Thursday, December 24, 2009

A Christmas Apart But Near In Our Hearts



Merry Christmas from the Olds family!

Christmas Blessings To You All!

Christmas will be different for our family this year because, for the first time since the birth of our first child, none of us will be together. (The picture is from last year.) That makes it a good time to appreciate all the good times we did have together over the past 30 years and to appreciate that distance doesn't diminish our deep love for one another.

Most of all we celebrate God's gift to us, His son and the joy that brings to our lives. We celebrate our family and the joy. love and enrichment it's brought to our lives. We celebrate our friends near and far and how they've enriched and blessed our lives. We count our blessings of a home and good health, appreciating constantly that they could be gone in an instant but the other things that bless our lives are dependably lasting.

Count your blessings this Christmas season and don't let troubles steal your joy. Know that, whatever challenges exist in your life, our Father loves you and offers you peace and joy. It's there for the asking. God Bless You and Merry Christmas from the Olds family!

Saturday, December 19, 2009

Democrats Can't Describe The Constitutional Authority To Do What They're Doing Because It Doesn't Exist

Various Democrats in Congress have been asked to explain what in the Constitution gives them the authority to take over health care. Since the government has never done anything remotely like this before, it's a logical and rational question deserving a serious answer. Problem is, they don't have a serious answer. When a politician can't come up with a mature answer to a reasonable question they turn the question back around in ridiculing fashion.

For example, Ms, Pelosi's answer: "Are you serious?" And, just in case the questioner didn't understand her profound answer, she asked it again: "Are you serious?" Try to make the questioner feel like an idiot for even asking the question in the first place not only deflects the question but attempts to make the questioner feel like such an idiot they won't dare ask it again, lest their intelligence be questioned again. Real mature madam speaker and without a doubt it is a very thoughtful and reasonable answer which clearly proves there is a solid constitutional basis which you know and understand.

How about this response by another Congressional Democrat to the same question: "That's why we have constitutional lawyers". In other words, "I don't have a clue how we can justify it but trust me, we have lawyers (oh, good, I feel better now!) looking out for the constitution for us and for you". Huh? How's that for deflection and non-answer? Not bad, eh?

These two responses above are CLASSIC non-answers for when the reponder really has no clue what the real answer is. I'm sure they're now busy figuring out how to spin future answers to that question so they don't sound so clueless next time.

Fact is, there is NO constitutional basis for what they're doing. And one aspect of this is glaringly unconstitutional. Never, ever before has our federal government forced all citizens to purchase a private company's product. There's a reason why it hasn't been done before ... it's unconstitutional! Dems argue that it's no different from requiring people to buy auto insurance which is total BS because driving and owning a car is A CHOICE! It offends me that they take us for such idiots.

Thursday, December 17, 2009

Oregon Lawmakers: The Travesty of Measures 66 and 67

Oregon lawmakers chose to institute two new taxes a few months ago without citizens' approval (measures 66 & 67). Doing that in the midst of a really bad economy with Oregonians suffering more than most got citizens' attention and two petition drives resulted in both measures being put to popular vote next month.

Our legislators said the money is needed because of revenue shortfalls caused by our economic troubles. On that basis ALONE these two measures should be defeated because they are permanent tax increases for the purpose of fixing a temporary problem. How dare they claim that they're only trying to address the current shortfall when it couldn't be more clear that they're just using it as an EXCUSE to permanently increase the tax burden on citizens! Lying weasels, the lot of them.

Such an argument to justify these measures fully demonstrates how those poor excuses for representatives have NO integrity or honor. Obviously they don't respect us citizens and they have no self-respect.

Legislatures commonly do things like this and we citizens are getting pretty fed up with it. They also love to get us to approve a tax and then they steer the money to something else. Additionally, did you ever see a tax phased out after it's no longer needed? They always find something else for which they need to keep our money don't they? Case in point: the TARP fund that was supposed to be repaid and then used to pay down the debt that borrowing that money in the first place created. Now the executive branch and many in the legislature think they can steer the returning money into something else they want to spend it on, breaking their PROMISE to return it to The People. Crooks, thieves and liars the lot of them!

I, for one, am sick of it! We need to throw them out and elect people with some semblance of integrity, honesty and honor.

