There has been a lot of talk over the past year about federal spending and the "national" debt. Those typically on the left, or socialists as I call them, want to increase taxes on the "rich", keep the taxes the same for the "middle class", and lower the taxes for those at the low end of the income bracket. Those on the "right" typically are OK with everyone getting a tax break although they don't see any problem with the tax structure i.e. increased percentage imposed as you make more money. The flaw in both sides is that the rich can afford to pay more in taxes because they are rich but they both will argue on how much is too much.
There are those who say cut taxes but don't mention anything about cutting spending or will suggest cutting a couple million dollars out of a multi-trillion dollar budget which is a drop in the bucket. The areas of the budget that should have cuts made differ depending on which side of the aisle you are on. For most Democrat/Socialists defense is the only option and for most Republicans/Decepti-Cons defense is the sacred cow that cannot be touched under any circumstance. The only place that both sets of people tend to never want to touch is Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid; it is these entitlement programs that are bankrupting the Republic and need to be done away with as soon as possible while still fulfilling the promise that was made to the elderly and those who are nearing retirement age.
Now you may think that I am just one of those heartless bastards who want granny and grandpa to die a slow, painful, and agonizing death because they can't afford there medicine, doctor visits, or a place to live much less food if it weren't for their government benefits. If you assume that, you are wrong. Medicaid should be abolished on the federal level completely and if the individual States want a program like that they are free to do so but if they go bankrupt because of it they don't get bailed out for their poor choices. Social Security and Medicare can both be phased out. In both cases there would be a cut-off date where anyone born before the date will be eligible when they reach retirement age or they may opt out if they so desire. Those born after the cut-off date would not be eligible to receive Social Security or Medicare but they will be young enough that they will have the opportunity to plan for their own retirement there will be some who were born after that date who have already paid into the system that may ask, "What about the money that I already paid in?" Unfortunately, they will never see that money again because the government doesn't have the money to give back. Life sucks sometimes get over it.
Although Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security are a significant part of the federal budget, there are areas and agencies that can be eliminated either by abolishing the agency or defunding it which would have the same effect. Many of the agencies or bureaucracies that are in existence are unconstitutional and should be abolished anyway regardless of what the Supreme Court or some federal judge may say. The Constitution does not need to be interpreted by some nitwit with a law degree who studied "constitutional law." In constitutional law courses don't teach the Constitution all it does is teach case history which is opinions of judges who ruled in the past.
If you visit you will be able to get a list of all federal agencies, a list so long that they had to have a tab to click on for each letter in the alphabet except Q-X-Y-Z. If you go through these lists, most of the agencies can be eliminated posthaste. Among the first agencies I would eliminate immediately would be Agriculture, Education, Energy, the EPA, FDA, forestry, parks, Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Developement, OSHA, Labor, FCC, FEC, and BATFE. In addition, I would reduce the funding for the DEA, Transportation, Commerce, State, and Justice. These cuts alone would reduce federal spending significantly.
Another huge cut I would make would be foreign aid and funding for the United Nations, NATO, and the IMF. These all would be cut immediately and completely. If people want to contribute their time and money to help those in need, they are free to do so without the coercion of the government. When individuals choose to give, they tend to make sure that their money and time will be put to good use instead of giving money to another government whether corrupt or not. When we give money to another nation, with the money, the United States feels that they are then entitled to tell the nation on the receiving end of the funds transfer what to do and how to run it's country and they may feel they have to listen to us politely or risk getting cut off in the future. With us no longer giving other nations money, they are free to tell us to mind our own business; after all, who are we to tell another country what to do. If Israel wants to bomb Iran, who are we to say no. Israel has its own interests to think about. In addition to cutting all foreign aid, I would also start closing military bases overseas and bring the troops home. In an age when we can deploy troops around the world in a matter of hours, and a Navy that is always out to sea in all corners of the globe, we don't need to occupy any foreign nation. Some may call me an isolationist, I say I am a non-interventionist.
One of our great founding fathers warned of being drawn into foreign entanglements. We were also warned that when we ally ourselves with another nation, we also get their enemies. Lastly, we were also warned not to go searching abroad for dragons to slay. It would be wise for us to take heed and follow the advice of our founders. If you are believe that we should be involved in conflicts across the globe, then at least you should demand an official declaration of war. If you want to allow Congress to give that power to the President, the Constitution must be amended to strip them of that power and give it to the President but I warn you, that in doing so, you give the President almost dictatorial powers.
Wednesday, December 22, 2010
Friday, June 18, 2010
Disclose Act
Over the past couple of weeks there has been more talk about Congress passing the Disclose Act. This would, in effect, give the federal government the ability to say what is acceptable both in print and online through the FCC. I don't think that I'm being paranoid in saying or thinking that this will be used more strictly against those who are critical of the government than those who paint a favorable picture of the government. I know I'm beating a dead horse in asking the question, "What part of 'Congress shall make no law...' don't they understand?" If there was one type of speech or print that they would have wanted to protect over another, it would have been political speech. I don't think they would think political speech was more important than any other speech but if you look at what the Brits tried to do in the lead up to the revolt and during the war, you can understand why the amendments that ultimately became our Bill of Rights were so important. The States had just finished fighting a war that freed them from a tyrannical government that violated those rights.
If you read the third amendment, it deals with "quartering" troops. This may seem like an odd amendment to us but that was a concern to our founders. Why? That was an injustice that was forced upon the colonists before and during the revolution. Read all amendments and ask yourself, why were they so important that the founders felt the need to state unequivocally that these were areas that the federal government could not make laws about. The emphasis is federal government for a reason. The Constitution is directed only on the federal government not the States. The fourteenth amendment, contrary to popular opinion, does not make the amendments and provisions applicable to the States this is why they have their own State constitutions.
If you read the third amendment, it deals with "quartering" troops. This may seem like an odd amendment to us but that was a concern to our founders. Why? That was an injustice that was forced upon the colonists before and during the revolution. Read all amendments and ask yourself, why were they so important that the founders felt the need to state unequivocally that these were areas that the federal government could not make laws about. The emphasis is federal government for a reason. The Constitution is directed only on the federal government not the States. The fourteenth amendment, contrary to popular opinion, does not make the amendments and provisions applicable to the States this is why they have their own State constitutions.
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
Mayors Against Illegal Guns
Mayor Bloomberg(NYC) and his anti-gun cronies in the group Mayors Against Illegal Guns (MAIG) are at it again by trying to get Congress to close the "gun show loophole." What is the gun show loophole? First lets look at what a loophole is in regards to the law. A loophole is also known as a law. So if someone is claiming that they want to close a loophole they are trying to change the law to make a legal action illegal in the future. So closing the "gun show loophole" means that they are trying to get an action that is currently legal to become illegal. What action is that? They want to ban all private firearm transfers so that any firearm that is purchased at a gun show would have to go through a background check. This may seem like a harmless action but it costs money and will not stop anyone who is not legally able to own a firearm from buying one. Criminals do not go to gun shows in order to obtain a firearm, they will either steal them or buy them from another criminal.
Another gift from this bill that MAIG wants passed is anyone who wants to put on a gun show must, at least 30 days before the show submit to the State's Attorney General (AG) a list of vendors who will be selling or offering to sell anything at the show or face a fine or imprisonment. Who is a vendor? Anyone who sells or offers to sell a firearm or firearm related product either on site or off site to an individual. This means that if you are at a gun show with a friend shopping for an AR-15 but can't afford to buy one at the show and that friend offers to sell you his AR-15; the law has been violated and the person putting on the gun show can be subject to a fine and/or imprisonment. It doesn't stop there either, you and your friend could be subject to a fine or imprisonment also.
If this law were to pass and become law, I would tell the feds to go to hell. They do not have the authority to regulate gun show no matter what they say. Article I section 8 says that Congress has the authority to "Regulate Commerce ... among the several States ..." not within or throughout the States. This part of the "Commerce clause" has been twisted and abused for the past 80 years or more. This part of Article I section 8 was put in place because when the Articles of Confederation were in effect, each individual State could and would place taxes and tariffs on goods anytime they crossed their borders. The Commerce clause was put in the Constitution to stop this practice from occurring. As I have stated in a previous posting, all federal laws regulating intrastate commerce are unconstitutional and many of the federal laws regulating interstate commerce are illegal as well.
If you go to the website for MAIG http://www.mayorsagainstillegalguns.org/html/home/home.shtml and look at the mayors in this group, you will notice that many of the large cities in the United States are represented. If you also look at the crime rates in these cities and their gun laws you will notice that the crime rates are high and their gun laws tend to be restrictive.
