Let's have an honest conversation

Take the emotion out for a minute and consider the public policy.

Medicare was created in 1966 at a cost of $3 Billion per year. The House Ways & Means Committee estimated in 1966 that the 1990 cost would be $12 Billion. Instead, it was $107 Billion in 1990 and today it costs more than $408 Billion per year.

These are facts.

The Congressional Budget Office estimated that the health care law that was just signed into law a few months ago will cost $940 Billion over the next 10 years. Actually, just today, the CBO came out with a new estimate that is $100 Billion higher. But, if history is a guide, this is low. Way, way low. And, like it or not, the dollars must come from someplace. Sadly, we can't even pay for what we are spending now (to the tune of $1.5 TRILLION a year), let alone add more spending on top. Which is exactly what this Congress and this President just did.

Another fact . . .

If the US Government cut out 100% of its spending, including defense, but kept paying Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid . . . the US would still have a deficit.

More (unpleasant) facts . . .

Tim Cahill, Massachusetts State Treasurer said, of MassCare . . . "If not for . . . commitments from Washington to prop up this plan, Massachusetts would be broke. The only reason MassCare has survived is that we have been repeatedly bailed out by the federal government."

This is the model for the US health care law that we now live under. There is not enough income in this country to tax to pay for all this spending. The top 10% of earners in this country ALREADY pay 73% of the income taxes collected by the IRS. So what is the right number? 85%? 95%? 100%? At what point do people stop creating new businesses and working longer hours to earn more money for the federal government to confiscate?

This issue is real. We are spending our way into oblivion in this country. Even after the massive tax increases which we will shortly experience, our federal government will still have huge current deficits on top of massive unfunded future liabilities. We simply don’t have enough money to pay for all the wonderful things our elected officials think up.

And, they are wonderful and worthy ideas. In a perfect world (which we sadly do not inhabit), we would have enough to pay for it all. But, unfortunately, we live in the real world, and not the imaginary one, and we need to find ways to pay for the programs we pass.

My advice, if you care about this issue, is to vote GOP this Fall. If you can’t bring yourself to do that (because you are too partisan), then vote against the incumbent. We need to send new people to Washington. Those people who have been there for 25, 30 and 40 years need to clear out. Let’s get some fresh blood in there and see if they can do a better job.

Woldy

King Barack Weighs in (Yet) Again

Is there nothing that Barack Obama will not opine about?

From the behavior of Cambridge cops to the pay packages of investment bankers to West Virginia mine safety and now to a piece of state legislation in Arizona (on immigration). Barack thinks he gets a say in EVERYTHING that happens in this country.

By the way, it is quite unusual for a sitting President to take a Governor and state legislature to task for passing a law he disagrees with. It is kind of Un-Presidential, in fact, to do that. Not the least of reasons is that he is supposed to be leading a country of States (maybe Cass Sunstein can remind him of some of the finer points over lunch one day). And, then there's this whole subject of seeming to be rather reactive, but that may have to wait for another blog posting.

The reason the Arizona state legislature acted is because the U.S. Congress hasn't acted. No, that is not really correct. Congress won't act because they are scared to (scared to piss more people off). But the problem is not going away. And as a front-line state, immigration matters to Arizonians. Right or wrong, their elected state officials felt the need to act, and did act. Now, having acted, The President decides that they did the wrong thing. The President. And, he bashes the Governor and the state legislature for taking the action they did.

Barack should be directing his ire at the Congress. Oh, and by the way, himself, for insisting the Congress take up health insurance legislation rather than other pressing matters of state. But, it is much more politically expedient for him to bash some Republican Governor. Hits the "right" note with his supporters.

Now I am not suggesting that The President should not exercise the bully pulpit to affect public policy. That is his right. He can say whatever he wants. He is The President. Unfortunately for him (and for the rest of us), he has exercised this right rather too aggressively in his short time in office. He basically can't help himself from speaking out.

Here is a serious question, not a joke: Does Barack think he is a Monarch or the leader of a Democracy?

SEC's Goldman Suit Smacks of Politics

I have been as vocal a critic as any about some of the ways that Goldman Sachs has benefited from Government bailouts over the last 18 months, but this SEC action, in the midst of the White House's legislative push to pass a financial regulations bill, just seems to me to be all about politics.

Plausibly deniable, we may never know (or at least we may not know until someone writes a book about it a year from now) if the prosecutors were influenced by the politicians to wage a public war against the most prominent survivor on Wall Street. It just seems to be too coincidental and I, for one, just don't believe in coincidence.

And, if it turns out to be true then, shame on the White House, the Democratic Congressional leadership and shame on the SEC Commissioner. Because they are messing with the reputation of one of our country's leading financial firms. And, the reputations of individuals. Once tainted, reputations are hard to restore.

I have no idea what actually happened, but this sort of fits a pattern with this President. He wants things the way he wants things and he wants them that way NOW. He is a bit of a bully and he doesn't like taking "no" for an answer. Sometimes these are good traits in a leader. But, not when the legal proceedings of our country's law enforcement agencies are applied inappropriately.

Time will tell if this was a political prosecution, or not.

John Kerry Believes in Fairytales

John Kerry spent an hour or two with President Assad in Syria and declared afterwards that "Syria is committed to peace." Good thing we have John Kerry. He would have made a great Secretary of State. My question for John Kerry is, "with whom is Syria committed to peace?"

