1.)    Canada’s system is actually what’s known as “single payer” insurance where the provincial governments provide a single insurance choice to all citizens.  This eliminates individuals being allowed to choose what plan they want based on what coverage they want to pay for and entrusts the local governments with providing the appropriate coverage in all cases.   In fact, it is illegal in Canada for private insurance companies to compete with the government monopoly.  The only other nations who still impose these restrictions are North Korea and Cuba.  Now I’m not comparing our northern neighbors to North Korea or Cuba in any other way than to say that the government in Canada is not allowing its citizens to make a choice in their own healthcare. 

Are you willing to entrust the government, which has bankrupted our country to the tune of $11,407,680,203,719.35 and counting with negotiating your insurance premiums?

2.)    Everyone has free and equal access to healthcare providers (which naturally generates a lot of demand). Providers bill the government for services rendered. Government pays providers with the money it collects via highly progressive taxation. Government has the power to restrict healthcare spending (which logically leads to long waiting lists and wait times).  Here is a quick snapshot of the difference in tax levels here in the U.S. versus Canada:

Comparison of taxes paid by a household earning the country's average wage (as of 2005)

The Canadian government uses a progressive income tax system and also levies sales taxes on goods and services.  Canada levies the following taxes on its citizens:

a.       VAT (Value Added Tax): The federal government places a 5% tax on all goods and services rendered in Canada.

b.      Provincial sales taxes: The provinces all work slightly different (with the exception of Alberta which has no provincial tax) on how they institute their sales taxes.  Some provinces add the Federal VAT tax to their provincial tax to create a total “Harmonized Sales Tax”.  In the long run, the combined Federal and Provincial taxes range from 5% in Alberta (remember they levy no provincial tax but are still required to pay federal VAT taxes) up to 15.5% in Prince Edward Island. 

c.       Federal income taxes are as follows (This link points you to a work sheet to help figure out what Federal and Provincial income taxes would be on yearly income)

                                                              i.      15% on the first $38,832 of taxable income, +

                                                            ii.      22% on the next $38,832 of taxable income (on the portion of taxable income between $38,832 and $77,664), +

                                                          iii.      26% on the next $48,600 of taxable income (on the portion of taxable income between $77,664 and $126,264), +

                                                          iv.      29% of taxable income over $126,264.

d.      Property taxes: These are levied by the local government, similar to here in the states and account for about 10% of total taxation in Canada

e.       Canada also imposes Excise taxes(also known as Sin taxes) on goods such as cigarettes(avg. 66% tax), gasoline(35%), alcohol(varies depending on alcohol content but the avg is around45%) and vehicle A/C units($100 flat).

f.       Most Provinces also levy Health and Prescription Taxes or charges citizens “premiums” for their healthcare(with the exception of Alberta who levies no tax or premium).

                                                              i.      Ontario charges a tax on income for the healthcare system in amounts that range from $300-$900 with low income individuals excluded

                                                            ii.      Quebec requires citizens to obtain prescription insurance (Premiums range up to $570 per adult) AND pay a maximum monthly deductible /coinsurance of $77.21 if that person is age 18-64 with children free however, some prescriptions require an additional amount which is not taken into account when calculating the monthly contribution and has no CAP.  For citizens over 65 Canada has a system similar to SS known as GIS.  There are different levels of GIS paid based on the total amount of other income received and the maximum monthly deductible /coinsurance(again not including “additional amounts” vary from $48.99 to $77.21. 

                                                          iii.      Other Provinces charge rates from as low as $10.80 per month for an individual making between $20k and $22k per year up to $108 per month for a family of three making over $28,000.

g.      Like America Canada also taxes inheritance (as though it were a sale upon death so subject to the Provincial and Federal Sales taxes) and levies the following: Accounts Receivable Tax, Building Permit Tax, CDL license Tax, Corporate Income Tax, Dog License Tax, Federal Unemployment Tax (FUTA), Fishing License Tax, Food License Tax, Fuel Permit Tax, Gross Receipts Tax, Hunting License Tax, Inventory Tax, IRS Interest Charges, IRS Penalties (tax on top of tax), Liquor License Tax, Luxury Taxes, Marriage License Tax, Personal Property Tax, Real Estate Tax, Service Charge Tax, GIS Tax, Road Usage Tax, Recreational Vehicle Tax, School Tax, State Unemployment Tax (SUTA), Telephone Federal Excise Tax, Telephone Federal Universal Service Fee Tax, Telephone Minimum Usage Surcharge Tax, Telephone Recurring & Non-recurring Charges Tax, Utility Taxes, Vehicle License Registration Tax, Vehicle Sales Tax, Watercraft Registration Tax, Well Permit Tax, Workers Compensation Tax

Are you willing to see the taxes raised not only on every other citizen but also on your SSI income to Canadian levels or perhaps higher? Are you willing to pay for your healthcare AND see these taxes raised?

3.)    Since government is taking the money from the people and paying for these government services, the providers are now directly accountable to bureaucrats, politicians and “special-interest” groups and not to patients.  The system becomes a monopoly similar to for instance the Medicaid and Social Security Insurance plan which is already indebted to pay out $60 Trillion over the next 35 years adding roughly $1.7 Trillion to our national debt annually.  And from which our legislators have siphoned $2.2 Trillion.  Only when we as individuals retain the power to financially reward providers for good service can we expect providers to compete by offering quality services at lower prices. 

Is it worth adding trillions of dollars in debt to future generations (think of how the rise in costs will affect your grandchildren)? 

4.)    Current government plans for a “universal healthcare” option are actually much more closely aligned with European style plans.  Under those plans government “rationing” boards determine the kind, quality and amount of care you receive.  They shut down the ability of Canadian doctors to innovate and create new treatment plans.  Government control simply removes all incentive for these healthcare industries to innovate.  This will cause drug, treatment and provider prices to stagnate and will slow delivery of services to patients.

Do we really want to shut down the innovation of American doctors by placing government in charge?

5.)    Healthcare wait times will vary.  Keep this in mind, in Canada, most patients do not have a “family doctor” or a doctor that they know specifically and trust.  In Europe no one does.  That being said most of the time you can head on down to your local doctors office and be seen relatively quickly with appointments sometimes taking a couple of weeks not much different from here.  However, in Canada and Europe the doctor generally prescribes medicine to address the symptoms and free up a bed instead of diagnosing the problems.  Wait times for specialists and complex medical procedures (like Chemotherapy) can take up to 2 years on a list.  In fact, in England there are actual photos of lines stretching hundreds of yards and instances where patients brought in on ambulances were made to stay in the vehicles for more than 6 hours before being treated.

Is this how we want America’s healthcare to be run?

 

Am I suggesting that you just grin and bear it, deal with your hardship and move on?  Not in the least bit.  By reforming Medicare and Medicaid, focusing on innovating health information technology and creating electronic medical records, removing financial and bureaucratic burdens, considering state health insurance exchanges and creating incentives for individuals and businesses to get and provide quality affordable healthcare we can shrink the current individual costs of healthcare nationwide.  The point is that universal healthcare/single payer healthcare is not the only option.  I urge you to consider checking out www.cprights.org and reviewing the plans.  The list all of the serious current plans out there and have links to the entire plan for each one.  You can compare the plans and see which one you like best.

 Having just returned from a visit to the seat of our government, this is particularly disturbing. 