Sunday, December 13, 2009

Time For A Third Party ... Really

As a 'dyed-in-the-wool' Republican, I have a hard time saying this but it does seem to be time for a third political party. Check out the latest Rasmussen poll results to the question (shortened version): 'If The Tea-Party Folks Organized Themselves Into A (Competent) Political Party, With Whom Would You Vote?:
Democratic: 36%
Republican: 18%
Tea Party: 23%

It shows us two things that are going on:
1. It is certainly, to a significant extent, a vote in support of such a party.
2. It is also, to a significant extent, a 'vote' AGAINST both 'major' political parties.

What I like about such a third party is that neither of the current major political parties would have control over legislation without working cooperative with the other two.

Yes, it would likely usher in a period of little getting done in Congress as each party's partisanship kept it from conceeding anything. But would that be such a bad thing? Considering what both parties have been doing throughout recent decades, couldn't we actually do without their brands of legislation for a while? Wouldn't no legislation be better than what we now have going on? Of course it would!

But what will it take for them to 'get' that We The People' are FED UP with politics as usual? Politics that serves both party agenda and special interests above the will of The People and/or what's actually in The People's best long-term interests? Amazingly, it appears that they truly don't get it yet! They need a serious slap in the face and this could very well deliver the medicine that's needed don't you think?

What do we have to lose with a third party in play whose focus is freedom and constitutional principles and values as originally intended, not as interpreted as 'relative' to today? We may lose a little in terms of the good effects of liberal or conservative policies but we have much more to gain that far outweighs those minor drawbacks.

In the end, Democrats and Republicans would have to work with other parties to get anything done. With a strong third party whose focus is on more traditional constitutional values and principles, they would necessarily have to gravitate legislation to what's in the best interests of The People, rather than special interests. We could have REAL REFORM on Capitol Hill whose institutions are in dire need of it!

Saturday, December 12, 2009

Federal Employees Get 2% Average Pay Increase

In the middle of one of the worst economic periods in our history, our representatives have taken it upon themselves to give federal employees an average 2% raise. That completely defies logic and common sense and it flies in the face of constitutional fiduciary responsibility. NO rational argument could justify giving federal employees raises while citizens are suffering to this extent economically.

It makes one curious what our representatives have been doing with the federal payroll while you and I have been struggling to survive. Here are some facts just reported in the National Review:
  1. % increase in the number of federal employees making more than $100k/yr = 46%
  2. % increase in the number of federal employees making more than $150k/yr = 119%
  3. % increase in the number of federal employees making more than $170k/yr = 93%
  4. Number of people in the Transportation Department making more than $170k/yr increased from ONE to 1,690! (Just chew on THAT beauty of a statistic for a minute!)
  5. FIVE TIMES more people in the Defense Dept making more than $170k/yr.
  6. Average salary for federal employees is $71,206/yr while the average private sector salary is $40,331/yr. (And that doesn't account for the much more generous benefits for government employees!)
Do you see ANYTHING wrong with this picture? Does it bother you that, if you include the dollar value of benefits, federal employees make nearly TWICE what the average private sector non-government employee makes? Does it bother you that, while the average private sector employee is suffering greatly in this economy, government employees are GRANTING TO THEMSELVES salary increases as if there's no such problem?

Where is the morality in this? Oh, that's right! Morality is 'relative' now. There are no absolutes except what you want to define for yourself and the special interests you serve.

What about responsibility? Well, Congress, the Executive Branch and the Supreme Court began redefining the constitution and constitutional responsibilities a long time ago. That too is 'relative' today. 'Responsibility' is what you feel like defining it to be. Responsibility to special interests is the easier and more profitable way to go. Grow a spine and do the right thing? You can't be serious!

Open questions to our so-called representatives: When exactly can we expect you to start representing what we want rather than what you want? When exactly can we expect you to start representing us ahead of special interests and your party? Answer: probably never with this current crop of self-serving, agenda-serving, special interest-serving, and party-serving poor excuses for representatives of The People!

Thursday, December 10, 2009

Aren't These Laws Unconstitutional?

Democrats set about at the beginning of the year to exclude elected Republican representatives from the legislative process. I guess we shouldn't be surprised. After all, they put us on notice this would happen when Democratic leaders in both houses and the executive branch actually said(!) "we won so we get to do it our way". Big picture, they cannot do that legally. Democrats can certainly get their way on any legislation by the end of the process when votes are taken but, constitutionally, they may not exclude elected Republican representatives from the process itself.

Excluding elected Republican representatives from the legislative process denies them the opportunity to represent the interests of their constituents. If those elected representatives are allowed no effect on legislation and are, in fact, denied participation in most of the front room and back room processes then Democrats have purposely (and, arguably, with malice and hostility) rendered them incapable of representing their constituents.

