I keep hearing everyone say either, “Deregulate!” or “Re-regulate!”  What do I not see them saying?  I don’t see them offering any rational reason why one is better than the other.  I don’t see them telling the people why they will personally benefit from either.  When I see this happening, I again, go to the root of the problem and offer you solutions.

The housing market crashed.  The derivative market that traded toxic assets helped obliterate our economy.  The question is why and what do we do now?

Throughout history going back a century, the value of real estate has only seen growth equal to inflation which basically puts home values flat for most of the 1900’s relative to your personal income.  The only reason you would make little money back from selling your house and moving is because you lived there for so long you had enough equity that inflation did compensate you some.  Some are going as far back as the Carter administration to place blame because of the Community Reinvestment Act; while others go to their “fail-safe” mode of blaming the Bush administration.  After all, even our current President keeps using that card over one year later.  While I’m not going to point blame on any one administration, what I do know is that government regulation and policy caused this crash.

You can see what happened starting 1999.  Property prices stopped following the historical trend, which is based on data from 1987 through 2000.  Other charts dating back decades follow the same trend.  While I’m not entirely blaming this recession on the Clinton administration, this was a time that there was a big push in the government to get every American in a home (think; Government Interference in Our Economy).  Janet Reno began enforcing the Carter Community Reinvestment Act and Fannie and Freddie were told by government officials to start lending and loosening their credit standards.  This created a very lucrative derivative market that was ENCOURAGED and SUPPORTED by GOVERNMENT POLICY.  Regulation and government backing caused all of our homes to see incredible gains in value that we’ve never experienced in the US.  During the Bush administration, there were plenty of warnings that this artificial increase was wavering.  Individuals called for change in regulation but Congressional leadership (both Republican and Democrat) refused.  It was just a year or so prior to the crash that Maxine Waters and Barney Frank saw nothing wrong with Freddie and Fannie while the problems were blatantly obvious.

The minute the government got involved things went wrong.  That’s why those yelling “Re-regulation!” are wrong.  That’s why we need the government out of our lives and they should just start doing ONLY what the Constitution has outlined for them to do.  Another recent example that isn’t quite as severe as this would be the biodiesel industry here in Iowa.  The Congress has been offering tax credits and subsidies that made it possible for these companies to be profitable and produce a service.  Now that Congress has not extended the tax credit, these companies are facing financial ruin.  Government is NEVER the answer in our financial lives.  They have over-stepped the boundaries.  So when you’re sitting at home having lost a significant portion of your home’s equity look no further than the hand that’s trying to force feed you higher taxes, higher energy costs and terrible healthcare.  When I get to Washington I will never support policy that oversteps Congressional Constitutional powers.  They’ve been doing it for years and it’s time we put them in their place and told them – “Know Your Role!”

In a time when failed policy tells us the government just needs to get out, they have forced themselves to become much more than just the referees of our economy.  They are now the fans, owners in some cases, coaching staff and have even stepped in to be the players.  The government’s “I, I, I” policy where they believe the solution is government has eroded our economy and even worse, this contagious disease of destructive behavior is trickling down to the states.

The NRO pointed out that government arrogance has ruined states like Michigan even though they are merely perpetrating the example of our President and Congress.  Governor Granholm, two-term governor, has boosted infrastructure by leveraging Michigan’s future, which at this point in time, is bleak at best.  She has built low revenue industries like solar-power with government subsidies while driving out high revenue industries like pharmaceuticals that required no subsidies by repealing old laws that made Michigan the favorable place to be.  She has increased taxes on 60% of small businesses and boosted the state’s income tax to cover these subsidies.  Unemployment has launched to 14% as she stands in front of the state saying her plan is finally working.  She focused on renewable-energy while ignoring the businesses that needed help with lower taxes.

Sound familiar?  I am not referring to President Obama, though this is the very thing he’s doing.  I’m referring to Governor Culver.  He’s focused our economy on tax credits and government subsidies in industries that cannot sustain themselves otherwise.  He focuses on low revenue industries while cutting the state budget across the board by 10%.  He works to fight our state’s Right to Work laws while unemployment rises.  Governor Culver is following the very same plan as Governor Granholm and President Obama.

