Mike Rowse A voice from New Mexico

7Sep/170

Liberals in another panic; because they just don’t know

the liberal mind is a unique organ in that hypocrisy and irony rule their thought processes. They just do not know it. We have given many examples over the years of how liberals will criticize conservative for doing the exact same thing that liberals do. And one of the other things that liberals are very good at is creating panic where none should exist. Once again that's because they want power not to change the world in a better way.

One of the things I said repeatedly during the tenure of Barack Obama was that he was in acting laws by using executive orders. He did not have the constitutional right to do so but remember he infamously said, if Congress doesn't act I have a pen and a phone, I will. I warned you liberals that this was the rule of man and not to the rule of law upon which our nation was founded. I pointed out that if a conservative were in power in doing the exact same thing you would be screaming bloody murder and here we are; but are we in the same place?

No we are not. The most recent uproar from the left side of the aisle is about Pres. Trump repealing Obama's executive order known as DACA. This is commonly known as the Dreamer's Act. Pres. Obama wanted to ensure that children who came here illegally to the United States through no fault of their own could stay and he wanted to reassure them that they would not be deported to a country they really did not know anything about. He could not get Congress to pass the provisions of the act that he wanted so he issued an executive order basically enacting legislation which is unconstitutional. For you recent public school graduates, all laws must first originate in and be passed by Congress and signed by the president of the United States. This prevents a single individual from having complete authority over our lives by enacting laws that he or she wanted to.

The law was originally designed to be a temporary order lasting about two years which Obama felt would give him time to get legislation through Congress to accomplish his goals. The executive order was challenged in the courts where the fifth District Court ruled against the Obama administration and the matter was headed towards the Supreme Court where it faced a likely loss. Again, not because of the content of the executive order but because it was unconstitutional. Executive orders originated as a way for the president to clarify how duly passed laws should be implemented. Remember, one of the president's duties is to implement duly passed laws on a daily basis. Because legislation can that anticipate all situations or does not clarify how the law should be implemented, that is the president's responsibility. But as time has gone on some presidents have used executive orders to basically bypass Congress, something that Obama was notorious for doing.

So Donald Trump issues in order telling the Justice Department and other agencies that DACA will no longer be effective or enforced. The reason he gave and the reason that Jeff sessions gave him his press conference was that the order was unconstitutional. Pres. Trump gave the agencies involved six months to begin winding down the program and to allow Congress to do their job. You need to know that the provisions in Obama's executive order or provisions that were rejected by both Democrats and Republicans in Congress when considering immigration reform. So all this rhetoric about Pres. Trump being bigoted or the Republicans being bigoted is a load of crap.

All of the panic about the so-called dreamers being rounded up and shipped out of the country is also a load of crap. Pres. Trump has issued no such order and has no such plans. He is trying to put pressure on Congress to pass immigration reform, specifically his proposed immigration reform plan. Included in that plan is a fast track to citizenship not only for dreamers but other illegal immigrants who can prove that they are contributing members of society. That is they have not committed any serious crimes, they have been employed or have been students while they been here, and so on. That legislation would not only build a wall but it would widen the door for other aliens to come here legally and make it easier for them.

So if you look at the facts, much of what Pres. Trump has proposed regarding illegal immigrants is exactly what the liberals have proposed. And if you sit back with an open mind you cannot come to the conclusion that Pres. Trump is trying to deport all of these children. But the liberal elite want control back so they will say anything including lying to accomplish that goal.

Filed under: Politics No Comments
15Aug/170

Random thoughts and quick hits

the Democrats and liberals have become so wound up in identity politics, which is their formula for keeping them in power, that they don't know anything else. That's why they haven't really had a message about how to improve the economy, international relations, any problem is faced assassination for 40 years. But you know the one biggest problem with identity politics we can never be united again as long as that is the primary motivator for our politicians. Because the inherent message in identity politics is that if my group get something then your group doesn't or vice versa. It's as if there is a finite amount of opportunity or wealth or anything else and that my group must get it in order to keep your group from taking it away from me. Until we go back to identifying ourselves as Americans, were going to have the strife that we are seeing now in America.