If elected Republicans are actively denied a voice in legislation, then the people who elected them are denied a voice in it. That means that the votes of those who elected them are made irrelevant. That's bad, really bad, for two reasons.

First, the result IS taxation without representation. We Republicans have NO say but we pay the tax anyway or literally go to jail. How can this be a government of, by and for the people when both legislative bodies AND the executive branch GRANT TO THEMSELVES(!) the power to deny representation of nearly half of the country's citizens? This is unconstitutional without doubt but it is more than that. We fought a revolution over that issue. How could this be more wrong?

Second, it represents de-facto disenfranchisement of nearly half of Americans who no longer have any significant voice in their government. Common sense, the very definition of a Republic and any sense of fairness dictate this is wrong. In fact, the Supreme Court has affirmed and reaffirmed disenfranchisement is unconstitutional!

Before you go to the standard argument that Democrats are just doing what everyone does, let me correct you at the outset. Democrats have a held veto-proof majority in one or BOTH houses 30 of my 67 years. Question: how many years did Republicans hold a veto-proof majority in EITHER house? Answer: zero! Republicans have never pursued this course (in my lifetime) because they could not! Claiming that they're 'just as bad' has no significant merit.

That the Democrats' 'denial of representation' process is unconstitutional is an easy and rational argument to make. It's an equally easy and rational argument to say that any laws deriving from unconstitutional processes are EQUALLY unconstitutional ... and, therefore, must be thrown out. Yes, the current health care bill should be thrown out and they should start over cooperatively because they may be wasting their time and our money. The Supreme Court has every reason to declare the resulting laws unconstitutional. No future bill should be allowed to follow such a process by either party ... ever.

Democrats would likely argue that we Republicans shouldn't worry about this and ought to trust them because they're looking out for us too. Fact is, even if they're correct, they don't have the right or authority to make that decision for us. In fact, our founders admonished all future legislative bodies to guard against the very 'majority oppression' we're now beginning to experience. They understood and explained that, in a Republic (at least for it to work properly), the majority party actually has a responsibility to ensure all minority parties DO get fair participation in the process rather than actively blocking them out. Undeniably, Democrats are failing miserably at this admonition.

I don't see how the above argument can be disproved. There is sufficient evidence of an unconstitutional process being used that The People should stand against. This should bother ALL Americans because it amounts to a hijacking of constitutional processes and fundamental, constitutionally-guaranteed rights. It's SO wrong on principle that we should not stand for it regardless of party. I'd ask Democrats to reflect as objectively as possible whether they'd stand for this happening the other way around. It's simply really, really bad for America to go down such a path.

Our freedoms, republic (representative) form of government, constitutional rights (like conservative's rights to representation and free speech), and constitutional principles are evaporating before our eyes and most Americans don't seem to understand what's happening. Perhaps it's so unfathomable that people are in denial ... it can't happen here. I have news for you. It's been happening and is accelerating. It's wrong and it must stop.

Wednesday, December 9, 2009

Congress: Spend Our Hard-Earned Money On What You Say You Will

Open Letter To Democrats: DO NOT DIVERT TARP FUNDS TO SPENDING ON THINGS OTHER THAN WHAT YOU SAID YOU NEEDED IT FOR!

IT WAS A TARP FUND, NOT A SLUSH FUND FOR YOU TO SPEND ANY WAY YOU WANT!

If you're done using our money for that purpose, GIVE WHAT'S LEFT/RETURNED BACK TO US! BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT YOU PROMISED US YOU'D DO!

Diverting funds to something else is fraudulent ... except when government does it, I guess. Legislation amounts to a contract with The People. You tell us what you want the money for and we give it to you or, in this case, LOAN IT TO YOU. You said we'd get it back since the fund was set up as a loan. In fact you went out of your way to emphasize that fact! That money represents a BIG sacrifice for us. Just who do you think you are that you can then spend it on something else rather than return it to us LIKE YOU PROMISED WHEN YOU BORROWED IT?

Your arrogance is astounding! Were you lying when you took the money from us or do you have no integrity? Do you respect us or yourselves? Apparently not!

By the way, do you really think we'll give you money again if we can't trust you to do with it ONLY what you say you will? Here's a hint: NO WAY!

Senator Reid Is Nuts!

Early this week, Senator Reid compared those who are opposing the Democratic health care plan with those who slowed down and otherwise inhibited abolishing slavery. Good grief!

For one thing, it was Democrats who opposed or slowed down the abolition of slavery not Republicans.

