We Are Supposed to Be Different!

I've argued with everyone over the years: my customers, my high school buds, my colleagues at work, my many friends, and the occasional wild-eyed partisan with whom there is no argument; and in each of these conversations, some louder than others, there has always been an undercurrent suggesting that somehow the rest of the world's governments treat their populace with more care, somehow more humanely than we do here in the United States. I was always perplexed with this comparison until one day, I saw it all very clearly: we were supposed to be different!

We fought a revolutionary war to make sure that we did not take on the burdensome taxes found in the European model of government. We fought and died to make sure that we had the right to make boatloads of money in this country and secured this right in the blood of our countrymen to retain most of those dollars for ourselves and our posterity. We are supposed to be different! We are supposed to be able to keep our money! If you want to be taken care of, you can go anywhere in the world, as my friends and foes alike clearly indicate, where you can get your health care from the government and you can retire at age 62!

But we are different. We are the only country on earth where it IS different. As Ronald Reagan said, "If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on earth." And, according to those who would argue that most other governments offer health care, this is most certainly true. And in accepting this level of government care, these citizens have given up their right to keep the money they earn; sometimes up to 75% of their wealth! And in return? In return, they get government run health care, retirement, and all the inefficiencies associated with government run programs.

Sure, we want Social Security, a safety net, unemployment insurance, food stamps, etc.; we don't want to see people living in the streets. And I believe that we can provide that safety net, but at levels that are reasonable (a topic for another Blog). Social Security, after all, was meant to be an insurance program for people who didn't have wealth when they met their retirement age. No longer is it marketed in that way; now, it is the sole retirement account of so many who will depend on it when they hit the age of 65.

This age, of course, should be at least 72, and you can wait until then to take your money (it will be more money if you do), but we've re-branded Social Security as a retirement account while impeding its growth by attaching the Social Security fund to treasury bills. So, the choice is clear to those who are paying attention: we can give up our freedoms, let the government take over, or we can be different! We can be the country where people come from all over the world because we innovate, create, and produce due to the incentive we have built into our Constitution that says we can keep what we've earned; I say: let's be different!

Outrage and Epithets!

This topic almost puts me over the edge. I admit it. I find it hard to take and I'll tell you why. When I was a young conservative at San Diego State, we had a "sit-in" to demonstrate our objection to a Sandanista thug who was coming to speak at the student union. We brought our signs, which said stuff like, "Nicaragua Freedom Fighters NOW!", "Support Nicaraguan Freedom," and Sandanistas Supported by Communists." We sat out on the lawn where we had obtained a permit to sit, quietly.

As the faculty members at San Diego State University, most of whom we had identified as members of the Philosophy, Humanities, and English Depts. filed by, they spat on us, threw garbage at us, and called us "Baby Killers." It was outrageous, and there was no mention of it in the San Diego Union or the school paper. For years, the left has had marching orders that have included epithets and outrage all focused on obtaining favorable press coverage. My boyfriend in collge once obtained a list of protest suggestions from one of the Nicaragua protest groups (left-wing). I forget exactly what was on it, but I know the gist of it was that they were to obtain the most press coverage possible and there was mention of how to draw the opposition out and make them look bad in the press. There is such a double standard here, and I am tired of being demonized for my beliefs, which, for the most part, I have expressed peacefully, and with as many reference to facts as possible.

I don't give two hoots if the Tea Party started chucking half-eaten hot dogs at those idiots (eegads, I called a liberal an idiot) who just instituted a law that creates 159 new government offices and programs, and killed the free market for health insurance (I'll pause while liberals google the word "free market" [thanks Ann], and have essentially given over 20% of our economy to an economic entity that allocates resources with little thought to the most efficient methods and practices. We have become Europe with its lagging economy and lack of innovation, and if there is outrage over that fact, I support it wholeheartedly.

Frankly, I would not be surprised if this exercise of government power a la Max Baucus (God, it just kills me that the state of Montana actually provided the IDIOT who wrote this bill) ended in violence. Thomas Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence, and our president who is supposed to be a constitutional scholar should pay close attention here, because the English king had imposed taxation without representation, and had required citizens to house the red coates. Well, when you think about it, our Congress just passed a bill that the majority of the country (by any poll, anywhere) does not agree with. They turned the House of Representatives into the English Parliament in one fell swoop where the majority rules with an iron hand. That is a prescription for violence if I ever saw one.

