Redistributionist in Chief

While all Presidents preside over a government redistribution scheme, taking from one group of people to give to another, Obama is trying to take it to a new level. His "tax cuts for the rich" rhetoric is becoming tiresome and his overall policies of making everything "fair" is showing his true colors. he is a redistributionist at heart and everything he does including foreign policy reflects that.
Redistribution does not work and has never worked wherever it has been tried, just as Socialism has never worked anywhere ever. If you take away someones' production or means of production what incentive is there to produce? People work for their own best interests, not the collective in spite of what the liberals would have us believe.

The Day Obama Lost

During the recent uprising on the anniversary of 9/11, the President showed he is not equipped to lead, even from behind. Not only did he not take seriously that this was an organized planned attack, (unless your typical demonstrator against a trumped up video carries RPGs with them everywhere) he did not answer some of the fundamental questions about the incident. In fact he did not answer any questions at all except whether Egypt was an ally (he said no).
Why was the consulate not better protected? Why was the ambassador even there in Benghazi? Why the State Department did not know this was coming? If they did know why didn't they do something?
When Romney publically shamed the administration by coming out first to criticize the Embassy statement, Obama criticized Romney and then agreed he was right and criticized the same statement. If they both were critical of the same statement how was Romney wrong for saying it?
Obama's Middle East Policy has been one of appeasement from the start.
"The Embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims" the embassy statement reads. The part that the main stream media seems to deny is this; The disgraceful embassy statement was a completely accurate articulation of longstanding Obama policy. No underling in any embassy anywhere would dare issue a statement that he (or she) did not believe was the policy of their bosses all the way up to and including the President. It is just not done. If someone like that had issued a statement under his own signature outside his official responsibilities he would be summarily discharged for insubordination or some such. has anyone been fired for this statement? Of course not because everyone knows they were speaking for the President. While he is trying to put some distance between the administration and the statement. He forgets that he IS the administration. All the ambassadors serve at the pleasure of the President.
     This whole incident is about being the president not playing president. Romney acted presidential. Obama did not.

Congress and Reform

   It is time we reformed Congress to get back to the citizen Congress that our founders envisioned. Our Congress has become a political class with such a cushy job that they will do everything and anything to protect it. The job has become so lucrative that many aspire to do that and only that. Granted there are some in Congress who made it in the private sector and now want to give back, but too many are there to perpetuate their position and power.
    Congressmen and women make a base salary of $174,000.00. In the 112th Congress they worked approx 170 days. Even with four weeks vacation most of us work 240 days. They only have to work 5 years to qualify for a full pension. They have access to a full time physician for $500/year. They are allotted $900,000 for staff (House) (Senators get $3.3 Million) They get an additional $250,000 for office expenses and travel (not counting the actual office which is a federal building) and $40,000 per year for home offices.
   Given this largesse and their intransigence in doing something productive like pass a budget I think we should fire em all and start over. Start with paying them $1.00 per year. Give them an office at the Capital and one staff assistant. They should work 9-5 Monday through Friday and once a quarter they can take Friday or Monday off to go home to their home districts for Town Hall Meetings.
Qualifications for Congress should be that they worked in the private sector for at least 10 years and NOT as an attorney. They should have had to operate a business under the oppressive laws they continue to promulgate. Once in Congress they should be required to have any personal assets in a blind trust controlled by an independent third party with no connection to the member or his family.
     Any law passed by the Congress must be adhered to by the Congress. No more exemptions from the very laws they pass and any increases in pay or benefits must be approved by an independent pay and benefit commission appointed by representatives from each branch of government.
    Our government is no longer transparent and the entrenched special interests both inside and outside the government have to be stopped. This would be my start.
 

Affordable Care Act and Costs

I read often that the Affordable Care Act passed by the Democrats and signed by Obama will save money on health care costs. Since most people get confused between healthcare and health insurance I will not comment on the difference. Suffice to say, what we are talking about is health "Insurance". While many of us don't have health insurance, we still can get health care and do. And we pay for it contrary to the ACA advocates who say that the rest of the rate payers subsidize those without insurance but I digress,
Health insurance is a mechanism by which we defer health care costs to a third party, usually the insurance company but also defer some of the costs to our employers as a form of compensation. Insurance premiums reflect the risk of paying claims and are subject to the demographics of the population insured. In addition, state mandates on what should be covered and what has to be covered as well as deductibles, co-pays etc  drive the premium costs. All things being equal a given group's premiums should exactly offset their claims plus administrative costs plus profit. Here is where it gets dicey. If an employee has a major claim ie heart surgery, then the group's premium has to increase to cover the loss. There is no free lunch. Increasing state mandates for coverage have increased premiums across the country and the Affordable Care Act is no exception.
The following parts of the ACA will increase premiums:
1) Keeping adult children on parent's plan. This increases premiums because you are now insuring more people.
2) No pre-existing conditions. This will increase premiums because insurance companies will no longer be able to avoid those risks.
3) No lifetime caps. Premiums have to cover actual costs. If you cannot cap the loss you have to increase premiums.
4) Guaranteed issue. With no way to avoid losses from possible negative selection premiums have to increase.
If insurance companies were allowed to construct policies that could avoid the mandates and find creative ways to insure more people, overall premiums would come down as more people would be insured spreading the risk over more premium payers. As long as the government dictates the coverages and the limits to flexibilty then insurance premiums will continue to escalate.

Middle Class and Economics

Today I am puzzled by the recent comments from Obama that we are building the economy from the "middle out" and not from the "top down". This is confusing because where do the middle class work? Do they just start working at middle class wages and 'poof' we have an economy? I think not. The economy is built on small businesses. Most jobs are created by small businesses. The so called middle class got there by either working, gaining experience and earning wages commensurate with their skills or they started a small business and grew it to a size where they could take home a meaningful middle class wage. The so called top down approach means people of means invested in that entrepreneur and helped him get started and thus create the jobs for the middle class. There is no other way. The only way to create middle class employment other than "top down" is through government. Obama's soaring rhetoric is so predicatably government based that when he said "You didn't build that!", everyone knew what he meant. Especially when he prefaced the YDBT remark with "You think you worked so hard" or "you think you are so smart". His arrogance knows no bounds and his sense that government did or will build that is evidenced in his stump speech. He wants to recruit more teachers (government jobs), fix our crumbling infrastructure (government funded Union jobs), invest in education and research and development (government funded jobs) and renewable energy jobs (government funded and fading fast).
The government that President Obama wants to fund all these jobs has to get their money from somehwere else. Governments don't have any money. The only money government has is what they take in the form of taxes from someone else. The "top" income earners (top 10%) produce 70% of all the money the government takes in in revenue. Therefore the Obama plan IS "top down". You can spin it anyway you want but the government centric mind set of the Obama administration is the opposite of what he claims it is and by demonizing and trying to increase taxes on these job creators he is undermining and will destroy the engine that creats wealth, creates jobs and creates the revenue Obama so loves to spend. If he destroys the "TOP", where does the money come from?