For another thing, by what leap of irrational thinking could a person put the passage of health care reform in the same league with the abolition of the evil of slavery? The illogical of that is mind-boggling. If there ever was a doubt, there can be no longer. Harry Reid is getting really nutty.

Tuesday, December 8, 2009

Spend Our Way Out? Huh?

I take it back. President Obama no sooner says something smart (lower taxes for small businesses) than he says something really lame: "We have to spend our way out of this recession".

I ask you, average American, is that what YOU do when you're hurting economically? Improving your situation begins with spending less, right? Isn't that how companies survive too ... cutting expenses (like #employees, travel, etc)?

What is it about that fundamental formula for economic improvement and success that so many in government don't get? Why do they think fundamental economic truths don't apply to them?

Saying He Gets It But Doesn't Get It

Wow! President Obama just announced temporary(!) tax cuts and other actions designed to help small businesses because that's the real jobs engine in America (70% of jobs in America). Why does that approach sound familiar? Hmmmmm.

Oh yeah! That's what Republicans have been pushing hard for ALL YEAR! It is exactly what Republicans, especially we conservatives, have been saying ALL YEAR is a much better way to revive the economy than bailing out and stimulating big companies.

Hmmmm. All the government bailouts and 'stimulus' spending hasn't done anywhere near what Democrats said it would do because it left out stimulus to the largest jobs sector. Our 10% unemployment rate has proven the President didn't understand what really stimulates jobs. His concession to do what Republicans have wanted all year vindicates their arguments and is a defacto admission that he let PARTISAN politics and agenda get in the way of a more balanced and more effective solution.

If he thinks that stimulating small businesses really IS a good approach after all, imagine how much better shape we'd be in if he had involved ALL parties in the original solution rather than shutting Republicans out of the legislative process. I said it then in my blog and I'll say it again. These are serious problems we face and we need the ABSOLUTE BEST FROM EVERYONE BEING INVOLVED. No one person or party has all the best solutions. We continue paying a BIG price for Dems shutting Republicans completely out of the legislative process all year. And they have the nerve to say Republicans are being partisan? That's pretty funny now that even Obama admits the Republican approaches are also needed. I'd laugh if I weren't in so much economic pain. Thanks guys!

One rather amazing thing about Obama's new jobs initiative is that, now admitting that tax cuts and other incentives to small businesses are essential to getting our economy back on track, he INEXPLICABLY says he'll not only limit these tax cuts to one year, but he'll actually INCREASE taxes above current levels on small businesses then! If he really believes that tax cuts stimulate small business growth in proposing the new incentives, what does he think will happen when he raises them back up (even beyond current levels!) in a year?

I don't know about you but this makes absolutely no sense to me. The only way to connect these dots is to say that his liberal agenda is more important than a healthier ecomony (that he needs to pay for his 'stuff'). In effect, HE is admitting that reducing taxes leads to growth so increasing taxes obviously leads to killing jobs doesn't it? Talk about a bizzaro world!

Saturday, December 5, 2009

Some In Media Beginning To Report Actual Facts? OMG!

Wow! This is just one example that I've seen lately where 'the media' is doing actual journalism and trying to understand the REAL facts so they can report truth to Americans instead of what government wants them to report.

Check this out: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34280589/ns/business-stocks_and_economy/

While Democrats, especially president Obama, are trying to take credit for 'turning around the economy' as they say last week's statistic that unemployment decreased from 10.2% to 10%, the journalist in the article above reported the truth behind the numbers. At least most of the truth.

A couple of blogs ago I took the current administration to task for lying to the public with incomplete jobs statistics, reporting only the aspect that makes them look good. The media deserves credit when they do the right thing like this.

We need more truthful and honest reporting in order to know what to tell our representatives what we think of their actions or inactions. This article is encouraging but the media has a loooooong way to go to help us know the truth about what this adminstration and their co-conspirators in Congress are doing to America. We need the unvarnished truth in our news. We need to know harsh reality when it is harsh, not some pie-in-the-sky reporting on only the 5% or 10% of it that makes it look positive. It's not the media's job to cheer us up. It's their job (if they're going to honor the principles of journalism) to report the facts and put them in a context that helps us understand what it means.

I was beginning to think they lacked the skills, integrity and, yes, smarts to report and analyze the truth but articles like the one referenced above give me hope that maybe they can do what journalism's principles call on them to do.

