Wednesday, March 24, 2010

Paying for Healthcare Reform

For those of you cheering passage of healthcare legislation in the US Congress a big disappointment may be coming your way. Assume for a moment that nothing gets in the way of Obamacare and it becomes the way things are for things medical. Here's a minor perspective on how crazy it is.

Let's further assume there actually are 30 million people without healthcare insurance that want it. Low income individuals or families may have taxpayers cover the whole thing. Those not so low income may have a tax credit to help them pay for insurance. That also comes from taxpayers. Not to mention Obamacare strips some Medicare programs and removes a half trillion dollars, that's right, $500 billion, from Medicare.

What do you gain? Nothing. How does this create savings in healthcare? It doesn't. it just moves around who pays what and for whom. Most seniors on Medicare are not taxpayers any more. So if you remove a half trillion from their healthcare program who replaces it? Or are the skeptics right and you just let old people die for lack of healthcare?

Tax credits or entitlements paying insurance premiums for those with insufficient funds to purchase their own insurance gets multiplied by 30 million. Assume $3000 per person per year and you're looking at another trillion dollars. Where's that money coming from?

So y'all who thought the goose just laid the golden egg for your healthcare expenses, think again. All government entitlements and programs are paid for like everything else the government does. With money from taxpayers or money that is borrowed. And guess where the money to pay for the borrowed money comes from? That's right, TAXPAYERS.

Like any other source of funds taxpayers have a limited supply of it. And just like what got us in this mess, people expecting too much for too little from the medical industry, the demand will always outstrip the supply and no one will want to pay for it. So guess what? The problem never goes away. That is until financial ruin destroys our country if we let it.

If you cannot afford healthcare or if you did not plan effectively for life, maybe you don't deserve to live. Maybe that's nature's way of cleaning up the gene pool. But libs prefer to keep it substandard to promote their radical agenda.

Stanford Matthews

This blog provides a handy venue for my less than polite rants.

Wednesday, September 2, 2009

Afghanistan: Not Just Obama's War

crossposted at:
Maggie’s Notebook
Conservative Thoughts

This blogger regularly albeit infrequently promotes reading George F Will’s columns. That remains. Similar to a previous misunderstood column criticizing the way Americans present themselves Mr Will may or is again coming under fire to some degree. It is unpopular in conservative circles to suggest abandoning military combat operations before victory is secured. But George F Will does make a point, unpopular or not. And he may end up being right but not necessarily for the reasons given below.

Counterinsurgency theory concerning the time and the ratio of forces required to protect the population indicates that, nationwide, Afghanistan would need hundreds of thousands of coalition troops, perhaps for a decade or more. That is inconceivable.

So, instead, forces should be substantially reduced to serve a comprehensively revised policy: America should do only what can be done from offshore, using intelligence, drones, cruise missiles, airstrikes and small, potent Special Forces units, concentrating on the porous 1,500-mile border with Pakistan, a nation that actually matters.

Genius, said de Gaulle, recalling Bismarck’s decision to halt German forces short of Paris in 1870, sometimes consists of knowing when to stop. Genius is not required to recognize that in Afghanistan, when means now, before more American valor, such as Allen’s, is squandered.

For several reasons this blog disagrees with the last two sentences presented above. You can of course make your own evaluation. Another opinion on this topic is at the WSJ.

The questions and concerns being raised are legitimate. Clearly, the mission has not been going well. Problems with our basic strategy, especially on the economic and development side, still need immediate attention. Moreover, our Afghan friends have a crucial role to play in both security and development, and if they fail to do so the overall warfighting and state-building effort will not succeed.

Both with Mr Will and the WSJ piece from a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution (O’Hanlon), the downside is discussed. The WSJ piece includes the upside.

These problems need to be corrected soon. Even then, it will take at least 12-18 months to see results. Our chief challenge in Afghanistan is building state institutions and that is an inherently slow process. But as we debate new changes to our strategy this fall, we would do well to remember all that is working in our favor in this crucial effort.