Is Syria committed to peace with Hezbullah, the militant Islamic militia that continues to hold the people of Lebanon hostage to their fanatical military ideas? The same Hezbullah who launched the cross-border attack and kidnapped 2 Israeli soldiers, igniting a ruinous war in 2006? The same Hezbullah that fired rockets indiscriminantly into civilian population areas (i.e. cities) in Israel? The same Hezbullah that is now armed with 40,000 rockets, some capable of hitting major metropolitan areas inside Israel? How did those rockets get into Lebanon, you might ask . . . through peace-loving Syria.

Or, is Syria committed to peace with Lebanon, a country they continue to dominate, assassinating Lebanese journalists, politicians, business leaders who dare to disagree publicly with Syria?

Or, is Syria committed to peace with the Palestinians, while they continue to host the rejectionist and most violent elements of the Hamas leadership?

Or, is Syria committed to peace with Iraq, now that the dust has settled and it is clear that Iraq will not be torn apart.

Or, is Syria committed to peace with Jordan? Turkey? Iran?

Who is John Kerry saying Syria is committed to peace with?

Israel? Give me a break. Neighbors who are committed to peace with other neighbors do not help the enemies of those neighbors arm themselves with threatening weaponry. Neighbors committed to peace with neighbors do not align themselves with fascist states (i.e. Iran), who publicly call for the destruction of their beloved neighbors. Neighbors committed to peace exert their influence in the neighborhood to keep the peace, not to stir up trouble.

A senior American statesman (?!?!?) going to Damascus and declaring that Syria is committed to peace is a joke. But, unfortunately, it is not really a joke for Israel. It is more of the same public posturing that the Obama Administration has used to turn Israel into the "obstruction to peace".

This is Alice in Wonderland where up is down and right is left. Now, Syria is the peace loving country and Israel the obstructionist state. Thank goodness for John Kerry.

Really?

Politico.com reported today that over 2,000 House staffers make a salary of over $100,000. That means for every Representative, there are nearly 5 staffers making $100,000, or more.

Israel is at Risk

The Obama Administration wants a Middle East deal badly. They really need a deal. Their credibility is at stake. And, they don’t like the intransigent and uncooperative Netanyahu Government standing in their way. Obama did his smack-down this week (over a municipal zoning decision that has already been approved three times) because he wants to put Netanyahu in his place . . . which is to say, at the feet of Obama.

Why do I say this? Because Obama has maneuvered U.S. foreign policy into a corner from which the only way out is to squeeze Israel. He needs to deliver a peace deal in order to shore up support for his efforts to contain Iran’s nuclear ambitions. Certainly containing Iran is an important political and security goal for the U.S. I am not sure I completely understand how alienating, and publicly castigating, our closest ally in the region squares with this goal, however.

More central to my overall point, Obama is asking Israel to make concessions that are permanent in order to allow Obama to pursue a fleeting, ephemeral political win. Convincing one country, or another, to go along with economic sanctions on Iran at this moment in time may, or may not, achieve the goal of eliminating the Iranian nuclear program. Countries can change their polices (i.e. Bush to Obama on Israel, Poland, Czech, Georgia, etc…) So, Israeli concessions to the Palestinians that help convince Russia, or China, to support sanctions one day, and then change their mind the next day when the U.S. does something that they don’t like (such as sell arms to Taiwan) completely negates the political value of the Israeli concessions.

And, once made, Israeli concessions are not easy to take back. Removing settlements and splitting Jerusalem is not something that can be undone. What we are doing is asking Israeli citizens to put themselves at risk (ask the people living near Gaza how much they have enjoyed the last five years of rocket fire since Israel pulled out of Gaza) so Obama can score political points that may mean nothing six months later. Not sure this is a great deal for Israeli citizens.

Especially with the backdrop of not having a viable, stable partner in negotiations who has the will and the power, to deliver on their promises. Just this week, a senior Minister in the PA government called for riots on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem. Would you trust such a government with your life? Your childrens’ lives? That is what we are asking them to do. It is their lives we are messing with. I am not sure most people understand this point.

And, the shame of it all is, as I have pointed out numerous times, including on the Chicago Tribune editorial page, Israel has consistently shown a willingness to make the ultimate sacrifices for peace when they have felt the support of their strongest ally, the U.S. and when there appeared to be a partner for peace. Today, the Obama Administration has removed the feeling of support (see Joe Biden’s telling remarks last week about the need to have no daylight between the U.S. and Israel, as a precondition to peace). And, the PA has shown no commitment to negotiations. So, what does Obama expect Israel to do? They are being told, loudly and clearly, that the U.S. special relationship with Israel is changing and that they (meaning the Obama Administration) want to be an “honest broker” and not favor one side over the other. This is what our foreign policy is morphing into.

That is why I titled this blog post the way I did.

One Fish, Two Fish, Three Fish, One Fish

The bad luck Mall in Dubai . . .

First, the World's Tallest Burj Tower gets closed down because the elevator to the 124th floor malfunctions and starts to drop like a stone with terrified passengers locked inside. Luckily the emergency brakes worked and no one was injured.

Then, the World's Largest Aquarium springs a leak and thousands of gallons of water spray onto the floor of the World's Largest Mall, forcing evacuation of the Dubai Mall.

Lastly, I heard from a friend who lives in Dubai that when the Aquarium first opened, it was stocked with the wrong species of shark. Which they discovered when shocked tourists reported that they thought they saw the sharks eat some of the other fish . . .

What else could go wrong?