Kind of along the same lines is that we are often told at least we white males are often told, that we can't understand the plight of any minority. Whether that be an ethnic minority women, whatever the identified group is, we can't understand their plight. The inference is that we are the root cause of all problems facing any demographic group in America. But it goes deeper than that. By saying that, for example, I cannot understand the plight of black men in America, you are saying that I do not have the ability to learn. I don't have the ability to observe, to read, to listen and to use consequential thinking skills to be able to understand the plight of any downtrodden individual or group. That is completely incorrect. We all have the ability to learn. We may not be able to feel the way they feel because of the experiences they've had but we can come darn close. Yet, while the liberals tell me that I can't understand their plight, they can tell me they understand everything that motivates me, everything that I feel, everything that I think, etc. So how does that work?

Marshawn Lynch, the current running back for the Oakland Raiders said he will not stand during the national anthem at NFL football games. He said one of the main reasons he will not stand is because of America's past transgressions when it comes to race relations and his inability to forgive and forget. So I guess his ability to look at history and see how we have improved, even though there is more improvement to be made, and his ability to forgive is nonexistent. I'm not asking him to forget what has occurred in America but and asking him to think about all of the products we may ask how much more needs to be made in other parts of the world. I'm asking him to look at history and see that it was not just white men that participated in the slave trade. Is he unwilling to forgive his black ancestors in Africa that sold the slaves to white European males? Is he unwilling to forgive the Muslims who enslaved people of all ethnicities, religions, etc.? Or does he even know about the full history of slavery in this world? Maybe not because the left wing is trying to erase all offensive history.

Nick Robertson, a reporter for CNN, said that Bowl Cut Jr. of North Korea will not enter into any agreement with the United States because he doesn't trust us after what we did to Mohamer Qaddafi of Libya. In Robertson's opinion Kin Yung Un believes that Qaddafi did everything the United States asked yet we still had him killed. Or in the alternative he was killed by his own people and we stood by and watched not living up to the perception that we were going to protect him. So North Korea won't give up their weapons and become peaceful because he believes that we will allow at the very least his people to rise up and overthrow him. He enjoys a very lavish lifestyle and doesn't want to give it up. But you're also assuming that Bowl Cut Jr. thinks rationally. We have practice a policy of appeasement for 25 years and North Korea has never lived up to their end of the agreements. The ultimate endgame has to be to remove the dictator from power in North Korea. Because as long as he lives there and has complete control over his people they will never rise up. The difference between North Korea and Libya, the biggest difference, is that the people of Libya had contact with the outside world the people of North Korea have very little idea what the rest of the world is like and don't know anything about freedom. Besides, Kim could take his wealth and find refuge in another country and let the lifestyle he wants. It's been done before Nick, check your history.

3Aug/170

We can take back healthcare…

I was reading an article on a webpage I go to frequently, I think it was freedom outpost, but the author of the article had posted a question on his Facebook page. The question was, “what do we do to fix the health care system in the United States?”. One thing I want to point out is the current debate that is taking place in the public forum is not truly about reformation of healthcare. All of this discussion about Obama care and the solutions to curing the problems that legislation caused as well as the problems that legislation was supposed to fix, are about paying for healthcare. We now have not really had a discussion about resolving any problems in the health care system itself and that is a much deeper discussion that we will not delve into in this article.

Some of the responses to the question were things that we have talked about, such as getting the federal government out of healthcare altogether, establishing a free market system like we used to have, and cracking down on Medicare and Medicaid fraud. But there were also some comments that show there is still a lot of ignorance in the general population.