Analyzing armed conflict while it is occurring and from an historical perspective is an unending endeavor. The only decisive outcome is whether those who risk making the ultimate sacrifice were at least allowed every conceivable opportunity for victory. After all, for the rest of us this analysis endeavor is merely Monday quarterbacking.

Perhaps the only statement on war with which we can all agree includes some expression of its futility. But this is what humans do when adequately provoked or someone decides all other options have evaporated. Until we morph into the perfect beings we sometimes think we are this practice will not become obsolete.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Monday, August 24, 2009

Election Fraud: Real or Imagined?

crossposted at:
Maggie's Notebook
Conservative Thoughts

Is it simply a growing trend in conspiracy theories or is there valid evidence that election fraud is omnipresent in those countries of the world which allow citizens to choose their leaders? Reports on the latest challenges in an election deemed noteworthy by the various media is highlighted below.

There is mounting concern about the aftermath of Afghanistan's presidential election. No results or even an estimated voter turnout have been announced by the country's election officials. Partial results from some provinces are expected Tuesday, however. But the election overseers say official results may have to be delayed while they investigate a rising number of serious charges of voting fraud.

According to another report both sides make a claim of election fraud.

Both the campaigns of incumbent President Hamid Karzai and his top challenger, former foreign minister Abdullah Abdullah, accuse the other of illegal campaign activities and tampering with the voting process.

Earlier this year an election in Iran accompanied by subsequent charges of election fraud caused a 'stir' that has not been satisfactorily resolved. It has been reported that the event is responsible for disruptions of alliances in the ruling elite.

Iranian Nobel Peace Prize laureate Shirin Ebadi repeated her call for a fresh election in Iran, held under the supervision of the United Nations.

Speaking during a visit to South Korea, Ebadi said a new presidential election with U.N. oversight could help end the unrest that erupted after President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's disputed June 12 re-election.

Ebadi made similar comments during a protest speech in Amsterdam last month.

She also asked U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon to visit Iran to receive a first-hand account of human rights abuses.

The secretary-general Monday sent what his office called a "customary letter" on his inauguration congratulating him, though the text would not be made public.

And then a contrast in claims of election fraud and media coverage on conspiracy theories.

Massive street protests by millions of peaceful demonstrators waving homemade signs and wearing bracelets displaying the color of their movement? At least 20 protesters gunned down by authorities and paramilitaries? Worldwide moral indignation stirred up by the international media?

Iran 2009? Yes!

Mexico 2006? Yes and no.

All aspects of the above scenario describe the Great Mexican Electoral Flimflam three years ago this July 2nd - save for the conundrum of worldwide moral indignation. Virtually ignored by the international media, the stealing of the Mexican presidential election by the right-wing oligarchy stirred little indignation anywhere outside of Mexico.

Imagine that. Something claimed as stolen in Mexico. With all the rants following elections in the US that disappointed the liberal masses comes a stunning development within the conservative ranks in America.

The primary question conservatives are afraid to ask is “What if the election is very close and Obama wins, then what?”

Will the McCain campaign protest? Is there a cadre of thousands of lawyers ready to jump on the ACORN voter registration fraud issue, or the Obama campaign pre-paid credit card donation debacle, or the many suspected votes cast for Obama by non-citizens?

Obama and his “thousands of attorneys” have answers to all these “trumped-up” complaints by the GOP. The DNC has convinced the Kool-aid crowd that Bush stole the last two elections, and they aren’t about the let that pass. So, hang on to you hats, and further down in this article you will find the Obama/DNC election fraud playbook.

WHAT???? Conservatives would consider leveling charges of election fraud???? Yes, it has come nearly full circle. Beyond the long standing American political rivalry between left and right there are other left and right battles making claim on election fraud.

Not to be outdone by anyone else Venezuela's Hugo Chavez successfully cheated term limits for his electoral ambitions. As for the Russian Bear....

