Obama and his Democrates have managed to get through Congress a healthcare bill that extends healthcare to more Americans then ever. And that's a good thing. Both Democrats and Republicans can say that extending healthcare to more Americans is a good thing.
Unfortunately, without proper fiscal management the Democratic victory will prove Pyric.
The healthcare bill imposes a huge financial burden on America. Its costs are simply unsustainable.
What Americans needed was reform. There's no reform here. There's no tort reform. There's no reform in the way healthcare is dispensed. There's no thought been given to the consequences of dropping on the states unfunded mandates that states are in no position to bear. They can barely shoulder present day debt.
The healthcare bill is little more than Congressional demagogery. How else can you describe a bill that promises the public so much and yet has so little chance of surviving the financial waters in which this country finds itself?
It's also a bill that, if looked at carefully, can be described as a joke; as a piece of political humor. Who did the Democrates paint as the great villian? Those dastardly insurance companies. And, whose stocks are shooting skywards because the bill is so great for them? The insurance companies. Of course, when it comes to winners, the pharmaceutical companies are right up there with the insurers. Following closely behind are the lawyers and the unions.
So how could the Congressional Budget Office give this bill it's stamp of approval? It seems they are bound to calculate the cost of the bill exactly as the Congress gives it to them. They've got to accept all the assumptions that the bill has written into it. For example, if the bill includes a provision that doctor's fees will be cut in half, they have no choice but to price out the bill by relying on this "fact." Forget, for a moment, that no one in government who doesn't recognize this "fact" for what it is, pure fantasy.
Benefits are of little value if they can't be sustained. Ask the UAW. One distinct possibility is that this healthcare bill will drive us down the same path taken by Greece. That country is now waiting to learn who will bail them out; the Germans or the EU. No one is leaping forward to volunteer to help them. Greece forgets that the money they're looking for ultimately must come from nations who have been a great deal more careful with their resources. Of course, we have no need for the EU or Germany. Our Congress seems to be relying on China. Now, there's a really scary thought.
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
Welcome Back Carter
A great deal has been written on the disasterous turn in American-Israeli relations. (See Ed Koch's blog). There have also been a number of blogs (see the Jerusalem Post) trying to explain why Obama decided to cater to the interests of Syria, Turkey, and, ultimately, Iran, at the expense of Israel. Years from now, we may have better ideas, but as of now it's all speculation.
But what we do know about Obama's turning in this direction is both dark and scary. Most scary is the allegation expressed by Gen. David Petreous that Israel's not giving in to Arab wishes is endangering the lives of our service men. This is blatantly false on two counts.
First, and this was explained (to the extent that these things can be explained) by PM Netanyahu in his address to AIPAC. He said that the Israelis had been sharing their experience in fighting in Arab villages with the US military. Regrettably this is an area where Israel has a great deal of experience. The sharing of Israel's experience, and, equally importantly, it's military intelligence has saved American lives, not endangered them.
We have not forgotten that Americans on the left cheered as Michael Moore referred to Gen. Petreous as "Gen Betray-us," and as, then Senator, Hillary Clinton questioned the general's honesty when questioning him from the floor of the Senate. We believe the general is a good man, and we cheered when, through his approach to the fighting in Iraq (the surge), he forced the House Democratic leader, Harry Reed, to eat his words, when he proclaimed, "We have lost."
So, how could the General now turn around and falsely suggest that the conflict between the Israelis and the Palestinians was endangering American lives? To get where Petreous has gotten you've got to be a survivor. No one knows better how to maneuver through political waters like a high level military man. So when Obama gave him his script, he followed it. I doubt Petraeous has anything for or against the Israelis. Whether, at the end of the day, they fall or remain standing is of little concern to him. But, what Obama asks of him will naturally get a careful reading. First, of course, is the fact that Obama is his boss. But, equally important, Obama can make his job easier or more difficult. He doesn't need "more difficult."
But what we do know about Obama's turning in this direction is both dark and scary. Most scary is the allegation expressed by Gen. David Petreous that Israel's not giving in to Arab wishes is endangering the lives of our service men. This is blatantly false on two counts.
First, and this was explained (to the extent that these things can be explained) by PM Netanyahu in his address to AIPAC. He said that the Israelis had been sharing their experience in fighting in Arab villages with the US military. Regrettably this is an area where Israel has a great deal of experience. The sharing of Israel's experience, and, equally importantly, it's military intelligence has saved American lives, not endangered them.
We have not forgotten that Americans on the left cheered as Michael Moore referred to Gen. Petreous as "Gen Betray-us," and as, then Senator, Hillary Clinton questioned the general's honesty when questioning him from the floor of the Senate. We believe the general is a good man, and we cheered when, through his approach to the fighting in Iraq (the surge), he forced the House Democratic leader, Harry Reed, to eat his words, when he proclaimed, "We have lost."
So, how could the General now turn around and falsely suggest that the conflict between the Israelis and the Palestinians was endangering American lives? To get where Petreous has gotten you've got to be a survivor. No one knows better how to maneuver through political waters like a high level military man. So when Obama gave him his script, he followed it. I doubt Petraeous has anything for or against the Israelis. Whether, at the end of the day, they fall or remain standing is of little concern to him. But, what Obama asks of him will naturally get a careful reading. First, of course, is the fact that Obama is his boss. But, equally important, Obama can make his job easier or more difficult. He doesn't need "more difficult."
Saturday, March 13, 2010
US-Israel Relations Definitely Not a Chuckling Matter
I usually try to keep my items "light." But, with what's being done to Israel by the US, this is no longer possible. The facts are simple. Israel has always maintained that Jerusalem was a part of Israel. The PA disputes this, but Israel's case is remarkably strong.
That having been said, it was entirely logical that the Jerusalem mayor would seek to develop city land. Indeed, its plans to do so had been made clear over a period of several Israeli administrations.