For example one commentor said that insurance companies should be forced to compete across state lines. Now I am sure there are some insurance companies that use this lack of freedom to do business in multiple states to their advantage, but having been in this industry for a long time I know that the majority of companies do not want to have to go through all of the regulatory processes that are required to be able to enter the market in each individual state. More importantly, they also want to be able to combine small state markets with larger state markets in order to improve actuarial accuracy and to be able to spread losses out over a larger group of insureds. This brings costs down for them because it makes losses and income more predictable and it reduces premiums for the consumer. To say that insurance companies don’t want to be able to compete across state lines is buying into a liberal fallacy.

Another person wanted the federal government to go after big pharmaceutical and hospital companies for the greedy pigs they are. Now certainly these companies can make a lot of money and sometimes we see predatory practices such as we saw with the EpiPen. But while these incidents get a lot of press and create a lot of outrage the bigger problem is the regulatory process that governs the medical industry. Bringing a drug to market for example can take years or even decades and it costs a lot to do the research. Those companies would not engage in the research and bring life saving drugs to market without some guarantees that they’d have a chance earn a return on their investment. You wouldn’t like it if you invented a product and then the day after you began selling it, another company was able to copy you and sell the product for less because they didn’t have the initial investment that you did. Part of the cure to this problem is being able to bring those drugs, treatments, medical equipment, etc. to market sooner by shortening the regulatory process. Several studies have shown that the vast majority of products did not get safer because of additional reviews that are often required by the FDA. That would also make medical care less expensive for us.

Then there’s the complaint that Congress doesn’t have to enroll in Obamacare or they have a health insurance plan that is different than what we are required to have or is available to us. That’s something we’ve talked about for a long, long time. Turns out that may not be exactly true. It appears that federal employees were required to participate in Obamacare but that elected officials and their staff were not eligible for subsidies. Because these employees, many of whom make in excess of $100,000 couldn’t afford insurance in the private market, they complained loudly. Obama issued an executive order that placed staff and elected officials under the federal payroll system which then made them eligible for subsidies and then gave them all a subsidy in excess of 70%. Now you and I don’t qualify for that type of subsidy and most of us make much less than $100,000 a year. There is a lot of misinformation or confusion about this issue, but the simple fact is that elected officials and their staff ARE being treated differently than the average citizen. It also amazes me that our elected officials don’t seem to be able to put 2 & 2 together; if they and their well paid staff can’t afford health insurance premiums, how the heck can the average person?

There are other things we can do to bring down the cost of healthcare, tort reform and making it easier to form groups to band together to purchase insurance but none of these seem to be getting a lot of traction or discussion. I think one of the biggest solutions is putting the consumer back in the equation but those proposals are not getting much discussion either because the big lobbyists would lose money if that happened. We’ve seen examples such as medical clubs that not only reduce costs to the consumer but improve the level of care and access while increasing profits. These work but they don’t make the lobbyists or politicians any money so clubs won’t be part of their solution. That’s why the consumers have to become educated and demand action from our medical providers; let them know we’ll participate if they decide to change their business model.

Essentially, we can get the federal government out of much of the health insurance and health care debate if we just bypass them and take them out of the equation.

21Jul/170

More proof we need to drain the swamp…

The Republicans have failed to accomplish much this year despite having the numbers that put them in control of the federal government. Now I am not including Pres. Trump in this criticism because he has done as much as any other president in the first six months of his time in office. Could he be a little more forceful in pushing the political elite to get something accomplished? Probably so but he has taken a step in that direction with his comments regarding letting Obama care in load if Congress can’t get a bill passed. But those are thoughts for another day and another column.

Despite what the liberals in the media, the political elite, or the general population will tell you, Pres. Trump was elected to drain the swamp in Washington DC. I think that is the one common denominator among all of the people who supported Donald Trump, in addition to not liking Hillary Clinton. I don’t know that there was any other one issue, whether it be building a wall, improving the economy, decreasing the size of federal government, or any other big issue that United supporters of Donald Trump more. We are tired of the way our elected officials and bureaucrats in the federal government treat us as serfs.