It has been 10 years since an ailing Boris Yeltsin promoted Putin from security chief to prime minister on Aug. 9, 1999. He was elected president the following year and in 2008 he handed the post -- but not all the power -- to a hand-picked successor, Dmitry Medvedev.

Putin became prime minister again, allowed almost all the men he surrounded himself with as president to remain in power, and is still understood to call the major shots.

For what once appeared as an aberration in American politics, if not world public affairs, political corruption in the form of 'vote early, vote often' has risen to a level that reduces the discussion to one simple inquiry. If all elections are suspect does anything else in public debate matter? Or is this a new strategy to distract?

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Wednesday, August 12, 2009

Healthcare Reform’s Now Infamous Section 1233

SEC. 1233. ADVANCE CARE PLANNING CONSULTATION.

    (a) Medicare-
      (1) IN GENERAL- Section 1861 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395x) is amended--
        (A) in subsection (s)(2)--
          (i) by striking `and' at the end of subparagraph (DD);
          (ii) by adding `and' at the end of subparagraph (EE); and
          (iii) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
      `(FF) advance care planning consultation (as defined in subsection (hhh)(1));'; and
        (B) by adding at the end the following new subsection:

`Advance Care Planning Consultation

    `(hhh)(1) Subject to paragraphs (3) and (4), the term `advance care planning consultation' means a consultation between the individual and a practitioner described in paragraph (2) regarding advance care planning, if, subject to paragraph (3), the individual involved has not had such a consultation within the last 5 years. Such consultation shall include the following:
      `(A) An explanation by the practitioner of advance care planning, including key questions and considerations, important steps, and suggested people to talk to.
      `(B) An explanation by the practitioner of advance directives, including living wills and durable powers of attorney, and their uses.
      `(C) An explanation by the practitioner of the role and responsibilities of a health care proxy.
      `(D) The provision by the practitioner of a list of national and State-specific resources to assist consumers and their families with advance care planning, including the national toll-free hotline, the advance care planning clearinghouses, and State legal service organizations (including those funded through the Older Americans Act of 1965).
      `(E) An explanation by the practitioner of the continuum of end-of-life services and supports available, including palliative care and hospice, and benefits for such services and supports that are available under this title.
      `(F)(i) Subject to clause (ii), an explanation of orders regarding life sustaining treatment or similar orders, which shall include--
        `(I) the reasons why the development of such an order is beneficial to the individual and the individual's family and the reasons why such an order should be updated periodically as the health of the individual changes;
        `(II) the information needed for an individual or legal surrogate to make informed decisions regarding the completion of such an order; and
        `(III) the identification of resources that an individual may use to determine the requirements of the State in which such individual resides so that the treatment wishes of that individual will be carried out if the individual is unable to communicate those wishes, including requirements regarding the designation of a surrogate decisionmaker (also known as a health care proxy).
      `(ii) The Secretary shall limit the requirement for explanations under clause (i) to consultations furnished in a State--
        `(I) in which all legal barriers have been addressed for enabling orders for life sustaining treatment to constitute a set of medical orders respected across all care settings; and
        `(II) that has in effect a program for orders for life sustaining treatment described in clause (iii).
      `(iii) A program for orders for life sustaining treatment for a States described in this clause is a program that--
        `(I) ensures such orders are standardized and uniquely identifiable throughout the State;
        `(II) distributes or makes accessible such orders to physicians and other health professionals that (acting within the scope of the professional's authority under State law) may sign orders for life sustaining treatment;
        `(III) provides training for health care professionals across the continuum of care about the goals and use of orders for life sustaining treatment; and
        `(IV) is guided by a coalition of stakeholders includes representatives from emergency medical services, emergency department physicians or nurses, state long-term care association, state medical association, state surveyors, agency responsible for senior services, state department of health, state hospital association, home health association, state bar association, and state hospice association.
    `(2) A practitioner described in this paragraph is--
      `(A) a physician (as defined in subsection (r)(1)); and
      `(B) a nurse practitioner or physician's assistant who has the authority under State law to sign orders for life sustaining treatments.
    `(3)(A) An initial preventive physical examination under subsection (WW), including any related discussion during such examination, shall not be considered an advance care planning consultation for purposes of applying the 5-year limitation under paragraph (1).
