'Entitlement' And Social Security ... Related Medicare & Medicaid Matters

We who are retired or are nearing retirement are receiving lots of criticism for becoming a drain on the US society, financially and otherwise. How about examining the WHOLE story behind those criticisms as well as the causes, obligations and consequences with more emphasis on truth? Or are you only interested in looking at us as a problem best fixed by us simply going away?

Did that last sentence sound goofy? In fact, it reflects not only what many younger-than-45 folks think but it is even being preached in at least one elementary school. A teacher in Powell Wyoming recently told his/her students the following. We have economic problems we have to fix and we'd get it done better if older people would just sit down and shut up. He/she also then added, we'd be better off if they'd all just die. This was reported by the child's Mom to media but you likely won't hear about it because it makes even the liberal media squeamish.

The point is, this teacher said something many Americans feel the same way about but are reluctant to vocalize so blatantly. In fact, similar statements by adults have made it into The Media. You know that thinking exists and it's becoming more common every day.

There's lots I could say about the morality of the teacher and a growing segment of society that feels that way but I won't. Moralizing about it doesn't advance understanding we must reach about this issue so we can do the right thing about our economic problems. How about some history first?

All the social programs that are in trouble are products of the progressive, mostly liberal, agenda. Democrats have been the driving force behind the creation as well as mismanagement of all of them. When Democratic presidents and congressmen sold these to their colleagues, it was done with a plea to their 'social justice sensitivities'. And it was done with a guarantee(!) that they were affordable (because they had models and data that proved it beyond a reasonable doubt!) even though there were many rational voices being raised to the contrary. Because progressives were in control of things, the rational voices were drowned out. Then reality happened and those Republicans who sounded alarms in the beginning and increasingly so over the years were called insensitive alarmists.

Before I go further, does any of this sound familiar as if we're heard this recently ... like history repeating itself? At what point does, "I keep doing the same thing over and over again with bad results that get worse every time" start to tell you that maybe history and the results suggest it's not such a good thing to pursue after all or should be pursued significantly differently? When does it begin to make sense that maybe those on the right of the political spectrum do have something to offer that could keep us from getting the country into such trouble? Maybe we should work with them more because what we've been doing for 100 years(!) isn't working! Maybe we shouldn't act so sure of ourselves because EVERY time we did it in the past we were wrong!

To get to the correct solution it is completely logical to look with skepticism on the 'agenda' that got us here. How can we fix it if we don't take the time to understand what we did wrong AND what history suggests will be the real consequences of possible alternative solutions?

Am I nervous about President Obama and Democrats/Progressives 'fixing' this mess without any input from Republicans? Let's see, the things that got us into this mess were progressive creations and were mismanaged largely by Democrats. And the current solution is to do the same thing on an even grander scale! Hmmmm. Do I really have ANY reason to be nervous? If you say no, what planet or reality are you from?

Important note: notice that what got us into this trouble is NOT the people receiving what the government decided to give them! It's the government that created and mismanaged these programs. They created these programs and told us to use them, guaranteeing(!) that they'd remain solvent (would not add to the national debt) and secure. Now these programs are in trouble and it's the fault of the people receiving the benefits? Huh? And the solution is for those receiving those benefits (that they didn't really ask for in the first place!) to: 1) be quiet and let the same people who broke the programs 'fix' them doing the same kind of things and/or 2) just die so they stop causing problems the government created. Huh! I say, HUH? What kind of nonsense logic is that?

Consider the point of view of a recent retiree. We didn't ask for these programs. Many of us would have preferred taking care of our own retirement planning. But the government gave us no choice. They TOOK money from us our entire lives to put into these programs with the promise(!) that when we retired we'd get it back. We had no choice. Money we could have put into retirement savings/investments was taken from us. The government PREVENTED us from saving it for our retirement. Now that we're retired, the government and many citizens are not only saying that the programs are going bankrupt and we won't get back what they told(!) us we would but many are saying the problem is OUR fault and even that the solution is for us to die. At the very least, just shut up and quietly take whatever others decide what to do about it. What kind of logic is THAT?