Friday, December 4, 2009

Thomas Jefferson: A plea to return government to its original AND legitimate purpose

Thomas Jefferson often reflected on excesses of the federal government which began to occur even within his lifetime. He saw the federal government overreaching its constitutional authority that he helped define along with 55 other committed patriots at the constitutional convention.

He discussed impacts on his state of Virginia of federal intrusions in the following way "... the great experiment which shall prove that man is capable of living in society, governing itself by laws self-imposed, and securing to its members the enjoyment of life, liberty, property, and peace; and further to show, that even when the government of its choice shall manifest a tendency to degeneracy, we are not at once to despair but that the will and the watchfulness of its sounder parts will reform its aberrations, recall it to original and legitimate principles, and restrain it within the rightful limits of self-government. And these are the objects of this Declaration and Protest." [Ref http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/jeffdec1.asp]

In the referenced document, he was urging restraint in the face of intrusions into state and individual rights that were VERY minor by comparison with what we're experiencing today. I can't imagine what he'd think about what powers and authority our federal government has taken upon itself in recent decades, especially lately now that the right to representation has been stolen from half of Americans. No doubt he would be horrified and would be calling for action instead of restraint (most likely leading it!) considering the degree of 'degeneration' we are experiencing now. No doubt he wouldn't recognize the government we have today as having much relationship to the one those dedicated and courageous men designed.

When A Decrease In Unemployment From 10.2% to 10% Is Bad News

The government just announced that unemployment decreased from 10.2% to 10% and 'the media' is all over that as an encouraging sign. Problem is, it's another example how to mislead (ie, lie) with statistics.

Those numbers are based on unemployment compensation information. There are fewer new applications for unemployment and fewer people drawing unemployment. That statistic makes no accounting of why that happens.

First distortion is, there are far more people who have given up looking for a job because they recognize it's a futile effort. They stop drawing unemployment ... but NOT BECAUSE THEY FOUND WORK and NOT BECAUSE THEY DON'T WANT WORK! Estimates for the number of people who've given up until the economy rebounds is in the range of 800,000 people now and is still increasing! That's a huge number of people who are now invisible to the government's 'unemployment numbers'.

Second distortion has to do with the limit on collecting unemployment. After people have collected unemployment up to the maximum allowed, they no longer take money from the government and the government therefore loses all ability to track what they're doing. These people ARE STILL LOOKING FOR WORK but the government can't account for them because they no longer draw unemployment compensation! To that government 'unemployment number' it looks just like these people found work. The number of people in this category (ie, who've been unemployed 27 weeks or longer) increased by 293,000 to 5.9 million, an increase of 2.9%!

THE TRUTH(!) is, unemployment is NOT decreasing and the government AND THE MEDIA should NOT be saying so just because there are fewer people drawing unemployment. That is a statistic that distorts actual truth of what's going on in the job market.

This administration and it's willing accomplices in 'the media' are painting a false picture. The stimulus package HAS NOT TURNED AROUND UNEMPLOYMENT (YET)! Unemployment is still increasing but the GOVERNMENT CHOOSES TO USE A STATISTIC THAT HIDES WHAT'S REALLY HAPPENING. And the government has the nerve to claim or at least imply that unemployment is decreasing ... when THEY KNOW(!) FOR AN ABSOLUTE FACT THAT IT IS NOT! They're not stupid. But they think we are! Gads!

Thursday, December 3, 2009

Dying: A Taxable Event. Say What?

So, Congress is set to extend the estate tax that was set to expire soon. Doesn't that just gnaw at your sensibilities? Doesn't it just feel inappropriate?

What about dying, exactly, makes it a taxable event? Oh yeah, it's 'income' to whomever gets part of another person's estate. Worse, the person receiving it may not have done anything to earn it so why shouldn't government take HALF OF IT? After all, the government certainly earned it or otherwise deserves it. Actually, the government never 'owns' money it collects in taxes either but that's different, right? Oh, and since the government doesn't earn it but, rather, spends in on the rest of us that means the rest of Amercans who do get it did something to deserve taking it from people who earned it?

By the way, didn't the person who died already pay taxes on that estate ... on all that he earned? And in the case of estates that are most subject to the death tax, didn't he pay taxes at the rate of about 40% already? Question, when 40% of what a person earned has already gone to the government when he earned it, why should the government get 50% of what's left when he dies? Why wasn't it taxed enough already before he died? Hmmm. No, I agree. It's better to make 'rich people' even poorer. Take the money from 'rich people' who have a proven track record of creating jobs and building businesses and give to others in the form of welfare. It's fine that some job-creating economic machinery gets the axe. Welfare to strangers is much better than jobs they might use to make a living on their own.

