Curious Quote

"When you rush these budgets that are a foot high and nobody has any idea what's in them and nobody has read them...It gets rushed through without any clear deliberations or debate, then these kind of things happen. And I think it is some ways what happened to the [Fill in a politicized piece of legislation from the past]. I mean you remember there was no real debate about that. It was so quick after [fill in with challenging time in our country] that it was introduced that people felt very intimidated by the administration."

Who said this and when? Find out in the "Comments".

Superman's Kryptonite?

President Obama is trying to make good on his campaign promise of reforming health care. But the once invincible and fearless super hero might have found his kryptonite. I can't tell if it is specifically the health care legislation, or if it is too much too soon. Too much spending too soon. Too much transformative legislation too soon. But either way, President Obama's support is slipping.

Depending on which poll you look at, his approval numbers are slipping. In a CNN poll, over 41,000 people voted on the question "Would you be willing to pay more in taxes for the promise of reducing your health care costs? " I was shocked to see that 70% of those polled said "No". There was also a fabulous article written by CNN Money's Editor at Large wrote an article, "You'll lose 5 Key Freedoms in Health Care Reform". Here is the article. He discusses both the House and Senate bills, and how the fine print contradicts the promises President Obama is making in the press. I would expect an article like this on FoxNews' website, but CNN? Never! It has been interesting to watch the democratic leaders in the House and Senate, slowly put on the breaks to this massive health care overhaul in response to the voting public's hesitations. Especially, not meeting the President's deadline. Will this actually pass? Who knows at this point. But I think President Obama has finally hit his first major speed bump of his Presidency.

Thank you, President Ambien!

I have a hard time sleeping. My mind is typically racing of all the many things I need to get done in the next 8 days, before my little bundle of joy comes (which feels like a 20 pound bowling ball underneath my skin)! So last night, around 3:00am I decided to see what was on CNN. It was a re-broadcast and analysis of President Obama's health insurance press conference. I had regretably missed the live airing, I was watching So You Think You Can Dance. Before begining my viewing, I was wide awake. And thankfully, several long minutes later, I had drifted into a peaceful sleep. I decided to record this press conference, to help in other sleepless nights.

I'm unsure if it was his long, drawn out, inconclusive answers. Or his soothing, yet monotone voice. Or just the fact that I was watching CNN at 3am. But it was stronger than taking 2 Ambiens! I have since read the transcript from his prepared message, and find myself confused at some of his remarks, ideas, and plans for our health care.

1. "And it's about the fact that the biggest driving force behind our federal deficit is the skyrocketing cost of Medicare and Medicaid." I thought that this legislation would not only be "budget neutral" but after 10 years provide billions of dollars in revenue. I don't understand how the current government program for a small percentage of the population is the "biggest driving force behind our federal deficit", yet this new plan will provide a revenue.

2. "If [the federal government] does not control these costs, we will not be able to control our deficit" soon followed by: "It will keep government out of health care decisions". How will the government stay out of health care decisions, yet control costs. And the more he talks about "controlling costs" the less I think this legislation is about giving uninsured coverage, and putting more "caps" on the medical industry.

3. He refers to the "game of politics" and lists two Republican comments made recently about his plan. Yet, he can do this without the Republicans, it is the conservative Democrats that will possibly put a stop to this bill. So he is playing the game with the rest of them, and really the Republicans are sitting on the political bench, unable to put a complete stop to his policies.

Now I haven't had a chance to read his lengthy responses to the Question and Answer portion, and will hopefully have some analysis for those soon. But so far, I found his message to be concerning. What do you think?

Acceptable Power

Power: (noun) The ability or official capacity to exercise control; authority.

Politics is a pure power struggle. The founder's attempted to prevent this by creating three branches of government, fearing an over reaching federal government. With every new President, Congress, and Supreme Court Justice, the powers of the federal government have expanded. Each side of the aisle cherry picks what kind of national power is acceptable, then criticizes their oppositions selection of approved federal power.

Conservatives, or the "small government" side of the political game, claim to abhor a strong national government. However, when it comes to defense or social issues, they expect the federal government to have a strong hand. During the Bush Administration, several weeks after 9-11 the Patriot Act was passed with a high bi-partisan vote. Yet, many on the left later criticized how much invasive power that gave the evil feds. "You can't listen to my phone calls if I'm a possible terrorist without a warrant!" In regards to the "right to privacy", what happens behind closed doors, the left is strongly opposed to a big bad KGB-esque national government.

Liberals, or the generous "large government" of the political game, claim to desire national intervention in their lives. It is the national government's role to be the great equalizer. They should have the authority to provide health care, child care, regulate your personal energy usage, to name a few. The government should step in when we can't provide for ourselves. Yet, many on the right criticize this philosophy, arguing that gives the national government too much power within the economy and within our own lives. As long as the aspect of health care doesn't involve your reproductive organs or sexual orientation.