When government takes over it has proven time and time again to fail.  When it comes to business, they have consistently shown they make stupid decisions.  They have consistently shown they are stupid spenders.  They have consistently shown we cannot rely on government to help us out of the recession – and we shouldn’t.  That’s not their job.  But we should be able to rely on them to at least move out of the way. Government has never reduced cost, increased availability or improved quality on anything.

Our government keeps claiming they will make things better yet they follow the same failed policy that we learned didn’t work decades ago.  Increased government spending is not what Reagan did to pull us out of Jimmy Carter’s failed economic policy.  Increased taxes are not what Reagan did to fight inflation.  Government intervention is not what Regan did to pull America out of a recession.  Rather, Reagan stopped spending, limited the size of government, lowered taxes and fixed our economy by not interfering in the private sector.

The disease of government intervention has trickled down from Obama and Congress to local and state leadership.  The solution:  Vote them out.  Replace them with those that are willing to do what worked during the Reagan era.  Get out of the way and provide consistent, pro-growth policies that enable businesses rather than hinder them.

The House of Representatives spent much of yesterday discussing H.ConRes. 248, the Afghanistan War Powers Resolution, sponsored by Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-OH).  The resolution would have required the president to remove all U.S. troops in Afghanistan within 30 days of the resolution being signed into law unless the president felt it would not be safe to do so.  In that case, the president would then have until December 31, 2010 to withdraw all troops from the country.  The resolution went directly against General McChrystal’s recommendation for the region and against President Obama’s own strategy.  It lost by an overwhelming vote of 356-65.

Not only would this resolution have sent a bad message to our troops overseas, it would also have sent a message to our enemies that we are not committed to winning the war on terror.  I was strongly opposed to this resolution and will continue to be opposed to any resolution like this one that does not give our full support to our men and women in uniform.

This resolution epitomizes the extreme disconnect between the American people and the majority party in Congress.  Rather than discussing legislation that will create jobs and improve our economy, the House of Representatives spent the day debating a resolution that would endanger our troops and undermine our efforts in Afghanistan and around the world.  The American people are sick and tired of Congress wasting precious time while the unemployment rate continues to hover at 10 percent and the economy still continues to lag.  They are fed up with a Congress that disregards what they want and need in order to push their own liberal agenda, including a massive government takeover of our health care system. 

It’s time for this government get back to the business of representing our constituents.

Originally Published March 05

Healthcare reform has been the Democrat’s frontline issue for quite some time now.  As we have all seen the debating via the media as Republicans have opposed the bill and Democrats bribed for passage there is one distinct thing that neither is willing to discuss.  High deductible healthcare plans.

Anyone that has heard my stump speech knows that I know in order for us to bring down healthcare costs we need skin in the game.  President Obama and Congressman Boswell have fought against this concept and Republicans have been scared to commit to it.  I read a great article this week arguing in favor of high deductible plans by Michael Tanner from the CATO Institute.  The point is this; Healthcare reform can’t occur by shifting more of the burden from the consumer to the government.  In his article, Tanner said this:

“Perhaps that is because in the long-run, the only way to spend less on health care is to consume less health care. Someone, sometime, has to say no. But the incentives under our current health care system perversely encourage everyone to say ‘yes.’”

Right now, the consumer only pays 13 cents of every dollar spent on healthcare.  That is not insurance, it’s a pre-paid medical plan.  Insurance is something you pay for in case of emergency.  Not when you have a flat tire, the sniffles or your screen door breaks.  The current healthcare bill will lower that consumer burden to only 10 cents of every dollar spent.

Tanner describes it perfectly.

“Think of it this way. If every time you went to the grocery store, someone else paid 87 percent of your bill, not only would you eat a lot more steak and a lot less hamburger – but so would your dog. And food costs would go up for everyone.”

The point is this.  If America wants to get healthcare costs under control than we need to spend less.  We will not do this if we do not place some of the cost burden back on the consumer and stop going to the doctor to hear them say “you’ll just have to wait a few days to get over your cold.”

That’s why HSA High Deductible Plans work.  You think twice before going in because you have a runny nose but will have coverage when you break your leg or need surgery.  We need to stop shifting responsibility from the government and our health insurance companies and start taking personal responsibility for our own healthcare.

It is not unreasonable to ask individual citizens to share the responsibility of healthcare.  If we actually did this, even with a lack of competition we currently have, prices would go down.  It’s basic economics.  As demand decreases for all of those small things few of us pay for right now they would be forced to drop the price otherwise no one would go to the doctor and they would go out of business.