I know that from a personal perspective, my husband, a small businessman who has worked hard for years hauling pool tables and keeping his store open, is ANGRY; in big red letters. He is joined by many small business people who clearly see this as an intrusion of the most egregious sort. Ammunition sales in the United States have increased 300% in the last five years, and with increasing unemployment, skyrocketing gas prices, inevitable increases in inflation and interest, and our debt ratings being downgraded, it is simply inevitable that someone will die. You just can't take away freedoms and expect people to sit calmly by and continue as if all is normal.

Just a week ago, in Chula Vista (I think), Roger Hedgecock was thrown out of a meeting. I don't know what the exact problem was, but it is not atypical for conservatives to be drummed out of meetings (Ann Coulter, Canada). Chris Matthews can make references to shooting Rush Limbaugh on his television program (which has less viewers now than afternoon Sponge Bob cartoons), and Glenn Beck is touted in Newsweek magazine to "Hate Jesus" for opposing programs that support "social justice" which he claims, rightly, are programs that are meant to undermine free society. Alec Baldwin suggested that if we lived in a different country, we could stone Henry Hyde to death; it goes on and on.

Ours has always been a nuanced argument, and nuanced arguments are easy to pick on if you take only one point and rip it to shreds in the press. But the free markets have a way of prevailing, I would just prefer it not be through a hundred year cycle, because I've only got about 40 years left (if I'm lucky). In the grand scheme of things, then, does it really matter that we're violent or throw strong epithets at freedom-stealing politicians? Not really. In fact, we may save our children from lives of certain dispair.

Conservative's Must Always Climb Uphill in the Battle of Ideas

Hard to argue that we must take care of the "least of us," as the always engaging Alcee Hastings says, but that's exactly what we must as conservatives argue. The schools haven't closed yet, the services are still working, the electricity is still on, the water is still flowing, because the money is still being printed. But, make no mistake, our country is spiraling into insolvency and despair. The death spiral is taking place without insuring the 27 million we are hoping to insure, and with it, we will not only now print more money, but we will lose 5,000,000 jobs in the private sector and reduce our global ability to compete to unpredented levels.

What we need is 1920's-like cuts to our budget, an austerity program, and, yes, some serious attention to how we manage health care in our country. All of the wealth of this nation is not enough to pay our debt by miles. The hope is, as the Rep. from NJ, Frank Pallone expresses, that if 40 million uninsured now become insured (and can we please use the realistic figure of 27 million?), our country will profit. Jobs will be created to serve these new folks. I don't know, maybe they're right, maybe we will somehow create 5 million new jobs and the 5 million jobs lost will be absorbed into our economy. Maybe all these healthy people will now start creating jobs, or small businesses (only under 50, because anyone over 50 employees will not be growing, I can guarantee it), and our defecit problems will go away. My God, we've actually started to believe this stuff. Well, the proof of the pudding is in the eating, says the Vice President, and we're going to be eating it now for sure.

Monetary policy is very simple. There are only three ways out: grow, inflate, or "re-boot" (as Glenn Beck is fond of saying). I prefer growth, and this bill will kill it, dead. Get ready for it, we're about to hit our economy hard. We've taken our gold from the safety deposit box, hidden our guns in our root cellar, and we're selling everything. You might think we're crazy, but when your country is $3Trillion in debt and your representatives are passing laws that will necessarily deplete, destroy (put your own word in here) your tax base, you start thinking about basic survival. Rugged individualism will be the order of the day, because our government will not provide the answers. In fact, it was not created to provide the answers, only the opportunity; which we have squandered. Good luck, everyone.

A Healthy America is A Strong America

The argument that if Americans are healthier, have good insurance coverage, and are not in fear for their financial lives if they contract an illness therefore our economy will benefit and life will be better is an honorable and important argument. With Americans visiting their doctors when they need to, receiving predictive tests earlier, and, in general, increasing their economic activity because they are not worried about how to finance debilitating illness is the goal, and has been the goal of conservatives for years. The argument that conservatives have not tried to address the health coverage crisis during the past 20 years, is a lie, in the words of what's her name on MSNBC, it is an L, I, E, Lie.

It is clear that personal responsibility is a concept that no longer applies in what used to be the United States of America. If the government, for instance, asked the insurance companies to offer a catastrophic illness policy, how many of the people now clamoring for the "rich" to pay their healthcare benefits would give up purchasing their Wii games, or flatscreen T.V.s to make sure their families were covered, even if it were on a sliding scale? Not too damn many. So, we have to force them? Is that they deal? And do they pay ANYTHING for it under this legislation? Conservatives have, for years advocated, not only personal responsibility, but health savings accounts (which are very effective) and various other cost-lowering ideas which have been poo-pooed by the left as unworthy. Tort reform has been all but untouchable.