The hubbub over development in Jerusalem was instigated by Obama when he began making statements having a bearing on Israel's final borders. The issue of final borders was one that was taken out of sequence in the steps Israel and the PA were planning to follow. The PA had little chance of changing the sequence, but here comes Obama and he decides to hand the Abbas a "gift." But the gift was more than changing the order in which differences were to be negotiated, it was in his making comments having a bearing on the final solution that were very harmful to Israel's position.
The Netanyahu administration may have chosen a rather blunt cudgel to express its displeasure with the liberties that the Obama administration was taking with Israel's sovereignty, but, truth be told, Mitchel was showing less respect to Israel than he had when working with the people of Northern Ireland.
This administration is following Bush's policies in Iraq and in Afghanistan. Iraq may yet come out an improved country. With Afghanistan, it's still too early to make predictions. But, Israel is neither an Iraq or an Afghanistan. And, yet the Obama administration is showing this paradigm of democratic nationhood less respect than the cutthroats that surround it.
Obama is bowing to Abbas not because his administration doesn't recognize the PA as the corrupt collection of grifters that it is, but because they think that to make gifts of Israel's sovereignty will win the US points with the Saudis. They seem oblivious to the fact that the Saudis will do no such thing. Nothing will placate the Saudis other than the elimination of Israel, or putting Israel in such position that its population will find it impossible to endure.
In this drama, the Saudis are Haman and Obama is King Achishvarous. Regrettably I see no Queen Ester on the horizon or anyone resembling Uncle Mordicai.
Jews, who, despite their love for Israel, chose Obama over McCain, are beginning to see the tragic error they made. I, too, believe in a woman's right to choose and in the need for gun registration and the outlawing of machine guns for civilians. But must Israel be the sacrificial lamb for these liberal causes. And, yet, that is precisely what it has come down to.
That having been said, it was entirely logical that the Jerusalem mayor would seek to develop city land. Indeed, its plans to do so had been made clear over a period of several Israeli administrations.
The hubbub over development in Jerusalem was instigated by Obama when he began making statements having a bearing on Israel's final borders. The issue of final borders was one that was taken out of sequence in the steps Israel and the PA were planning to follow. The PA had little chance of changing the sequence, but here comes Obama and he decides to hand the Abbas a "gift." But the gift was more than changing the order in which differences were to be negotiated, it was in his making comments having a bearing on the final solution that were very harmful to Israel's position.
The Netanyahu administration may have chosen a rather blunt cudgel to express its displeasure with the liberties that the Obama administration was taking with Israel's sovereignty, but, truth be told, Mitchel was showing less respect to Israel than he had when working with the people of Northern Ireland.
This administration is following Bush's policies in Iraq and in Afghanistan. Iraq may yet come out an improved country. With Afghanistan, it's still too early to make predictions. But, Israel is neither an Iraq or an Afghanistan. And, yet the Obama administration is showing this paradigm of democratic nationhood less respect than the cutthroats that surround it.
Obama is bowing to Abbas not because his administration doesn't recognize the PA as the corrupt collection of grifters that it is, but because they think that to make gifts of Israel's sovereignty will win the US points with the Saudis. They seem oblivious to the fact that the Saudis will do no such thing. Nothing will placate the Saudis other than the elimination of Israel, or putting Israel in such position that its population will find it impossible to endure.
In this drama, the Saudis are Haman and Obama is King Achishvarous. Regrettably I see no Queen Ester on the horizon or anyone resembling Uncle Mordicai.
Jews, who, despite their love for Israel, chose Obama over McCain, are beginning to see the tragic error they made. I, too, believe in a woman's right to choose and in the need for gun registration and the outlawing of machine guns for civilians. But must Israel be the sacrificial lamb for these liberal causes. And, yet, that is precisely what it has come down to.
Thursday, March 11, 2010
International Women's Day
On my way to my "Chuckling ......." blogsite, I came across an item on the Yahoo news site that commented on the relationship between Secretary Hillary Clinton and President Obama's wife.
The two ladies had joined at the White House to speak in behalf of Int'l Women's Day.
The item mentioned that in the opinion of these ladies, it was important that women be allowed to exercise rights equal to those granted men. As I recall from the article, one of the ladies pointed out that we can't make much progress if 50% of the world's population is kept on the sidelines. These are sentiments with which I very much agree.
The article further pointed out that in many countries Int'l Women's Day gets far more attention than it does here in the U.S. However, it also pointed out that in some parts of the world the celebration of the day is very much discouraged. They cited Iran as a place where people planning to celebrate the occasion were actually beaten by the police.
But, here is what immediately occurs to me: We can describe freely the ugliness that can be observed in Iran because Iran is everyone's enemy. But why not give a fuller picture? In what Islamic countries do we find their populations celebrating International Woman's Day? Pardon me if I don't hold my breath while you try to come up with the answer.
The two ladies had joined at the White House to speak in behalf of Int'l Women's Day.
The item mentioned that in the opinion of these ladies, it was important that women be allowed to exercise rights equal to those granted men. As I recall from the article, one of the ladies pointed out that we can't make much progress if 50% of the world's population is kept on the sidelines. These are sentiments with which I very much agree.
The article further pointed out that in many countries Int'l Women's Day gets far more attention than it does here in the U.S. However, it also pointed out that in some parts of the world the celebration of the day is very much discouraged. They cited Iran as a place where people planning to celebrate the occasion were actually beaten by the police.
But, here is what immediately occurs to me: We can describe freely the ugliness that can be observed in Iran because Iran is everyone's enemy. But why not give a fuller picture? In what Islamic countries do we find their populations celebrating International Woman's Day? Pardon me if I don't hold my breath while you try to come up with the answer.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)