Why we are under the impression that the health insurance companies control the prices is beyond me.  We as consumers control the prices.  It’s based on our demand.  If we stop consuming at the ridiculously high levels that current consumption is at, they will be forced to drop prices to try to get you back in their door.

We need to demand that President Obama, Congressman Boswell and even my fellow Republicans, start to focus on us, not them or insurance companies as the solution.  Rather than passing one 2,000-page bill, let’s start passing smaller bills that have solutions we know will work.  They aren’t trying to reform healthcare, they are trying to build our dependency on the government and based on the current plan, healthcare costs will only increase.

For a year now, the “Healthcare reform” seems to be the only issue on Obama’s agenda – isn’t it strange that during times of a severe recession our President is still chipping away at getting the healthcare reform passed?  What possesses this man to blatantly ignore America’s voice when we  said “no” to healthcare reform?   

One thing we do know is this – Obama’s reluctance to address the real issues during this recession is the living proof that he has an ulterior motive for jamming this reform down our throats! As you read on, it becomes quite evident that Obama plans to do just what he said during his campaign; he’s going to “Spread the Wealth”  via big government.  

A good leader and administrator prioritizes and has his “ducks in a row,” meaning jobs, downsizing the government, eradicating the earmarks and stopping the millions of foreclosures, but not this man.  His agenda is the “Healthcare Reform” and he will try to pass it at all costs even if it means placing our Nation in harm’s way by increasing our National deficit. 

He’s already proven that he’ll pay whatever the going price may be to secure votes for this reform – there’s the Louisiana Purchase, Jim Matheson, Ben Nelson of Nebraska, Sen. Ron Wyden, Sen. Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas and my guess is more Democrats will be bought in the next week.  Watch headline news to see which of the Democrats will vote “Yea,” if the price is right!

Logic tells us that in order to pay for this reform, taxes will be substantially increased, Medicare will suffer, business of all sizes will take a huge hit and the horrendous cost of this healthcare reform may be the straw that breaks the camel’s back. 

2009 proved to be the year of the “ABOP.”  HAMP, was another botched Obama program (ABOP), TARP another botched Obama program (ABOP) , Harp yet another botched Obama program, stimulus bill (ABOP);  so 2009 is truly the year of the “ABOPS.”  2010 is looking like another repeat of 2009, especially if the Healthcare Reform bill is passed.   All of the 2009 bills or reforms have been a smoke screen for “Spreading the Wealth.”

The mistake made by American’s was electing a stranger to lead our country – we didn’t know the man, we didn’t know anything about him and we still don’t know this person that many call Mr. President.  We had a right to check the man they call Obama out, to know his history, his values, his real character, but we didn’t – he was too slick for us and too many people like the word “Change.”  Here is a quote by John Adams that says it all.

The people “have a right, an indisputable, unalienable, indefeasible, divine right to that most dreaded and envied kind of knowledge– I mean of the character and conduct of their rulers.”

If one is to judge a man by his actions and deeds, Mr. Obama would have failed on all counts.  His actions and deeds have been disgraceful the first year of his presidency, because not one of his promises during the Presidential campaign have come to fruition.  

Surely there are some Democrats in the White House that can’t be purchased and who will stand up for their Nation and fellow Americans; it’s impossible for all of them to tuck their tail between their legs and slink away into the vast unknown of Obamanism.   PLEASE WILL THE “REAL DEMOCRATS” STAND UP and put a stop to this healthcare reform; as I mentioned earlier this could easily be the straw that breaks the camel’s back.

One hour and forty minutes after the White House issued their Easter deadline for ObamaCare to pass Congress, Democratic House Leaders conceded “they may not meet President Barack Obama’s challenge for swift action.”

Whenever the House Leadership moves a vote, it means they don’t have the votes. In Spanish, that’s mañana.

With the White House issuing a deadline and the Dem House leaders immediately and publicly saying, not so much, the White House looks silly and limp and powerless. They look even more out of touch and desperate than they did when President Obama announced that he will not quit with his self-appointed Captain Ahab role of hunting the great-health-care-white-whale.

But the best news (finally) is that a group of Democrats are willing to have News at 11 film them shooting ObamaCare in the head.

Read More →

But will President Obama listen? He did refer to Mr. Buffett as one of the wise men whose counsel he would seek on important matters of state. Considering how many campaign promises have been cast aside, one shouldn’t be surprised when this one is ignored as well. After all, the president has a country to remake in the image of Greece.