Clearly it was not going to be an easy job but I don’t think any of us thought that the pushback from the powerbrokers in Washington DC would be this vituperative. (You public school graduates can ask Siri what that means.) I think most of us knew that those on the left side of the aisle would push back as hard as they could against Pres. Trump, that includes those in the media, but the hatred they have shown has gone beyond anything we could have imagined. I don’t think any of us thought that the Republican leadership would fight this hard against Pres. Trump, to the point that they have abrogated their duties and once again failed to deliver upon their own campaign promises.

Every one of them has campaign for example making a promise to repeal Obama care. In fact Republicans voted seven times to pass legislation that would have repealed Obama care sending it to the president’s desk for his signature on a couple of occasions, where it was vetoed. Now that they have the opportunity to present that very same legislation again they don’t have the backbone to do so. It proves once again that it’s not about keeping promises to us but about retaining power and control over us.

But it also goes deeper than that. The media won’t cover this or want to discuss it, but many of us still support Pres. Trump and are really upset with our elected officials in Congress. In fact we are so upset with them that there will be primary challenges for them in 2018 and/or 2020. Many of them could lose those challenges. Or will they? There is no doubt in my mind that many constituents are flooding their elected officials offices with emails, letters, and phone calls expressing their dissatisfaction with the way they have acted over the last six months. But those elected officials are not scared of their constituents. If they were we would have health insurance reform and a tax cut already.

But clearly they are not afraid of being reelected or the wrath of those people they supposedly represent. Some of that could be due to the way the media is portraying us and the bubble in which those in Washington DC live. But I think there’s a bigger reason they are not afraid of being reelected or ousted in the next election. The money people, the lobbyists, the billionaires, corporations are the ones that are really in the years of our elected officials telling them not to listen to us. Those are the people that are pushing our elected officials to ignore their own campaign promises and the clear message we sent to Washington with the election of Donald Trump.

When Trump was elected I said that we had the duty as citizens to ensure that our elected officials adhered to the promises made during their campaigns and his. That we had to be vocal in our support of those promises made to us. There can be no greater example of why the swamp needs to be drained than what we have seen over the last six months. We must be vocal right now in letting our elected officials know we want things to change. But more importantly in 2018 we must elect new representatives who promised to return the power to the people and take it away from the morass that is Washington DC and our political process. The changing of the way things have been done for 40 years will not happen overnight but it will happen if we keep our focus and hold people accountable. Something we have not done in decades.

Filed under: Politics No Comments
28Jun/170

Quick hits

More liberal logic: California State Atty. Gen. has banned travel by government employees to several states such as Texas, that have policies regarding LGBT issues with which the California State Atty. Gen. does not agree. However they oppose Pres. Trump’s travel ban from countries where members of the LGBT community are put to death because of their lifestyles.

Talk about a swamp. The investigation into Michael Flynn has not turned up any credible evidence about collusion with the Russians. What it has turned up is the fact that the acting director of the FBI, Andrew McCabe, had sexual discrimination and harassment charges filed against him by a female special agent in 2014. Michael Flynn gave a statement supporting the agent’s claims. Guess who started the investigation into Michael Flynn? That’s right, Andrew McCabe. Doesn’t that seem like a conflict of interest at best and a political witch hunt at worst?

The Congressional Budget Office has scored the Senate Republicans replacement for Obama care. First of all let’s be very clear that the Congressional Budget Office has never even come close when scoring bills like this. For example they thought 4 million small business owners would enroll in Obama cares small business program. To date, 230,000 businesses have enrolled. Their estimates of the amount of subsidies needed for the Obama care exchanges have been off by over 100% every year. That being the case, they anticipate that 22 million people will leave the exchanges between now and 2026 if the Senate’s plan is implemented. Of course you’ve heard that in the media and from the left wing in Washington. Approximately 15 million of those people will leave voluntarily, that’s the part that are not telling you. The bill gets rid of the individual mandate and many of those leaving the exchanges will likely purchase insurance in the private market again because several analyses of the bill find that premiums in the private market will decrease. In fact a couple of insurance companies have said they believe the premium reduction will be 30 to 40% and they will be able to offer plans with low deductibles and lower premiums. That doesn’t sound quite as bad doesn’t. Not to mention that with the elimination of the 30 hour work week requirement under Obama care, many more people will return to full-time work and should be able to afford their own insurance again.