    `(B) An advance care planning consultation with respect to an individual may be conducted more frequently than provided under paragraph (1) if there is a significant change in the health condition of the individual, including diagnosis of a chronic, progressive, life-limiting disease, a life-threatening or terminal diagnosis or life-threatening injury, or upon admission to a skilled nursing facility, a long-term care facility (as defined by the Secretary), or a hospice program.
    `(4) A consultation under this subsection may include the formulation of an order regarding life sustaining treatment or a similar order.
    `(5)(A) For purposes of this section, the term `order regarding life sustaining treatment' means, with respect to an individual, an actionable medical order relating to the treatment of that individual that--
      `(i) is signed and dated by a physician (as defined in subsection (r)(1)) or another health care professional (as specified by the Secretary and who is acting within the scope of the professional's authority under State law in signing such an order, including a nurse practitioner or physician assistant) and is in a form that permits it to stay with the individual and be followed by health care professionals and providers across the continuum of care;
      `(ii) effectively communicates the individual's preferences regarding life sustaining treatment, including an indication of the treatment and care desired by the individual;
      `(iii) is uniquely identifiable and standardized within a given locality, region, or State (as identified by the Secretary); and
      `(iv) may incorporate any advance directive (as defined in section 1866(f)(3)) if executed by the individual.
    `(B) The level of treatment indicated under subparagraph (A)(ii) may range from an indication for full treatment to an indication to limit some or all or specified interventions. Such indicated levels of treatment may include indications respecting, among other items--
      `(i) the intensity of medical intervention if the patient is pulse less, apneic, or has serious cardiac or pulmonary problems;
      `(ii) the individual's desire regarding transfer to a hospital or remaining at the current care setting;
      `(iii) the use of antibiotics; and
      `(iv) the use of artificially administered nutrition and hydration.'.
      (2) PAYMENT- Section 1848(j)(3) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1395w-4(j)(3)) is amended by inserting `(2)(FF),' after `(2)(EE),'.
      (3) FREQUENCY LIMITATION- Section 1862(a) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1395y(a)) is amended--
        (A) in paragraph (1)--
          (i) in subparagraph (N), by striking `and' at the end;
          (ii) in subparagraph (O) by striking the semicolon at the end and inserting `, and'; and
          (iii) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
        `(P) in the case of advance care planning consultations (as defined in section 1861(hhh)(1)), which are performed more frequently than is covered under such section;'; and
        (B) in paragraph (7), by striking `or (K)' and inserting `(K), or (P)'.
      (4) EFFECTIVE DATE- The amendments made by this subsection shall apply to consultations furnished on or after January 1, 2011.
    (b) Expansion of Physician Quality Reporting Initiative for End of Life Care-
      (1) Physician'S QUALITY REPORTING INITIATIVE- Section 1848(k)(2) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395w-4(k)(2)) is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraphs:
      `(3) Physician'S QUALITY REPORTING INITIATIVE-
        `(A) IN GENERAL- For purposes of reporting data on quality measures for covered professional services furnished during 2011 and any subsequent year, to the extent that measures are available, the Secretary shall include quality measures on end of life care and advanced care planning that have been adopted or endorsed by a consensus-based organization, if appropriate. Such measures shall measure both the creation of and adherence to orders for life-sustaining treatment.
        `(B) PROPOSED SET OF MEASURES- The Secretary shall publish in the Federal Register proposed quality measures on end of life care and advanced care planning that the Secretary determines are described in subparagraph (A) and would be appropriate for eligible professionals to use to submit data to the Secretary. The Secretary shall provide for a period of public comment on such set of measures before finalizing such proposed measures.'.
    (c) Inclusion of Information in Medicare & You Handbook-
      (1) MEDICARE & YOU HANDBOOK-
        (A) IN GENERAL- Not later than 1 year after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Health and Human Services shall update the online version of the Medicare & You Handbook to include the following:
          (i) An explanation of advance care planning and advance directives, including--
            (I) living wills;
            (II) durable power of attorney;
            (III) orders of life-sustaining treatment; and
            (IV) health care proxies.
          (ii) A description of Federal and State resources available to assist individuals and their families with advance care planning and advance directives, including--
            (I) available State legal service organizations to assist individuals with advance care planning, including those organizations that receive funding pursuant to the Older Americans Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 93001 et seq.);
            (II) website links or addresses for State-specific advance directive forms; and
            (III) any additional information, as determined by the Secretary.
        (B) UPDATE OF PAPER AND SUBSEQUENT VERSIONS- The Secretary shall include the information described in subparagraph (A) in all paper and electronic versions of the Medicare & You Handbook that are published on or after the date that is 1 year after the date of the enactment of this Act.