Fact is, after a person dies his estate goes immediately into an 'ownership limbo' where, technically, no one 'owns' it. To say the estate 'deserves' to be taxed because it's going to people who didn't earn it ... that it's kinda like new income to others ... is a fake argument. Under that rationale it shouldn't be taxed until AFTER inheritors receive it so it is taxed as their income. Oh, but wait! If the government waited until AFTER it actually becomes someone's income, then it has to be taxed at that person's LOWER TAX RATE at which time the government cannot steal a whopping 50% of it! The only way the government can abscond with that much of it is when it's in that ownership limbo. I guess the argument is, since it doesn't really belong to anyone yet, it's automatically the right of government to do whatever it wants with it.

One last aspect worth considering. The next time government tells you a new tax they want you to approve will never increase or is temporary and will expire on a given date, seriously ... I mean really seriously ... consider whether it's more likely that the government will not only extend it but make it permanent and/or increase the tax. Based on actual history, it's MUCH more likely that our representatives are lying when they tell us a given tax is temporary or will never increase. If they'd be honest they'd admit they have no real commitment to do what they're PROMISING(!) you. Liars and weasels, all of them. Seems to be in the job description, eh?

Not much about government can be counted on any more. Promises certainly mean nothing. But these CAN be counted on: A temporary tax WILL become permanent ... always. The lifting or reduction of a tax will NEVER be permanent.

Wednesday, December 2, 2009

Absconding With Public Funds: Not Illegal When Congress Does It

The Democrats say their health care plan will cost $860B between 2010 and 2020. They're going to pay for it by increasing taxes starting immediately. Thing is, however, the benefits those taxes will pay for don't start kicking in until 2014. That means the money that is supposed to pay for health care starts getting collected 4 years before it's needed. That must mean that the money being collected to pay for it will be set aside until it's needed to pay for the new health care program, right? It won't be frittered away on something else in the meantime, right? It won't be used to pay for entirely different new entitlements they dream up, right? We can trust them to sit on such a windfall and not spend it frivolously or recklessly, right? Sure. We can trust them!

Wait a minute! Maybe we should check their record on collecting new tax money for a new entitlement and spending it on only that. Hmmmm. Remind me again why Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid are about to bankrupt us? Oh yeah, they spent much (most?) of the taxes collected for them on things OTHER THAN those programs! And now they're acting surprised those programs are running out of money? AND they're reaching into our pockets to save those programs, all of which THEY bankrupted through THEIR mismanagement? Sounds good to me. Where do I sign up?

Let me get this straight. THEY bankrupted Medicare (by spending money collected for Medicare on other things instead, expanding the scope of Medicare to cover things never intended and generally mismanaging the program). And NOW they're coming back to us, hat in hand, asking for more money and approval for a huge new bureaucracy to fix a problem THEY created. And after they start collecting this additional money, they expect us to believe they'll actually save it to spend ONLY on the health care that starts kicking in in 2014 ... in spite of their SPOTLESS record NOT doing that?

Oh, and while we're talking about it, doesn't something bother you about Democrats' claimed net cost of their health care plan? Hmmm. Let's see. They collect new taxes for 10 years but the benefits don't start for 4 years so the costs they quote actually only cover 6 years. If they're going to claim that the plan's 10-year costs are 'only' $860B shouldn't we be weighing the 10-year costs over an actual 10-year period of benefits? Wait a minute! We can't do that because, then, the number will be so big that no sane person would agree to it. It turns out that, in it's first full 10 years between 2014 and 2124, the plan's actual costs will be around $2.5 TRILLION! Wow! No wonder they don't want to talk about that! It works out to about $30,000 PER FAMILY!

When they say the 10-year costs will be $860B but that number only includes 6 years of costs, why doesn't that qualify as blatantly intentionally misleading, if not an outright intentional lie? Where's the integrity and honesty in their claims? What are we to assume except that those qualities in elected representatives don't matter any more, at least to them? What would YOU do if you signed a contract with someone to, for example, buy a house for $300,000 but later when you read the fine print you found out you had to pay almost four times as much as you were told to pay?

Maybe you think these lies are no big deal because they guaranteed you that SOMEONE ELSE (ie, big evil corporations and 'the rich') will have to pay for it. Does that make it fair and honest? Or does fair and honest only matter if it affects you? (By the way, you WILL have to pay for it because corporations and 'the rich' will just pass the costs on to the rest of us in one way or another.)