Political Correctness has become “retarded”

I know that I already posted earlier today but I read this and just couldn't contain myself.

I am sorry but come on. Are we as a society really this sensitive? Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel is reported to have commented during a liberal strategy session this past August that liberals planning to run attack ads on conservative Democrats for their stance on Health Care were "F…ing retarded." To which now Emanuel forces Emanuel to meeting with Special Olympics head Tim Shriver at the White House today to discuss the use of the word "retarded". Really, Emanuel needs to apologize for an offhand comment. All the man said is that it was "retarded" for Democrats to attack Democrats. Where is the harm in that?

The Republican Poster Child for Down Syndrome children, Sarah Palin, weighed in by writing on her Facebook page, "Rahm's slur on all God's children with cognitive and developmental disabilities – and the people who love them – is unacceptable, and it's heartbreaking." WHAT!!!!! Now I think Palin brings a fresh face and a nuance to politics that has been lacking but to blast Emanuel for the phrase "F...ing retarded" even I know that is a little too politically correct. What word or phrase is next? Just because someone states that an action is retarded, I am pretty certain they are not trying to equate to Down Syndrome children. Or perhaps I am just naïve. Thoughts….

Staff quits after Congressman switches party

A friend of mine listed this story from the Huffington Post, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/04/parker-griffith-staff-res_n_410280.html, on his Facebook page. The article discussed that every member of Rep. Parker Griffith's staff has quit because the Representative of Alabama's Fifth District decision to switch from the Democrat to the Republican Party. Chief of Staff Sharon Wheeler is quoted in the article as saying, "Alabama's Fifth District has deserved and has benefited from great Democratic conservative leadership since Reconstruction. And until now they had it. I appreciate Congressman Griffith's being a very dedicated congressman. But we believe he made a mistake – a well-intentioned but misguided mistake that is not in the interest of the great people of North Alabama who elected him a year ago as a Democrat." So let me get this right, since the Congressman switched political labels he suddenly lost his conservative leadership? This is exactly what is wrong with having political parties. Just as Arlen Specter (D-PA) made his leap last year, did anyone really think his ideals or principles flipped as well?

The move from one political party to another is not one of personal shift in ideology, at least it does not appear in this situation, and rather the move is for political survival. House Speaker Pelosi has already conceded that policies passed on the Hill will result in a net loss of Democrat seats in the House of Representatives and is giving all indications that she is okay with that. Wheeler goes on to say, "As his staff, we wish him only the best, and we will remain committed to the citizens of the Tennessee Valley. But we cannot, in good conscience, continue working for him. It is with deep sadness that we leave our work for the Fifth District. But because we are unwavering in our own principles, we have no choice but to move on." Really, "because we are unwavering in our own principles", what does that mean?

The man the staff went to work for was a Conservative Democrat (Blue Dog) and now he is a Conservative Republican. Someone, anyone please help me understand how the change in words – Democrat to Republican – breaks with Rep. Griffith's core beliefs and what most likely attracted the staff to work for him. For the staff to up and quit just displays how ideology rules the roast in Washington D.C., probably in politics in general, that if ones employer or candidate doesn't have a certain label then they must be the opposition. How shortsighted is the staff?

The type of ideological stance taken by the staff is the primary reason why I do not call myself a Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, or insert political affiliation. Instead I look at the candidate's stance on my core issues to determine if I will back that person or not. I have little time to care what their party affiliation is. Does one a change in party affiliation translate into a change in core beliefs of the candidate? Is the staff being true to the principles they signed up for by quitting? Or is the staff quitting a sign of ideology over principle in action?

Matthews Marginalized West Point Cadet’s after Obama’s Speech

After President Obama spoke to United States Troops at West Point, Chris Matthews, MSNBC's host of the Chris Matthews show, said afterwards about the cadets in attendance, "It seems like in this case there isn't a lot of excitement. I watched those cadets they were young kids, men and women, who are committed to serving their country professionally it must be said as officers. I didn't see much excitement but among the older people there, I saw, if not resentment, skepticism. I didn't see a lot of warmth in that crowd out there that President chose to address tonight. And I thought that was interesting. He went to maybe the enemy camp to make his case today." Did I miss something? Tell me why, Mr. Matthews, a group of people who have been told there are murders by the Democrat party and seen their General in the Afghan arena treated like a leper during the discussions.