Having said that, I agree that the solution appears to require we retirees get less back than we've been promised all these years. I'm willing to consider it and I think it should be on the table. I ask you, isn't it fair of us retirees to accept that? WE didn't cause this problem but we're willing to be part of the solution. How about you? For those of you who say WE caused this problem and we should just die to fix this problem, I say maybe you're the ones that should shut your pie-hole, hmmmmm?

NEWS FLASH: Tea Partiers Tend Not To Be Ignorant OR Uninformed

Sorry [not really ;-)] to disagree and, perhaps, burst your bubble but based on my own experience with people involved, "Tea Party" types are neither ignorant NOR uninformed. In fact, most of them are motivated to learn more about our country's actual history ... rather than follow like sheep what we hear from revisionists in The Media and among the progressive movement.

In fact, the things they hear from The Media and revisionist progressives tend to HIGHLY motivate them to know more. That's because what they hear from such people just doesn't feel right with respect to what they partially recall from the factual history most of us heard in school or from parents. Others among Tea Partiers who don't have a basis for suspecting what the truth is can't live with the dichotomy of opinion. They hear strongly worded beliefs from two very opposite points of view and it motivates them to find out what the truth is. Most of them are like sponges, seeking and devouring information on actual history from authoritative (not just right-wing!) sources. Yes, they even read books (including such notable writings as Thomas Paine's Common Sense)! They also read the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. They're driven to become more knowlegable about current events, political issues and politicians' views and positions on issues. They evaluate where we were as a country versus where we are (and where we're going) and make an intelligent, well-informed decision and/or choice about things.

The people I meet among the Tea Party crowd tend to be much, MUCH better informed about our country's history, the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, our founding fathers, the constitutional convention, the progressive movement, and other related subjects than what I'd call the 'average American'. There is amazing ignorance among our many of our fellow citizens about even very basic things such as who is the Vice President for example. But Tea Party folks I know tend to crave knowledge about our country and what's going on so they can make an informed decision about the nonsense they hear about what our country is or isn't and where we came from politically and culturally.

More Nonsense: We're Only Doing What Republicans Have Done To Us First

What a crock the title thinking is! The "Republicans in Congress (ie, so do Republican citizens!) deserve what they're getting because they did it too" argument is total bull. Why you may ask?

Remember, as I have written before, in my 60+ years on this planet Democrats have held veto power in one or both(!) houses 30 years. How many times have Republicans have a veto-proof majority in EITHER house in my 60+ years? ZERO! Republicans haven't been pulling these kind of unconstitutional(!) shennanigans as Democrats actually(!) claim ... BECAUSE THEY COULDN'T! No matter how much Congressional Democrats prounounce it and no matter how much you want to believe The Media Kool-Aid, it CANNOT be true because Republicans haven't had the majority muscle by which to do it. PERIOD!

Republicans have never totally denied Democratic citizens of their representation in legislation the way Democrats did last year and are still trying to do without a veto-proof majority because they COULDN'T. Republicans have ALWAYS worked with Democrats on legislation for the simple reason that they had to. Maybe Republicans WOULD have done the same thing if they ever had a veto-proof majority but we have to judge it on what actually happened, not on made-up characterizations from The Media and current Democratic leadership.

The president and Congressional Democrats have a lot of nerve spreading untruths like this. In my day we called it dishonest, if not outright lying.

To Democrats, how do you actually feel about friends and relatives you love and respect having no voice in Congress ... about their being denied representation in legislation? (Yes, they were 'represented' in terms of having votes registered against bills last year but my point is that their interests aren't represented in the actual legislation which is the real point of the matter.) Is THAT fair? Is it even constitutional? How would YOU feel if Republicans did that to your representatives and, by extension, to you? I know you're STILL thinking Republicans DID it too because you believe (and want to believe?) the lies to the contrary but remember Republican congressional representatives could not and, therefore, have not done this. Sorry, but facts are facts.

