Welcome! You are reading the archives. Click here to visit the Home page and see the latest articles.

October 21, 2009

Obama Wants to Destroy America’s Finances the Way Harvard University Destroyed Its Own Finances

Want to force out the people who know how to do the job?  That's what destroyed the financial strength of Harvard University. From Vanity Fair:

The fall of Harvard Management Company
• The longtime head of Harvard Management Company, Jack Meyer, quit to start his own hedge fund in 2005 after growing fed up with criticism over the eight-figure salaries some of his managers were pulling down and with persistent meddling from top Harvard officials. Two particular annoyances were Summers, who had been questioning Meyer’s investment strategies, and Robert Rubin, a member of the Harvard Corporation, who frowned on Meyer’s aggressive strategies and wound up on the “warpath” with Meyer, as one person put it.

• When Meyer left, he took much of Harvard Management Company with him — including 30 portfolio managers and traders, as well as the chief risk officer, chief operating officer, and chief technology officer. The place became “like a Ferrari without the engine,” according to a portfolio manager who arrived after Meyer left. This angered Rubin, according to someone who knows him well: “In Rubin’s opinion, Meyer crippled the institution.”

Now Obama wants to inflict precisely this kind of destruction on the very companies he pretended he wanted to save with the bailouts.

The Obama administration is set to dictate incomes to Americans at companies who foolishly believed that accepting government bailouts didn't give the government the right to dictate to them what they could and could not do with their lives. From the NY Times:

Responding to the growing furor over the paychecks of executives at companies that received billions of dollars in the government’s financial rescue, the Obama administration will order the companies that received the most aid to deeply slash the compensation to their highest paid executives, an official involved in the decision said on Wednesday.

Under the plan, which will be announced in the next few days by the Treasury Department, the seven companies that received the most assistance will have to cut the annual salaries of their 25 best-paid executives by an average of about 90 percent from last year. Their total compensation — including bonuses and retirement contributions — will drop, on average, by about 50 percent. The companies are Citigroup [C 4.42 -0.01 (-0.23%) ], Bank of America [BAC 16.51 -0.50 (-2.94%) ], American International Group [AIG 38.96 -1.47 (-3.64%) ], General Motors, Chrysler and the financing arms of the two automakers.

In March I posted:

Obama Wants to Turn the U.S. Into a Government-Managed “Planned Economy”

Obama is proving that some of the change he wants is to replace our market-driven economy, with one in which business decisions are made by the government and forced by law on we, the people. He wants greatly increased government control over health care, education, and energy......

Obama wants the government to control executive pay at all these financial firms. This kind of central planning of business decisions, controlled by the state, is called a "Planned Economy." From Wikipedia:

A planned economy or directed economy is an economic system in which the government or workers' councils manages the economy. It is an economic system in which the central government makes all decisions on the production and consumption of goods and services. Its most extensive form is referred to as a command economy, centrally planned economy, or command and control economy. In such economies, central economic planning by the state or government is so extensive that it controls all major sectors of the economy and formulates all decisions about their use and about the distribution of income. The planners decide what should be produced and direct enterprises to produce those goods. Planned economies are in contrast to unplanned economies, such as a market economy, where production, distribution, pricing, and investment decisions are made by the private owners of the factors of production based upon their own and their customers' interests rather than upon furthering some overarching macroeconomic plan.

Want to know what countries have, or have had, "planned economies"?

Important planned economies that existed in the past include the economy of the Soviet Union, which was for a time the world's second-largest economy[citation needed], China during its Great Leap Forward, and India, prior to its economic reforms in 1991, Afghanistan under the Soviet occupation and under the Taliban, and Iraq under Saddam Hussein from 1979 to 2003. ...Although most economies today are market economies or mixed economies (which are partially planned), planned economies exist in some countries such as Cuba, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Iran, North Korea, and Burma.

Yeah, baby! Let's turn the United States' economy into one like those of the Soviet Union, China, Afghanistan, Cuba, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Iran, and North Korea!

Frankly, that's change that nobody can believe in.

But that's what Obama is going for.

And just to rub in that what he wants is absolute rulership rather than to serve the people, Obama is threatening to cut people's salaries by 50% to 90%

That means people losing their homes.

That's the kind of rulership Obama wants to have over all the people.

Fight it or lose your freedom.

October 16, 2009

The Dangerous Fallacy of Seeking to Save Medical Costs in the Final Two Years of a Citizen’s Life

We've been hearing a great deal from the Obama administration about saving Medical costs by cutting money spent on patients who are in the last two years of their life. From the Washington Post, June, 2009:

But it is the findings of the Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice that have generated the most excitement in the Obama administration, all the way up to the Oval Office. For more than a decade, the New Hampshire researchers have documented and mapped wide variations in the cost and types of care given to American seniors through the Medicare program, concluding that spending more on health care has not resulted in better health.