First of all, catastrophic plans are available from insurance companies; they cost approximately $350/month for a family of 4. Yes, there is a pre-existing condition clause, however, the reason insurance companies are forced to put in the pre-existing condition clauses is because they have to take their actuarial information from small pools. They are not allowed, like car insurance companies, to compete nationwide because Blue Cross/Blue Shield, in the olden, golden days of large company purchase of health insurance (Remember? When Mom or Dad's policies took care of everything?), BCBS was regulated by the government and told, "no, no, no; no more monopoly in the insurance market." So, you now have companies that are trying to offer health insurance in small markets like Montana who can only count small pools of relatively unhealthy people (unless they force the pool to be healthy, i.e., pre-existing condition clauses) and their margins are 3.4% which is somewhere around 360th on the "Industry Profitability" chart. Yes, their executives probably get paid some exorbitant amount, but, believe me, if someone asks you to run one of these companies, you'd want the money too.

The POINT of this is that we have regulated the insurance industry into irrelevancy and pre-existing condition clauses. If health insurance companies could operate across state lines (and, yes, get big like BCBS did--hell, do you want the government, i.e., Dept of Motor Vehicles instead?), we could purchase health insurance much like we do car insurance because they would be using much larger actuarial pool data. But do we look to what we have done to private markets first when the problems arise? No, because the Progressives are in charge, and government is the answer to all the questions.

Not in my world. And certainly not to the extent that we will destroy private industry in America that is struggling to provide employment to our population. Think of the rule that if you have less than 50 employees, you won't have to participate in this new program. Think about how you might get around that. I'm going to start a company that advises small companies employing less than 500 people how to break up their companies into smaller companies and get around this bill. People will find a way to survive, and it will add bureaucracy on top of bureaucracy and our country will suffer.

Irresponsible, you say? About the same level of irresponsibility of those who think that someone else (anyone else) should be responsible to pay for their healthcare expenses. How many of the people whining and moaning that insurance wasn't available to them actually took out a catastrophic health policy from a young and healthy age in order to protect their homes? How would you feel if the private mortgage companies required you to carry a catastrophic policy in order to get a home loan (because, frankly, they should have; but Barney Frank and Bill Clinton didn't want that kind of language in the Community Reinvestment Act).

And does any of this address cost? Tell me how making people buy insurance policies addresses the cost of medical care. The overhead facing doctor's and hospitals is largely due to their own insurance liability costs, and don't believe the 2% baloney being floated by those who are trying to defend against Tort Reform. Liability costs are far-reaching and rarely measured correctly; but that is an entirely different discussion.

The simple fact of the matter is that we are about to ruin our economy. Pension funds already stretched to the limits, especially in California will plummet as stock prices of companies once profitable start to fail, Moody's, though I'm sure there will be great pressure not to do it, will have to downgrade the U.S.s credit score (which they should have done long ago), and the CBO scoring of this bill will be an absolute joke, because the interest payments we will now have to make on our debt will sink this country into European-like chaos. Watch Spain in the coming weeks and you will see our future.

The argument that we should have a healthy America and that it will help our economy is like so many other arguments about "fairness." If we were to be fair to everyone, anarchy would be the order of the day because one person's fairness is another person's tyranny. Beware of those who argue that socialized medicine (which is what this is at its heart; the insurance companies won't make it) is only "fair." We're going down the path of destruction of our economy; it's only a matter of time now. Sure, people will have health care, but we won't have any doctors, development of new drugs will be a thing of the past, and only the very rich will receive the health care they need because insurance companies will come up with a new product: the "go to the head of the line" insurance policy, just like they have in Britain. The rich will buy policies that send them to the head of the very long line and they will see the doctors before the poor. So, whereas before, you might have been in danger of losing your house (which is a lie, filing bankruptcy will save it, not to mention the many charitable programs at hospitals nationwide and with doctors everywhere), you will now be in danger of not receiving health care unless you are wealthy. What a (new) deal!

The U S S of A

I look out my window and see the same beautiful mountains that are there each morning and will be there when our society is long gone and think that there are certain things you get used to in your life, that you expect to live with, and even come to believe in. All my life, I've believed that I live in a free country; one that offers opportunity to those who are willing to work at it. It offered religious freedom to my great-grandparents who came here from Germany because they saw the opportunity to be a part of a community of people with similarly held beliefs, with the understanding that the government would leave them alone.

My grandparents lived through the Great Depression and believed that if they were careful, canned their own food, saved every dime, and used the equipment they still had to dig ditches for corn growers that they would come through it and offer their child the opportunity to attend college and become a teacher. My parents went to college, my mother earning her Master's degree in English, my father his Ph D in Sociology. Both believed in the opportunity to advance in our educational system; my father later started a successful private service business that provided the opportunity for his child to attend college. I myself believed that if I got my bachelor's degree, then my master's in business that I could develop a product or service in our economy that would provide not only a life-sustaining income, but the opportunity for my children to attend college or some similar preparation for a successful life. Reagan said, "We are the last place; if we fail [in keeping our society free] there is nowhere to turn."