What may be most important in this discussion is that it illustrates the key difference between a democracy and a republic. We, in fact, are operating like a democracy where the majority party may completely rule like this. But our founders made the distinction to call this a republic for a reason. They didn't want this form of majority rule that's possible under a democracy. Democrats love to brag about how our democracy has come a long way. What they're saying is they're glad we're no longer a republic. Do you think they'd think this was a good thing if Republicans ever had veto-proof majorities? Of course not. This kind of power in Congress is a good thing to Democrats only when they are in power. It's not right. In fact, it's not constitutional.

I was amazed (and somewhat appalled) by something President Obama told the U of Michigan graduating class last week. He quoted Ben Franklin who, when he was asked what he and the other congressional delegates had just created by signing the constitution, answered: "A Republic, if you can keep it". There IS a reason why Ben said "Republic" and not "Democracy"! After quoting that, President Obama then said we should be proud that we've been faithful to that by, indeed, preserving our "democracy". Taken at face value Obama appears to believe that the founders thought a Republic and a Democracy are the same thing (when, in fact, they went out of their way to make a distinction and preference between them!). We are left to conclude one of two things. Either President Obama is ignorant of the difference between a Republic and a Democracy or he does know and is purposely misleading gullible Americans (both about what the founders wanted and the fact that we don't have what they intended). Question: are you comfortable with either explanation?

Perhaps, because presidents come and go as will Obama, a more important question is, are you comfortable that we've strayed far from what the founders intended and established vis-a-vis the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution? It's important to understand that we have diverged from them quite far(!) and then consciously(!) decide whether that's a good thing. That's what we in the Tea Party and related movements are in the process of illuminating. You're free to make your own choice about whether this is a good thing but please DO make a conscious choice based on knowing what is our actual history and what we are actually doing to our country.

Let's Stop With The Mischaracterizations and Slander Already... It's Counter-Productive

What's actually 'fair' in this country from government is practicing fair and proportional representation of ALL citizens in the creation of laws and execution of the will of The People. The whole point of the constitution was the creation of a limited(!) federal government that was to provide proportional representation (in legislation and laws) of The People who hired them to (constitutionally!) represent their interests, mainly in the areas of national defense and international/interstate commerce. The constitution did NOT grant to the majority party power to do whatever it wants. In fact, the founders' writings cautioned against that kind of tyranny by the majority party.

Is the minority party entitled to consideration and representative participation? According to the constitution, yes! According to any sense of fair play, yes. After all the minority party is contributing about 45% of the resources the government spends, expends or wastes(!). After all, a larger proportion of the minority party's citizens fight the country's wars, putting their lives on the line for ALL citizens, including those in the majority party. In fact, in military poll after poll, conservatives outnumber liberals in the military by a ratio of about 60/40. And what's up with the fact that few liberals in congress have been in the military and the ratios of their kids in the military is so small? They like us fighting (and dying) in greater numbers in their wars but aren't interested in us having fair representation in legislation and laws. What's up with that?

Liberals in government tend to be lifetime politicians. Has anyone who is prominent in the current administration worked in a real job or run a for profit company? How many have executive management experience? You know the answer to such questions. Government doesn't produce anything; it only consumes. What's the likelihood they understand what really makes small businesses run, having never worked in a for-profit small business? What, therefore, is the likelihood that what they think stimulates the 'real' economy actually does so? You know the answer to that too if you're being honest.

I'm wandering a bit from the point I wanted to make which is this. Yes, the 'right' and 'left' disagree on principles ... even on what the constitution means or whether in fact it's even relevant today. The point is, we in the current minority are ENTITLED to our opposing views. We have a right to disagree and express that disagreement ... even vocally although not violently. Civil disagreement and even civil disobedience is not only okay, it's American as the civil rights movement was. It's as constitutional too!