Those cadets that lacked the "excitement" and held "resentment or skepticism" of the plan being laid out by President Obama may be justified after the manner Obama's administration has treated the military community during the Presidential campaign and after coming into office. If I were a cadet in the crowd my ethusiasm would be diminished too as my Commander-in-Chief telegraphed the plan of battle. Matthews attempted damage control later in the night on his show by saying, "I used the wrong words and worst than that I said something that is just not right and for that I deeply apologize." The mistake was referencing our cadets at West Point the "enemy camp" for President Obama for which your apology rings hollow.

Matthews went onto say, "As those who watch me regularly probably got right away, my point was that the military up at West Point was probably a skeptical audience for President Obama given his strong position against the war in Iraq and generally more dovish image." The one thing Matthews has been successful at is prove that a) he is not a news source, b) lacks original thought, and c) lost his tingling feeling. Instead of focusing his assessment on the content of Obama's speech, Matthews focused on the reaction by the crowd. Why? Perhaps the crowd's reaction was accurate reflection of the plan being laid out.

We all agree that an open-ended war is not an answer nor will it reverse the economic trend being experienced. At the same time, what fool gets before a national audience and tells the world the battle plan? Before anyone gets to crazy, I understand that he did not expose the tactical plan. Rather he telegraphed to the Taliban and other insurgeants that after to 30,000 troops hit the ground you will have just 18 short months to hunker down until we are gone. Then after that, the country is yours. The cadets in the room were not alone in their disappointment with President Obama, the international community is not gushing over the revealing of the plan either.

"Never before has a speech by President Barack Obama felt as false as his Tuesday address announcing America's new strategy for Afghanistan. It seemed like a campaign speech combined with Bush rhetoric – and left both dreamers and realists feeling distraught," wrote Gabor Steingart in his piece "Searching in Vain for the Obama Magic" published in Der Spiegel (http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,664753,00.html#ref=nlint). United Kingdom Prime Minister Gordon Brown said, "I call on all our allies to unite behind President Obama's strategy. Britain will continue to play its full part in persuading other countries to offer troops to the Afghanistan campaign" (http://www.reuters.com/article/gc05/idUSTRE5B133L20091202). Sir Jock Stirrup, UK's Chief of the Defence Staff, said, "There's absolutely nothing wrong with having targets and milestones against which we can measure progress and against which to be frank we can force the pace" (www.telegraph.co.uk). But Sir Stirrup also warned "that a British withdrawal in earnest could not begin until 2014" (www.telegraph.co.uk).

If our most powerful ally is looking for 2014 and the Nobel Peace Prize winner is saying July 2011 – who is right? Also, perhaps the reason why the cadets and senior officers at West Point held their perceived point of view is due to their military training and understanding of the situation. Maybe the media and pundits, like Chris Matthews, should remove their Obama-colored glasses and see the speech and plan from the military perspective.

Election Results may give pause to health care reform.

On Tuesday many Americans went to the polls to vote on local elections. Even though the elections were for local representation, two elections were getting plenty of national attention. The races for Governor in New Jersey and Virginia were both looked upon as a barometer for 2010 Congressional races. In both cases the sitting Democrat lost to their Republican challenger. While the spin was in high gear yesterday, the true impact will be seen on Capitol Hill as health care reform and cap and trade bills move forward. Even though the Democrats hold majority in both houses of Congress, those Democrats, many known as "Blue Dogs", in swing states are now taking pause to assess the ripple effect the elections have in their districts.

Rep. Gene Taylor (D-Miss.) warned that "The House leadership needs to pay attention to what happened in Virginia." Rep. Taylor's words are echoed in the Senate by Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.). Sen. Conrad responded to the election results by saying, "The American people get it. They know we're on an unsustainable fiscal course." The realization by "Blue Dog" Democrats is reassuring as House Speaker Pelosi is pushing for a vote on the House's health care reform bill which is nearly 3000 pages long. Why, Speaker Pelosi is the bill so long? Health Care reform is not as complex as your bill makes it sound.

Ask yourself why not one single member of Congress in favor of the reform being looked at is not willing to participate in it by giving up their current health insurance coverage and switch to the "reformed" insurance coverage? Health care reform can be obtained without a 3000 page bill that will cost $1.2T over ten years according to the CBO. I have blogged about how to accomplish this without spending a dime but will say it again.