The head of the group is Mike Bloomberg. In his city of New York City, he has acted like a king in his laws. He has, in the past, sent private investigators to other States to carry out straw purchase of firearms and then sued the gun shops, in a NYC court, even though they did nothing wrong. In doing this the ATF told him that his actions could have jeopardized ongoing undercover investigations. Some gun shops agreed to more oversight because they couldn't afford the legal costs of fighting the lawsuit. All of the gun shops that were targeted were small shops, do you think this was an accident? Virginia was one of the States that was invaded by Bloomberg's henchmen, as a result of the actions of Bloomberg, Virginia passed a law that would make it illegal for this to happen again. In addition to this, Virginia sent a letter to Bloomberg telling him to run New York City and leave Virginia's business to Virginia. Being the conceited billionaire mayor, he thinks that he can do anything he wants even if he isn't supposed to.
One of the other mayors on the list is the mayor of Washington, D.C. I his city, there had been a total handgun ban until the Supreme Court ruled that it violated the Second Amendment of the Constitution. Before the ban was overturned, the crime rate in D.C. was much higher than the national average as the population was in a steady rate of decline. When the ban was overturned, the city council and the mayor have done everything in their power to make the handgun regulations as restrictive as possible in order to keep as many of their residents unarmed as possible. Since the end of the ban, the crime rate has started to decline but the laws are still so restrictive that semiautomatic handguns are still banned because of the D.C.'s definition of what a machine gun is.
You'll also find the mayors of Chicago, Philadelphia, Boston, Atlanta, Cleveland, Portland and others.
Another gift from this bill that MAIG wants passed is anyone who wants to put on a gun show must, at least 30 days before the show submit to the State's Attorney General (AG) a list of vendors who will be selling or offering to sell anything at the show or face a fine or imprisonment. Who is a vendor? Anyone who sells or offers to sell a firearm or firearm related product either on site or off site to an individual. This means that if you are at a gun show with a friend shopping for an AR-15 but can't afford to buy one at the show and that friend offers to sell you his AR-15; the law has been violated and the person putting on the gun show can be subject to a fine and/or imprisonment. It doesn't stop there either, you and your friend could be subject to a fine or imprisonment also.
If this law were to pass and become law, I would tell the feds to go to hell. They do not have the authority to regulate gun show no matter what they say. Article I section 8 says that Congress has the authority to "Regulate Commerce ... among the several States ..." not within or throughout the States. This part of the "Commerce clause" has been twisted and abused for the past 80 years or more. This part of Article I section 8 was put in place because when the Articles of Confederation were in effect, each individual State could and would place taxes and tariffs on goods anytime they crossed their borders. The Commerce clause was put in the Constitution to stop this practice from occurring. As I have stated in a previous posting, all federal laws regulating intrastate commerce are unconstitutional and many of the federal laws regulating interstate commerce are illegal as well.
If you go to the website for MAIG http://www.mayorsagainstillegalguns.org/html/home/home.shtml and look at the mayors in this group, you will notice that many of the large cities in the United States are represented. If you also look at the crime rates in these cities and their gun laws you will notice that the crime rates are high and their gun laws tend to be restrictive.
The head of the group is Mike Bloomberg. In his city of New York City, he has acted like a king in his laws. He has, in the past, sent private investigators to other States to carry out straw purchase of firearms and then sued the gun shops, in a NYC court, even though they did nothing wrong. In doing this the ATF told him that his actions could have jeopardized ongoing undercover investigations. Some gun shops agreed to more oversight because they couldn't afford the legal costs of fighting the lawsuit. All of the gun shops that were targeted were small shops, do you think this was an accident? Virginia was one of the States that was invaded by Bloomberg's henchmen, as a result of the actions of Bloomberg, Virginia passed a law that would make it illegal for this to happen again. In addition to this, Virginia sent a letter to Bloomberg telling him to run New York City and leave Virginia's business to Virginia. Being the conceited billionaire mayor, he thinks that he can do anything he wants even if he isn't supposed to.
One of the other mayors on the list is the mayor of Washington, D.C. I his city, there had been a total handgun ban until the Supreme Court ruled that it violated the Second Amendment of the Constitution. Before the ban was overturned, the crime rate in D.C. was much higher than the national average as the population was in a steady rate of decline. When the ban was overturned, the city council and the mayor have done everything in their power to make the handgun regulations as restrictive as possible in order to keep as many of their residents unarmed as possible. Since the end of the ban, the crime rate has started to decline but the laws are still so restrictive that semiautomatic handguns are still banned because of the D.C.'s definition of what a machine gun is.
You'll also find the mayors of Chicago, Philadelphia, Boston, Atlanta, Cleveland, Portland and others.
Friday, March 26, 2010
Finally a Response From My Representative
Now that our health care industry has been nationalized and taken over by the Kremlin on the Potomac, I have finally received a response from my non-representing representative. Of course with the amount of emails and calls he received, he most likely sent out an email that went to everyone. However his email is full of half truths, manipulations, and lies all the while not touching on the constitutionality of the bill.
His letter is as follows:
Dear Mr. Bergstresser:
Thank you for contacting my office regarding healthcare reform. On Sunday, March 21, 2010, the Senate's version of healthcare reform (HR 3590) and the reconciliation package (HR 4872) passed out of the House of Representatives, both with my support.
During the campaign and throughout the last year, it has become increasingly apparent that Americans can no longer tolerate the status quo when it comes to affording healthcare in this country. Double digit increases to insurance rates are bankrupting families, small businesses and our nation. Insurance costs for small businesses have increased 129 percent over the last 10 years and Oregon's insurance rates have gone up almost 20 percent per year for the past 7 years.
Many of my concerns in November about cost containment in the House version of healthcare reform have been addressed in the combined final healthcare package. The subsidy levels to help lower income individuals afford healthcare are more appropriate and approximately $200 billion below what was included in the House healthcare bill. These levels continue to taper off in the out years as rising insurance costs continue to moderate. The number of folks added to Medicaid is reduced in the Senate version to a more reasonable 138 percent of the federal poverty level to encourage more personal responsibility in our healthcare. I lobbied aggressively for reductions in premiums for individuals who practiced healthier lifestyles and I authored a strong comparative effectiveness research (CER) piece of the bill. CER would give an independent authority the ability to foster solid, peer reviewed research into the best diagnostics, treatments and healthcare delivery. The research CER makes available will help doctors and patients have the best information to make their own healthcare decisions. Both of these elements are included in the final healthcare package.
More significantly, I and a few others refused to sign onto the final reform package until Congress and the Administration pledged to stop the Medicare reimbursement discrimination against Oregon and other states that provide high quality, low cost healthcare as the result of an antiquated reimbursement formula dating back 40 years. Currently, Oregon, which practices quality, cost effective medicine, receives half the reimbursement rate of inefficient areas on the East coast. We won the battle. Legislative language was included in the bill, along with a signed letter and personal guarantee by the President, that will move our system from one that encourages waste and unnecessary tests and procedures to one that reimburses health care providers like Oregon based on successful health outcomes. These changes will dramatically reduce the cost of healthcare nationally.
The new Medicare reimbursement methods will mean more doctors will be willing to see and treat seniors who rely on Medicare. Seniors will see an immediate $250 rebate on prescription drug costs. The legislation also provides for a 50 percent discount on brand name drugs and eventual closing of the Medicare Part D prescription drug donut hole by 2020.
Effective immediately, this bill eliminates co-pays or deductibles for preventive care under Medicare or new private plans. Health insurers may not drop people from coverage because they are sick, refuse coverage to children with pre-existing conditions, or impose lifetime or annual limits on coverage in new plans. There will be a temporary risk pool for uninsured that may have pre-existing conditions and temporary reinsurance for 55-64 year old retirees until exchanges are available. Young people up to 26 years of age will be able to stay on their parents' health plan. There will be new investment in training primary care doctors, nurses and public health professionals to take care of the expanded population that now have access to healthcare. By 2014, these benefits will be available to all Americans through state exchanges that allow consistent regulation and decreased costs.
The final package is also much friendlier to small businesses. In this legislation, 96 percent of small businesses are not subject to providing healthcare for their employees. Larger businesses (over 50 employees) are encouraged to provide healthcare but in a much more flexible and affordable way. The only requirements large businesses must adhere to are deductibles per individual must not exceed $2,000 and the cost per employee must not exceed 9.5 percent of a family's income. Small businesses with low average payrolls are eligible for tax credits up to 35-50 percent for healthcare costs if they choose to provide healthcare for their employees. Businessmen and women are also allowed to deduct the full cost of their insurance for the first time and the exchanges allow small businesses to pool their collective associations' buying power to give them the same ability as large employers to negotiate advantageous insurance rates.
