Mike Rowse A voice from New Mexico

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.

2Aug/170

Quick hits

This student loan debt is getting out of hand. I know we have talked about the trillions of dollars sitting out there like a bubble but to bring it home, I know a young man that just graduated from Western New Mexico University with a degree in English. He has $80,000 in student loan debt. I learned English for free. I talked to him all the time and I can understand every word he says. Just another bad business decision.

Jerry Jones said a couple of weeks ago that the Dallas Cowboys organization as a gold standard for player behavior. He said this while they were defending a decision to dismiss Lucky Whitehead from the team after lucky was wrongly accused of shoplifting. Lucky just happens to be a fifth string receiver and special teams player. Interestingly, Ezekiel Elliott, their star running back as a couple of issues pending with the leak that could get him suspended. In fact they have a total of four players currently on suspension and the team has now been fined for the second year in a row for having too many players in the league discipline program. For the second year in a row they’re paying the maximum fine. Maybe Jerry was referring to the gold that he has to turn over to believe because of his players behavior.

I was listening to and about Marxist professor on the Stuart Varney show, I do not remember the professor’s name but they were discussing the situation in Venezuela. This professor said that the collapse of the economic system, political system, and society in general is due to the falling oil prices and not the inherent flaws of socialism. Now we can point to history for a number of examples of socialism failing in countries that had no income from oil. But let’s look at Venezuela specifically and what they did when the price of oil was $100 a barrel. Remember Hugo Chavez took over entire industries, family businesses, family farms and basically destroyed private ownership by the middle class. The collapse we see in Venezuela began when oil prices were high and once again it was Hugo Chavez, his successors, and his cronies that were getting rich. Venezuela didn’t take all of that money from high oil prices and put it into things like hospitals, schools, or any other state program that would help out the poor or the middle class. Even then they had a strong middle class, all of which went away when the Venezuelan government took control of everything. Their current situation has nothing to do with oil prices.

So now we have Democrats and liberal screaming that Pres. Trump’s crackdown on MS13 is racist because the majority of the members of that game are Hispanic. First of all, that is just another attempt to destroy Pres. Trump because if you look at this deeper than the surface you understand that this gang was preying upon Hispanic communities. Everything they did to burglary to extortion to drug dealing was done primarily to the Hispanic community. Margaret Hoover, the grand daughter of former Pres. Herbert Hoover and a self professed Republican said that Pres. Trump unleashing law enforcement on the gang is done only to appease the white racists in America. We know that it has nothing to do with the color of the skin of the gang but the fact that this gang has become the most violent reprehensible move of criminals we have seen in recent history. Is she ignoring the color of the skin or the Heritage for the ethnicity their victims? Of course she is because she doesn’t like Pres. Trump. If the majority of Pres. Trump’s supporters were racist as she and others claim, wouldn’t we want MS 13 to continue murdering Hispanics?

That we have discussed in the past the real reasons for the so-called gender wage gap, which is not a accurate representation of men and women are really treated in the job market. But I was listening to a guy discuss the situation with a tongue in cheek approach. He said there is justification for a gender wage gap. First of all, men are expected to pay every time we take a woman out on the date or are trying to get her into the bedroom. Thus we have to spend more money but it spent on them so they get the benefit anyway. Secondly, for some reason, if they were all on the Titanic together, women and children would get to jump into the lifeboats while the men were left floating in the water hoping that a piece of the ship would come by that they could hold onto until rescuers got done saving the women. So if you want to pay for the date as often as we do and you want to take your chances on a sinking ship, then by all means you should get a equal wage. Remember this was said tongue-in-cheek.

I got to thinking about the sobriety test that officers give you if they suspect you have been drinking and driving. What do things like walking in a straight line, heel to toe, touching your nose with your finger or some of the other antics they put you through have to do with driving? Sure you can tell me or you if you are unstable but does that mean you cannot drive? Why don’t they have a simulator that they put you in and let you drive an obstacle course? If you pass without killing any pedestrians or driving through the police station then you get to drive on home. Wouldn’t that be a more accurate representation of your ability to drive?

I was watching a show about storm chasers in Nebraska and the announcer asked one of them why they drive towards the tornadoes when everyone else is trying to get away? Isn’t it obvious? Have you ever been to Nebraska? I have and let me tell you if I thought a tornado was the quickest way out of the state, I’ve driven towards it also.

27Jul/170

This is the world in which we live

I was listening to Mike & Mike on ESPN radio Thursday morning. They were talking about Atlanta Falcons' wide receiver Julio Jones. Jones is in the news because he lost an earring. Apparently not just any earring either. It was a diamond earring worth $100-150,000. Jones at first said $150K then later reports said $100K. It doesn't matter, it's an expensive earring. Just one earring by the way; not a set.