1. Create true competition through the interstate buying and selling of health care insurance.
   
2. Remove the anti-trust exemption.
   
3. Phase out Medicare and Medicaid.
   
4. Establish Medical Saving Accounts.
   
5. Tort reform
   
6. Require all medical record's to be computerized
   
7. Make health insurance portable
   

I know it is not a 12 step plan but it will work and achieve the goals the Obama administration has for health care reform. Doing these seven things to start with will lower premium costs, save taxpayer money, and make insurance available to all. We need fiscal responsible and logical decision making when dealing with an issue that is 1/6^th of our economy. Any other way will only hurt the growth in GDP obtained last quarter. If the election results gives pause to the "Blue Dog" Democrats to delay any rash voting on health care reform then American's will win. If Pelosi and Reed are able to shove through legislation that does nothing but grow government, Americans will continue to see unemployment levels north of 10%. Imagine what the unemployment rate would be if companies had not outsourced many back office duties to India, Ireland, and other locales around the world. Take a moment today to call and write your Congress member to voice your opinion and urge them to vote for sustained growth that does not bankrupt America.

Obama Deficit reaches new heights with more to come!!!!

Normally I do not blog on Saturdays but when I walked out to get my paper and read the headline in Star Tribune "Deficit Surges to New Records" I felt compelled to write. The 2009 deficit reached $1.42T which is three times more than any year in the history of the United States. The spin on Capitol Hill is that it is less than predicted, $1.6T, by the CBO. Then again the CBO had counted on the passing of Health Care and Cap and Trade in their projections. Imagine where our deficit would be if these two piece of legislation passed as the Democrats wish. The new service article in the Star Tribune said the deficit mark is "more than the total national debt for the first 200 years of the Republic, more than the entire economy of India, almost as much as Canada's, and more than $4,700 for every man, woman and child in the United States."

So please, everyone send in your check so we can pay down our debt. If the Democrat led Congress does not turn fiscally responsible, we will need to send in bigger and bigger checks to the government or see an economic ruin far worse than the "collapse" of the financial markets. Again, please send in your share of the deficit that the Democrats have increased to new heights or prepare for an onslaught of new taxes; i.e. fat tax, sin tax, and health care tax.

President Obama needs to be specific tonight on health care reform

Tonight at 7 P.M. CST President Obama will address a joint session of Congress in an attempt to guide them in developing a health care reform bill for him to sign into law. President Obama wanted Congress to pass health care reform before the August recess for good reason; the message on health care reform is no longer being controlled by the White House. The August recess allowed, those really concerned, to review the House bill and get an opportunity to participate in town hall meetings. While not every member of Congress held open forums, they did hold meetings of some sort to hear from constituents on the issue of health care. No one denies, okay maybe one person, that health care costs are growing out of control and reform is needed. The disagreement is how much reform is required to bend the cost curve downward.

The "Gang of Six" is trying to hammer out an idea. The Republicans have a proposal but are unable to get it out of committee or get it scored by the CBO. Republicans do not want to release the plan before it can be scored by the CBO which is politics. I have had the opportunity this summer to witness first hand a number of C-SPAN session of Congress and can attest to Republicans ideas are not given real consideration in committees. The Liberal Left members of the Democrat party have drawn the line in the sand that if reform does not include a public option then they will not vote for reform. The Conservative Right is dead set against the public option and it appears many "Blue" dog Democrats are as well. President Obama campaign on bringing people together; yet he cannot find common ground with members of Congress without creating uproar from the base of the Democrat party.

Thus far the President has touted that "if you like your health care you will be able to keep it." Unfortunately his rhetoric does not match what is being done in Congress which is not a bad thing since there is suppose to be separation of powers. Then again, it his party that is in power and one would think they'd be on the same page. The current HR 3200 bill penalizes companies if they do not offer insurance equal to what the public option will offer. A bit of hypocrisy presents itself here. People in general are happy with the coverage but are unhappy at the rising cost of being covered. Why do we need to penalize companies if people are happy with their insurance cover? Let's not confuse the issue though.

I find it interesting that during the campaign and after taking office President Obama looked to places like Canada and England health care systems as models his administration would emulate. Recently President Obama said, "I've said that the Canadian model works for Canada. It would not work for the United States, in part simply because we've evolved differently. So, we've got to develop a uniquely American approach to this problem" (NYtimes.com). A "uniquely American" approach does not restrict freedom of choice or look to the government for the answer; rather free market ideals are what make our current system a "Uniquely American" approach.

The trouble with the current system is that the free market concept of competition is confined by state borders. By deregulating the health care system to allow one in Minnesota to purchase health care coverage from an insurer in Arizona will increase competition thus reducing costs. If the primary goal is to reduce costs then why not start reforming health care by doing this? America's deficit is spiraling out of control and opening up competition does not cost taxpayers any money; Budget neutral!!!!!