Put aside the fact that Judge Sotomayor did in fact achieve her resume by way of the American Dream as President Obama (or more accurately his press corps) stated. Through the excellent upbringing of her father who passed before his time, and the hard work and sacrifice of her single mother to the countless hours that she and her M.D. brother spent studying in order to obtain grades that would earn them scholarships to the colleges of their choice. She particularly earned scholarships to Princeton AND Yale. As a graduate of those Ivy League schools she served a distinguished legal career which led her to appointments by the First President Bush as well as President Clinton. Judge Sotomayor did not thank the government for its food stamps nor did she praise New York City for its welfare system that allowed her to succeed. She didn't cite affirmative action as her avenue to prosperity. Why not? Because none of things ever helped her along the way. It was grit, determination and hard work that done by her and others around her lifted her up. 

Forget that while sentencing a drug dealer she said, "We all understand that you were in part a victim of the economic necessities of our society, unfortunately there are laws that I must impose." Judge Sotomayor felt the need to apologize to a convicted drug dealer not simply for our laws, but for a society that has forced this person to make the choice to sell drugs. A choice that was not forced on Judge Sotomayor who grew up in a similar situation, or on her brother who became a doctor instead of a drug dealer. Also forget that in another case involving a convicted drug trafficker she said, "It is no comfort to you for me to say that I am deeply, personally sorry about the sentence I must impose, because the law requires me to do so. The only statement I can make is that this is one more example of an abomination being committed before our sight. You do not deserve this, sir." Judge Sotomayor does give cite a reason for this, that apparently the police detective lied in order to obtain a search warrant. While I don't condone the police department engaging in obvious deceit in order to obtain convictions, warrants, searches or confessions, I also don't believe that a judge, given evidence obtained legally or illegally ought to apologize to anyone who is convicted. If indeed the warrant was illegally obtained, could she not have thrown out that evidence? The fact is she can't stand our justice system as it was designed.

Also forget that Judge Sotomayor once said "[W]e who judge must not deny the differences resulting from experience or heritage but attempt continuously to judge when those opinions, sympathies, and prejudices are appropriate." or that she also once said “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.” Ignore that she also ruled against the firefighters in New Haven Connecticut in a case in which the city fire department held a testing session to allow the 15 open leadership spots to be fairly obtained by the most qualified candidates. Tests were designed so as to give the fairest possible chance regardless of race and yet the top 15 candidates were all white and Hispanic.  One of the top 15 candidates, a white man was dyslexic and spent over a year studying for his chance to move up. The city cited the lack of a qualified black candidate as a reason to throw out the all of the tests and promote no one. 19 firefighters ended up signing on to sue the city. At the appellate division, Sotomayor ruled against the firefighters and according to Judge Cabranes, a colleague, her opinion "contains no reference whatsoever to the constitutional claims at the core of this case” and its “perfunctory disposition rests uneasily with the weighty issues presented by this appeal.”

Throw all of that and more out and look at just one issue, the Constitution. Judge Sotomayor is on tape in 2005 speaking to potential law clerks where she states that "the court of appeals is where policy is made." and adds “And I know — I know this is on tape, and I should never say that because we don’t make law. I know. O.K. I know. I’m not promoting it. I’m not advocating it ...” and has also made it clear that “Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences,” she said later, regarding non-white, female judges, “our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging.” Judge Sotomayor either does not understand or does not respect the Constitution or America's intended legal system either of which disqualifies her from the bench and I know I will catch flack from the left on this but I can back this up.

                The Constitution is clear in creating three separate but equal branches of government called the Judicial, the Legislative and the Executive branches. Each branch has its own purpose. The Executive branch, at the head of which is the President is tasked with setting policy, commanding the military and to enter into treaties. Basically, the President is supposed to be the face of the government. The Legislative branch is tasked "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof." along with other legislative powers. Finally, the Judicial branch is charged with ensuring that laws are followed and if not that the offenders are punished according to the Constitution. 

                No where in the Constitution does it state that any division of the Judicial branch is tasked with making policy or setting laws. In fact, the idea of "blind justice" was so important that two sources can still be pointed to at this time.

                                1.) Lady Justice, the symbol of our judicial system is wearing a blindfold to show that justice is blind to all distinguishing characteristics. She does not care if you are rich, poor, white, black or Hispanic. The only thing that matters is the law which does not change based on the circumstances.

                                2.) The following is the federal judges oath: "I, __________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as (name of position) under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God.”

My question is which is it Judge Sotomayor? Be honest with us, do you not agree with the justice system as intended or do you not understand that oath and the protections the Constitution gives?

I'm sitting here watching Dick Cheney speak about national security and defending the Bush Administration policies.  I also listened to Obama speak this morning.  Listening to both men talk I'm left with a few tough thoughts.  

Obama is a gifted speaker, teleprompter or not, if you listened just to his words, I could understand how you'd be in awe.  He stands upright, looks out to the crowd and seems to catch an eye with each turn of the head.  He's charismatic and he uses words that speak to America's heart and soul.  However, Obama is missing just one thing, facts.  His words are filled with lofty moral rhetoric and radical left wing ideology cloaked expertly in patriotic wording.  He uses the Constitution and the values of our founding fathers as proof that President Bush and his administration were evil and stupid little men and women.  He presumes to hold the moral stick of righteousness over the heads of the previous administration and to persecute them at every turn.  He never stands to take responsibility but instead reflects that he is cleaning up the shattered mess of America left by "the policies of the last 8 years".  President Obama, we get it, you don't like the policies of the past, please move on and take control of your own destiny.

Dick Cheney is not as gifted a speaker as Obama.  His eyes are often down on his paper and when he looks up it's less clear to whom he is speaking.  However, Cheney speaks with facts as his guide and in defense of the policies the Bush administration embarked upon.  Dick Cheney used substantive factual representations, such as the in depth answer given to the question of water boarding.  Former Vice President Cheney was able to name who was water boarded and when and for what reason.  Specifically he named Khalid Sheik Mohammad who was water boarded LEGALLY and who gave information that led to stopping other attacks on American soil.  He pointed out that the tactics used at the time were used specifically with national security in mind.  

From a Constitutional perspective, who was right and who was wrong?  The answer is both were right and both were wrong.  While I sympathize with Dick Cheney (I was a United States Marine stationed in Camp Lejeune, NC when the towers were hit and served in the Middle East) and the Bush Administration on their decision to authorize these techniques in order to protect America, I believe that our rights and liberties were taken away or eroded further by those steps.  Unfortunately, I can say that the Patriot Act and other Bush Administration policies, intended to protect Americans have led to our Constitutional freedoms being stolen.  On the other hand, how dare one President look back on another administration and blame it repeatedly for so many problems?  Isn't that better left to the pundits and the media? These techniques were legal under the former administration.  America can either like it, or not like it but it WAS LEGAL and we must accept it.  Going forward, we must strip our Executive officer of this power.  We ought to have a national referendum within each state to determine how America feels.  50 states, everyone gets a chance to vote on it and majority rules.  Not number of votes but states won/lost.  Up or down we go forward with the decision of the American people.  Either we torture or we don't.  We can work out the details based on PRINCIPLE and VALUES later.  You're not going to see this because the lofty rhetoric of Obama's "transparency" argument will never be fully upheld as intended by the Constitution.  Since Ronald Reagan and perhaps not since Jackson before him have we had a President that actually understood and upheld the Constitution.  Lincoln, for all his brilliance and study was not given the chance to truly uphold the Constitution.  The great war between the states that marred his Presidency demanded that he restrict rights and actually subvert the Constitution in order to preserve the union for which the document was intended to provide law.  