In reality, both parties want to give the federal government power, but only in the areas they deem appropriate. With President Obama in the White House, he is pushing forward a liberal agenda, creating an uproar from the right. Which is the exact same situation when President Bush was in office. So here is my question, how can any of us on either side be not understanding of the other party, when we are guilty of the same thing in different respects. We are told by our representatives or outspoken critics that we are the only ones who are in the right, that the other party is demanding too much. The conservatives demand too much regarding national defense, and the right to privacy. The liberals demand too much in providing the "necessities", and regulating the economy. Both are guilty of what they are accusing the other of. I am just tired of the finger pointing and power grabs from both sides.

What in the world?

Friday's are typically slow news days. Especially Friday's before a holiday weekend, like Independence Day weekend. However, I'm sure most of you heard the late breaking news that Sarah Palin is resigning at the end of this month. In a press conference Friday afternoon, she (kind of???) explained her reasons for leaving. Ethics investigations, family under pressure, didn't want to be a "lame duck Governor", blah, blah, blah. Most of the press conference was a thorough, and overheard, resume of her accomplishments and why Alaska is such a great state. But, she quit.

I have a few ideas of why she is really resigning. Here are a few:

1. (This, for me, is the only good and respectable option) She is getting out of politics to spend time with her family. They have been under enormous scruitiny, pressure and criticism, and they need to take a step back.
2. Something is about to hit the fan. There is some scandal or embarrassing skeleton that is about to come out, and she is trying to step out of the national spotlight before the dirty laundry is aired.
3. She is preparing for a 2012 Presidential Election. And by doing so, she thought it would beef up her political resume to become elected Governor in 2006, campaign forabout 6 months in 2008, and quit at least a year early in 2009.
4. (Possibly most likely) Pay off debts. She mentioned a $1/2 million personal legal tab from the ethics investigations, and she needs to pay it off. I've heard she has a book deal, wouldn't doubt Fox News would give her a show, or get paid per conservative speaking engagement. With any of these options, it is obviously difficult to do while you are a public servant, and would be distracting to her job.

I'm sure we will all be sitting at the edge of our seats until we find out the real scoop. Do you have any other ideas why she quit?

Happy Independence Day!

I am a huge fan of the Fourth of July. I am an avid local parade attender, although my husband absolutely loathes sitting in the sun watching medeocre floats and high school bands pass by. The only enjoyment he receives is taunting the local beauty queens, calling them by name and practically embarrassing them, and me! I cry when the Purple Heart truck passes, or the Veterans, or every time the National Anthem is played. I love the fireworks, the barbeques, and the family traditions of homemade chocolate mint brownies and ice cream. I also take time to reread documents of our founding fathers, finding such inspiration and wisdom in their words. Here is the document we are in essence celebrating, and I've included my favorite passages.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, 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 just 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 effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.... And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.

Shuffling Money

Besides Michael Jackson, there have been other stories that I have found "news worthy". One in particular is the Waxman-Markey bill, or as the right has labeled it, "Cap and Trade" bill and as the left has labeled it, "Clean Energy Bill". Both are correct. It is a cap and trade bill that is enforcing clean energy standards. If you would like to be one step ahead of the majority of the Congressmen who voted on this bill, you can read the entire text, here.

The Congressional Budget Office estimates that this bill will increase the average American household energy costs by $175. I don't know about you, but adding a $175 bill doesn't 'stimulate' my household's economy! But if it is to save the earth, I guess my children's children will be thanking me. Right? Actually, the environmental organization, Greenpeace, says that this legislation "sets emission reduction targets far lower than science demands, then undermines even those targets with massive offsets." So lets tax ourselves sick, but it won't do enough according to science. What does this mean for energy companies?

"The key provisions of the bill include requiring electric utilities to meet 20% of their electricity demand through renewable energy sources and energy efficiency by 2020, investing $190 billion in new clean energy technologies and energy efficiency, mandating new energy-saving standards for buildings, appliances, and industry, introducing a federal cap-and-trade program to reduce carbon emissions by 17% by 2020 and over 80% by 2050 compared to 2005 levels, and protecting consumers from energy price increases."

What is wrong with this picture? The government is mandating current energy companies to invest in new 'clean energy technologies', technology deemed appropriate by the federal government. They are taking money from one sector of the industry to fund the expansion of another sector of an industry. The oil and gas industry will essentially be funding the growth of their competition.

This concept is not exclusive to Clean Energy. This new Obama Business Model is found in the Public Health Plan. This legislation is proposing to tax employer paid health care to help fund the government's new health care. Again, the government is taking money from one sector of the industry to fund the expansion of another sector of an industry. This is absolutely and unequivocably un-capitalistic and un-American. Yes, I said it, UN-AMERICAN. America was founded upon the principles of freedom, capitalism, the power of the dollar, and both of these massive pieces of legislation dismantle almost every aspect of what our economy was founded on!