For the first time in many generations, I believe that my daughters will not have the same opportunty to succeed that was available to me. We are so far in debt as a country that even my children's children will have no hope of extricating themselves from the yoke of their country's debt. We've watched as the intellectuals tell us that we must have this and we must have that in order to have "social justice." That, DURING A RECESSION, we must pass a far-reaching, society-changing entitlement program that is four years short of being "defecit neutral" over a ten year period. The double accounting, the assumptions given to the CBO in order to make it appear as though our debt doesn't grow are ridiculous on their face and those of us who analyze business financial statements for a living shake our heads in disbelief at the arrogance employed to sell this to the American people.

Considering the clearly preventable, yet now inevitable economic failure, makes us shake with anger for the lost years of income from our business that we see extending into the future: Our daughter's education funds gone, the declining value of our unsellable assets, the desperation and fear we see surrounding us in the our community all swirl around us like a strange cloud of impending doom. And through this cloud we watch the political arrogance of a President attempting to salvage his "political capital/Presidency," a Congress who can be bought with a ride on Air Force one, and a Senate who has become little more than an arrogant house of representatives, now only requiring a simple majority and making us more a parliamentary system than a republic. Rigid ideology with little to check or to balance will serve only to force us further in to social chaos and those who are truly desperate will then turn to anyone offering salvation.

This would all sound hauntingly familiar to those who saw the "transformation" of their country under Lenin, Stalin, and "put favorite Despot's name here." They extend a helping hand to the desperate, promising that the state will save them; they then use the power they gain to solidify the political construct. We have crept away from our Constitution and our founders would shake their heads in disbelief. Or maybe not. Maybe they would say, "This is no surprise. Governments time immemorial have had arrogant and misguided leaders that believed in edicts and taxation to benefit themselves in the name of the common good."

Jefferson said it best, "When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to separation.--We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal [and he did mean this in the "generic" sense], that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their powers from the consent of the governed.--that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form as to them shall seem most likely to affect their Safety and Happiness." He goes on to say that governments should not be changed for "light and transient" causes, and I contend that changing our economic system to resemble that of a socialist state is not a "light or transient" cause. Some would argue that we still have freedom, that the government is not forcing us to house the military and taxing us into economic ruin, but I would argue that this is indeed the case. We're just seeing it happen in a more modern setting.

I don't know where we'll find the place for our new state; as Reagan said, there isn't anywhere left to go. Perhaps Alaska, with its long history of rugged individualism, where the people might welcome a plan for secession. Unfortunately, our new country can no longer be in Montana, which is sad; we've lately attracted to our state those who are willing to turn away from free market solutions and sent them to Congress to serve with a long-time, entrenched, well-funded Senator who's audacity in crafting the legislation currently under consideration, that will change our society forever and plunge us into economic infidelity, is evident in his speaches and townhalls where only those who agree with him are invited. So, we can no longer think of our state as "The Last Best Place." When we find our new place, all who believe in freedom can relocate to our new, proud and free country. You might have to be repsonsible for yourself and help your neighbor, but we will encourage free markets, take the founder's idea about the checks and balances seriously and make a place where we can dare to hope and to dream again.

Now or Never

President Obama says that we must pass a health care program that doesn't take effect until 2014 (but one that we start paying for now) immediately or it will never get done. This is a straw-man argument and it is egregious. Bernie Sanders, gentlenut from Vermont, is fond of saying that 43,000 people die in the United States every year because we don’t have THIS program, and health care costs will double without it; another straw-man argument, equally egregious. I am sick, sick, sick of the all or nothing, we have to do it now crappola that continues to spew forth from the mouths of those who will never partake in this health care plan.

We have three choices. We can continue with the democratic, cronie-enhanced, lawyer-enrichment plan that currently exists, or we can choose from one of two options. The one currently under consideration is, if not a direct move into socialized medicine, an incrementally dangerous one. Or, we can look at our Constitution as the rule book it was intended to be and recognize that our health is a natural right, given to us by God (or by nature, in deference to my atheist husband), not a right granted by the Federal Government. We can do what our Constitution recommends by getting our federal government out of the way of the free market. Have our legislators yet asked why our “private” system of health care isn’t working? No. They have simply substituted one set of regulations for a new set and berated those who stand against the idea that unelected individuals should ever have veto power over the distribution of health products as obstructionists.