It's time to return to our Constitutional Values.  Hillary Clinton spoke of a reset button on a recent trip to Russia.  America DOES need a reset button.  We need to once again become the men and women our founders asked us to be.  In all of their writings the founding fathers pleaded with future generations to understand that government will necessarily try to expand at every turn and that it is OUR job as citizens to ensure they do not grow beyond the limits set forth in the founding documents lest our liberty be restricted.  In our last election 130 million of 303 million citizens voted.  If you consider that 24.5% of our population is under 18, that means that there are nearly 230 million Americans of voting age.  That means 100 million citizens of voting age are not upholding their part of the Constitutional deal.  Every American has a voice, but we must use it.

This morning on my way into work, I was doing my obligatory pre 9AM (Glenn Beck) radio scan.   I listened to the WDEL morning news, heard Michael Smerconish ranting about some unfinished project he was working on and finally settled on WIP for some low brow comedy mixed with sports debate talk.  What I got to hear was far worse than the typical talk about breasts, pregnant women or my beloved Philly sports teams.  What I heard was the morning show crew, Angelo Cataldi, Rhea Hughes, Hugh Douglass and Al Morganti discussing a very frugal nurse named Melissa.  So frugal in fact that this particular nurse, and according to her testimony, many of her colleagues at the hospital, actually steal food from patients.  Yes, you heard it right, they take the food ordered by these patients off the tray and replace it with a terrible sandwaich from the nurses fridge.  Worse yet, this nurse actually admits to having called the hospital kitchen and ordering food for patients in a comma.  Her rationale?  "The kitchen doesn't know their diagnosis, and the guy in the comma isn't waking up."  So America, you want to know why your healthcare costs are through the roof?  This is why.  And these morning show people, did they show the slightest bit of concern or denounce these acts?  NO!  They laughed and giggled and thought it was funny.  Angelo Cataldi even saw fit to explain how he thought that it was great and how much he respected this thievery.  Couple this with the NY Insurance Commissioners office denying a Primary Care Physician the right to charge a monthly flat right of $79 for unlimited visits, avoiding costly insurance and you can see why healthcare costs have gone up so much.  By the way, the NY insurance commissioner has stated that the doctor must charge not only a $79 flat rate per month, but also a sick visit office charge of $33 per visit.  This sort of defeats the original intent of the DR. who wanted only to charge his patients $79 a month for any and all visits with no limitations or other fees.  Still think government run universal heathcare is a great idea?  Also keep this in mind, over in England, where they have UHC, the nations rationing board (the group that controls who gets what medicine) denied life prolonging cancer treatments to dozens of patients due to the cost of the drugs.  Are you sure about wanting the UHC?

Dear Mr. Queitsch:

Thank you for contacting my office and letting me know of your concerns regarding the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. I appreciate hearing your views on this important matter. I apologize for the length of this response, but the issues before us are complex, and I hope that you'll take a few minutes to read my response. 

Let me begin by saying that I have heard from hundreds of Delawareans who, like yourself, expressed to me their opposition to this legislation, known to most as the stimulus package. Many people conveyed their concern with the overall size of the economic recovery proposal and contended that some of the spending provisions would not create jobs in the near-term. I share many of those same views, and agree with you that the bill that came to the Senate floor was far from perfect. Its cost was approaching a trillion dollars, and a number of its provisions did not directly stimulate the economy, create jobs, or start us on the long road to economic recovery. They shouldn't have been included in this proposal in the first place.  But rather than accepting the bill as it was, I went to work with a bipartisan group of a dozen or so senators in an effort to bring common sense and purpose to the debate and to make the proposal - not a perfect one - but a better one.

As I'm sure you know, the challenges facing our economy are like nothing that our nation - and other nations -- have seen since the Great Depression.  In the last year, Americans have lost over 3 million jobs including 1.8 million in the last three months alone, bringing our national unemployment rate to 7.6 percent with the worst still to come. The ongoing downturn in the housing market has resulted in a tidal wave of foreclosures and delinquencies, flooding our communities with thousands of blighted, boarded up homes. Moreover, as millions of Americans have witnessed the value of their homes, stocks, and pensions drop, consumers have hunkered down and largely stopped spending, making it even more difficult to lift our economy out of its deep recession. In response, leading economists from all sides of the political spectrum, from Alan Blinder to Martin Feldstein to Mark Zandi, have made it clear that our federal government has to act and act now. 

During most recessions since World War II, the efforts by the Federal Reserve to reduce interest rates were generally far more effective in encouraging economic recovery than most actions taken by Congress.  In fact, the Fed's ability to cut interest rates, often referred to as monetary policy, has helped to end every post-WWII recession within less than a year. The current recession, however, just entered its 15th month, and the Federal Reserve has exhausted its primary tool by lowering interest rates to essentially zero. Unfortunately, that has not done the job, and it has become necessary for Congress and the President to act. A wide cross-section of economists argue that sound, targeted fiscal policy from our executive and legislative branches can help complement the efforts of the Federal Reserve in order to reverse this economic downturn and eventually restore growth to avoid a prolonged recession.

In response, several weeks ago, the Obama administration and the 111th Congress began crafting the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 to provide a combination of federal spending, tax cuts, and tax incentives to create jobs, promote investment, and help states like Delaware address their budget shortfalls and meet the growing needs of their citizens. At the same time, the legislation was intended to advance vital public policy goals like reducing harmful emissions, promoting energy independence, rebuilding our nation's decaying infrastructure and schools, and overhauling our inefficient health care system.  

Many constituents, like you, have flooded my office with phone calls, emails and letters to say that they believed the measure was flawed and misguided. I listened carefully to these concerns, and want to let you know that I agreed with many of them.  The legislation passed by the House of Representatives on January 29th along with the initial bill that emerged from the Senate Appropriations Committee was less than perfect. I have long believed that if something isn't perfect, we should try to make it better, and that's exactly what I set out to do.

For the better part of a week, I worked with a bipartisan group, led by Senator Ben Nelson (D-NE) and Senator Susan Collins (R-ME), to pare back a very substantial amount of money-$110 billion- in provisions that, while meritorious, did not belong in a bill whose main goals are economic recovery and job creation. We sought to make sure that more of the stimulus package was timely, targeted, and temporary, and that more of its spending provisions, as well as its tax cuts and tax incentives were better focused on creating jobs now and on producing real economic improvement soon. Our compromise agreement trimmed the bloated legislation from the House and Senate Committees to under $800 billion in targeted federal assistance over the next two years - roughly 60 percent spending and 40 percent tax cuts. While the Senate adopted the Nelson-Collins compromise on February 10th, that compromise was still far from perfect, and a House-Senate conference was formed to make further improvements.   

The final version of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act that emerged from the conference committee includes tax cuts for more than 95 percent of American working families: up to $400 for individuals and $800 for married couples. The bill is expected to create an estimated 3.5 million jobs -- including 11,000 in Delaware -- by putting Americans to work to begin rebuilding our nation's crumbling infrastructure, including roads, bridges, ports, railways, waterways, mass transit, and water and sewer systems. The bill invests in clean energy, energy efficiencies, and electric grid upgrades - which will not only reduce our energy costs and clean our nation's air, but will also make America more energy independent.   This legislation provides energy tax incentives for the manufacturing and production of wind, biofuels and other renewable sources of energy that are crucial to creating green jobs and making Delaware's offshore wind farm competitive. The bill also includes the critical extension of emergency unemployment benefits in areas of high unemployment, while increasing food stamps benefits -- two temporary measures that most economists agree are both highly effective as stimulus.