Finally, the healthcare package attacks the rising cost of healthcare on our national budget and debt. According to the impartial Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the package reduces the national deficit by $138 billion in the first 10 years. Furthermore, the CBO estimates that the deficit will be reduced even more as the positive aspects of the health care overhaul affect different parts of the health care industry and economy. The CBO also feels the federal budgetary commitment to healthcare will decrease during the decades following the 10 year budgetary window.
I consider these all strong, positive reasons to vote for the healthcare reform proposal. There is more work to be done as we flesh out some of the outlines in the reform. The bottom line is that this work begins to address the desperately needed transformation of our 40 year old healthcare delivery system which is on the brink of implosion. If we like our current healthcare, we need to make these changes to be able to afford it in the 21st century.
I will continue to fight for the policies that best reflect the needs of the 5th Congressional District of Oregon. For more information on the final health care package, please visit my website at http://schrader.house.gov.
Sincerely,
KURT SCHRADER
Member of Congress
My response to his letter is as follows:
"Many of my concerns in November about cost containment in the House version of healthcare reform have been addressed in the combined final healthcare package."
If he was concerned about the costs why is it he voted for the bill without the "cost containment" in it. Notice in the beginning of the letter he says that he voted for both versions of the bill.
"The subsidy levels to help lower income individuals afford healthcare are more appropriate and approximately $200 billion below what was included in the House healthcare bill."
The word "subsidy" is also known as money that is taken from contributers and is redistributed to the non-contributer/zero liability people. This may offend some people; if it does, suck it up. What is a non-contributer or a zero liability person? These are not interchangeable terms. A zero liability person is not always a non-contributer, however a non-contributer is always a zero liability person. When you file your taxes, if you get everything you paid in back or if you get more than you paid in back, you are a zero liability person. The non contributer is the person who sits on their ass all day and gets government assistance without having to work for it. So the tax payer funded "healthcare" ended up being less than they started. Well isn't that nice of them; my taxes will still go up but not as much as they first expected. Thanks for thinking of me.
"The number of folks added to Medicaid is reduced in the Senate version to a more reasonable 138 percent of the federal poverty level to encourage more personal responsibility in our healthcare."
Even when people are able to make a living, even with the increased taxes, the feds will continue to give them "free" healthcare through the Medicaid program. I have a novel idea, lower the tax rates to everyone and they will be able to be more independent. Oh that's right, this isn't about helping people, it's about more control over all of our lives.
"I lobbied aggressively for reductions in premiums for individuals who practiced healthier lifestyles..."
This is just the first step to controlling what we eat and our activities. How far of a leap is it to expect that in the coming years they will require everyone to exercise and eat the kinds of foods that they approve while they outlaw foods that aren't considered contain the proper nutritious value. While I am not opposed to healthy living or eating or exercise, I am opposed of government micromanaging our lives. It's a liberty thing, they wouldn't understand it.
"The new Medicare reimbursement methods will mean more doctors will be willing to see and treat seniors who rely on Medicare. Seniors will see an immediate $250 rebate on prescription drug costs. The legislation also provides for a 50 percent discount on brand name drugs and eventual closing of the Medicare Part D prescription drug donut hole by 2020."
This paragraph and the previous one are especially offensive. The previous paragraph talks about "ending the Medicare reimbursement discrimination against Oregon and other states..." Why shouldn't Oregon and other States take the lead and take responsibility for our own senior's who were sold the bill of goods called Medicare. Show the rest of the States that we are more efficient than the federal government and start the dismantling of the beast. Medicare Part D was one of the ways that Bush showed how he wasn't a conservative but was at best a Decepti-Con and at worse, a RINO.
"Effective immediately, this bill eliminates co-pays or deductibles for preventive care under Medicare or new private plans. Health insurers may not ... refuse coverage to children with pre-existing conditions, or impose lifetime or annual limits on coverage in new plans."
What is wrong with paying a co-pay or deductible for preventative care? Why are those visits so expensive? Because people stopped paying for them and instead let insurance companies pay for them which means more paperwork and more people to process the paperwork. I know a doctor that used to charge $35 for a regular check-up but after years of increased costs and inflation finally raised the cost to $54 per check-up. Talk about breaking the bank. This means that you may have to forgo going out to dinner one or two times for each visit. As for the last part about preexisting conditions, you can usually still get coverage for everything else. After all these evil health insurance companies are still trying to make money too. When did profit become an bad word? If you take out the profit, you take away the motivation too. As for dollar limits on coverage; at some point you are more trouble than you are worth. Would you rather be dropped next time it comes to renew your policy? If you show that you're a good customer who isn't overusing your insurance, you will be more likely to be seen as a valued customer and your rates may actually decrease.
"Young people up to 26 years of age will be able to stay on their parents' health plan."
Since when did we consider a 26 year old a child? At 23 I was just getting out of the military and the last thing on my mind was moving back in with my Mom. If, at 26, you can't make it on your own, or at least buy your own medical insurance, you probably are at best a zero liability person and at worst a non-contributer. Get off your ass and do something productive for a change. On a side note, if you are trying to get assistance for college and are under the age of 25, you need to have your parent's income filled in order to fill out the forms completely. I oppose government involvement with paying for you to go to college. The only exception is veteran's benefits.
"...In this legislation, 96 percent of small businesses are not subject to providing healthcare for their employees. Larger businesses (over 50 employees) are encouraged to provide healthcare but in a much more flexible and affordable way. The only requirements large businesses must adhere to are deductibles per individual must not exceed $2,000 and the cost per employee must not exceed 9.5 percent of a family's income."
It's nice to know that in this bill small businesses don't have to provide healthcare insurance for their employees. I have read and reread the Constitution and I can't find anywhere in there that gives the federal government the authority to tell businesses what benefits they have to provide for their employees. I know they use the "Commerce clause" as the catch all in regulating any and all aspects of business but their reasoning, if they were to see what was meant in the wording and why the Constitution was written with the words and phrases as they are. "Regulate Commerce ... among the several States" does not mean that you meddle in every aspect of commerce but make sure that the individual States aren't imposing taxes or tariffs anytime that a product crosses its borders. This means that federal minimum wage laws are unconstitutional as are the all federal agencies that regulate any aspect of intrastate and many aspects of interstate trade. This includes this area of the bill, specifically, and the entire bill generally.
"Finally, the healthcare package attacks the rising cost of healthcare on our national budget and debt. According to the impartial Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the package reduces the national deficit by $138 billion in the first 10 years."
The reason that they are able to make the claim of a deficit reduction in the first ten years is because the bill will not be fully in place until 2014 so anything money that is supposed to put the money aside to run this bill will help show a cost reduction. Notice how the CBO isn't saying what the second ten years will do to the deficit.
If you notice in the letter Mr. Schrader doesn't mention the fact that everyone will be required to purchase healthcare insurance or face a fine. The last I saw, the fine for not having the proper amount of health insurance is $2000 or 2.2% of your income. So now just because you are alive, you will be required to purchase a good or service even if you do not want to. Even if you decide to set up a Health Savings Account (HSA) you will be required to buy health insurance or you risk facing a fine. If you refuse to pay the fine you will be sent to jail.
Why do people like me and millions of others oppose the health care bill? We value our freedoms and liberty and think that we are better equipped to take charge of our lives instead of relying on the government. I am not calling for violence but I am advocating for anyone who wants to stand up to a tyrannical government and tell them to back off.
His letter is as follows:
Dear Mr. Bergstresser:
Thank you for contacting my office regarding healthcare reform. On Sunday, March 21, 2010, the Senate's version of healthcare reform (HR 3590) and the reconciliation package (HR 4872) passed out of the House of Representatives, both with my support.
During the campaign and throughout the last year, it has become increasingly apparent that Americans can no longer tolerate the status quo when it comes to affording healthcare in this country. Double digit increases to insurance rates are bankrupting families, small businesses and our nation. Insurance costs for small businesses have increased 129 percent over the last 10 years and Oregon's insurance rates have gone up almost 20 percent per year for the past 7 years.
