplish zero. Way to spread yourself thin. Be ambitious and choke on the mammoth proportions of what you've assigned for yourself. Accomplish nothing and leave your members disillusioned for 2010. That works well for me and hopefully the GOP in 2010 too.

Secondly, and most interestingly, the number one priority is universal health care. That's number one? In a potential super-recession that Obama must 'lead' us from as if he were the new Moses with $1 trillion deep pockets, MoveOn deems universal health care the biggest thing needing attention. I read further and found this quote at the head of the reasons behind the choice;

If this country had universal health care, it would help the economy. Our businesses would not have to be at such a disadvantage competing with global companies whose countries DO have national health care. It would also help individuals and families, economically, as many of us go into debt to have health care, or don't have it at all.”—Jane D. Montpelier, VT

Universal health care, which likely would outstrip Social Security as the biggest funding requirement of a cash strapped (but free-spending) government, is good for the economy? How shall I call thee uninformed? Let me count the ways.

1) The costs would sink the government. Who's going to bail out Congress, the Senate and White House when they are the next Big 3 on the verge of financial collapse?

2) The Big 3 serve as a prime example of what UHC would not achieve. The cost burdens on the Big 3 do not go away with the advent of UHC. Of the $70 per hour in fully loaded labour costs, about half is in benefits.

Benefit/government required programs in 2006 added an additional $33.58 for each active hour worked. These costs include: group life insurance, disability benefits, and Supplemental Unemployment Benefits (SUB), Job Security (JOBS), pensions, unemployment compensation, Social Security taxes, and hospital, surgical, prescription drug, dental, and vision care benefits.

It's further worth noting that any benefits to GM would also accrue to Toyota. The UHC change does nothing to switch those competitive advantages away from Toyota, it just lowers both automakers the same amount.

3) UHC will not cover everything, it doesn't in Canada, and it doesn't cover prescription drugs, which are often a major component of health care. In Canada private insurers still are responsible for those benefits and they are still funded in most cases by employers.

4) How much of the established health care trust the Big 3 worked on with the UAW already mitigated their exposure to this issue?

5) Other industries like the insurance industry would see a negative impact, as well as the medical industry in general. With UHC health care comes regulation and mandated charges per procedure or visit. In Canada the best doctors 'all' try to move to the US because they are making a fraction of the potential they can in the US. It's called the brain drain. Let me show you a crude Microsoft Paint sketch I threw together.

Sorry for the quality, I'm no artist.

These are a Supply and Demand curves. Don't be afraid - it's pretty simple. At every price suppliers (in this case medical) will supply a product/service. The higher the price, the more they will be willing and able to sell. Conversely, the higher the price (on the left side of the graph) the less consumers are willing to buy it or afford it. If a 60" LCD sold for $12, how many would you buy? What if it sold for $100,000?

This system is true universally. Even in socialist countries it cannot be avoided, it is reality. It can however be manipulated in many ways. Systems always try to work their way towards equilibrium - that is, where the supply and demand curves meet. They don't always get there but that's the natural inclination. Here's where the socialism comes in.

Lets assume that the system is at or close to equilibrium for tonsil removal. That is P1 (original price) and Q1 (original number of tonsil removals). Say it's $100 and 1,000,000 tonsils get removed every year at that price. If the government comes along and says instead of $100, we're going to mandate a price ceiling of $75 (P2), then what happens? The curves no longer meet at that point. Suddenly the number of doctors willing to do tonsillectomies drops to Q2S. Let's say enough to do 700,000 per year. Even at the original demand we have a shortage of 300,000 per year. But something else happens. Those who couldn't previously afford it are now willing to consider it because it has become affordable for them. Let's say another 200,000 people want to have tonsils removed. The shortage becomes more acute. We now have 500,000 people a year not getting tonsillectomies who want or need them. Yikes!

What ends up happening is that one or both of the supply and demand curves moves to accommodate the new reality (price shock). Likely both will start to occur. The government, sensing a shortage, is likely to mandate more tonsillectomies. You know how they like to meddle - it's what they do. They artificially try to manipulate supply. But just as you can't make somebody buy something they don't want, you can't make somebody sell something they don't want to either. Not in a country where freedom exists.

What happens is doctors retire. They move to another country where they can make more. Some go back to school to become lawyers instead. They become specialists in fields other than tonsillectomies. They limit their patient lists to the wealthiest or those who will pay a premium for express service. Kids in medical school re-think their priorities "I'll go into law instead because the government hates the idea of tort reform anyway." The supply curve moves to where it wants to go anyway. On the demand side the reverse happens - waiting lists of months, people going elsewhere to get it done if possible (e.g. Canada or the UK), people finding illegal suppliers of the tonsillectomy where they can pay even less than $75. It's not a pretty sight.

What it effectively does is suppress talent. Particularly the top tier of talent. In the medical field the United States goes from being the pioneer to being an also ran. The refrain about how it works so well in other countries is hollow. I took my son into emergency here in the Toronto area last summer - he got a tiny piece of stone chip in his eye. I tried to fix it myself, but I couldn't. So we went to the hospital. Why not - it's free here. We sat in the waiting room for 5 hours. Not because of prioritized emergencies. There was nothing critical that evening, there was just a line up. Ironically, the couple ahead of us had their daughter there for the exact same issue as my son. When we finally saw the one doctor on duty for the entire emergency ward, he was at the end of his shift and exhausted. He took care of the problem with a swab in about 30 seconds. The wait time to visit time ratio was horrific. I would have gone to a clinic or the family doctor but at the mandated prices doctors can charge for visits on a Sunday evening, they were ALL closed.

Is that the vision MoveOn has for America? Probably not, but it is the reality they are intent on imposing on you. Don't let them do it.