Moreover, the legislation targets relief to recently unemployed workers to continue receiving affordable health insurance through COBRA, providing much needed assistance to some of the most vulnerable individuals and families affected by the economic crisis. The bill also makes possible important investments in health information technology in doctors' offices and hospitals across America - much like we've done in our V.A. system - saving lives and money while enhancing the productivity of health care providers in our country.  In addition, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act helps states that are being crushed under the cost of their Medicaid health care systems for low-income families without health care coverage.  And, it also provides almost $54 billion for the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund to the 46 states, like Delaware, that are facing enormous budget deficits this year and next. These vital funds will help keep the size of classes from growing even larger, make much-needed repairs in many of our schools, and continue to provide essential community services like law enforcement and fire protection.

Finally, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act attempts to address the root cause of the current economic downturn -- the housing crisis - by overhauling an ineffective homeowner refinancing program adopted last year, so that distressed Americans facing the prospect of foreclosure can have a more realistic and viable option to avoid foreclosure. In addition, the final version of the bill provides for a first-time homebuyer tax credit of $8,000 through December 31, 2009 that - coupled with 30-year, fixed-rate mortgage rates approaching 5 percent and much lower home prices -should help to jumpstart the housing market this year. 

The American people have entrusted the Congress and the President with the responsibility to set aside politics and do what we believe is needed to strengthen the pillars of our nation's economy. Americans don't care if our ideas are liberal or conservative.  Rather, they want us to work together to figure out what will work to pull us back from the precipice that we face and put our nation back on the path to recovery. 

No one is pretending that the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act is perfect. No piece of legislation whose scope is that large will be. There are provisions I would like to add, and - frankly -some that I would like to remove; however, I do believe that our bipartisan efforts succeeded in making the bill better by reducing its overall cost and by focusing on putting Americans back to work on projects and initiatives that are worth doing. Ultimately, I believe in the resiliency of the American people and in our small state.  I remain confident that as we now turn our attention to fixing our banking system, our economy eventually will emerge from this recession stronger, more competitive, and ready to continue leading the global economy in the 21st century. 

Again, I apologize for the length of this response, and I do thank you for sharing your thoughts with me on this critical issue. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any further questions or comments about this or any other matter of importance to you and to our nation.

Sincerely,

Tom Carper
United States Senator

Folks, I just received an email from someone I consider a friend, a patriot and above all, a Great American Hero.  This person has done more to advance the cause of liberty, freedom and independence than just about anyone in D.C.  Time and again this person has been a voice for optimism and certainty when both were little seen or heard.  So when I saw the personal message at the bottom of the group email, I knew it was time for me to speak.
      
           Here is the note... "News Alert A news alert on FOX just announced that out of the $350,000,000,000.00 the ignoramuses at the treasury has already spent, $78,000,000,000.00 of it was wasted in that they overpaid by that amount for the holdings that they paid for with OUR money. Idiots.  Our new treasury secretary, Mr. Tax Cheat, was involved actively with this payout/bailout, taxpayer/robbery waste.  SPEAK UP AMERICA. !!! We need a full blown Revolt in this country." 

        Why is this so important?  This rational and exceptional individual is calling for a revolt.  Their not telling us simply to have and use our voice, their telling us to stand up and overthrow the government.  This is not the first time I've hears such a sentiment, but it is the first time I've heard it from someone so level headed.  For this reason I have decided to, in my very humble words, explain a few things.

         Now is not the time to engage in a Confederate style secession or revolutionary revolt.  Put down your torches and pitchforks.  Now is not the time to pit brother against brother or to quibble over minor differences in philosophy.  Now is not the time to revolt, now is the time to unite.  Does this mean we accept the Socialism being hurled at us from the leftists "in charge"?  No!  It means we must look to our fellow Americans, open a dialogue about where our country is going and where we want it to go.  It means we must activate the form of government instituted by the founders in the Constitution.  Citizen government was never intended for only the wealthy and powerful.  Planters and Printers, Farmers and Firefighters make up most of the men who are responsible for the country we have today.  Many were dirt poor and tended fields by day and sowed revolutionary dreams of their own independence by night.  Fewer still had toiled in their soil for many years in order to establish their wealth and local position before stretching out into the boundaries of revolutionary politics.  Even though Lincoln was a lawyer and lawmaker before he was elected, he was born to a farmer, poor and unknown.  He never attended Harvard, Yale or Columbia.  He had no degree, no pedigree and no fame.  He studied hard, never enjoying the fortunes of a college education and by wits and effort alone passed the bar, became part of the state legislature and eventually President.  From humble beginnings come the best talent.  Ronald Wilson Reagan was born poor.  It was only through his years acting, in B-movies that he gained any fame.  Did he simply fade into the dust?  No, because Reagan was an American and he knew it and was proud of it.  He went on to become the greatest President of the modern era and arguably one of the best in history.  They all, from Samuel Adams to George Washington to Abraham Lincoln to Ronald Reagan have one thing in common.  They were proud Americans.  This country is literally filled with men and women like them.  We see them everyday everywhere we go.  We don't speak to them and we don't know them, or maybe we do.  We've got to activate these people.  We've got to press these folks into service.  It's time now to unite as Americans under the common cause of preserving our liberty and defending our freedom.  WE must reinstate citizen government.  We MUST take back our country.  We must do it though with civility and activism.  We must do it across party lines.  We must understand the difference between a Democrat and a Socialist and we must act fast and not allow our country to be hijacked from us in the dark of night.  WE are "the shining city on a hill" that Ronald Reagan spoke of.  WE THE PEOPLE are what make this country great and we must be proud to do so.  Please stand with me, with us.  Join in the movement, unite in the quest and let's take back our government from the wealthy and privileged.   

Obama is out there pressing Congress on his massive "Economic Recovery Act".  He's got Pelosi and Reid out there in full force trying to press the media to spin this now $900 billion spending bill as some kind of save all.  Nevermind the billions of dollars in the massive bill being spent on everything from Universal Healthcare preparations to condoms and ochestra instruments.  Really?  Someone explain to me how Universal Healthcare (already a loser in terms of investments), birth control and musical instruments stimulate the economy.  The fact is that around 60% of this spending bill has no direct correlation to rescuing our economy.  Instead, Congressional Dems are using this financial crisis to spend money we don't have to prop up industries that are 1.) Traditionally liberal and 2.) Failing!  Some of the more infamous parts of the bill include:

1.) wireless and broadband deployment grant programs - $2.825 BILLION  for expanding wireless and broadband internet access to rural customers.  I'm sorry, but I actually heard the argument from Maxine "This Liberal" Waters on this subject and I have to ask, "Really?"  Since when is it a God given right that people who live 100 miles out into the middle of nowhere have broadband internet access?  She actually suggested that providing broadband internet access to these people would create long term jobs.  Well ok, I'll grant that maybe a few more technicians could be hired to support this new broadband infrastructure but more likely it will just add a larger radius to the already over expanded broadband infrastructure.  She suggested that by deploying this broadband access it will open new job opportunities to rural citizens. Ok, on this one I have to ask, I know it's been about 2 hours since I looked at Dice, Carerrbuilder and Monster.com but have they really become broadband only sites?  Let me check..Nope, I can access it from my dial-up connection just fine.  Not to mention that the reason why these customers don't already have broadband access is because the private communications companies have determined that this type of expense isn't going to produce the return on the investment that they need to support it.

2.) digital-to-analog converter box program - $650 MILLION for delaying the DTV transition.  - Really, how many people are still using TV's from the 50's, 60's, 70's??  This was a highly publicized program which included vouchers that had been going on for at least a year.  Can't we just say, if you haven't contacted us, you haven't taken your own like into your own hands, then I'm sorry, you'll be without a television until you buy a new one.  Hell, let's save some money on this and distribute some radios as parting gifts to those people who can't comply with having a TV manufactured later than 1988.