For me, there are two aspects to this story; first that Julio Jones, one of the best receivers in the NFL is going to be the poster child in upcoming rookie camps when they begin talking about managing your money. I'm not going to look up the stats but we've talked about it before; something like 70% of NFL players are broke within 5 years of leaving the league. Certainly while we focus on the high profile players that make tens or hundreds of millions of dollars, there are a lot more who make several hundred thousand a year. Either way their take home pay isn't as much as you think, after paying their agent and advisors, then federal and state taxes, they are hit for as much as 50% of their check or more.

But I don't care how much you make, if you are spending $100-150,000 on a SINGLE EARRING, something tells me you are not making smart financial decisions that will ensure you have an income in future years. And how much do you want to bet that he didn't have a rider on his insurance policy specifically covering his high dollar jewelry? So now he's out at least $100K not to mention the cost of hiring a dive team to try and find it. He lost the bling while riding a jet ski. Not sure how he expected a dive team to find a tiny earring on a lake/river bottom, but hey, it's his money.

The second point and the one that's more disturbing to me is what Mike Golic & Mike Greenberg said about the incident. They wondered if someone on the dive team actually found the earring and decided to keep it. They also discussed what they would do with the earring if they had found it, knowing full well to whom the jewelry belonged. Both of them opined that they would not only be very tempted to keep the earring and sell it, which most of us probably would ponder that thought. But they both said they would likely keep the earring. Additionally they both said they wouldn't begrudge anyone keeping the earring especially if it would help them pay their bills or if it would improve their lives. Really?!

Mike & Mike acknowledged that keeping the earring would be tantamount to theft, which is correct. But to them, like most liberals, you have to look deeper than just the act and have to look at the motivation. So just like those who support illegal immigration, or James Comey saying Hillary's intent wasn't to break the law, if your heart or motives are pure, then do what you'd like. Unless of course you are a conservative and then if you even jaywalk, you should be hung.

I believe, maybe naively, but I believe the vast majority of citizens would return the earring and condemn anyone who kept it. Even if that's not true, one this is true; our society has fallen so far when we think it's OK to steal from someone just because that person is successful. Never mind all the hard work; never mind the market determined that person's skills were worth the money; never mind that the wealth accumulated by that person creates jobs for others; it's OK to steal from them or charge them more. It's OK to hate them as well.

A society cannot sustain positive growth without collective moral standards that strive to treat all equally; that hold members accountable for their actions, no matter their status in the hierarchy we've created. History has shown us the consequences when we lose our collective morality, when we become lazy, when we erase consequences for anyone. Because you see, God or nature or whatever force you believe runs the universe doesn't lose it's moral compass and will hold us accountable for our actions, whether we do or not.

11Jul/170

Bowl Cut is gaining ground

North Korea has been developing both nuclear weapons and missiles for a long time, with help from China and Russia; but also with the assistance of the United States and its allies. This latest test should worry not only South Korea, Japan, Australia, but the U.S. as well. The missile flew higher and further than any other North Korean missile had as of yet.

The missile, a Hwasong 14 flew far enough to reach Alaska but according to a number of independent intelligence agencies, the missile could be capable of flying over 6000 miles. That would mean it could reach the west coast of the United States. Now while most of us wouldn't mind seeing California's crazy liberals fall off the face of the Earth, we want to be responsible for it; not North Korea. The reason many analysts are concerned is that normally North Korea doesn't test the full capability of it's missiles, neither does any other country for that matter, at least not right away. So if they stick to what they've done in the past, experts think Best Korea's Hwasong could be capable of reaching the mainland. It definitely can reach Alaska and it flew higher than anyone thought it could fly. Bonus: it's also capable of carrying a nuclear warhead!

Is anyone surprised? You shouldn't be. Going back at least to Bill Clinton's presidency, we have continually made agreements with Bowl Cut and before him, his dad to provide them with coal, fuel oil, food and even building generating plants, in exchange for their promise to scrap their missile and nuclear weapons programs. Which not only never happened but Best Korea never even slowed down their development. In fact, they sold much of what we sent to them in order to fund their weapons programs. Talk about ignoring history. And now American's might lose their lives because of it; but that's happened before, hasn't it?

To make matters worse, President Barrack Hussein Obama scrapped our ICBM missile defense systems in order to appease Russia and other countries; proving that we were not a threat to them and we wanted to live in harmony. We still have some short range missile defense programs which work very well. In fact the system in Alaska was tested earlier this week and shot down several short range, low flying missiles. They are now 14-0 in that department. But this system can be used against any ICBM missiles that not only North Korea possesses but those held by China, Russia, Iran... thanks Obama. There's your real legacy.

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..

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?

20Jun/170

Who takes care of whom?

I think we have been seeing a fundamental change in our society and our belief system over the last 4 to 5 decades. At least since the 1960s most of the problems that we have faced as a society, more of us have looked to the government to solve those problems than at any other time in our history. We have talked to a number of times on these pages and on the radio show, for example, about how the government never got involved in the private sector of our economy. Whenever there was an economic downturn the government stay out of it and market forces corrected things relatively quickly. That changed in the 1930s with Franklin Roosevelt and His social programs to help people in need economically. But it wasn't until the 1960s under Lyndon Johnson that things really began to pick up speed.