If we are obstructionists because we believe in free market ideals, then I raise my gun and salute all who join me. The government must provide the environment in which private companies can offer health insurance to the majority of Americans. We are not monsters, we also see solutions for the uninsurable, those with debilitating diseases or chronic health problems. Creating a separate pool for these individuals has been an idea floating around conservative circles for years. Obviously, we as a society must have a safety net, but we should pool our resources only to provide difficult-to-insure individuals with plans to which they can also contribute, if possible. Whenever the government has tried to offer insurance, of any kind, the system has been fraught with WF&A (waste, fraud & abuse) and each and every time our politicians promise to reduce the WF&A. Well, as Reagan would say, they haven’t done it yet, so why should we let them do it now?

If there is WF&A to the tune of billions, then go find it. Pass reasonable tort reform and start using activity-based costing methods to accurately determine the portion of costs our current legal system imposes on the hospital or doctor’s bills that we receive. Stop telling us it is only 2% of the total cost of health care in our system, when it is clear that doctors order tests to avoid litigation, a cost that has never been assessed. Start with the small stuff, and move forward; which brings me to my final point.

The argument that we must have a revolutionary reform in our health system is ludicrous. Small changes are a time-tested, acceptable method in the business world that will translate to effective change in health care. My questions are: why not make small changes? Why not start over with bipartisan support from the start? Why not? I’ll tell you why, because if we continue to pass large spending bills, our country will closely resemble Greece in several years, and since I live in the United States of America, I don’t want to look like Greece. I like our Constitution, I believe our founders had the right idea, and if you want to go live in Greece, you’ll get all the social engineering you could possibly want.

Monty Python is Alive and Well!

The Demonization of Dick Cheney

When I first listened to Dick Cheney, he was a representative from Wyoming. He was calm, assertive, conservative, and able to convey a sense of clarity in his foreign policy position. I strongly believe that Dick Cheney understands the concept of being at war with islamist extremists. He knows that they don't put on uniforms and conduct all out assaults using armies and tanks and that they use our weaknesses against us.

I've been dissappointed in Dick Cheney several times. The first time was when he advocated decreasing our defense budget. It took me several years to understand his philosophy of leaner, more responsive armed forces. I disagreed with him on several decisions he made to cancel weapon system's I believed should have been developed. He also became the director of the Council on Foreign Relations, an organization that I believe is based on an evil concept, and one that should be disbanded. I think, however, that Dick Cheney understands, better than most, the world's economic structure and that he needed to run in these circles in order to obtain information. He has always been a information hound, and we need a few of those in our midst.

I think the reason that I like Dick Cheney the most is his strong insistence on state's rights. From issues like gay marriage to health care, Dick Cheney has believed that state's should make their own decisions; a wise philosophy.

The media has consistently demonized Dick Cheney for his relationship with Halliburton. Though he divested his holdings, they latched on to his involvement with the large, private, military contractor, from which he gained most of his personal wealth, like leeches to skin. There are far more interesting things under the surface here than Halliburton, folks. Why is there no outrage that he was the director of the Council on Foreign Relations? Because progressives approve of it, that's why. Why did they not publicize his policy of decreasing our military forces by half? Because they approve of it! The hypocracy of these positions is evident.

The media have to have someone to vilify, and Vice President Cheney is the perfect guy. He's white, he's old, he's rich, and his life started with scandal in the form of draft deferments for the Vietnam War and will end with scandal with the undoubtedly sensational vice presidential papers that will one day be published. It doesn't matter that when you get to Washington D.C., they all have sensational and scandalous secrets that will eventually out, he's a conservative and that's enough.

It will never matter that he understands how to maneuver through the world economic nightmare controlled by only a few of the very rich. It will never matter that while understanding the hideous truth, Dick Cheney managed to float the dangerous waters and hold true to his conservative roots. And it will never matter that he protected the American public from islamic fundamentalist nutcases using what I truly hope were methods of interrogation resembling torture. We put caterpillars in rooms with these monsters, water-board them, and might even bash a few upside the head: well, good for us. And for these efforts, which could not have been very much fun, we have been rewarded with information that has kept us safe.

Dick Cheney is one of those few rich, old, white guys whom I believe have kept us safe, kept our economy from collapsing, and kept true to his conservative roots while navigating the minefields of global finance; so, find someone else to vilify for awhile. We know both the good and the bad about Dick Cheney and we accept that we need someone like him to provide leadership and do some of the dirty work in order to keep the rest of us working, living, and hoping for the future.

Just Say "NO!"