In the final two years of a patient's life, for example, they found that Medicare spent an average of $46,412 per beneficiary nationwide, with the typical patient spending 19.6 days in the hospital, including 5.1 in the intensive-care unit. Green Bay patients cost $33,334 with 14.1 days in the hospital and just 2.1 days in the ICU, while in Miami and Los Angeles, the average cost of care exceeded $71,000, and total hospitalization was about 28 days with 12 in the ICU.

Here's the dangerous fallacy of pursuing this argument: there are many cases in which people whose doctors expected they had little time left to live, went on to enjoy years of life, in which they were able to bring joy to their friends and loved ones.

One of my very good friends was told many years ago that he had at most a year or two left.  He is still very much among us, a good father to his son, and contributing greatly through his work to many people's lives.

A quick Google search for "lived longer than doctors predicted" turns up numerous examples.

To sum up:

In many cases, possibly a majority of cases - particularly in cases of those who are elderly but not terminally ill - no one knows in advance when the last two years of anyone's life will be.

But Obama evidently seeks to have doctors make a decision about when the last two years of our lives have arrived, and then withhold medical care from that point forward, hastening an earlier death. 

Here's the famous video of Obama, relevant to the subject:

Obama: "Maybe you're better off, not having the surgery, but taking the pain killer."

Do you want a doctor, very possibly acting in a way enforced by federal guidelnes written by bureaucrats in Washington, telling you when they must withhold medical care from your parents?

If that's not a death panel, it's too close to one for comfort.

October 15, 2009

Dems Try to Bribe Them, but Massive Number of Doctors Oppose Health Care

So many doctors oppose Obamacare. Sample headlines:

70 percent of specialty doctors oppose health-care reform proposals

45% Of Doctors Would Consider Quitting If Congress Passes Health Care Overhaul

A.M.A. Opposes Government-Sponsored Health Plan - NYTimes.com

Doctors Oppose Healthcare "Reform"

IBD Poll: Doctors Oppose Healthcare Changes

So of course, since under Obama the Dems try to destroy public debate, and care nothing about the will of the people, and care nothing about the opinions of the people who actually are experts in the subject, today we see the Dems trying to bribe doctors into supporting health care. From AP:

Senate Dems seek higher doctor payments

WASHINGTON — Maneuvering to boost prospects for sweeping health care legislation, Senate Democrats hope first to win quick approval for a bill that grants doctors a $247 billion increase in Medicare fees over a decade but raises federal deficits in the process, officials said Wednesday.

If that isn't bad enough, it's part of a huge deception the Dems are hoping to perpetrate. The Dems are planning to claim that the main health care bill won't add to deficits (don't be fooled: a huge new study reveals it places tremendous costs on all Americans) -- all the while, packing the deficit-increasing items into a separate bill:

By creating a two-bill approach, Democrats intend to claim the more comprehensive health care measure meets President Barack Obama's conditions — that it will neither add to deficits nor exceed $900 billion in costs over 10 years.

The corruption, the intention to rule the people by force instead of representing them as public servants, is ghastly. Obama cannot be trusted to lead. All the Dems need to be voted out of office, because they are presenting a danger to the freedoms this country is built on.

October 14, 2009

Dems Abuse Power of the State in an Attempt to Threaten Those who Criticise Healthcare

The health insurance industry criticized Obamacare, and immediately, in return, Democrats in Congress are actually threatening insurers with a legal change that would be harmful to them. This is a massive assault on free speech by the Democrats.  They are actually attempting to use the power of the state to halt criticism of Obamacare.

Here are the specifics. From AP, two days ago:

Insurance companies aren't playing nice any more. Their dire message that health care legislation will drive up premiums for people who already have coverage comes as a warning shot at a crucial point in the debate, and threatens President Barack Obama's top domestic priority.

Democrats and their allies scrambled on Monday to knock down a new industry-funded study forecasting that Senate legislation, over time, will add thousands of dollars to the cost of a typical policy. "Distorted and flawed," said White House spokeswoman Linda Douglass. "Fundamentally dishonest," said AARP's senior policy strategist, John Rother. "A hatchet job," said a spokesman for Senate Finance Committee chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont.

But the health insurance industry's top lobbyist in Washington stood her ground. In a call with reporters, Karen Ignagni, president of America's Health Insurance Plans, pointedly refused to rule out attack ads on TV featuring the study, though she said she believed the industry's concerns could be amicably addressed.

At the heart of the industry's complaint is a decision by lawmakers to weaken the requirement that millions more Americans get coverage. Since the legislation would ban insurance companies from denying coverage on account of poor health, many people will wait to sign up until they get sick, the industry says. And that will drive up costs for everybody else.