America: Returning to the Right

The best use of the internet is simply locating information. That comes with the often ignored caveat which requires one to vet the information they find. An example of a simple search anyone might perform is relevant information on an author. The initial author name will remain undisclosed. It is sufficient for purposes of this post that an author unfamiliar to this reader was selected. The reason for such an inquiry might be ‘who is this person and why should I care about what they have to say’?

The author’s name was entered in the search engine. The search was intended to provide a list of books or other works to indicate the author’s marketability. That may suggest whether anyone else finds the author or the work worthwhile. To this point the data provided several book publishings in the last few years. One book was selected and an Amazon search was used. This lead to the Amazon bestseller list or rankings. The book selected from the author list had a modest ranking at best which caused a review of the ranking list for comparisons and of course the top of the list is what figures prominently when one views this list at Amazon.

So now the search entered a subsequent inquiry as the original question had been answered satisfactorily. It was remembered that on the last visit to this location the attraction was the performance of Mark R Levin’s book Liberty and Tyranny: A Conservative Manifesto. The book had made a splash due to its astonishing rise at least for this venue. (Amazon). It was noted today that the book has a current rank at Amazon of #19. After browsing the list it was noticed that Michelle Malkin’s just released book, ‘The Culture of Corruption’ is currently number three on the list. Disappointingly, a book on French cooking is currently number one. Well, it’s summer. Sad that a second book on French cooking was on the list as well. The saving grace is the inclusion of one about Julia Child.

But better news was Glenn Beck’s book, ‘Glenn Beck’s Common Sense: The Case Against an Out-of-Control Government, Inspired by Thomas Paine’ currently resides at number four. You can see where this is going. An initial inquiry to learn about an author unknown to this reader. Noticing the relative rank of books on public affairs or more specifically written by conservatives. Remembering reports on polls that America is once again coming to its senses and shifting to the right. So how about a post on this topic looking at what America is reading based on some bestseller lists?

So browsing the NYT bestseller list could not be avoided.

Hardcover Nonfiction

Top 5 at a Glance

1. CULTURE OF CORRUPTION, by Michelle Malkin
2. LIBERTY AND TYRANNY, by Mark R. Levin
3. OUTLIERS, by Malcolm Gladwell
4. CATASTROPHE, by Dick Morris and Eileen McGann
5. UNMASKED, by Ian Halperin

Paperback Nonfiction

Top 5 at a Glance

1. GLENN BECK’S ‘COMMON SENSE’, by Glenn Beck

That’s right. The list just above indicates the top five but only number one is presented. No sense cluttering up the post with entries requiring more inquiry. If it really nags at you, go check the lists on your own. The point is the two conservative books topping the hardcover, non-fiction list above and also promoted on this blog for no fee and not by request suggest America is shifting to the right once again. Apparently the desire to try something new and vote for hope and change is not working out so well.