Many of my concerns in November about cost containment in the House version of healthcare reform have been addressed in the combined final healthcare package. The subsidy levels to help lower income individuals afford healthcare are more appropriate and approximately $200 billion below what was included in the House healthcare bill. These levels continue to taper off in the out years as rising insurance costs continue to moderate. The number of folks added to Medicaid is reduced in the Senate version to a more reasonable 138 percent of the federal poverty level to encourage more personal responsibility in our healthcare. I lobbied aggressively for reductions in premiums for individuals who practiced healthier lifestyles and I authored a strong comparative effectiveness research (CER) piece of the bill. CER would give an independent authority the ability to foster solid, peer reviewed research into the best diagnostics, treatments and healthcare delivery. The research CER makes available will help doctors and patients have the best information to make their own healthcare decisions. Both of these elements are included in the final healthcare package.
More significantly, I and a few others refused to sign onto the final reform package until Congress and the Administration pledged to stop the Medicare reimbursement discrimination against Oregon and other states that provide high quality, low cost healthcare as the result of an antiquated reimbursement formula dating back 40 years. Currently, Oregon, which practices quality, cost effective medicine, receives half the reimbursement rate of inefficient areas on the East coast. We won the battle. Legislative language was included in the bill, along with a signed letter and personal guarantee by the President, that will move our system from one that encourages waste and unnecessary tests and procedures to one that reimburses health care providers like Oregon based on successful health outcomes. These changes will dramatically reduce the cost of healthcare nationally.
The new Medicare reimbursement methods will mean more doctors will be willing to see and treat seniors who rely on Medicare. Seniors will see an immediate $250 rebate on prescription drug costs. The legislation also provides for a 50 percent discount on brand name drugs and eventual closing of the Medicare Part D prescription drug donut hole by 2020.
Effective immediately, this bill eliminates co-pays or deductibles for preventive care under Medicare or new private plans. Health insurers may not drop people from coverage because they are sick, refuse coverage to children with pre-existing conditions, or impose lifetime or annual limits on coverage in new plans. There will be a temporary risk pool for uninsured that may have pre-existing conditions and temporary reinsurance for 55-64 year old retirees until exchanges are available. Young people up to 26 years of age will be able to stay on their parents' health plan. There will be new investment in training primary care doctors, nurses and public health professionals to take care of the expanded population that now have access to healthcare. By 2014, these benefits will be available to all Americans through state exchanges that allow consistent regulation and decreased costs.
The final package is also much friendlier to small businesses. In this legislation, 96 percent of small businesses are not subject to providing healthcare for their employees. Larger businesses (over 50 employees) are encouraged to provide healthcare but in a much more flexible and affordable way. The only requirements large businesses must adhere to are deductibles per individual must not exceed $2,000 and the cost per employee must not exceed 9.5 percent of a family's income. Small businesses with low average payrolls are eligible for tax credits up to 35-50 percent for healthcare costs if they choose to provide healthcare for their employees. Businessmen and women are also allowed to deduct the full cost of their insurance for the first time and the exchanges allow small businesses to pool their collective associations' buying power to give them the same ability as large employers to negotiate advantageous insurance rates.
Finally, the healthcare package attacks the rising cost of healthcare on our national budget and debt. According to the impartial Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the package reduces the national deficit by $138 billion in the first 10 years. Furthermore, the CBO estimates that the deficit will be reduced even more as the positive aspects of the health care overhaul affect different parts of the health care industry and economy. The CBO also feels the federal budgetary commitment to healthcare will decrease during the decades following the 10 year budgetary window.
I consider these all strong, positive reasons to vote for the healthcare reform proposal. There is more work to be done as we flesh out some of the outlines in the reform. The bottom line is that this work begins to address the desperately needed transformation of our 40 year old healthcare delivery system which is on the brink of implosion. If we like our current healthcare, we need to make these changes to be able to afford it in the 21st century.
I will continue to fight for the policies that best reflect the needs of the 5th Congressional District of Oregon. For more information on the final health care package, please visit my website at http://schrader.house.gov.
Sincerely,
KURT SCHRADER
Member of Congress
My response to his letter is as follows:
"Many of my concerns in November about cost containment in the House version of healthcare reform have been addressed in the combined final healthcare package."
If he was concerned about the costs why is it he voted for the bill without the "cost containment" in it. Notice in the beginning of the letter he says that he voted for both versions of the bill.
"The subsidy levels to help lower income individuals afford healthcare are more appropriate and approximately $200 billion below what was included in the House healthcare bill."
The word "subsidy" is also known as money that is taken from contributers and is redistributed to the non-contributer/zero liability people. This may offend some people; if it does, suck it up. What is a non-contributer or a zero liability person? These are not interchangeable terms. A zero liability person is not always a non-contributer, however a non-contributer is always a zero liability person. When you file your taxes, if you get everything you paid in back or if you get more than you paid in back, you are a zero liability person. The non contributer is the person who sits on their ass all day and gets government assistance without having to work for it. So the tax payer funded "healthcare" ended up being less than they started. Well isn't that nice of them; my taxes will still go up but not as much as they first expected. Thanks for thinking of me.
"The number of folks added to Medicaid is reduced in the Senate version to a more reasonable 138 percent of the federal poverty level to encourage more personal responsibility in our healthcare."
Even when people are able to make a living, even with the increased taxes, the feds will continue to give them "free" healthcare through the Medicaid program. I have a novel idea, lower the tax rates to everyone and they will be able to be more independent. Oh that's right, this isn't about helping people, it's about more control over all of our lives.
"I lobbied aggressively for reductions in premiums for individuals who practiced healthier lifestyles..."
This is just the first step to controlling what we eat and our activities. How far of a leap is it to expect that in the coming years they will require everyone to exercise and eat the kinds of foods that they approve while they outlaw foods that aren't considered contain the proper nutritious value. While I am not opposed to healthy living or eating or exercise, I am opposed of government micromanaging our lives. It's a liberty thing, they wouldn't understand it.
"The new Medicare reimbursement methods will mean more doctors will be willing to see and treat seniors who rely on Medicare. Seniors will see an immediate $250 rebate on prescription drug costs. The legislation also provides for a 50 percent discount on brand name drugs and eventual closing of the Medicare Part D prescription drug donut hole by 2020."
This paragraph and the previous one are especially offensive. The previous paragraph talks about "ending the Medicare reimbursement discrimination against Oregon and other states..." Why shouldn't Oregon and other States take the lead and take responsibility for our own senior's who were sold the bill of goods called Medicare. Show the rest of the States that we are more efficient than the federal government and start the dismantling of the beast. Medicare Part D was one of the ways that Bush showed how he wasn't a conservative but was at best a Decepti-Con and at worse, a RINO.
"Effective immediately, this bill eliminates co-pays or deductibles for preventive care under Medicare or new private plans. Health insurers may not ... refuse coverage to children with pre-existing conditions, or impose lifetime or annual limits on coverage in new plans."
What is wrong with paying a co-pay or deductible for preventative care? Why are those visits so expensive? Because people stopped paying for them and instead let insurance companies pay for them which means more paperwork and more people to process the paperwork. I know a doctor that used to charge $35 for a regular check-up but after years of increased costs and inflation finally raised the cost to $54 per check-up. Talk about breaking the bank. This means that you may have to forgo going out to dinner one or two times for each visit. As for the last part about preexisting conditions, you can usually still get coverage for everything else. After all these evil health insurance companies are still trying to make money too. When did profit become an bad word? If you take out the profit, you take away the motivation too. As for dollar limits on coverage; at some point you are more trouble than you are worth. Would you rather be dropped next time it comes to renew your policy? If you show that you're a good customer who isn't overusing your insurance, you will be more likely to be seen as a valued customer and your rates may actually decrease.
"Young people up to 26 years of age will be able to stay on their parents' health plan."
Since when did we consider a 26 year old a child? At 23 I was just getting out of the military and the last thing on my mind was moving back in with my Mom. If, at 26, you can't make it on your own, or at least buy your own medical insurance, you probably are at best a zero liability person and at worst a non-contributer. Get off your ass and do something productive for a change. On a side note, if you are trying to get assistance for college and are under the age of 25, you need to have your parent's income filled in order to fill out the forms completely. I oppose government involvement with paying for you to go to college. The only exception is veteran's benefits.
"...In this legislation, 96 percent of small businesses are not subject to providing healthcare for their employees. Larger businesses (over 50 employees) are encouraged to provide healthcare but in a much more flexible and affordable way. The only requirements large businesses must adhere to are deductibles per individual must not exceed $2,000 and the cost per employee must not exceed 9.5 percent of a family's income."