Whether it's been civil rights, poverty, retirement income, gender equality, save the panda bear, whatever the problem might be it was usually up to us as a people to foment the change. Now don't get me wrong, government needed to step in at certain times to enact laws that we the people wanted but the real change in society had to come from the people themselves making changes to the way they lived. it also was up to us to help others in need.

For years it was private donations that kept many of these organizations trying to help others or make change in society running. Whether it was the YWCA or YMCA helping out homeless people or soup kitchens, or charitable organizations that started hospitals or relief efforts such as the Red Cross, they did not look to the government for funding.

But we begun to see more and more people believe that government should be the solution because in some way shape or form we began teaching our children that the government is the only entity that can solve the problem. Sometimes it's because we believe that they're the only ones with the money or they're the only ones that can do it equitably and without bias or discrimination. I think that teaching has been absolutely wrong and ignores history, but that is what our children have been taught since the 60s.

I think is a direct result of that education, there's a new survey that says millennials are only willing to give $10 or less a year to help solve global warming. 82% of millennial's would give less than $100 a year. The authors of the survey do not go into why this generation is not willing to give money but as I said for the last 20 to 30 years especially these children have been told that the government must be the ones making the change. They are the ones that have not seen how our generation or previous generations pitched in to help out society, to solve the problems that faced us.

And remember this, this generation of millennial's has been told for most of their life if not all of it that global warming is the number one threat facing them today. They have been told that if we do not solve the problem of man-made global warming their Earth will not be here when they are 65 years old. Mankind will be wiped out which means all other problems that face us are minuscule in comparison. Yet this generation is not willing to give even $10 a year to help solve the problem? That to me is unbelievable. If you truly believe that this was the major problem facing you wouldn't you be willing to give much more of your income to help solve it and save the world not only for yourself children? Apparently not.

Filed under: Philosophy No Comments
19Jun/170

Colin Kapernik doesn't like the police. I think that's safe to say. He's made it very clear that he thinks police are targeting blacks when they want to shoot someone. He's jumped back into the fray once again after a not guilty verdict in the shooting of a black youth by a police office.

Minnesota Police officer Jeronmio Yanez was found not guilty on charges of second degree manslaughter and two counts of intentionally discharging a firearm that endangers safety. He was found guilty after a trial in which evidence was presented and a verdict was returned. But once again, the left believes they know better than the judge and the jury. I would be that most didn't even read about the evidence presented and don't really care about it since a non-black police officer shot a black youth. That's proof that he was guilty and is a racist in and of itself right?

Kaepernick tweeted out a picture showing two badges, one of which said "Runaway Slave Patrol" and the other was a generic police officer badge. Clearly he was saying that all police officers are essentially out to kill all black because they see them all as runaway slaves. The photo had the caption, "You can't ignore your history, Always remember who they are." He posted along with the photo the following statement: A system that perpetually condones the killing of people without consequence, doesn't need to be revised, it needs to be dismantled.

Again, he clearly knows better than the judge or jury that heard the evidence and returned a verdict based upon the standard of proof required and how that evidence did or did not meet the standard of proof. I don't know if there was evidence that was excluded or anything like that, but it doesn't matter to Kaepernick and his ilk because black people are, in their opinion, being killed by police simple because of the color of their skin. Police are nothing more than runaway slave units hell bent on returning blacks to some plantation in the south.

Guys like Dan Lebatard defended Kaepernik saying he was just reacting to a truth in society and that white people can't understand what it's like to be a black in today's America. That we must either sit back and accept what Kaepernick says because we are white and can't understand or that Kaepernick can't be criticized because we are white and he's black and his perception is his reality. BS.

We can assess the situation and see if police really are targeting blacks simple because of the color of their skin; shooting blacks simply because they escaped some plantation that we know nothing about. But let's look at history: wasn't it white people who looked at slavery in America and said, "we don't like that" and then did something about it? Wasn't it white people in America who said Jim Crow laws, segregation and legalized discrimination were wrong and did something about it? That doesn't seem like a group of people who just threw up their hands and said "we can't do anything about this problem or that we don't even see a problem."

No, if we analyzed the evidence and thought that police were targeting black people without due cause, we would do something about it. But we don't see that because it's not happening. Simple saying that more blacks are shot than whites isn't good enough. Liberal policies have kept more blacks in poverty and put them in situations where they feel like they don't have any other choice but to engage in criminal activities which makes it more likely they will get shot during the commission of a crime.

And when we do see that officers overstepped their bounds, they are usually convicted of crimes. If the system miscarries justice, which happens, we are outraged and try to fix the system so that it doesn't happen again. That's what we do as Americans, whether we are white, black, brown etc.

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?