It is interesting to note that while Levin’s book is now #19 at Amazon it is holding at number two on the list above. This suggests that not everyone buys their books at Amazon.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Thursday, August 6, 2009

Murdering People NOT Fetuses

Issues become layered with rhetoric. Often times we do not notice and that is by design. Maybe the same people who produce marketing strategies for consumer goods have a hand in managing special interest talking points. Words can be powerful tools. And those with talent and skill for manipulating the message can and do influence our impression of the debate. In the case of abortion ‘reproductive rights’ fits the pro-choice agenda. Even the word pro-choice as well as pro-life are carefully chosen for the impact they will have on debate participants.

But murder is murder. If you are responsible for the death of another and it does not fall under the category of self-defense or a similar exception you are guilty of murder. The conflict between the number of issues labeled ‘human rights’ and those who support the protection of individuals threatened or in fact harmed by others versus the number of people or babies killed by one or both of their parents via abortion is our times most provocative contradiction.

Conservative minds typically cherish freedom, individual liberty and accept the fact that with such things come individual responsibility. Heterosexual sex has many consequences not the least of which is pregnancy. It is generally accepted that traditional sex between consenting adults is a freedom of choice or even a right. Like every other right, and as stated earlier, there are consequences. If the two consenting adults or even minors choose to have sex and a pregnancy occurs the obvious result dictates a responsible action by both parties. Again, personal responsibility for the personal freedom requires accommodating the life the act has commissioned by providing for the life until that life is able to provide for itself independently. Besides the obvious humanitarian benefit no further problems arise from the result of the freedom of choice with successful discharge of the inherent responsibility. And it deems moot the need for laws, etc., supporting ‘reproductive rights’ as a substitute for responsibility.

If you believe the cavalier attitude toward life that results from casual sex or flagrant disregard for one’s responsibility for one’s actions renders abortion reasonable consider the following information.

Numbers play an important role in our decision making processes. Government, business, social and many other issues are characterized by ‘how many’ are affected and what can we do to accommodate those involved. It is easy to discount the unborn or some other constituency that has been reduced to some vague entity as described earlier with mention of the talking points crowd. The numbers provided in this post are not talking points. They are real and under the worst circumstances demonstrate how the role of abortion in society is the stealth serial killer. And we are all guilty. Those who are directly involved as well as those of us who sit idly by and allow it to continue. Check this out.

1. There are nearly seven billion people on the planet.

2. Of the top 19 countries by rank in number of abortions per year the total reaches nearly 6 million (equaling the Holocaust)

3. The average number of abortions in those same countries equals 4.2 per 1000 in population.

4. Even back in 1995 total abortions worldwide was approximately 46 MILLION !!

5. Abortion and partial-birth abortion is one sinister and disgusting practice.

6. And US politics contributes to the problem when it should resolve it.

The cries for human rights fall on deaf ears for many issues and abortion victims are no exception. Using Darfur as an example much angst and discomfort was generated by the world’s refusal to take timely action on this travesty. But no such outcry exists for abortion. As a species, how truly depraved we are. As witnesses to this macabre practice and based on common statutes related to ‘death’ we are by default all guilty of depraved indifference and 2nd degree murder. Punishable in many situations by 25 years to life. Connect that with your casual sex and disregard for personal responsibility. Exceptions may exist but not to the tune of millions of deaths per year.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Selected notes on ‘depraved indifference’ or ‘indifference’:

Depraved Indifference

and…..

Under certain circumstances a person may be sentenced to death for a murder even if the person was an accomplice and not the “trigger person.” An accomplice may be sentenced to death if he or she played a major role in the murder and if he or she acted with reckless

Tuesday, March 24, 2009

Reaction to Obama Gaffes Miss the Larger Point

If you did not watch the Tonight Show or 60 Minutes when President Obama was interviewed you may also have missed some of the commentary around the internet and various news outlets indicating both venues were not without problems further suggesting puzzling choices by the White House.

Mary Kate Cary at US News and World Report is of the opinion that the 60 Minutes interview was a good choice because Steve Kroft is not a professional comedian and no gaffes were present by her observation plus it was done at the White House causing Obama to look Presidential.