Insurers are now raising possibilities such as higher premiums for people who postpone getting coverage, or waiting periods for those who ignore a proposed government requirement to get insurance and later have a change of heart.

...The study projects that the legislation would add $1,700 a year to the cost of family coverage in 2013, when most of the major provisions of the Baucus bill would be in effect.

Premiums for a single person would go up by $600 more than would be the case without the legislation, it estimated.

In 10 years' time, premiums would be $4,000 higher for a family plan, and $1,500 more for individual coverage.

Today, the Democrats responded by abusing the power of the state to threaten the insurers with an attack. From Politico:

Democrats launch attack on insurer exemption

The long-simmering tension between insurers and congressional Democrats is erupting into open warfare, with lawmakers stepping up their push to revoke a key federal protection for the insurance industry.

Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) on Wednesday will call for an amendment to the health care reform bill that would remove the long-standing antitrust exemption for insurers, echoing a push by other Democrats to crack down on the industry.

The Government is supposed to defend free speech; to be public servants, not our masters, overlords, or rulers. Under Barrack Obama, the Democrats are presenting a literal threat to freedom of speech in this country. They all need to be voted out of office, because they are presenting a danger to the freedoms this country is built on.

 

Update 10-26-09

From Dick Morris:

The medical device industry had its day at the White House as did the insurance industry, the drug makers, the nurses, and the doctors. In turn, each group heard the White House request that they come up with voluntary cuts in their health care costs and support Obama's proposed changes in return for assurances that Congress would not impose deeper cuts (or, in the case of the doctors, that it would actually rescind cuts already scheduled under current statutes).

But, unlike all these other groups, the medical device industry refused the deal. This posture enraged the tyrants in the White House who vowed to punish the industry with cuts imposed by Congress.  The result was a decision by the revenue-hungry Senate Finance Committee to extract billions in funds from the industry.

The legislation does not work like a sales or excise tax.  Rather it follows the model of the punitive tobacco settlement imposed on cigarette companies in the 90s.  It assesses an industry-wide payment which firms must make in proportion to their market share.  It bars the them from passing along the cost of the assessment by charging more for certain basic products, but allows them to raise the price of others to raise the funds for the fee.

So, the result will be that virtually every piece of advanced surgical equipment will be subject to a price increase to meet the levy from Washington. No matter that these devices often make the difference between life and death and that, in effect, taxing them raises the cost of vital treatments.  The vengeful White House will have its pound of flesh from the medical device industry for daring to be independent and to refuse to knuckle down to Administration pressure!

This tax, imposed in a spirit of haughty arrogance, falls on totally inappropriate objects.  Valves, prosthetic limbs, pacemakers, hearing aids, and such are essential therapies that make life longer, better, and less painful.  To tax them makes no sense.  Except in the world of sharp elbows and interest group politics that grips this take-no-prisoners and show-no-mercy White House.

Obama uses the power of the state to oppose people's right to free speech, and our right to be free.

October 08, 2009

Obama Blows His Cover - Shows He is a Friend of the Enemy of the U.S., the Taliban

Before we get to Obama's offer of help to the Taliban, let's review who the Taliban are.

From Infoplease.com:

The Taliban's popularity with the Afghan people surprised the country's other warring factions. Many Afghans, weary of conflict and anarchy, were relieved to see corrupt and often brutal warlords replaced by the devout Taliban, who had some success in eliminating corruption, restoring peace, and allowing commerce to resume.

The Taliban, under the direction of Mullah Muhammad Omar, brought about this order through the institution of a very strict interpretation of Sharia, or Islamic law. Public executions and punishments (such as floggings) became regular events at Afghan soccer stadiums. Frivolous activities, like kite-flying, were outlawed. In order to root out "non-Islamic" influence, television, music, and the Internet were banned. Men were required to wear beards, and subjected to beatings if they didn't.

Most shocking to the West was the Taliban's treatment of women. When the Taliban took Kabul, they immediately forbade girls to go to school. Moreover, women were barred from working outside the home, precipitating a crisis in healthcare and education. Women were also prohibited from leaving their home without a male relative—those that did so risked being beaten, even shot, by officers of the "ministry for the protection of virtue and prevention of vice." A woman caught wearing fingernail polish may have had her fingertips chopped off. All this, according to the Taliban, was to safeguard women and their honor.

.....The Taliban allowed terrorist organizations to run training camps in their territory and, from 1994 to at least 2001, provided refuge for Osama bin Laden and his al-Qaeda organization. The relationship between the Taliban and bin Laden is close, even familial—bin Laden fought with the mujahideen, has financed the Taliban, and has reportedly married one of his daughters to Mullah Muhammad Omar.

The Taliban destroyed treasures of the world - the ancient statues of Buddha. From USA Today, 2001:

One of the Buddhas that have been destroyed. The two black figures in the center near the bottom are men who are sitting down.