It's nice to know that in this bill small businesses don't have to provide healthcare insurance for their employees. I have read and reread the Constitution and I can't find anywhere in there that gives the federal government the authority to tell businesses what benefits they have to provide for their employees. I know they use the "Commerce clause" as the catch all in regulating any and all aspects of business but their reasoning, if they were to see what was meant in the wording and why the Constitution was written with the words and phrases as they are. "Regulate Commerce ... among the several States" does not mean that you meddle in every aspect of commerce but make sure that the individual States aren't imposing taxes or tariffs anytime that a product crosses its borders. This means that federal minimum wage laws are unconstitutional as are the all federal agencies that regulate any aspect of intrastate and many aspects of interstate trade. This includes this area of the bill, specifically, and the entire bill generally.
"Finally, the healthcare package attacks the rising cost of healthcare on our national budget and debt. According to the impartial Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the package reduces the national deficit by $138 billion in the first 10 years."
The reason that they are able to make the claim of a deficit reduction in the first ten years is because the bill will not be fully in place until 2014 so anything money that is supposed to put the money aside to run this bill will help show a cost reduction. Notice how the CBO isn't saying what the second ten years will do to the deficit.
If you notice in the letter Mr. Schrader doesn't mention the fact that everyone will be required to purchase healthcare insurance or face a fine. The last I saw, the fine for not having the proper amount of health insurance is $2000 or 2.2% of your income. So now just because you are alive, you will be required to purchase a good or service even if you do not want to. Even if you decide to set up a Health Savings Account (HSA) you will be required to buy health insurance or you risk facing a fine. If you refuse to pay the fine you will be sent to jail.
Why do people like me and millions of others oppose the health care bill? We value our freedoms and liberty and think that we are better equipped to take charge of our lives instead of relying on the government. I am not calling for violence but I am advocating for anyone who wants to stand up to a tyrannical government and tell them to back off.
Thursday, March 25, 2010
Liberty Died with Socialized Medicine
Sunday liberty died in a 219-212 vote in the House of Representatives. Late last week it was reported that Rep. Peter DeFazio had switched to a no vote on the health care reform bill but in the end all four Demarxists voted in favor of the bill and in doing so, put a stake through the heart of liberty. Before the ink was dry on Tuesday, when Dear leader signed the bill into law, a number of State AG's filed suit in federal court saying that the bill was unconstitutional. Most say that it is because of the federal mandate that all individuals must carry an "acceptable amount" of health insurance regardless of whether they wanted it or not.
If the courts do not strike the bill down as unconstitutional our last hopes to get rid of this monstrosity will come either in the mid-term election in 2010 and 2012. This is not the only way to get rid of this tyranny though. Our last, best, hope, to reign in the tyranny of the federal leviathan is if at least 34 States call for an Article V convention; or a Constitutional Convention also called a Con-Con. In the past when this remedy was brought up, those who called for it were either laughed out of polite society, called kooks, or were accused of wanting to see the libs take over and rewrite the Constitution into a Marxist utopia. Lately, though, more and more people are changing their minds to the idea. What is bringing these people over to our way of thinking? This health care bill helped with a big push. Why would we be afraid that the libtards would take over the Con-Con when they are running rough-shod over us already? Nazi Pelosi and her ilk have been doing as they damn well please since 2007 when they came into power and now that Dear leader is in the White House, they don't have to worry about any of their bills being vetoed. So tell me again why having a Con-Con is a bad idea.
On April 9th Mike Church is holding an Article V symposium at the Sirius/XM studios in Washington D.C. Those who will be attending will be a who's who of modern day patriots. Dr. Kevin Gutzman, Dr. Thomas Woods, Rep. Susan Lynn of Tennessee's State house and others. Some will be attending in studio and others will be calling in on the phone. The point for holding this symposium is to get as much information out to those who are still on the fence or who may still hold out a little opposition to a Con-Con.
I, personally, have been on board for holding a Con-Con for almost a year and would love to see my State as one of the States that signed on to it. However, I know that with the current make-up of the legislature in Salem, the chances of getting them to sign on is somewhere between slim and none. What is giving me some hope is that there is a number of State representatives that are, for the first time in years, going to have a challenger running against them this November.
The stake may have gone through the heart of liberty but we may be able to revive it soon. If we are unsuccessful, we can change the name of our nation from the United States of America to the United Socialist States of America.
If the courts do not strike the bill down as unconstitutional our last hopes to get rid of this monstrosity will come either in the mid-term election in 2010 and 2012. This is not the only way to get rid of this tyranny though. Our last, best, hope, to reign in the tyranny of the federal leviathan is if at least 34 States call for an Article V convention; or a Constitutional Convention also called a Con-Con. In the past when this remedy was brought up, those who called for it were either laughed out of polite society, called kooks, or were accused of wanting to see the libs take over and rewrite the Constitution into a Marxist utopia. Lately, though, more and more people are changing their minds to the idea. What is bringing these people over to our way of thinking? This health care bill helped with a big push. Why would we be afraid that the libtards would take over the Con-Con when they are running rough-shod over us already? Nazi Pelosi and her ilk have been doing as they damn well please since 2007 when they came into power and now that Dear leader is in the White House, they don't have to worry about any of their bills being vetoed. So tell me again why having a Con-Con is a bad idea.
On April 9th Mike Church is holding an Article V symposium at the Sirius/XM studios in Washington D.C. Those who will be attending will be a who's who of modern day patriots. Dr. Kevin Gutzman, Dr. Thomas Woods, Rep. Susan Lynn of Tennessee's State house and others. Some will be attending in studio and others will be calling in on the phone. The point for holding this symposium is to get as much information out to those who are still on the fence or who may still hold out a little opposition to a Con-Con.
I, personally, have been on board for holding a Con-Con for almost a year and would love to see my State as one of the States that signed on to it. However, I know that with the current make-up of the legislature in Salem, the chances of getting them to sign on is somewhere between slim and none. What is giving me some hope is that there is a number of State representatives that are, for the first time in years, going to have a challenger running against them this November.
The stake may have gone through the heart of liberty but we may be able to revive it soon. If we are unsuccessful, we can change the name of our nation from the United States of America to the United Socialist States of America.
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
My email to Rep. Kurt Schrader
With the looming vote for the government to take over our health insurance, I have called in to my non-representing representative. Because the people in the office claim that Rep. Schrader is still undecided on how to vote and won't make a decision until he reads the entire bill, I felt it necessary to send him an email so he has a permanent record as to how I feel about the issue. I have called and emailed Schrader before on a variety of issues and have yet to receive any kind of response from him. I will now wait and see if he decides to respond to my message.
This the message that I sent to Schrader.
Mr. Schrader,
I am email you to tell you to vote "No" on the current health care reform bill. I have a number of reasons that I oppose the bill in its current form but I will limit this email to the top two reasons.
My first reason for opposing the bill is because Congress does not have the constitutional authority to take over or interfere with any part of health care or health insurance. There is one exception to this statement and that is to properly use the Commerce Clause by breaking down any and all barriers that prevent people in one state from purchasing health insurance in another state. You may not think that this would do anything to insurance rates but think about any other type of insurance that you are able to buy, including life insurance. The reason that auto, home, and life insurance rates are able to remain low and competitive is because you can chose from a number of companies across the nation.
The second reason I oppose the current health care reform bill is because no matter what anyone thinks, this will result in either health care rationing or increased taxes on everyone so that those who get hardship waivers are able to get medical insurance. If we want to see what happens when health care is rationed, we only have to look to Canada of the United Kingdom. When it comes to increased taxes to pay for health insurance, these increased taxes will result in increased unemployment. This fact is one of the basics of economics. To see the results of increased taxes you only have to look at Michigan and California to see what happens when politicians view their constituents as a source of never ending revenue.
I urge you to carefully consider the points that I have made when you make your decision on how you vote for the health care bill. I will leave you with this last statement, if you vote in favor of this health care reform bill I will work tirelessly to make sure you do not get re-elected in November.
If Nazi Pelosi and Dear leader are to be believed, I should know how Schrader votes this weekend even if he decides not to respond to my email. If the vote doesn't happen this weekend, other Demarxicrats have said that the vote may not take place until after Easter. Anyone who may be reading this post, keep calling and emailing your representative and urge them to oppose this bill. The senate switchboard number is 202-224-3121. Remember to be courteous and respectful even when the socialists don't deserve it.
This the message that I sent to Schrader.
Mr. Schrader,
I am email you to tell you to vote "No" on the current health care reform bill. I have a number of reasons that I oppose the bill in its current form but I will limit this email to the top two reasons.
My first reason for opposing the bill is because Congress does not have the constitutional authority to take over or interfere with any part of health care or health insurance. There is one exception to this statement and that is to properly use the Commerce Clause by breaking down any and all barriers that prevent people in one state from purchasing health insurance in another state. You may not think that this would do anything to insurance rates but think about any other type of insurance that you are able to buy, including life insurance. The reason that auto, home, and life insurance rates are able to remain low and competitive is because you can chose from a number of companies across the nation.