3.) National Endowment for the Arts - $50 MILLION for "projects and activities which preserve jobs in the non-profit arts sector threatened by declines in philanthropic and other support during the current economic downturn"  - You show me where this is going to stimulate anything other than the liberal mind.  I enjoy a good painting, poem or picture as much as the rest of you but I can forego my visit to the National Arts Museum in order to sustain my family.

4.) prevention and wellness fund - Not less than $335, MILLION shall be used as an additional amount to carry out domestic HIV/AIDS, viral hepatitis, sexually-transmitted diseases, and tuberculosis prevention programs, as jointly determined by the Secretary and the Director.  - Prudent during times of national prosperity, I find it curious as to how this will stimulate the economy.

5.) capital and debt service grants to the national railroad passenger corporation - $800 MILLION to Amtrak - Now I understand Joe Biden has a lot riding on this part of the bill but really, do we need to bail out Amtrak AGAIN?  This passenger rail service is little used by anyone not with the last name Biden.  Heck, when Beau Biden went over to Iraq, I belive Amtrak's ridership went down around 50%.  Regional rail service coupled with metropolitan area rail/subway has supplanted the need for Amtrak.  We ought to disolve this economic drain and support localized and regional rail services in the areas that actually utlize this form of transportation

6.) State Fiscal Stabilization Fund - $79 BILLION to states to help with budget shortfalls - OK, you have GOT to be kidding me.  Let me ask you something.  If you are already broke, and I mean so broke you have to charge your kids rent, are you going to lend money to your kids, who are also broke, so they can pay you back your rent?  NO!  Of course you're not going to do that.  We're in debt past our eyeballs and here we're going to prop up states doing the same thing we are nationally.  Before you question my ideology here, my home state has a $640 MILLION deficit and will get much more than that out of this fund.  As far as I am concerned, I don't want it.  Let Delaware and every other state, make the tough choices and cut our way out of this.  In my opinion, Delaware ought to act like "The First State" anyway and hold to the ideals of the founders by being fiscally responsible and show other states as well as the national government how to operate fiscally.

America as well as the rest of the world is going through some tough times these days.  The economy is in the tank and our government is expanding.  The news media is quick to point to a recession, others are screaming about this being another Great Depression.  Barack Obama suggests that only government can solve our problems.  Ironically, when worse problems faced a former President, his quote was "In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem."  We must step back from the problems and look at the big picture.  Much of the present crisis in 2009 has been created by government through it's back room dealings with the financial industry and unions and its total domination over the market.  We live in a free market economy which does not respond well to forced government intervention.  Another major factor in the recent economic slowdown comes from another, less talked about and politcally dangerous area, immigration.  In the year 2000 America had a population of roughly 282 million people.  Todays Population is over 306 million.  That is an 8% increase in total population in less than one decade.  The entire world, including China, India and Russia whose populations have traditionally outpaced America, grew by about 10% in the same period.  Births during this time period have been roughly on par with the replacement of deaths within America during the same period.  What accounts for the majority of the increase is immigration.  Millions of immigrants both legal and illegal have flooded our borders since 2000.  America, while founded by immigrants, on the premise of allowing all immigrants to begin anew their lives, has reached its critical mass.    The flood of immigrants seeking homes and jobs in America spiked so high that the country faced three choices, none of which were desireable. 
1.) Round up all immigrants, decide which are legal, which are illegal and how much America could handle at one time and send the rest back to their home countries.  This would have been a massive undertaking and would alienate so many millions that it could not be seriously considered as an option.
2.) Close our borders and stop allowing new immigrants into the country until the population growth stabalized and began to decrease.  More desireable than the first choice, but still not politcally correct.  It would in effect remove America from the world stage and cause anti-American sentiment to be propogated across the globe.  This would likely have been one of the best choices out there and may have allowed the market to adjust easier, possibly avoiding this crisis altogether.
3.) Create more infrastructure, lower standards and financial restrictions, mandate excess job creation and print money.  Possibly the worst of the choices but the one chosen by the government.  The government decided to deal with the population increase by forcing the market to accept the incoming immigrants quickly.  They forced banks and lenders to lower standards and increase home salses to buyers who were not previously acceptable.  They mandated that companies increase job creation to accomodate the immigration trend immediately and spent billions on creating more infrastructure and government services that would be tapped mainly by immigrants.

And so the market thrived, until it became too much.  For years the market showed unprecedented growth as immigrants found prosperity and financial success in America.  Jobs were plentiful and credit flowed like water from Niagra Falls.  Immigrants both illegal and legal spent their hard earned wages on American goods and services.  Business owners were able to continue hiring as people continued buying.  Real estate prices soared as the demand for homes grew and grew.  America was so accepting that more and more immigrants stormed the borders, north from mexico, west from the Atlantic routes and East/South by way of Canada.  Eventually the economy grew so large that it simply burst.  Much like a balloon overfilled with water, the economy reached its breaking point.  The market simply corrected for the forced changes.  It could not keep up with the demand.  First the dollar became devalued as the government flailed to try and stem the tide by printing more money.  With the printing presses operating at full speed, dollars churning out like water from a fire hose and nothing changing, the US banks were forced to begin restricting credit to cover themselves with the falling dollar and mounting debt.  Housing markets began to tank as credit was restricted.  The government still printed money even as the credit market was drying up and businesses began to be affected by falling credit.  They were unable to keep up with the empty jobs they created to cover government mandates and keep their business profitable.  Now we have seen the job cuts.  Hundreds of thousands of jobs have been lost in less than one year and millions of lives have been affected.   

A crisis that could have been averted by making the difficult choices has been made worse by "quick and decisive action" and the "bold action" that Congress has engaged in to fix the problem the created and refused to stop, threatens to worsen and prolong the current crisis.  We must remember what happened after Reagan uttered his famous quote, and then pushed government aside.  Double digit inflation was reversed, interest rates as high as 20% shrunk and jobs and government revenues grew dramatically.  So to President Obama, our new national leader,
Mr. President,
                      I must respectfully disagree with you when you say that government is the only solution to this current crisis.  Indeed, government is the worst possible solution to this crisis.  Please get out of the markets way and allow it to correct, shrink, and rebuild itself at its own pace.  Should you decide not to do this, you risk, and will reap, a longer, more painful depression than we have ever seen in the history of the world.  One that I am not sure from which we could recover.  Now is not the time for Socialism/Nationalism, now is the time for being America.  Land of the Free, Home of the Brave and the voice of liberty.

The party of Abe and Reagan is at a crossroad.  Some left leaning me too Republicans, moderates who followed the migrating herd of Democrats during the Reagan years, feel that John McCain, the ultimate moderate, didn't reach over far enough.  Are you serious?  McCain completely alienated the Conservative base and compromised principles to attempt to appeal to moderates.  Conservatism is not just a buzzword in politics.  Conservatism is built on ideals and principles that while they evolve, never die in the end.  The prospects of limited government, low taxes, states rights and individual responsibility are principles that will always be in demand.  In fact, conservatism is as strong now as it has ever been although you may not know it.  More Americans than ever are looking for a gateway to the principles of our founders.  The first Republican president was Abraham Lincoln (1860-1865) however, conservatives can trace the roots of their political identity back through the Whig Party and further still to the Federalist party and even back to George Washington who is often identified as a Federalist, but was a politically unaffiliated President.  Conservatives from what became the Federalist party believed that the local governments and municipalities ought to have control over their own tarrifs and taxes as well as other aspects of life such as religion and press.  the King of England was eager to bring these budding revolutionaries under control and while imposing tea taxes, sent troops to ensure the safety of his tax collectors.  We all know what happened through years of escalating violence and a revolutionary movement that never compromised their principles.  Once America won its independence, the question arose, what do we do now? 