In Afghanistan recently, supreme Taliban leader Mullah Mohammed Omar issued an edict against un-Islamic graven images, which means all idolatrous images of humans and animals. As a result, the Taliban are destroying all ancient sculptures. Explosives, tanks, and anti-aircraft weapons blew apart two colossal images of the Buddha in Bamiyan Province, 230 kilometers (150 miles) from the capital of Kabul.

The reason we went into Afghanistan in the first place was because the Taliban, who were running Afghanistan, had aided Bin Laden, who had just killed 3,000 Americans on 9-11.  From Wikipedia:

The War in Afghanistan, which began on October 7, 2001 as the U.S. military's Operation Enduring Freedom and the British military's Operation Herrick, was launched in response to the September 11 attacks.

The stated aim of the invasion was to find Osama bin Laden and other high-ranking Al-Qaeda members and put them on trial, to destroy the whole organization of Al-Qaeda, and to remove the Taliban regime which supported and gave safe harbor to Al-Qaeda.

To sum up: The Taliban supported Al-Qaeda, and have a tight bond to Bin Laden - the enemies of America who killed 3,000 Americans on 9-11. 

So now what's Obama proposing? Merely to take their side against the U.S. army and put them back into involvement with the political future of Afghanistan - when the entire mission of the U.S. army in going into Afghanistan, was to get rid of the Taliban.

Does that sound impossible? From FoxNews and AP:

WASHINGTON -- President Obama is inclined to send only as many more U.S. troops to Afghanistan as are needed to keep Al Qaeda at bay, a senior administration official said.

The official, in an interview with The Associated Press, also added that the president is prepared to accept some Taliban involvement in Afghanistan's political future, reiterating what Obama said in March.

The assessment comes from an official who has been involved in the president's discussions with his war council about Afghanistan strategy.

Let's list the outrages:

• Obama now takes the side of the enemy of the United States, the people who aided and abetted the ones who killed 3,000 Americans.
• Obama takes the side of the very people our army was sent there to fight - betraying the soldiers who have fought and died there to keep America safe.
• Obama no longer wants to destroy Al Qaeda, but only to send enough troops to "keep Al Qaeda at bay."
• Obama wants these murderers, these torturers of women, to have an involvement in Afghanistan's political future.
• Obama pretends that there can be some accomodation between a free and democratic Afghanistan, and the Taliban, with their history of murder and torture of the Afghani people.

How many different ways can Obama attack the interests of the American people before he utterly exposes himself as one who can no longer be trusted to lead?

October 04, 2009

Catch Evan Sayet Live in New York This Week!

If you live in New York and love Conservative comedy, don't miss Evan Sayet, live, October 7th and 8th.

 

"Who makes me laugh? Easy, Evan Sayet." -- Ann Coulter

Evan Sayet is bringing his highly acclaimed “Right to Laugh – A Night of Conservative Comedy” to New York City for two days only as part of the New York Underground Comedy Festival, October 7 and 8.

This is an all-conservative line-up that includes PJTV’s al Sonja Schmidt – a beautiful, black, female conservative (with all the stories that entails) as well as Ellen Karis, former Wall-Streeter turned family values comedienne and Fox News Channel favorite.

Even though the shows are being held in comedy clubs, this is NOT your typical comedy club experience! Evan’s Right to Laugh nights have been running in Los Angeles for over five years, garnering a following that includes famous radio talk show hosts, best selling conservative authors, Republican television, movie and even rock stars (yep, they exist!), as well as leading political activists and elected officials.

“Evan has crossed that line from ‘funny’ to important” - Michael Barone

Evan has become the go-to guy for political comedy at high end Republican/conservative events like CPAC and David Horowitz’s Restoration Weekend. In fact, David describes Evan as “Simply the best political comedian working in America today.”

Tickets for the shows are just twenty dollars and are available online (highly recommended) as well as at the respective box offices.

Seats for The Oct. 7th show – at the world famous Comic Strip Live on 81st Street and Second Avenue at 8:30 can be purchased here: https://www.brownpapertickets.com/event/84639

Seats for the Oct. 8th show – at the beautiful Broadway Comedy Club on 53rd St. between 8th and 9th here: https://www.brownpapertickets.com/event/84709.

If you love to laugh but you’ve stopped going to comedy clubs because you don’t care to have your values attacked by shallow and angry Leftists, this is your night to return!

“Evan is one of my favorite cultural commentators” -- Tammy Bruce

“At last I can delight in a show that is genuinely funny” -- Larry Elder

"Evan Sayet explodes pernicious stereotypes with refreshing humor that is simultaneously thought-provoking and hilarious..." -- Michael Medved

Page 1 of 1 pages