Think about this; the telephone was invented in 1876 but it wasn’t until 1982 that you can actually take the phone out of the house. Four 106 years you were relegated to a 4 foot circle around your refrigerator while talking on the phone and now you’re ticked off because you can’t get coverage in the middle of the Gila Wilderness.

It is amazing what people will say to try and rationalize the outcome of the election. On Rachel Maddow’s show shortly after the Democrats lost the election in Georgia’s sixth Congressional District one of their analysts was saying that the rain, which was very heavy, negatively affected the Democrat turnout. So what he’s saying is the Democrats didn’t feel strongly enough about either voting for the Democrat candidate or against Pres. Trump or that they were afraid they would melt in the rain. Which isn’t a stretch given the fact that the liberals continually tell people that they can’t handle adversity themselves. The same analyst went on to say that more rain fell on the heavily Democrat populated portions of the district as compared to the Republican portions of the district. So you’re telling me that God or Mother Nature doesn’t like the Democrats?

The Democrats are also claiming all four losses in official elections they are claiming that the narrow margins of victory actually show that people are getting tired of Pres. Trump already. That doesn’t appear to be the case but let’s not forget a couple of key facts: first of all Pres. Trump’s margin of victory in Georgia for example was just over 1%, the Republican candidates victory was about 6% so that seems to be a move in the direction of the Republicans and Pres. Trump doesn’t it? Also, in Georgia’s congressional district, that district has been redrawn a couple of times since people like Mike Price and Newt Gingrich one by large margins so you are not comparing apples to apples..

27Jun/170

Let’s get real, John was right

With the left it is always about identity politics. They are the ones that continually put labels on someone and they are the ones who framed every discussion about some identity. The latest victim of the smear campaign is John McEnroe who is under fire by the left, at least some of the left, for saying that Serena Williams would be ranked number 700 in the world if she played the men’s tennis tour full-time.

Now let’s put this in context; McEnroe was appearing on an NPR show to promote his latest book. I believe the host’s name was Lulu Navarro Garcia. The topic turned to Serena Williams and her place in history. McEnroe said she is the greatest female tennis player ever, bar none. Navarro Garcia asked why he felt it necessary to qualify her as the greatest female player in the world and not just the greatest tennis player. McEnroe replied quite simply, she’s not the greatest tennis player in the world.

McEnroe said that he was not trying to take away from Serena and that on any given day she might be able to be some of the best men’s players in the world. However if she were to play the men’s circuit full time she might be ranked like number 700 and the world simply because it’s a different game. He went on to point out that no female in any sport could be consistently successful in the men’s version of that sport.

What the WNBA champion stand a chance against the Golden State Warriors? Not even close. With the Connecticut lady Huskies be able to compete against the University of Kentucky or Duke men’s teams? No not a chance. In fact the most dominant team in women’s college basketball over the last 15 years probably could not beat a good Division II team. The best female golfers of all time have tried to compete on the men’s tour with little or no success. They certainly couldn’t compete for the win.

This is not to denigrate women’s sports but to point out, as Michael Willbon put it, women physically are not yet capable of competing over the long haul against men. At least not at the elite levels found in college sports and the professional ranks. Certainly there are examples of female athletes at the high school or lower levels competing with the male counterparts but we know from biology that women tend to develop more quickly physically than teenage boys do.