Americans turned to the constitutional convention with delegates appointed from each of the 13 states.  Without going into too much detail on a process that was complicated due to the many unique desires of each state, the delegates reached a compromise on how the government should be formed.  They decided on a limited federal government charged with the purpose of levying taxes on citizens in order to provide for national defense including an Army and Navy, foreign policy decisions, and foreign commerce.  The constitutional convention far from ignored other important issues.  Indeed much debate centered around issues that all states could not agree on (slavery was one of these issues).  It was decided that the limited federal government powers shall be the ultimate rule of law within the boundaries of the constitution.  State governments we given the broad authority to decide for themselves how their states would provide for all other needs of its citizens.  Early in the process of most state constitutions, the model was similar to the federal government constitution.  State governments generally limited their own power to infrastructure, public safety, a militia and commerce between the states.  Local municiplities were given the broader powers to define social conditions for their own people.  The idea was to provide as much power to indvidual citizens, by placing the government as close as possible to them, while maintaining an ordered structure.  The idea was to allow the citizens to ultimately govern themselves through the election of their own local, state and federal government delegates and to grant as much of the power of government to the lowest level of government, placing most of the power as close to the people as possible.  The founders were hoping to foster the principles of limited government, low taxes, states rights and individual responsibility.

These ideas have been perverted over the years with arguments like, "Well if it isn't in the constitution, the founders just couldn't envision it."  This argument usually comes up with regards to slavery.  Actually, slavery was one of the most hotly contested social policies that divided the Consitutional convention. In fact, slavery was purposely NOT referred to within the U.S. Constititution or the Declaration of Independence.  Words were actually edited to ensure that slavery could not be considered a national doctrine.  Most northern states were opposed to either the expansion of slavery or slavery itself.  Many of the delegates to the convention owned slaves and even among their ranks they felt opposed to it.  One of the great ideas of the conventions that drafted first the Declaration of Independence and then the Constitution was to include the ability of future generations to correct the injustices of the time.  At the time of the drafting of the Declaration of Indepence, the phrase "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", was actually "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 property".  Contrary to popular belief, Thomas Jefferson did not draft the Declaration of Independence entirely on his own.  He was aided by editors who brought up the idea that slaves were considered property at the time and that the Declaration of Independence, a document they know would be the rule of law until a constitution was created, could be interpreted to ensure Ameica would be a slave nation.  So the word property was removed and the phrase "the pursuit of happiness" was written in place.  It was a genious move and set the stage for correction of one of the worst attrocities in human history.  Why didn't the convention just abolish slavery at the time?  As I mentioned, the issue of slavery was hotly contested and stayed at the forefront of American politics until President Lincoln officially abolished the barbaric practice with his Emancipation Proclamation.  It was so contested that a consensus agrement could not be reached.  Slave owners argued that abolishment would result in total ruin especially of southern states who relied heavily on the unpaid workforce to tend the massive fields that grew their crops and provided their only sources of income.  The north had less acerage and and more people so it was therefore was more conducive to the new industries that were cropping up in a fresh nation.  The abolishment of slavery would have torn apart an already fragile group of states and put in jeapordy everything they were trying to create.  The founding fathers placed country before self and agreed to leave the question of slavery out of the founding documents.  The issue of slavery however, was not left out of politics.  It was left to the states to decide their future and decide it they would.

While slavery was left out in one form or another from the two major founding documents, religion was not.  Religion was a debate that offered little resistence.  Most of the citizens of America were of one Protestant denomination or another, fewer were Catholic and so the decision of religion had to be decided.  The founders learned from the mistakes of England who used the Church of England to commit many criminal acts not the least of which was murder.  They realized that their primary reason for coming to America in the first place was to establish new colonies outside of the control of the Church of England and wanted to ensure that America would never make the same mistakes as England.  With this in mind, the founders created the seperation of church and state that is so often misrepresented.  The idea was never to remove references to religion in politics, but to ensure that no one religion would be forced on Americans.  Citizens of this new nation we to be allowed choice of religion.  In fact, the founding fathers were richly diverse in terms of relgion.  Quakers, Protestants, Catholics loyal to the Church of England, and Deists were most common.  Benjamin Franklin is often referred to as having tried many different flavors of religion.  This belief comes from his willingness to donate to many different religions in Philadelphia.  The most likely cause for his investments in these houses of worship was his belief that any religion which taught moral values was inherently a positive and deserved his support.  For some time Franklin was a follower of Deism.  Deists believed that there was a single creator and that the creator influenced the creation of the Earth and all creatures on it.  Where it differed from traditional religions is that the Deist God did not trouble himself in daily affairs and in fact, was not able to do so as his plane was different from our own.  Deism largely died out as religious persecution either converted followers to Christianty in one form or another, or labeled Deists as Atheists.  The Deist religion did nothing to answer many of the questions of the world that were offered by early man who had not the scientific skills that exist today and also relied heavily upon reason and morality to guide its followers in the ways that tradtional religions use the commandments and the bible, so it was considered flimsy and unrealistic.  The idea of the seperation of church and state has sense been distorted, especially recently, to mean that religion has no place in politics.  In fact, religion has always played a role in politics serving as an idea of the moral compass of the individual candidate.  Conservatism as presented by the founding fathers would take no particular position on relgion much to the chagrin of modern day liberals who commonly use the the term "the religious right".  Generally conservatives are religious people, but it is by no means a necessary badge in the historical sense of conservatism. 

Conservative principles at their roots can be applied today with as great an impact.  More people consider themselves conservative than ever before.  The number is nearly 2 or 3 times that of people who consider themselves liberal.  So why is the message not catching on?  Check back for my next edition which will chronicle Ronald Reagan's conservative message and how it could be applied today.

John McCain and his campaign have officially proven the fact that the MSM chose the Republican party candidate for us.  The McCain campaign, less than 48 hours after being beaten by Obama in the election have trashed Sarah Palin as the reason for their loss.  Not ONLY are they blaming Palin for the loss but they are egregiously attacking her.  Campaign leaks have suggested that Sarah Palin didn't know which countries were in NAFTA or that Africa was a continent instead of a country.  They also claim she spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on unauthorized clothing purchases characterizing it as "Wasilla hillbillies running rampant at Neiman Marcus across the country".  McCain while he should be celebrated as a war hero is far from a conservative and only just barely can be considered even a moderate Republican.  At best McCain's campaign was incompetent especially in how they silenced the conservative voice of Palin and at worst a pawn to represent Republicans while Obama ran roughshod through the election.  McCain refused to question Obama about Wright, Ayers, Phleger and all his other radical friends, but he is silent while his campaign attempts to assassinate the character of a great American Sarah Palin.  McCain's campaign has spent more time attacking Palin than they did addressing credible issues of Obama's judgement.  McCain won't be allowed to further erode the Republican party or to trash the conservative movement.  John McCain, please stop claiming to be one of us.  Move on!

It's wonderful that we have a black president, but did we have to vote in someone who will destroy our country and kill thousands with his dangerous policies?  You people flat out suck.  Why couldn't you keep your popular votes in American Idol and away from the most important job in the world?