The second reason I oppose the current health care reform bill is because no matter what anyone thinks, this will result in either health care rationing or increased taxes on everyone so that those who get hardship waivers are able to get medical insurance. If we want to see what happens when health care is rationed, we only have to look to Canada of the United Kingdom. When it comes to increased taxes to pay for health insurance, these increased taxes will result in increased unemployment. This fact is one of the basics of economics. To see the results of increased taxes you only have to look at Michigan and California to see what happens when politicians view their constituents as a source of never ending revenue.
I urge you to carefully consider the points that I have made when you make your decision on how you vote for the health care bill. I will leave you with this last statement, if you vote in favor of this health care reform bill I will work tirelessly to make sure you do not get re-elected in November.
If Nazi Pelosi and Dear leader are to be believed, I should know how Schrader votes this weekend even if he decides not to respond to my email. If the vote doesn't happen this weekend, other Demarxicrats have said that the vote may not take place until after Easter. Anyone who may be reading this post, keep calling and emailing your representative and urge them to oppose this bill. The senate switchboard number is 202-224-3121. Remember to be courteous and respectful even when the socialists don't deserve it.
Friday, March 12, 2010
Definitions
There may be some questions about the definition of certain words or phrases that may be used in my ranting and raving. In order to get my point across, I feel it is necessary to define them. Because I may interject new words or phrases, I will from time to time, come back to this posting and add to it instead of creating a new posting. The definitions posted aren't arranged alphabetically or chronologically but the list shouldn't be all that long and should be easy enough get through. When I add new words and phrases after the initial posting, I will separate them by putting a date above them to let you know when they were added.
Decepti-Con. This is a term created by Mike Church, who is a conservative host on satellite radio. Decepti-Cons people who claim to be conservative and claim to desire to reduce the size of government but really only want to manage the current size of government. I will sometimes use the word instead of RINO to describe someone as a Decepti-Con as both are very similar.
RINO. A RINO is a Republican In Name Only. An example of a RINO was Senator Gordon Smith who lost his bid for re-election in 2008. He would vote with the Democrats on a regular basis in order to show how bi-partisan he could be. Olympia Snow and Susan Collins are also current RINOs but hopefully they will be replaced soon.
Nazi Pelosi. Her real name is Nancy Pelosi and is the current Speaker of the House of Representatives. She has been acting like a Nazi ever since she took control of the House in 2006 and started running roughshod over the Constitution ever since. If you disagree with her then she bitches and complains that she knows what is best for the "American People" no matter how much opposition she runs into.
Dear leader. Chairman Maoboma. Franklin Delenobama. All are phrases describing Obama. He has been trying to ram through his agenda ever since taking the oath of office on January 20, 2009. He acts like Hitler, Mao, and Roosevelt depending on the situation. When he tries to coerce the public to sign onto one of his agendas, he is acting like FDR. When he sends the union thugs after those who disagree with him he is acting like Hitler. When he uses the federal government and people in his administration after dissenters, he is acting like Mao. Just like FDR, though, he doesn't give a damn about the Constitution and doesn't think he is bound by any of the limitations that the document places on the federal government or, specifically him or his office.
Robert "liar, liar" Gibbs. He is the White House spokesman. He is the mouthpiece of the propaganda wing of Obama and his administration.
Kremlin on the Potomac. This is the term given to Washington, D.C. The Kremlin part has been given because the seat of the Soviet Union was located in Moscow and was named the Kremlin. The Potomac part is because D.C. is located on the Potomic River between Maryland and Virginia. Since both sides of Congress act like they are guided by the Communist Manifesto instead of the Constitution, they "rule" us from the Kremlin on the Potomac.
Decepti-Con. This is a term created by Mike Church, who is a conservative host on satellite radio. Decepti-Cons people who claim to be conservative and claim to desire to reduce the size of government but really only want to manage the current size of government. I will sometimes use the word instead of RINO to describe someone as a Decepti-Con as both are very similar.
RINO. A RINO is a Republican In Name Only. An example of a RINO was Senator Gordon Smith who lost his bid for re-election in 2008. He would vote with the Democrats on a regular basis in order to show how bi-partisan he could be. Olympia Snow and Susan Collins are also current RINOs but hopefully they will be replaced soon.
Nazi Pelosi. Her real name is Nancy Pelosi and is the current Speaker of the House of Representatives. She has been acting like a Nazi ever since she took control of the House in 2006 and started running roughshod over the Constitution ever since. If you disagree with her then she bitches and complains that she knows what is best for the "American People" no matter how much opposition she runs into.
Dear leader. Chairman Maoboma. Franklin Delenobama. All are phrases describing Obama. He has been trying to ram through his agenda ever since taking the oath of office on January 20, 2009. He acts like Hitler, Mao, and Roosevelt depending on the situation. When he tries to coerce the public to sign onto one of his agendas, he is acting like FDR. When he sends the union thugs after those who disagree with him he is acting like Hitler. When he uses the federal government and people in his administration after dissenters, he is acting like Mao. Just like FDR, though, he doesn't give a damn about the Constitution and doesn't think he is bound by any of the limitations that the document places on the federal government or, specifically him or his office.
Robert "liar, liar" Gibbs. He is the White House spokesman. He is the mouthpiece of the propaganda wing of Obama and his administration.
Kremlin on the Potomac. This is the term given to Washington, D.C. The Kremlin part has been given because the seat of the Soviet Union was located in Moscow and was named the Kremlin. The Potomac part is because D.C. is located on the Potomic River between Maryland and Virginia. Since both sides of Congress act like they are guided by the Communist Manifesto instead of the Constitution, they "rule" us from the Kremlin on the Potomac.
Thursday, March 11, 2010
Nanny State Strikes Again
A state assemblyman from Brooklyn, NY introduced a bill in Albany that would ban the use of salt in restaurant cooking. The wording of the A 10129 states, "No owner or operator of a restaurant in this state shall use salt in any form in the preparation of any food for consumption by customers of such restaurant, including food prepared to be consumed on the premises of such restaurant or off of such premises."
The author of the bill, Felix Ortiz, said that the salt ban would allow restaurant goers to decide how salty they want their meals to be. He went on to say, "In this way, consumers have more control over the amount of sodium they intake, and are given the option to exercise healthier diets and healthier lifestyles" What would happen if a restaurant chooses to ignore the salt ban? Of course in true nanny fashion, there would be heavy fines imposed of $1000 per violation.
One question I have in regards to this new proposed legislation. Will this ban all salt in the recipe or will a little salt be acceptable? The reason I ask this is because many recipes require that salt be added in order for the recipe to turn out. Cookies require salt. Soups, stews, and chowders all call for salt in one form or fashion. What about breads and cakes. Almost any dish that is cooked needs some salt in some form or fashion and at some level. But don't listen to anyone who cooks for a living or for pleasure.
Who thinks this is a great idea? You guessed it, the dictator-in-chief, Mayor Michael Bloomberg. For those who don't know about Bloomberg, he is one of those people who pours salt on his Saltine crackers. Apparently he doesn't subscribe to the idea of, "What's good for me is good for thee."
Besides the issue of government micromanaging the lives of New Yorkers and anyone else who visits the state, my biggest beef with this proposed legislation centers on those of us who don't add salt to their meals after they are cooked. If I don't add salt when the food is being cooked or baked, I will not add it after it is completed. When I get fries at a fast food place I will typically tell them to either go light on the salt or no salt on the fries. Do I want the government to get involved and tell them they can't put salt on the fries? Hell no!
I have a novel idea, those who want to lower their salt intake, don't go out to eat as much or find a place that offers low salt dishes. Believe me, if there is a market out there for a restaurant that caters to those who want to limit their salt intake, one will pop up and will be successful without government intervention, if not, it will fail.
Oh, and one more question. If it were to become law, would the new law pertain only to salt by itself or would it include any seasoning or spice that has salt in it? Seasoning salt, garlic salt, onion salt, celery salt,lemon pepper mix, taco seasoning, Italian seasoning, and the list goes on. What do these items have in common? They all have some sort of salt in them. Will this proposed law include butter and margarine? They have salt or sodium in them. Instead of trying to ban a naturally occurring substance, why don't you let us make our own decisions and live with the results of our own choices. If someone has health problems because they eat too many foods that are high in salt, don't blame the salt; blame the person who made irresponsible choices.