Even Serena agrees with John McEnroe. After hearing what McEnroe said in the interview Serena sent out a tweet asking McEnroe to leave her out of this. However a couple of years ago in an interview with David Letterman, Serena was asked if she could compete with or beat Andy Murray. Serena quickly answered, “no way.” She went on to say that it would last about 15 to 20 minutes and she would lose 6-0, 6-0. She did seem to infer that she might be able to beat a lower level player, maybe around number 100 or so, but she understood that even though she is a very strong, physical tennis player, the strong physical men’s players are bigger, faster, stronger and there are more of them.

Of course some of those in the femi-nazi crowd point to Billie Jean King beating Bobby Riggs back in the 1970s. Okay so she beat a 70-year-old man when she was the best women’s tennis player in the world. Could she have beaten John McEnroe, Jimmy Connors, or any of the other top-ranked men’s players at the time? No.

There will come a time and maybe not in the very distant future that certain female athletes will compete on the same level as their male counterparts. Maybe it will come in the running sports or possibly even golf. I think we are also about to see the first female player in the NFL, it will be a kicker and not a position player but I think it will happen.

The bottom line is this, no matter what your gender or other demographic characteristic if you earn the position through your skills and abilities, then you should be allowed to play at the highest levels of your sport. Maybe the more appropriate discussion to have about Serena is whether or not she is the most dominant player in her sport as compared to the best players in other sports. I think that puts her into the discussion with Tiger Woods, Babe Ruth, Wilt Chamberlain, and others who dominated in their field of endeavor. Saying you are the best in your sport is a huge compliment and saying that you are the best female player in your sport is not denigrating to most people, only those who play identity politics with every facet of our lives.

22Jun/170

It really is all about power…

I have said this about anyone who is entrenched in the power structure in Washington DC but it is more applicable to the liberals than anyone else: it is not about solving problems it is about controlling our lives. Our elected officials and bureaucrats in federal government want to power more than anything else and that does include solving problems. Look at every problem they have claimed to address from economic issues to societal any qualities to the deficit, it doesn't matter none of those problems have gotten better by their own admission. And since the election of Donald Trump we have seen those on the left side of the aisle including many Republicans fight the president tooth and nail to prevent him from draining the swamp.

Pres. Trump has held a large number of meetings with different constituencies. The common theme among all of those meetings is how impressed the attendees are with Pres. Trump. Even those who disagree with him philosophically have said that they believe he listened to them and took their advice to heart and that he truly wants to address the issues and solve the problems. So if you are a member of a group that is invited to the White House to speak to Donald Trump wouldn't you jump at the opportunity? Wouldn't you at least give him a chance based upon the experiences of everyone else to hear your concerns and listen to what you want? Apparently not if you are the Congressional Black Caucus.

Pres. Trump has invited the members of the caucus to come to the White House and address issues that are important to them and the people they represent. The caucus has refused and the reasons for their refusal show that they are grasping at straws. And it also proves that it is about power and perception rather than really solving problems. Because think about this, what is the worst thing that could happen? They have a productive meeting with Pres. Trump in which he hears their concerns and then he does nothing. At least you and I would think that's the worst thing that could happen. But for the Congressional Black Caucus they could then go back out to their constituents and say this president doesn't care about them. He heard what they had to say and he did nothing.

But really, the worst thing for the Congressional Black Caucus is that Pres. Trump listens to them and acts upon their concerns. And then horror of horrors, some of the problems facing the CBCs constituents are solved! If that were to happen Pres. Trump would be seen as a hero and the Congressional Black Caucus and the liberals just cannot have that. Despite what you see in the news, Pres. Trump has accomplished quite a bit in the first few months of his presidency and the members of the caucus know that. They cannot take the chance that Pres. Trump can be given any credit for any positive things happening in our lives.

Back to the reasons they are giving for not being able to meet with the president: the first one listed by many members of the caucus is that Pres. Trump's assistant, Omarosa Manigault, signed the invitation "Honorable Omarosa Manigault, a title they say she has not earned and that it was offensive to them. They also claim that the logistics of getting 50 members of the caucus together are difficult but don't they hold meetings regularly? I'm sure that not everyone can make all of their meetings that you would think that a meeting with the president to address grievances would be something that most of them could make room for on their calendar.