Two gutless Black Panther members barred the door of a polling place in Philadelphia by brandishing nightsticks and intimidating Republican voters wanting to cast ballots for anyone other than Barack Hussein Obama.  This is not a shock, anyone with any intelligence knew that the Black Panthers, ACORN and other racist/liberal organizations would do anything they could to block Republicans and silence Conservative voices.  The Black Panthers have a particularyly bloody history of being nothing more than the black version of the KKK.  These racist imbeciles are mostly ingorant and uneducated thugs who are told by their black masters to shut up anyone who disagrees with them.  They're cowards and weak despite their intimidation tactics.  Unlike the KKK, the Black Panthers are celebrated by the liberal left and are allowed to continue to operate without complaint from the same people who justifiably dismantled the KKK.  Black Panther sects are located nationwide and generally look for the weakest citizens to pick on.  Exactly like the KKK, Black Panther punks will gang up on unsuspecting white people and discriminate based simply on their race.  So here they stand, two menacing black men, brandishing nightsticks at any non Obama voter and declaring that Obama will win this election no matter what.  I'm so angry that I won't say what I'm thinking, but what I will say right now is that if these punk Black Panthers had ANY guts whatsoever, they would grow a set and perhaps educate themselves then debate or attack someone like myself.  A former Marine who has NO problem with going a round or two with some of these radical lunatics.  Mano y Mano, one on one, I dare one of them to brandish a nightstick at me, or to try and intimidate me.  That being said, they wouldn't do that.  Nor would they or their masters step onto a stage and debate issues with even someone like me.  Most of them haven't the intellectual capability to understand the idea of a debate, and even the masters know that their ideas are weak and full of holes.  Black Panther and KKK politics are dead.  You THUGS LOSERS are over.  Stop hiding and come out and fight or shut your stupid mouths.

Comment by Tom from Florida - On Fox Forum @ Fox News.com written by Fox executive VP John Moody

"NOW ENJOY!

Just for fun ..

What if Keith Olbermann interviewed John McCain?…

“A FEW GOOD, ALMOST LUCID, MOMENTS”

(With apologies to Jack Nicholson and Tom Cruise)

JOHN MCCAIN: You want answers?

KEITH OLBERMANN: I think I’m entitled to them.

JOHN MCCAIN: You want answers?

KEITH OLBERMANN: I want the truth!

JOHN MCCAIN: You can’t handle the truth!

Son, we live in a world that has a certain, precious amount of wealthy people. And those wealthy people have the right to protect what they have, any way they can. If they don’t do it, who’s gonna do it?

You? You, Keith Olbermann? I, as their candidate, have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for those lower and middle classes and you curse the people who give them jobs. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know: that all those unemployed, underemployed and soon-to-be-unemployed people, while tragic, probably didn’t work very hard anyway.(Look at how little they earned compared to CEOs’ salaries and their well-deserved golden parachutes!!!)

And the existence of trickle down Republican economics, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, is what has raised that free market tide so that all boats, big and small, could float…You don’t want the truth.

Because deep down, in places you don’t talk about these facts, like with your friends at Georgetown parties, you want me on call. You need me on call at three in the morning.

We use phrases like “loose regulations, squishy credit lines and a warm place to count the profits”…we use these words as the backbone to a life spent defending our captains of industry. You use ‘em as a punchline.

I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who still rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very economic bubble I helped George Bush to provide, then questions the manner in which we provided it!

I’d rather you just said thank you and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you grow some patriotic gonads and eschew socialism.

Either way, I don’t give a d#mn what you think you’re entitled to!

KEITH OLBERMANN: Did you support George Bush and all his works?

JOHN MCCAIN:(quietly) I did the job that the Republican Party sent me to do.

KEITH OLBERMANN: Did you support George Bush and his economic policies?

JOHN MCCAIN: You’re godd#mn right I did!!!"
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________
Let's do one that is just as ridiculous, with Sean hannity Interviewing Obama.  See, it's already more ridiculous than the McCain one done above.

NOW ENJOY!

Just for fun ..

What if Sean Hannity interviewed Barack Obama?…

“A FEW GOOD, STUTTER FILLED, MOMENTS”

(With apologies to Jack Nicholson and Tom Cruise)

BARACK OBAMA: You want answers?

SEAN HANNITY: I think I’m entitled to them.

BARACK OBAMA: You want answers?

Sean Hannity: I want the truth!

BARACK OBAMA: You can’t handle the truth!

Son, we uh live in a nation that has a uh certain, uh capitalist uhm tendancies. And those racist uhm tendancies have no place in the uh world.  uh Socialists have to defeat uhm capitalism now, any way they can. If they don’t do it, who’s uh uh gonna do it?

You? You, uh Sean Hannity? I, as their uhm candidate, have a greater uh responsibility than you can possibly uhm fathom. You uhm weep for those upper and uh middle classes and you uhm curse the people who want to uh run your life. You have that uh luxury. You have the uhm luxury of not knowing what I uh know: that capitalisms uhm death and the subsequent uh destruction of ah America, while uhm tragic, is going to improve the uh lives of elite liberals.

And the uhm existence of tax and uh spend liberals, while uhm grotesque and incomprehensible to uh you, is what has moved our uh uhm uh country close enough to uh Socialism that I can uhm sneak it in behind the backs of these,  you know, stupid American uhm rednecks…You don’t want the uh truth.

Because uh deep down, in uhm places you don’t talk about uh these facts, at Fox News uh parties, you want me at the uhm top. You uh need me at the uhm top.

We use uh phrases like “defecit uhm spending, change we need and spread the uh wealth around”…we use uh these words as the uhm backbone to a life spent ah attacking your captains of industry. You use ‘em as a uhm punchline.

I have neither the uh time nor the uh i-i-inclination to explain myself to a uh man who rises and sleeps under the uhm blanket of the very economic uh bubble I helped ah Barney Frank to provide, then uhm questions the manner in which we uh provided it!

I’d rather you just said uh, thank you and went on your way. Otherwise, I uhm suggest you be uh prepared to uhm be exiled after we uhm, institute the uh, fairness doctrine.

Either uh way, I don’t uhm give a d#mn what you uh think you’re entitled uhm to!

Sean Hannity: Did you hear Rev. Jeremiah Wright and all his words?

BARACK OBAMA:(quietly) I uhm did the job that uh Bill Ayers sent me to uh do.

SEAN HANNITY: DDid you hear Rev. Jeremiah Wright and all his words?

JOHN MCCAIN: You’re uh godd#mn right I did!!!