Call me crazy, but I think that people should start taking more responsibility for their actions and choices instead of playing the victim. Shut up and take responsibility for yourself.
The author of the bill, Felix Ortiz, said that the salt ban would allow restaurant goers to decide how salty they want their meals to be. He went on to say, "In this way, consumers have more control over the amount of sodium they intake, and are given the option to exercise healthier diets and healthier lifestyles" What would happen if a restaurant chooses to ignore the salt ban? Of course in true nanny fashion, there would be heavy fines imposed of $1000 per violation.
One question I have in regards to this new proposed legislation. Will this ban all salt in the recipe or will a little salt be acceptable? The reason I ask this is because many recipes require that salt be added in order for the recipe to turn out. Cookies require salt. Soups, stews, and chowders all call for salt in one form or fashion. What about breads and cakes. Almost any dish that is cooked needs some salt in some form or fashion and at some level. But don't listen to anyone who cooks for a living or for pleasure.
Who thinks this is a great idea? You guessed it, the dictator-in-chief, Mayor Michael Bloomberg. For those who don't know about Bloomberg, he is one of those people who pours salt on his Saltine crackers. Apparently he doesn't subscribe to the idea of, "What's good for me is good for thee."
Besides the issue of government micromanaging the lives of New Yorkers and anyone else who visits the state, my biggest beef with this proposed legislation centers on those of us who don't add salt to their meals after they are cooked. If I don't add salt when the food is being cooked or baked, I will not add it after it is completed. When I get fries at a fast food place I will typically tell them to either go light on the salt or no salt on the fries. Do I want the government to get involved and tell them they can't put salt on the fries? Hell no!
I have a novel idea, those who want to lower their salt intake, don't go out to eat as much or find a place that offers low salt dishes. Believe me, if there is a market out there for a restaurant that caters to those who want to limit their salt intake, one will pop up and will be successful without government intervention, if not, it will fail.
Oh, and one more question. If it were to become law, would the new law pertain only to salt by itself or would it include any seasoning or spice that has salt in it? Seasoning salt, garlic salt, onion salt, celery salt,lemon pepper mix, taco seasoning, Italian seasoning, and the list goes on. What do these items have in common? They all have some sort of salt in them. Will this proposed law include butter and margarine? They have salt or sodium in them. Instead of trying to ban a naturally occurring substance, why don't you let us make our own decisions and live with the results of our own choices. If someone has health problems because they eat too many foods that are high in salt, don't blame the salt; blame the person who made irresponsible choices.
Call me crazy, but I think that people should start taking more responsibility for their actions and choices instead of playing the victim. Shut up and take responsibility for yourself.
Thursday, February 25, 2010
Shrink the Government or Manage it?
The question that has been posed by Mike Church on a number of occasions is whether Republicans want to dismantle the federal leviathan or simply manage it? Today (2-25) I was listening to Sean Hannity. A caller made a comment that was made at the health care summit by Sen. Coburn dealing with creating an agency of "patients" that check up on doctors. The caller then said that all this will do is make doctors look over their shoulders. Sean asked if the doctors are doing what they're supposed to be doing, why should they be worried? This is the type of mind set that we have to change. Sean and others like him, both famous and not so famous, miss the point of shrinking the government not expanding it.
Forgetting the point that the government's involvement in health insurance is unconstitutional, creating another government bureaucracy expands the role that the federal government plays in our lives.
I oppose the Patriot Act whether it is overseen by a Republican or Democrat. Sean and others like him ask why I oppose it if I have nothing to hide? That isn't the point. Do you trust the government to always follow the rules? The Germans thought that they could trust the Nazis when they started keeping tabs on them. A government will start out passing laws by saying that they are for your safety. When people oppose the new "safety measures" the question of, "What do you have to hide?" is always raised. A couple years after the Patriot Act was passed and signed into law, there was a caller to a local Portland radio show that compared the new powers given to the government under the Patriot Act and Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. The host of the program asked the caller to give examples of when the Patriot Act was abused. Of course the caller couldn't provide any examples and was promptly dismissed as a naysayer. As it usually happens, the next few callers railed against the caller and anyone else who didn't agree that the Patriot Act would make us safer. How can you compare Bush to Hitler after all?
Why do I oppose increased government involvement in my life? Although Bush was no conservative and I didn't think he would abuse any of the provisions contained in the Patriot Act, you can never count on subsequent political leaders to be so restrained. If you think I'm wrong, look at the current leadership in the Senate and House as well as the current president. Think that it can't happen to us in the United States? Look at what happened in the first year of the Obama administration. Nationalize the banks-Done. Take steps in nationalizing private companies-GM and Chrysler-Done. Nationalize credit-Working on it. Nationalizing health care-Working on it. Class warfare-Already started.
Now I ask again, do you want to shrink the size of the government or just manage it? If it is the latter, choosing between you and a Democrat is like deciding whether you want your leg amputated above or below the knee. What's the difference. If you want to shrink the size of government you are a true conservative. If you just want to manage the government you are a Decepti-Con.
Forgetting the point that the government's involvement in health insurance is unconstitutional, creating another government bureaucracy expands the role that the federal government plays in our lives.
I oppose the Patriot Act whether it is overseen by a Republican or Democrat. Sean and others like him ask why I oppose it if I have nothing to hide? That isn't the point. Do you trust the government to always follow the rules? The Germans thought that they could trust the Nazis when they started keeping tabs on them. A government will start out passing laws by saying that they are for your safety. When people oppose the new "safety measures" the question of, "What do you have to hide?" is always raised. A couple years after the Patriot Act was passed and signed into law, there was a caller to a local Portland radio show that compared the new powers given to the government under the Patriot Act and Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. The host of the program asked the caller to give examples of when the Patriot Act was abused. Of course the caller couldn't provide any examples and was promptly dismissed as a naysayer. As it usually happens, the next few callers railed against the caller and anyone else who didn't agree that the Patriot Act would make us safer. How can you compare Bush to Hitler after all?
Why do I oppose increased government involvement in my life? Although Bush was no conservative and I didn't think he would abuse any of the provisions contained in the Patriot Act, you can never count on subsequent political leaders to be so restrained. If you think I'm wrong, look at the current leadership in the Senate and House as well as the current president. Think that it can't happen to us in the United States? Look at what happened in the first year of the Obama administration. Nationalize the banks-Done. Take steps in nationalizing private companies-GM and Chrysler-Done. Nationalize credit-Working on it. Nationalizing health care-Working on it. Class warfare-Already started.
Now I ask again, do you want to shrink the size of the government or just manage it? If it is the latter, choosing between you and a Democrat is like deciding whether you want your leg amputated above or below the knee. What's the difference. If you want to shrink the size of government you are a true conservative. If you just want to manage the government you are a Decepti-Con.
Monday, February 15, 2010
Glenn Beck the Decepti-Con
Debra Medina is one of three candidates running for governor of Texas on the Republican ticket. Her opponents are Rick Perry, who is the current governor, and Kay Bailey Hutchinson, U.S. Senator. Last week Glenn Beck had Medina on his radio program. This would usually be a great way to reach out to a larger audience and gain support both locally and nationally. Apparently Mr. Beck didn't approve of Ms. Medina's idea of a limited federal government and States' rights. This is apparent in the questions she was asked and the way Mr. Beck and his employees laughed and mocked her after they got off the phone with her but continuing to broadcast. This was wholly unprofessional and disrespectful. For this, I am labeling Glenn Beck as a Decepti-Con.
You may ask what a Decepti-Con is. A Decepti-Con is a person who claims to be a conservative but is only interested in managing the federal leviathan,not shrinking it. They give lip service to State's rights but when it comes to the implementation of State's rights, they criticize those who try to take steps to shrink the federal government and return the power back to the States and the people.
For his actions in throwing Debra Medina under the bus I am calling out Glenn Beck as a Decepti-Con and showing him as being a fraud and a disgrace to the 9/12 project. If Beck were to see the error of his ways and make a public apology to Ms. Medina on both his radio and T.V. shows, I would be willing to consider taking him off the list of Decepti-Cons.
You may ask what a Decepti-Con is. A Decepti-Con is a person who claims to be a conservative but is only interested in managing the federal leviathan,not shrinking it. They give lip service to State's rights but when it comes to the implementation of State's rights, they criticize those who try to take steps to shrink the federal government and return the power back to the States and the people.
For his actions in throwing Debra Medina under the bus I am calling out Glenn Beck as a Decepti-Con and showing him as being a fraud and a disgrace to the 9/12 project. If Beck were to see the error of his ways and make a public apology to Ms. Medina on both his radio and T.V. shows, I would be willing to consider taking him off the list of Decepti-Cons.