You can tell by the constant repetition from the talking heads on the left that the talking points have been handed out: the Republicans are the party of "No." "No," to health care for women and children, "no," to saving the earth, "no," to anything that our vaunted leader was elected accomplish. I wish I had a cartoonist to show the party hacks bashing their heads against a wall labeled "leftist agenda," because Barack Obama did not run as a leftist. He ran as a centrist with one fatal slip during his conversation with Joe The Plumber. They knew how to get him in, but they are far less sure about how to get him out.

You're darn right it should be "No." In fact, it should be "Hell, No!" Never have the Republicans been so united; a fact that has been overlooked by most. "Hell, no," we don't want a health care system riddled with special interest perks and massive intrusion into our private sector, more than already exists by miles. "Hell, no," we don't want a system of energy taxation that will devastate our economy and funnel dollars to the richest in our economy (look into Cap and Trade, it will shock you), and "Hell, NO!" we do not want further intrusion into the private sector by government bureaucrats who are motivated by self-interest and party affiliation. And finally, a huge "HELL, NO!" to the politically correct treatment of enemy combatants and giving constitutional protection to stone-cold killers who have clearly stated that they would like to see nothing less than the destruction of the Great Satan, the United States of America. They want to kill you, my fellow Americans, and they will use our weakness for "law and order" against us to do it.

I am proud to be in the company of those who have decided to say, "Hell, no!" to the destruction of the greatest country on earth. And make no mistake, once the government gets control of 1/6th of our economy, we will be well on our way to looking exactly like the socialist economies of Europe, with no growth and limited opportunity for innovation. If you are still unconvinced, take a hard look at where the innovation is taking place in the world today. It is still in the good 'ol U.S.of A., (and then China manufactures it all: Fair Trade anyone?). So, join us in the party of "Hell, No!" and preserve your children and grandchildren's future because it is clearly in jeapardy and the call to action is upon you.

Compromise

Most liberals are fairly conservative in their thinking; but, they don’t want to agree with anything a conservative has to say for fear they will then be stigmatized. God forbid, my mother-in-law, who is more conservative than I am, admit that there might be conservatism in her thought processes. Fiscally, she is far more conservative than most Republican’s I know, but she spent 35 years as a member of the NEA and, to her, Republican is a bad word. Those nasty Republican’s, they want teachers to suffer. They want to pay teacher’s less and spend more on defense, it’s just the way they are. Obviously, I could get into the argument about why it is important to spend money on defense in order to have an economy that is stable and, thereby, money to pay the teachers, but it will never get that far. The level of polarization is beyond our ability to bridge those gaps anymore.
At least my Dad admits that he is a progressive. He comes right out with it, unapologetically, and says, I think government should take over the health care system, run the Arabs out of the country, and nuke Iran. Well, isn’t that a breath of fresh air? We’re all so busy accusing each other of our perceived faults that we can’t reach any common ground. And do we want to really? In Massachusetts last month, most Democrats said they voted for Scott Brown because they didn’t want one party in control. Democrats in Massachusetts voted for a Republican…what has the world come to? My favorite liberal friend laments that they will lose everything they’ve worked for if they lose the health care package currently before the senate due to Scott Brown’s election. But what is it the Democrats/liberals/progressives have really put in to this bill? All that work includes: an extension of HIPPA (really, at the center of it) in the form of Max Baucus’ contribution, pay-offs to the unions who don’t want their Cadillac health plans taxed, pay-offs to the service unions for the same, no public option, which most liberals will say was the point of their efforts to begin with, and some bribes to the good folks of Arkansas and Kansas that will exempt them from these efforts. Yep, that’s a lot to lose, alright. So, a crappy plan will get tabled, a real tragedy in the liberal world.
Why, however, did they not get it passed during the last several months? They had the votes, or they were supposed to have had them. We conservatives don’t have the ability to stop this, it’s all in their court, but they couldn’t get it done. My question is this: why is the first reaction of the politicians who couldn’t get this done to blame the Republicans for obstructing the bill? We didn’t have the votes, we didn’t have the ability to stop anything from passing, but the accusations started flying almost immediately. We are hip-deep in the hypocrisy of it all. But it’s not even the accusations that piss me off. It’s the elitist, we know better than you attitude of any politician who thinks that they can take my money and tell me what I need from them. It truly makes me sick. I’m so tired of the regulation, taxation, and the cradle-to-grave mentality, that I think I’ll just throw up on it all. I want to find the middle ground, I want to find a way to agree on basic principles with those who feel strongly one way or another, but it will never happen. It’s the end of communication as we know it. Debate is out the door. Conservatives are constantly being called “closed-minded,” defeatist, obstructionist, hacks and we’re tired. We’re tired of being the ones to compromise.
Yep, I know, we never compromise. Well crap on that. We spent the entire Bush administration compromising our core values, and we’re seeing the result in the tea party movement. The age of compromise is over, and if my prediction is correct and we are a “middle-right” country, as I suspect, we will no longer be interested in compromise. We’ve spent too much, done too little, and the progressives are going to have to run away again into the dark closet of history, because we, as small business people, are the only hope for the economy.
We are the only hope for the teachers, firemen, police and all the other public servants who get paid using tax dollars. It never seems to get through to the partisans: tax dollars pay teacher’s salaries and there is a limit to what people are willing to fork over as a percentage of their take-home pay. A very small percentage of the total taxable population in this country are truly rich; so, the liberals can blame them for everything from getting big bonuses (which they spend, generally, in our economy) to just being rich, but when it comes down to brass tacks, the numbers don’t lie. The rich will take all their money and go elsewhere or decide that it’s just not worth it if you take more than 50% of their money! Since that leaves us with the middle class (us poor saps who earn under $100k a year) to pay for all the services, the tax rates will skyrocket. Where do you think this is all going? To hell, that’s where. And we’re sick of it, we’re sick of it to the point of no longer wanting to find common ground. So, although this was supposed to be about finding common ground, I guess I’m no longer interested.