Back in June I was challenged by one of my progressive friends to provide an outline for health care reform which I did in my blog entry, Outline of Health Care and Tax Reform, on June 10, 2009. I recognize that my idea of health care reform does not provide all the answers but it does provide a solid base of ideas that would be budget neutral. One aspect that I neglected in my blog entry back in June was to include tort reform. Without solid tort reform the cost curve will not trend downward.

I am hoping that tonight President Obama will lay out specific plans or changes to current bills of health care reform. The time for lofty rhetoric has past; the time for specific language is required. Without specifics the American public fears will only be heightened. According to Scott Rasmussen, "those opposed to Mr. Obama's reform appear to have momentum on their side. Polling last weekend showed that 48% of voters rate the U.S. health-care system as good or excellent. That's up from 35% in May and up from 29% a year ago. Only 19% now rate the system as poor, down from 37% a year ago. It appears that the prospect of changing health care has made the existing system look better to a lot of people" (Wall Street Journal).

The sliding poll numbers are even more reason why President Obama needs to get specific on health care reform and display how the reform will benefit all Americans. I am one of the 48M uninsured in America right now and it is by choice. Because unemployment is just a portion of my previous income level the cost of health care increases but not due to an increase in cost rather due to the decrease in income. Now there are options for health care coverage that is less expensive and affordable than COBRA or any of those offered in Minnesota but I cannot take advantage of that because the coverage is in another state. I look forward to the speech tonight and hope that President Obama can produce on his campaign promise for health care reform that allows those with coverage to keep their coverage for as long as they are employed at their current employer.

Cooperatives: Health Care bipartisan approach

The ramming of health care has stalled in Congress, partly thanks to Blue Dog Democrats, to give bipartisan plans a chance. Although the Democrats hold majority in both houses and do not require a bipartisan approach to pass health care reform; yet a stalemate has taken place. Senate Majority Leader Sen. Reed came out last week and made it clear that a full Senate vote on health care will not take place prior to the August break.

Yesterday a bipartisan group of Senators locked themselves in a private meeting to hash out a bipartisan plan. The major sticking point on the health care debate is the public plan and to what degree of intrusion will Americans accept by government buacracy with their health care. President Obama has, in the past, drawn a line in the sand that he will not sign any health care reform bill that is void of a public option.

Several comments have taken place on my blog entries, mainly on Facebook, on health care. An underlying current is to empower the patient and remove the shackles the insurance companies have on the system. Perhaps the plan of a bipartisan group of Senators will accomplish that through the notion of cooperatives.

Noam Levey and Janet Hook define cooperatives, in their article The Centrist Alternative on Healthcare: Cooperatives, as “owned by their members, are structured as nonprofits and either offer a system of healthcare providers or contract out for their members’ medical services.” Sen. Kent Conrad has been an advocate of cooperatives as it’s a patient controlled option rather than a government public option. Sen. Conrad concedes that “Every single Republican is opposed to a public plan. If one just does the numbers, it’s very clear to get the votes, you’ve got to find some compromise here.”

Karen Davis, president of the nonprofit Commonwealth Fund, states “Setting up new cooperatives is just going to take longer” since it will be more difficult to replicated cooperative nationwide versus creation of a public plan. Are we to trade expediency for true reform? Granted cooperatives are historically a rural program and many in larger cities have little experience in dealing with cooperatives. That being said, the bipartisan plan shouldn’t be shoved aside for a public option.

Brian Beutler writes, in his article Obama to Grassley: I’m Interested in Alternatives to The Public Option, “Sen. Charles Grassley (R-IA) – ranking member on the Senate Finance Committee – says President Obama’s insistence on a public option might actually be a public show.” Sen. Grassley may be right as President Obama has softened his stance on the August deadline. David Axelrod has stated to in order to improve the health care system, “Everyone is going to have to give a little to get there.”

President Obama admitted in the AARP town hall meeting yesterday that “It’s so obvious that the system we have isn’t working for too many people and that we could just be doing better.” Everyone agrees with this statement but many disagree that the public plan is the right path to take. While a national cooperative may be too large and complex to establish, a blueprint can be established that gives local communities the “seed money” to form cooperatives.

Cooperatives for health care already exist in California, Minnesota, and the Pacific Northwest. In all locations the cooperatives have been able to lower costs while keeping the focus on patient care both elements of reform everyone wants. So why emulate a public option, similar to Medicare, for the nation that has proven nothing but bankruptcy when options exists around the nation that have already achieved two core elements of health care reform; lowering cost and patient focused?