Other members have given excuses such as not wanting to pose for a photo with the president for fear that someone thinks they are supporting Pres. Trump and having been able to avoid that in past meetings, they think avoiding a picture in the Oval Office would be impossible. they are also upset that he is not done anything to address their concerns but if you haven't expressed them to him and giving him options to address those that what you expect him to do? Is he supposed to read about your concerns in the mainstream media because all he reads or hears in the press the vile things that you are saying about him.

Quite simply this is not about solving problems this is about them having power over our lives plain and simple. It's also about being shortsighted and petty; but what would you expect from a group of liberals?

25May/170

Kids are going to die!

Of course the rhetoric will begin. Children are going to die. People will suffer and starve. Spending is being slashed to the point to that we will not recognize anything that the government can do or that the deficit will spiral out of control. Pres. Trump and the Republicans want you to die. It is typical but still as I’ve said before unbelievable the way opponents of Pres. Trump and conservatives twist the facts. There are no cuts in overall spending in the budget proposed by Pres. Trump. If you hear anybody say anything different they are lying lying lying. There is no other way to put it. There are cuts in the growth rate of spending which means quite simply we will be spending more on the federal government this year than we did last year. Two years from now will be spending more than we did next year. Over the 10 years of the budget proposal would will spend $50 billion more than we do this year. Are some programs being cut? Yes. Like the $700,000 to fund a play that promotes the idea man is causing climate change. Those types of things are being cut. But Medicare/Medicaid, Social Security, CHIP, and similar transfer payment programs are not being cut. They are getting more money every year under the budget.

But you also need to understand is that this budget will balance the federal budget and reduce the deficit, eliminating it in 10 years, if we achieve a 3% rate of growth. Anybody to says we cannot grow at 3% per year does not know history and does not believe in the ability of the American people. If the government gets out of our way this economy can grow four or 5%. And if that gives us the ability to pay the deficit down will grow even faster.

If the economy grows even 1 to 2%, that means more people will be working and fewer people will need the benefit programs such as Medicaid and welfare. So those programs will not need as much money as they do right now. People will be able to purchase their own health care with their own money, if Congress does its job and gets the hell out of the way on the health insurance side of the equation.

Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi said that this budget is unimaginative, shows disdain for the millions of Americans were struggling to make ends meet and throws them out to the wolves. Those comments should prove to you once and for all what we have been telling you all along: the liberals believe you cannot do it for yourself and you have to have the government teat to suckle from in order to succeed. How’s that been working out for the last four decades?

Nancy Pelosi said that Medicare and Medicaid will wither on the vine. That is not true but she goes on to say that if the American people knew what was in the budget they would not support it. In fact they would call for everyone who did support it, including those who voted for speaker Ryan’s budget which she claims to be identical, to be thrown out of office. So we need to read the budget before its past? We need to read the law before its past to find out what’s in it? When did we have to start doing that?!

The Democrats are saying that the budget if it is passed and implemented would be an albatross around the neck of the Republicans in 2018 and would return control of the government to the Democrats. If that is true why don’t they vote for it? They want to be back in control and they see this as a way to get control back then they should be out there pushing John McCain and the other liberal Republicans to get behind it and vote for it. Then they can go back to doing things the way they been doing for the last 40 years.

The simple fact is this: the budget continues to grow in almost every major program or department that the federal government operates. There is some training of the fat but not enough. But if anybody tells you that there are real cuts in any department’s budget you should turn around and walk away because that person is either willfully ignorant or willfully lying to you. And you don’t need that kind of negativity in your life.

Filed under: Politics No Comments
22May/170

Diversity of opinion? Really?