Barack Obama and John McCain with help from the media and "economists" have turned the subject of the economy into a concept that many Americans believe is "above their pay grade".  This could not be further from the truth.  While macroeconomics has become an increasingly distorted and unnecessarily difficult subject to learn and keep up with, the fundamentals of our economy have strong roots.  The concepts that make the American economy work are rooted in logic as opposed to the shifting ideals of Socialist economic principles.  The basics of "Econ 101" should be familiar to the majority of Americans who have atleast attended a semester of college.  They start with the simple pattern of supply and demand.  Supply of course refers to the amount of an item available for ditribution and demand refers to the public desire for that item.  A larger supply of a product in relation to its demand drives down prices and a smaller supply of a product in relation to its demand drives up the price.  As demand goes up, so in turn does the price.  So if I have 500 widgets and I have a demand of 500 customers I know exactly what my product is worth based on my costs of production and desired profit levels.  If I have 500 widgets and 1000 customers, I know that the widgets are worth more and therefore my price goes up.  This is considered a fair increase in profit margin because the demand now outweighs the supply.  If I have 500 widgets and only 250 customers, I know that demand for my product is low and therefore I must drop the price to compete.  Competition does complicate the matter a bit adding in the variables of consumer choice, variations on original prducts, improvements and market share.  Even that element doesn't put the subject of economics out of the reach of even the most numb high school freshman.  Anyone who has ever bought anything can tell you the basic law of supply and demand and even work in competition.  So why does it seem so complicated on a national economic level?  Because macroeconomists make a living by overcomplicating things.  I'm horrible at math, if I look at en equation that is move complicated than 5 + X = 10 my eyes start to shake and i get a headache but even I can understand the nations economy. 
           The U.S. economy is based on the capitalist system.  Capitalism at its core is a market based approach.  It allows the greatest freedom for consumers and businesses alike and in a true capitalist system does not require or allow government intervention.  In a true capitalist system, the checks and balances on businesses to ensure that they do not abuse customers come from the consumers themselves.  Capitalism breeds competition and competition necessarily provides choice to consumers which forces businesses to conduct themselves honorably or risk losing market share.  This is called a market correction and it is an inherent balance within the capitalist market.  By contrast, Socialist systems, such as the Communist systems prevalent in China and Russia allow the governments complete control over the markets.  In this type of system, companies are either entirely owned by the government, partially owned or can be seized.  This provides the ruling party with the power to influence the markets in any direction they feel benefits them, and does not provide comsumers with choices.  The American Capitalist system has in place some checks and balances that go above and beyond consumers.  In the American system, the government provides oversight to the system.  This oversight has been perverted over the years by socialist/marxist policies intended to give the U.S. government more power over the market, but at its core it does have merit.  In a pure Capitalist market, the one problem that can exist is collusion.  When two or more competitors in a particular market come together and make a deal to share markets and work together to defraud the public by artificially driving up costs, you see collusion at its core.  An example of collusion is OPEC.  In the case of OPEC, you have socialist nations interacting with a capitalist world market.  These nations joined together to form an alliance, share markets and pool resources as well as artificaially influence the price of oil.  We've all seen how this type of collusion can be harmful without a powerful oversight and how this eliminates competition and defrauds the public.  Early in the creation or our nations economy, the capitalist model was altered to allow government, on behalf of the people,  the ability to prosecute businesses who engage in harmful acts or collude with others to defraud the people.  This role of oversight was meant to be only that, oversight.  What is oversight?  The government should be keeping a sharp eye on the business practices of businesses, randomly inspecting records and listening to consumer concerns.  They should be paying attention to the basics of economics and ensuring that no injustices are occuring that the market is not correcting itself.  They should be watching for pockets of collusion and stepping in when companies take advantage of consumers.  You may be asking, "Well isn't that what they are doing now with the bailouts?"  The answer is NO!  They're perverting these authorities and are actually injecting socialism into the system.  The government is now purchasing stake in companies, completely taking over companies, and becoming an active invester in the markets.  Remember the examples of Russia and China?  In countries like those, the market is allowed to work only until the business proves profitable.  At that point, the government steps in and takes over the company.  Sometimes the process is gradual, with the government purchasing stake (stock) in the company and then eventually taking over a majority and finally the whole company.  Other times it is done in one fel swoop with the government seizing the entire company in one shot.  Sound familiar?  That's what the government has done with with Fannie and Freddie.  These entities actually go a step further, they were created by the government, they're called Government Sponsored Enterprises (GSE's), and the CEO's were all but appointed by the government.  The government has also purchased stake in AIG and a number of other insurance and financial institutions under the guise of "bailing them out".  They've also began purchasing in effect, the homes and deeds to businesses of Americans who were granted risky loans by the GSE's.  This is part of the reason why the recent bailout packages were rejected by most Americans.  With our economic system, the solution to such problems as we face today are much simpler.  Instead of Socializing the financial institutions, the government should have done what it claimed to be doing and infused the market with capital and allow the market to correct itself.  Yes, it's true that more than a few of these financial companies got themselves in hot water but they should have been allowed to fail.  In the financial markets, the assets would have been sold off and any cash would have been insured by the government, another check that the American Capitalist system has added.  Let's also not forget that the largest single cause of the current turmoil is risky home loans granted to people who did not have the ability to keep up with the payments, sponsored and MANDATED by the U.S. Goverment through Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.  How could they have infused the markets better?  First, inject private capital into the market by eliminating the capital gains tax for a period of no less than 12 months and no more than 36 months.  This would provide investors with more flexibility and more money to put into new and existing businesses and help to add liguidity tot he market.  Second, reduce corporate and income taxes to a flat 15%-20% for the same period.  This would allow consumers more cash on hand and allow businesses more profits to reinvest as capital.  A move like this increases consumer confidence in the markets and helps businesses deal with tough economic times.  The third step is to repeal the mark to market accounting rules which substantially diminished the real value of assets and also to repeal the Sarbannes-Oxley bill which has failed to live up to its intentions to provide oversight where it was necessary.  In place of these procedures, the market must be allowed to determine the value of assets/securities on its own with no government intervention and also new government oversight regulations must be implemented to ensure that the proper oversight is provided where necessary.  While corporations like Alcoa, the big three automakers, Reynolds Metals and Kraft Foods are subject to SOX testing, GSE's like Fannie and Freddie were able to slip under the radar as were many other financial institutions.  Many of the SOX testing standards create unnecessary costs, and cause more problems than the solve but, there are some standards within the SOX testing standards which must be monitored to ensure stability.  Finally, the government should not have purchased AIG, seized Fannie and Freddie or taken a stake in financial institution by purchasing troubled assets.  Instead, the government should have dissolved their GSE's auctioned the assets they held and offered incentives to companies who purchased those risky loans.  They should have allowed the AIG crisis to play out fully instead of attacking the problem with a buyout.  The most likely scenario is that the company would have been absorbed into another insurance company (like Progressive) who does not engage in the excesses that AIG does.  Another avenue of approach would have been for the government to insure AIG assets for the short term, allowing the company to fail without tanking the assets.  The government would then have to have strict timelines to get rid of the insured assets and distribute them back into the market.  Finally, on the subject of the "troubled assets", repeal of the mark to market accounting rules would drastically change the value of these currently "worthless" assets.  It would also keep the assets in the market and what that does is keep what's called "real property" in the system that can be used as collateral.  Before closing, we should also touch on something else that has been floated around to scare people away from investigating the economy.  "Commercial paper" is nothing more than a trust relationship between businesses and the banks that lend to them.  Chances are if you own a small to medium sized business and do business at a local bank who holds few if any of these "troubled assets", you've had little to no trouble borrowing against the value of your business to carry on as usual with payroll and normal business operations.  In the case of large corporations dealing with larger banks, many on the international scene and holding large amounts of "troubled assets", more is being asked of businesses to convince the banks that they are credit worthy.  If the steps above were taken instead of the Socialist panic that ensued in the recent weeks, we would be seeing much better circumstances than we see now.  There would be much less instability and much more liquidity in the market.
       In closing, we have allowed "intellectuals" to cloud our view of reality and cloak the simplicity of the economy in equations and extra syllabals.  The fact is that the average American can understand the economy, Barack Obama, John McCain and Barney Frank aren't any smarter than us, in fact, they appear to be dumber than we are.  They don't even understand that dealing with problems at a level as close to the core as possible will produce the best results.  Instead they believe that reinventing the entire economy is the best path to follow in order to get out of this mess.  I've got a solution, bring congress together, and let's have them all attend an "Econ 101" class, taxpayer funded of course.  I'd rather put out the few hundred thousand dollars that would cost then another 700 billion dollars next time these clowns decide to "fix the economy".