“Billionaire investor Warren Buffett advised President Barack Obama on Monday to scrap the health care bill and start over.”

and

“In an interview with CNBC, Buffett said the current bill does not focus on controlling costs, which he sees as the central problem that must be addressed to reform the system.”

finally

‘”If it was a choice today between plan A, which is what we’ve got, or plan B, what is in front of - the Senate bill, I would vote for the Senate bill,” Buffett said. “But I would much rather see a plan C that really attacks costs. And I think that’s what the American public wants to see. I mean, the American public is not behind this bill. And we need the American public behind the bill, because it’s going to have to do some tough things.”‘

Of course the White House will probably trumpet this as “Buffett endorses Senate Bill”. It sounds like the exact message Republicans were trying to get across to the president at last Thursday’s health care summit. Which party is supposed to represent the “reality based community” again?

H/T to this tweet by Ben Domenech for alerting me to it.

A while back I did a post on the “Beer Summit” highlighting Obama’s lack of concern for those around him. The picture from Ben Domenech’s tweet reminded me of that. Take a look at it:

The man comforting the child is Harold Ford, a man who unsuccessfully sought Bill Frist’s old Senate seat in Tennessee back in 2006 (he lost to Bob Corker, for the record), and he’s trying to primary Hillary Clinton’s replacement in New York, Kirsten Gillibrand.

Obama, meanwhile, is minding his own business in the background looking off into the distance somewhere seemingly unaware of what’s happening in front of him.

Looking at that picture, I couldn’t help but think about how President Bush might have reacted in this situation, and how different the two men are.

So, then, how would Bush have reacted? There is ample evidence from which to judge. Perhaps most notable is this one image:

Says the Cincinnati Enquirer:

In a moment largely unnoticed by the throngs of people in Lebanon waiting for autographs from the president of the United States, George W. Bush stopped to hold a teenager’s head close to his heart.

Lynn Faulkner, his daughter, Ashley, and their neighbor, Linda Prince, eagerly waited to shake the president’s hand Tuesday at the Golden Lamb Inn. He worked the line at a steady campaign pace, smiling, nodding and signing autographs until Prince spoke:

“This girl lost her mom in the World Trade Center on 9-11.”

Bush stopped and turned back.

“He changed from being the leader of the free world to being a father, a husband and a man,” Faulkner said. “He looked right at her and said, ‘How are you doing?’ He reached out with his hand and pulled her into his chest.”

Faulkner snapped one frame with his camera.

“I could hear her say, ‘I’m OK,’ ” he said. “That’s more emotion than she has shown in 21/2 years. Then he said, ‘I can see you have a father who loves you very much.’ ”

“And I said, ‘I do, Mr. President, but I miss her mother every day.’ It was a special moment.”

Ron Boat has this picture posted on his Facebook and had this to say as the caption:

From Ron Boat: In contrast to our current insensitive, politically opportunistic pres, people i know who know Bushs 41 & 43 say the family is truly caring and concerned. Even the Friday of Ft. Hood, Pres and Mrs Bush secretly went to the hospital to see the wounded and INSISTED that the press not know or tell anyone. Only the week after did the word leak out they went to show their concern. What a difference a year makes. I needed to add this: From Valerie Geibel-Wells “I am from the area (this was at a rally in Lebanon, OH) and know this family. Her mother was lost in 9.11 and was a wonderful humanitarian. They never found her remains and the girl was devastated - this was honest compassion from the leader of the free world who as he walked by her someone yelled to him “she lost her mother in the Trade Centers… See More” and he stopped and turned around and came back and hugged this girl for what seemed an eternity - something we don’t get now. He is true to America and never put us down.” Thanks Valerie. (Thanks for posting this Ron!)

Looking at these pictures, with the one of Sgt. Crowley I discussed earlier, and comparing them, I can only come to the conclusion that he just doesn’t care.

It’s not a conclusion I want to make about the leader of the free world, but it’s what I see when I look at these pictures.

He. Just. Doesn’t. Care.

EDIT: I’d like to point out that even Bill Clinton, Obama’s most recent Democratic predecessor didn’t have such a tin ear. He wouldn’t have been so uncaring, and he certainly wouldn’t have let such a moment slip past him. After all, remember he feels your pain.