Other reports and commentary feature criticism of Obama’s special olympics gaffe on Leno and describe what Kroft said about his laughing on 60 Minutes as being punchdrunk. You would not have to look far to find more reports or reactions to President Obama as responding in puzzling ways to other serious events. And news in general has started showing a lack of confidence in President Obama and his team.

Here are some blog links reacting to Obama’s 60 Minutes display or Leno appearance.

Comedian-in-Chief at Flopping Aces

Obama laughs during interview on failing economy at Amy Proctor’s Bottom Line Up Front

Why Can’t Obama Tell a Good Joke at Michelle Malkin

The Punchdrunk Presidency at Patterico’s Pontifications

But if you somehow feel the MSM is superior to the blogosphere you can check these reports.

The Kansas City Star offers a report from Politico….

His remarks came in a“60 Minutes” interview in which he was pressed by Steve Kroft for laughing and chuckling several times while discussing the perilous state of the world’s economy.

While MSNBC’s First Read merely regurgitates a 60 Minutes summary the title of the report is interesting.

FIRST 100 DAYS: GONE IN ‘60 MINUTES’

Kroft, 60 Minutes go soft and safe in Obama interview

If anybody was wondering why Barack Obama chose 60 Minutes as the one news outlet for an interview on his buy-my-economic-proposals-please TV tour, they got their answer Sunday night: Beyond the 16 million viewers who tune in each week, correspondent Steve Kroft played it safe and soft with the President, much as he had done during the election last year.

The NYT fish wrap points out the 60 Minutes Obama interview drew 16 million viewers and Entertainment Weekly indicates that won the Sunday ratings. In this day of tivo’d or recorded or video on demand everything one could safely watch the NCAA basketball tournament confident anything newsworthy from the interview would be available later.

You can also find another lame sales pitch from Christina Romer on this topic at youtube, go figure. The conclusion to draw is the Obama crew has done nothing to make their agenda or plans more palatable. Take for instance the taxpayer partnership with private investors for ‘toxic asset’ purchases promoted by Obama.

At least one member of Congress was heard reacting to the same nonsense to be noted here. The taxpayer will invest about 93% while the private sector will invest 7% and the profit or loss will be shared equally? How is that a good deal for anyone but the 7% investor?

You and a friend or family member find a great investment. The friend or relative proposes you invest $9300 of the ten thousand venture while he invests $700 and you will share the profit. If the investment went up 20% and you sold it you would get $1000 return on your $9300 (a 10.75% ROI) while your friend or relative would get the same $1000 and experience a whopping 242%+ ROI. Are you dumb enough to take that lopsided risk?

Obviously if your investment is a total failure your loss is nearly ten grand while your partner loses less than a thousand.

This is probably the most telling example of how stupid things are in Washington. If this is the carrot you have to dangle for private investment in toxic assets then what is so bad about the common fix of Chapter 11?

So the special olympics gaffe or ‘punchdrunk’ gaffe of Mr Obama pale in comparison to the ridiculous game plan his brain trust floated for buying toxic assets of failed US ripoffs.

I urge the public to continue to reject proposals offered thus far to supposedly solve economic problems. If those who continue to participate in the irrational love fest for the new President with no evidence to support that position the only thing we can look forward to is not holding the rest of Washington accountable. Just the fact that few are aware or upset about the current 3.6 TRILLION dollar budget and numerous other TRILLION dollar proposals or current liabilities facing public funding for this great nation is enough to forecast a continued downturn. One thing that Kroft asked Obama that was presented on Blog @ MoreWhat.com long ago is this. Mr President, is there a limit to what we can spend? Obama’s answer was essentially we can spend until we can no longer find money to borrow. Isn’t that part of what got us in this mess to begin with?

And some may wonder why I have no confidence in the federal government including OMG, the leader of the free world, President Barack Obama. Ya, I again left out his middle name as it only seems to p–s people off even though PBHO chose to use it at his inauguration. Just one more little tidbit that makes little sense.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com