It never ends. Democrats on the Senate finance committee were hearing testimony about tax reform proposals and thought there were some very good ideas from the five people who testified. However every one of them said that was not enough ethnic diversity among the five witnesses. One senator said there were not enough African-Americans, Asians, Latinos, or women on the witness list. The same senator said that he thought there were some very good ideas spanning some broad viewpoints. But then immediately said that because of the lack of diversity in the ethnic and gender areas of the witness list that there really was not true diversity of opinion.

So once again the liberals are showing you what they truly believe as opposed to what they say. Those senators believe that if you have a certain skin color or gender that you must agree on every issue. They don’t really want a diversity of opinion they just want to look at the panel and say there are people that look different so there must be diversity. Never mind that Maxine Waters and Condoleezza Rice, both African-American females, hold philosophically diverse opinions on almost every issue. Never mind that George Soros and Arthur Laffer hold significantly different viewpoints on economic issues. Yet both are white men. Apparently words don’t mean anything it’s only the demographic characteristic that’s important.

Here are a couple of facts about this situation: the Democrats had equal input into the witness list and who could be called to give testimony. If they had truly wanted to see ethnic or gender diversity, they could have provided it. However once again they manipulated the situation so they could grandstand during their opportunities to speak. This was organized prior to the hearing by the Democrats to try and embarrass the Republican majority.

Let’s not forget that tax reform will benefit all of us, regardless of the color of our skin, or sexual orientation, or gender. I have not seen anyone put forth a tax reform bill that provides benefits only to certain that is that these or other demographic groups. It’s all based upon income without regard for any demographic characteristic.

While we are at it, let’s talk about this whole identity politics movement. We as a country and a society have made a great deal of progress in civil rights over the past 50 years fighting primarily against the Democrat party who have tried to stall the march towards equality. Remember it was them who put in place all of the Jim Crow laws and other laws that promoted and allowed segregation and racism. Why aren’t the people pushing for a quality celebrating how far we have come as opposed to continuing with this victim mentality?

And if we really have not made progress as they claim, we have been following their tactics and their plan to achieve racial equality for three or more decades. If it’s not working then let’s try something new to improve the status of race relations and the standing of minorities in America. Once again it just shows you that it’s more about having power as opposed to achieving a true goal.

22May/170

John Kennedy has some really good ideas

Sen. John Kennedy from Louisiana as a couple of great ideas that are gaining traction. First the big complaint about Dodd Frank is the onerous regulations placed upon all banks which have really prohibited smaller banks from being able to loan money. This hurts middle income and lower income wage earners in America. Because often they don’t meet the strict criteria, being able to check off a box or put a number in the right place, that big impersonal banks have. Small local banks have more flexibility in loaning money; or at least they use to.

The stated purpose of the Dodd Frank was to rein in the big banks so Sen. Kennedy has proposed a solution, since it seems that there isn’t the political will to completely repeal the law. All you have to do is exempt the medium and small sized banks from the regulations put in place by the Bell. His proposal is that if you have less than $10 billion in capitalization you do not have to comply with Dodd Frank. Doesn’t that seem really simple and straightforward? Which probably means it doesn’t have much of a shot.

Secondly, he has offered a new bill that would require you to go to work if you are receiving Medicaid. Simply, if you are between the ages of 18 and 55, are not disabled; do not have kids; then you must go to work in order to continue to receive Medicaid benefits. The bill he has authored would require you to get a part-time job of at least 20 hours a week, in the alternative you can do 20 hours of community service, or you could enroll in a college degree program for the equivalent of 20 hours a week.

These are the kind of simple straightforward solutions that people will oppose, the media and the political elite will say it’s not that simple but it is. If our politicians really want to help the middle class they would give the smaller banks the exemption they need to begin loaning money again. This would stimulate the economy through increased housing purchases or construction; loans to people who want to start a small business; and so much more. And requiring Medicaid beneficiaries to work will be called and bigoted but the rest of us have to work to get what we need or want so why shouldn’t someone receiving benefits from the government, which is our tax money after work also?