The Boy King

I didn't have to listen to all of it to know what he would say. The Boy King, in deference to himself, knew where to put the blame. You could see that he clearly believed that "it" was not his fault. "It" is our economic depression. We are losing our home, my husband and I work 60-80 hours a week, seeing our children for two very tired hours each night, yet, we're barely making ends meet. Without my second job and a business we've spent 15 years to build, which, once dug out, is now dug back in, we'd be sunk. But he was concerned whether America would blame him, you could hear it in the unspoken words.
You could hear it in the cadence of his voice: each sentence began with a tone of conviction and then the words blurred together toward the end as if to force them into an attempt at believability. Or maybe he thought it sounded intellectual to speak more quickly at the end of a sentence than at the beginning, like William F. Buckley, only without the elite vocabulary. He was nervous. The once glorious messiah of the down-trodden and the one who would deliver them from the evils of the Great Satan, with the roar of the cheering crowds in his ears, was nervous. He lashed out like my child lashes out at me when she knows she has committed an offense. “I’m right!” she screams at the top of her lungs; but I know better, because, well, I’m an adult.
He was speaking to adults, but talking to himself. He was angry, lecturing, as if the adults weren’t paying attention. The people are turning away and the child king is stomping his foot, “You not doing it right! Why won’t you listen to me?” We’re all trying to survive and we’re watching our king and his minions fly on jets to stay in hotels that cost $2,200 a night in order, they say, to save us from ourselves and our polluting ways: we’re done listening now. The king is no longer as important as he once was; the grownups have woken up and now see that he isn’t what he said he was: wise, seasoned, and centered. He was just what he was when all the adoration and joyous praise began; he is still just a boy.

To My Bestest Liberal Friend in the World

I know I get a little rowdy sometimes with my conservative bents, but every once in awhile, I temper my writing and really try to deal with the issues so that someone on the opposite side of the political spectrum can understand that conservatives are not evil, we're as lovable as they come. We're environmentally conscious, we get mad that too many things are made in China, we believe that we have the right to carry firearms, and we're scared to death that our children will carry the burden of an exploding debt that nobody seems to understand because it's TOO BIG! Count to a Billion, I dare you. It will take you 250 or so days. It takes 900 years or more to count to a Trillion. So, I received a nicely worded letter from a dear liberal friend via facebook e-mail recently and thought I should respond in kind.

Dear Lisa,

I don't think this plan is going to bring us affordable health care; my party has NOT been taken over by the Pat Robertsons of the world, in fact, it's being taken over by people like my husband, Lance, who cannot fathom the thought that we are printing fiat money in order to make promises that we can never fulfill and passing social programs that may or may not work and will most certainly take the money that we so desperately need to survive. The Tea Party movement is full of us, those who believe in rugged individualism, personal responsibility, and, yes, taking care of those we must care for in our society. That doesn't mean that we think we must de-incentivize the majority of our small business people who will be required to give up 30-50% of their profits in order to pay for health care for all.