So, let it sink in…

He. Just. Doesn’t. Care.

This diary was originally posted here at my blog Jake Speaks.

When she was a newly minted House Minority leader, Nancy Pelosi hired an adveritising/marketing agency to get their advice on the best way to regain the majority. The advice as she relayed it was to oppose the Bush agenda lock, stock and barrell, in essence to become the party of no. After spending an hour fruitlessly trying to find the article I have given up. Maybe someone else will have better luck digging it out of the recesses of Google. From January of 2005 until November of 2006, Nancy Pelosi and her Democratic colleagues in the Senate followed this advice to the letter. They opposed President Bush on Social Security reform and refused to submit their own plan for saving the system from bankruptcy. On Iraq, they offered no solutions to achieve victory, in fact they were eager to declare defeat and cede that country to Al Qaeda. Cut to January 2007 and incoming Democratic majorities in the House and Senate.

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1576122,00.html.

“When the G.O.P. pushed through a bill granting Bush the ability to suspend the
ancient right of habeas corpus for terror suspects, the man who would become the
Democratic Senate majority leader after the election, Harry Reid, said, “The
framers of our Constitution understood the need for checks and balances, but
this bill discards them.” Across the country Democratic candidates for both
chambers of Congress painted their opponents as rubber stamps for Bush’s failed
policy in Iraq. And the day before the Nov. 7 vote that would vindicate his
chairmanship of the Senate Democratic Campaign Committee, New York’s Charles
Schumer said voters were flooding to Democrats in part because they had decided
that the country needed “some checks and balances in this government.”

But when it comes to actually taking any action to check Bush’s war
powers, there’s not much bite to the Democrats’ bark. Which raises the question:
will Democrats use their new power to rein in what they say is an overreaching
President? Or will they choose to continue what proved to be a successful
political strategy when they were in the minority: criticizing the
Administration for unpopular policies while avoiding taking action themselves
that could prove equally unpopular?”

Politically, however, it’s hard to
argue with a winning strategy. The ACLU’s three races fly in the face of Harry
Reid’s victorious approach throughout the 109th Congress: hammer the President
in every public forum on Iraq and executive overreach, but never, ever get on
the wrong side of tough national security policies.”

If being the Party of NO was good enough for the Democrats, in fact they claimed it as the patriotic thing to do, why isn’t it acceptable for Republicans to follow suit when they are in the minority?

The Democrats have shown little (Senate) to no(House) interest in negotiating with Republicans. As President Obama told Senator Kyl (R-AZ), “I won, I trump you on that”. Holding the White House and large majorities in the House and Senate the Democratic strategy is to craft legislation that realizes progressives’ dreams, in the case of nationalizing health care, a dream they have had for over a century. When Republicans predictably refuse to sign on to legislation they haven’t had any input on drafting they will be labeled obstructionists by the Democrats and a compliant, complicit media.

Being labeled the Party of No scares the daylights out of Sen. McConnell, but it shouldn’t. The fact is that Obamacare is not popular with the electorate and Republicans have nothing to lose in standing up for the rights of the people. From the invitation that Rahm Emmanuel sent out for the health care summit the fix is already in “Since this meeting will be most productive if information is widely available before the meeting, we will post online the text of a proposed health insurance reform package”. As far as Obama/Reid/Pelosi are concerned this summit is just political theatre. They will make nice on camera and then ram a hyper-partisan bill through.

When President Obama met with House Republicans at their retreat he claimed he wasn’t an idealogue. He could go a long way to proving that by pledging to veto any health care legislation that comes out of the Senate via reconciliation. If he refuses to make that promise Republicans should proudly accept the mantle of the Party of No! Or as that sign at one of the tea party rallies put it: The Party of Hell No!

No legislation will be signed as a result of the White House health care meeting.

Congress is politically radioactive. ObamaCare is hated. And never has a Speaker’s low approval rating created male-trance-like-obedience to injure themselves like some hilarious Super Bowl commercial.

According to the sisterhood-in-chief: Obama “signaled early on that he could be rolled when he ceded too much power to Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid in putting together the stimulus bill.” Note to historians: Obama’s ‘let Congress decide’ masked the legislative inability of the perpetual candidate, but also the fact he was rolled by her.

And does anybody believe that, to paraphrase Senator Rockefeller, the unbelievable President Obama can talk any thing into existence?

Read More →