Answer to Mike Church's Question
Mike Church today (2-3) asked what we were going to do about shrinking leviathan? What are we going to do to shrink the size of government? Apparently a number of people have complained via email that they have relatives that have government jobs. “What do you want to do; let them lose their jobs? Are you going to feed them when their job is eliminated?” To those people I say, “Let them get a real job. If they are worth a damn, they can get a real job in the private sector. If they can’t get a real job, then maybe the reason they have a government job is because they can’t make it in the real world. “What about (fill in the blank), they’re a teacher in the public school system. What do you want to do, fire them too? Who will teach the kids?” Have you seen the state of the public schools? Are you telling me that with all the money that is sunk into them that they are doing a good job in teaching the kids? Why is it that more parents choose to send their children to private schools or are home schooling them? The public schools are a sinkhole. Why is it that many teachers are against merit pay? Once a teacher gets tenure, it is almost impossible for them to get fired. And then you wonder why the schools are failing. “Me thinks they doth protest too much.” Why is it that government bureaucrats continually say that we aren’t funding education enough and just one more tax increase will fix the problem? I have been hearing that same old song and dance since I was in school back in the mid-80’s. If it is really only one more tax increase, why is it that when the taxes do go up, you still need more money? How many non-teachers do the schools employ? How many non-school buildings are “owned” by the school districts? If the school superintendent is in charge of a failing school system and you get rid of them; why would you hire a replacement that was fired for the same reason?
My answer to the King Dude’s question of the day, start abolishing government agencies and start firing government employees. Those who have the ability to make something of themselves will find a new, productive job. Those who can’t make it in the real world will either have to learn to be productive or they will have to rely on the charity or others.
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
Measures 66 and 67 passed thanks to all the dumb asses
To say that I opposed measures 66 and 67 would be an understatement. Today (Jan. 26) was the day of this vote. To let those who don't know what these ballot measures do, I'll give a very brief summary.
Measures 66 and 67 would increase taxes. One would increase the corporate minimum tax and the other would increase income taxes on those making over $125,000 for single filers and $250,000 for couples.
One of the facts that are conveniently left out is that many small businesses file their taxes as income taxes. Oh and this increase in income taxes would be on receipts not profit. These ballot measures came about in an effort to stop the dumb asses in Salem from imposing these taxes on us just for the hell of it. They claim it's to help balance the budget to fund schools, public safety, and other "essential" services. Instead of trying to turn the State of Oregon into the Michigan of the west by raising taxes, how about if the jackasses in Salem live spend the money that is taken from us instead of stealing more of our money.
As an individual household, I have to be able to survive with what my wife and I make at our jobs. If I need more money, I can't go to my neighbor and take money from him just because I can't live within my budget. Why in the blue fucking hell can't the stupid shits that claim to run the State and the Nation do the same? The reason is because they can always count on the lazy bastards that refuse to get off their asses and make something of themselves and instead expect the government to wipe their asses for them. After all, they can't be troubled to be productive in society.
Ayn Rand wrote a book called "Atlas Shrugged" in the 1950's. Lately that book has been flying off the shelves at book stores and libraries. Do you know why? Maybe you should read it. Or if you're too lazy or stupid to do that, you can listen to it as an audio book.
Who is John Galt?
It is long past time that those who have the ability stand up and yell "STOP!" If those who are constantly demonized by the government and the non-contributors where to stop producing, what would you do? Who would provide for you? Get off your ass and do something productive.
Who is John Galt?
Do you not want to be successful? Obviously you don't or you wouldn't live like you do and then expect those who have what you want to give you what they earned. You dumb asses in Salem and Washington, D.C. are nothing but looters. You do nothing for the money you steal from the productive and then demonize us for working, earning and being successful. Then when you need more money, you try to bleed us even more.
Who is John Galt?
Their is a movement in this nation that is taking hold. It isn't moving fast but it is moving nonetheless. What is this movement? Going Galt. You hear whispers of liberty and freedom. Less government intrusion and more free markets. Those all sound good, but do you really want to live without a government safety net? Do you know what that entails? Have you given it any thought? Just think about it. Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, education, food stamps, WIC, welfare, public housing, and government subsidized housing. Can you live without these as backup plans? This is why measures 66 an 67 passed.
I'm not giving a pass to Republicans either. The establishment Republicans have sold out what they claimed were their principles for 30 pieces of silver. They were willing to jettison their beliefs for increased power or to retain their power. What good is it if you are no better than the Democrats? We may not go down the road to socialism as fast as the Dems but many Republicans are still going down that road. If the people are given the choice of Democrat and Democrat-lite they're going to go for the real thing.
Why do you think Gordon Smith lost his bid for re-election in 2008? It wasn't because people wanted that socialist dip shit Merkley. Look at the results for the election. If I remember right, Merkley won by less than 10,000 votes. The third party candidate who ran on the Constitution Party ticket received almost 80,000 votes. I was one of those who voted third party. Why? Because their wasn't a lot of difference between Smith and Merkley. I may be registered as a Republican, but that is only so I can vote in the primaries. I do not owe my vote to you just because you are a Republican and I will no longer vote for the lesser of two evils. I will not vote for a RINO just as I won't vote for a lib or a socialist.
Measures 66 and 67 would increase taxes. One would increase the corporate minimum tax and the other would increase income taxes on those making over $125,000 for single filers and $250,000 for couples.
One of the facts that are conveniently left out is that many small businesses file their taxes as income taxes. Oh and this increase in income taxes would be on receipts not profit. These ballot measures came about in an effort to stop the dumb asses in Salem from imposing these taxes on us just for the hell of it. They claim it's to help balance the budget to fund schools, public safety, and other "essential" services. Instead of trying to turn the State of Oregon into the Michigan of the west by raising taxes, how about if the jackasses in Salem live spend the money that is taken from us instead of stealing more of our money.
As an individual household, I have to be able to survive with what my wife and I make at our jobs. If I need more money, I can't go to my neighbor and take money from him just because I can't live within my budget. Why in the blue fucking hell can't the stupid shits that claim to run the State and the Nation do the same? The reason is because they can always count on the lazy bastards that refuse to get off their asses and make something of themselves and instead expect the government to wipe their asses for them. After all, they can't be troubled to be productive in society.
Ayn Rand wrote a book called "Atlas Shrugged" in the 1950's. Lately that book has been flying off the shelves at book stores and libraries. Do you know why? Maybe you should read it. Or if you're too lazy or stupid to do that, you can listen to it as an audio book.
Who is John Galt?
It is long past time that those who have the ability stand up and yell "STOP!" If those who are constantly demonized by the government and the non-contributors where to stop producing, what would you do? Who would provide for you? Get off your ass and do something productive.
Who is John Galt?
Do you not want to be successful? Obviously you don't or you wouldn't live like you do and then expect those who have what you want to give you what they earned. You dumb asses in Salem and Washington, D.C. are nothing but looters. You do nothing for the money you steal from the productive and then demonize us for working, earning and being successful. Then when you need more money, you try to bleed us even more.
Who is John Galt?
Their is a movement in this nation that is taking hold. It isn't moving fast but it is moving nonetheless. What is this movement? Going Galt. You hear whispers of liberty and freedom. Less government intrusion and more free markets. Those all sound good, but do you really want to live without a government safety net? Do you know what that entails? Have you given it any thought? Just think about it. Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, education, food stamps, WIC, welfare, public housing, and government subsidized housing. Can you live without these as backup plans? This is why measures 66 an 67 passed.
I'm not giving a pass to Republicans either. The establishment Republicans have sold out what they claimed were their principles for 30 pieces of silver. They were willing to jettison their beliefs for increased power or to retain their power. What good is it if you are no better than the Democrats? We may not go down the road to socialism as fast as the Dems but many Republicans are still going down that road. If the people are given the choice of Democrat and Democrat-lite they're going to go for the real thing.
Why do you think Gordon Smith lost his bid for re-election in 2008? It wasn't because people wanted that socialist dip shit Merkley. Look at the results for the election. If I remember right, Merkley won by less than 10,000 votes. The third party candidate who ran on the Constitution Party ticket received almost 80,000 votes. I was one of those who voted third party. Why? Because their wasn't a lot of difference between Smith and Merkley. I may be registered as a Republican, but that is only so I can vote in the primaries. I do not owe my vote to you just because you are a Republican and I will no longer vote for the lesser of two evils. I will not vote for a RINO just as I won't vote for a lib or a socialist.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)