We have tried none of the things that might work, i.e., tort reform, true competition among insurance agencies (across state lines), which is actually a big deal. Those who have suggested it have been poo-poo'd by the left for suggesting it, but think about it. Why can you buy a life insurance policy that will pay out $200-$500,000 if you die for $30/month when health care, if you have a pre-existing condition, which I do, will cost $1,200 (or more) every month? Why? Because the insurance companies have only certain areas over which to spread their risk. I researched this when I was told my health insurance would cost $1,800/month because I have a degenerative disk. Apparently, the pool of risk is only Montana. Well, hell, if I were an insurance company who had only 850,000 person risk pool (full of alchoholics!), I'd charge a fortune for it too! We've never had a situation in the U.S. where health insurance has been offered free from regulation and limits on the insurance companies abilities to spread risk over a larger pool of applicants. And if there is one thing that I have learned in now twenty years in business and teaching, it is that we need to try things on a trial basis before implementation on a national basis. It's as risky as any entrepreneurial venture in that it can bankrupt our country, yet there is no fear of that very real threat. In fact, I find that Massachusetts is a fabulous example of the attempt to offer its citizens health coverage. I've read a few articles in preparation for debate and they found that when they didn't address costs, they weren't able to make it work. They had to go back to the drawing board more than once, and it still isn't balancing. That could be why the citizens of MA will think twice about sending a yes vote to the Senate for this particular plan. As usual, I believe that freedom of competition in all things brings not only freedom, but the innovation that is so sorely missing from most bureaucracies.

And why would we want to emulate countries that have no entrepreneurial incentives in their economies and whose people have to come to the U.S. for medical care they can't find in their own countries? Why do liberals constantly refer to the "rest of the world" when comparing our system of health care in an effort to deride our system when social medical programs worldwide have been dismal failures and have depressed otherwise thriving economies? I've written a great deal on my blog on this topic, and I won't repeat it here for fear that I'll bore you to death (because bureaucracy is ALWAYS boring).

Your liberal laundry list is impressive, recycling, big banks giving huge bonuses, protectionism, etc., but in each and every case, there are good, solid reasons why freedom, not protectionism or socialism is the answer. I recycle everything in my house. I spend every other Sunday chunking plastic bottles into the recycling center bins and my beef with that is that with all the attention on global warming, why can I not recycle glass? Different types of plastic? Etc., Etc. I'll tell you why, because it's not related to global warming! It's the most important issue that we face in our environment, far more important than whether the U.S. participates in lowering our carbon emissions which are per capita far less than China who will be exempt under the "accord," but where are the grants? Where are the attempts to make sure that we don't clutter our world with crap? No where, that's what...because it's not sexy, and there's nothing world-shaking about it. We are finally going to get rid of paperboard boxes by using an innovative material to pack dry food stuff so we can stop stuffing our landfill with trees. So, my best liberal friend, there are many of us who have cared about our environment for years and years who don't want our industries ruined, but DO want our environments cleaned up. There, that's the recycling issue, now for banking. No really, I'm done. I think that private companies should be able to give their executives any compensation package they think is necessary to retain top talent. If the government owns it, that's different, but if it's private, you have the choice, don't use that bank. And while you're looking at the huge bonuses, be sure to look at how much that company contributes to charities and, for that matter, how much the executives contribute to charity.

Freedom, personal responsibility, incentives to build businesses and create jobs by getting out of the way (i.e., not taxing us to death), ya, that's all really terrible stuff. We created 45 million jobs in the U.S. from 1948 to 1982, that's astounding! And do you know who did it? Small business, that's who. Entrepreneurs, who brought us out of what is called the Kondratiev wave where an economy can be ruined by the passing of older technologies, created the jobs that were necessary to employ so many people who otherwise would have been desperate. Look at your economy: tax receipts are down, state and county budgets will have to be cut. I think when the first round of teacher and police lay-offs happen, people will finally wake up and realize that you can't have it all.

NFIB, the small business lobbyist in the U.S. does not believe that this health care plan, or any plan to raise taxes on small business in any way will help us, not out of this recession (which I predict will continue for several more years, and which we will be lucky to survive), not out of very high unemployment rates, and not out of the pure and simple fear that my small business colleagues have of high taxes (which are inevitable with huge social programs) and debilitating government regulation. What WILL work is to get out of the way! We need to rock the small business world and make their day by stopping the insane amount of government spending using pre-printed money and let them roll. They can do it, I know, because I'm one of them!

We're not crazy, we don't hate poor people, we don't want those who are sick to lose their homes, and we don't hate black people. We're conservatives! We're proud to be the descendants of those nasty white boys who believed in freedom, guns, and the right to own property. And before you go off on Jefferson, he asked for the right for slaves to be freed from the very beginning, but the southern states wouldn't budge, so in order to save the union, he capitulated; but he did manage to make the north free from slavery during the process. I believe in the founding fathers, I believe in the right to be free from tyranny (of any kind), and I believe in the Constitution of the U.S. of A. That's not a bad thing, not bad at all.