So, why the hostility, mischaracterizations of us for our differing views? Why is it only okay for the left to be vocal or disobedient? Gross mischaracterizations are materializing about our position on nearly every issue, the current one regarding immigration reform being no different. More on that in my next blog with the comments in this blog as a baseline.

Worker Visas Have Been Okay So Far So Why Not Now?

When we needed more workers in high tech, Congress created a visa category (H-1B) to address that need. In fact, we now have 31(!) different categories of temporary visas for such and other purposes. We have ALWAYS used temporary visas for various work in the USA. So why is a temporary worker visa for such workers as those from Mexico not appropriate? Why are people getting so worked up over the notion of requiring non-resident immigrants from Mexico to carry such legal documentation? Everyone else who isn't a legal resident has to! In fact, police have the legal authority ask anyone for identification now after they've stopped them for whatever reason.

A temporary worker visa is a perfect solution to this problem but people are opposed to that too for some reason even though we've been using those for years and years already. For example, look up the H-1B worker visa description on the internet. This argument that Mexican workers are needed for jobs Americans won't or can't do has an EXACT corollary to the high tech worker need and there's no logical reason why the solution cannot be the same. It has worked before. In fact, it has become THE STANDARD way of dealing with non-resident immigrants.

Now Arizona has a law that will require non-resident immigrants to carry documents ... just like the federal government ALREADY requires! The federal government has been enforcing (although erratically!) this requirement for many, many years. So why is it unacceptable for Arizona to say, yes we agree and want to make that very SAME requirement enforceable at the local level too for more effective enforcement. The only thing different with the Arizona law is that they intend to enforce it rigorously. The only difference is that Arizona's law will be enforced by local law enforcement, not federal. The Arizona law is no more unconstitutional than the equivalent federal law.

Arguments against worker visas for immigrants are nonsense. It is constitutional and has been practiced for many years for all other categories of non-resident immigrants.

The fact of illegal immigrants finding a way to get here does not obligate US citizens to grant them amnesty and a permanent stay here. We have a moral obligation to consider all applications for residency and citizenship but we already have processes for that. Come here by one of the many legal means and you can stay. Come here illegally and all you're 'entitled' to is arrest and deportation or imprisonment for breaking our laws. We ARE a nation of laws aren't we? Or do we now prefer anarchy?

And They Call Us Stupid and Hypocritical!

From our local paper last week Friday (04/23/2010) in referring to conservatives, especially Tea Party types:

"What exactly are you complaining about? Almost everyone got a tax cut and most of the deficit belongs to George W. Bush anyway."

Can't help myself. Gotta comment ... again!

What President Obama and most democrats call Obama's "tax cut" was a TEMPORARY, ONE-TIME tax CREDIT. A one-time payment to Americans of $400 ($250 for retirees). We want a tax CUT ... a PERMANENT cut in tax RATES. We also want an accompanying spending cut so that the tax cut does not increase the debt. Neither Democrats nor Republicans reduced spending.

Also, people who keep pointing out President Obama's "tax cut" to us Tea Party types as if WE are the ones not paying attention are themselves the ones not paying attention or they'd understand that we are not just upset with taxes at the federal level. We're upset with taxes, spending and debt at ALL levels of government.

Regarding who's responsible for our national debt, for those who are interested in actual facts, the deficit is NOT mostly Bush's. Congress has 100% of the constitutional authority AND responsibility to increase/decrease spending and taxes. THEY (not the president ... read your constitution please!) are responsible for any debt or surplus. Democrats were in total control of both houses of Congress for two of Bush's eight years. During those 2 years they increased our debt just as much as Republicans did during Bush's first six years in office. So Democrats bear equal responsibility for the "Bush debt" and they're TOTALLY responsible for the mind-blowing debt increase since Obama took office. The fact is that, in only three years(!), Democrats have increased the debt more than ALL PREVIOUS CONGRESSES IN OUR HISTORY COMBINED ... including Bush!

Of the debt created in the past ten years here's the scorecard:
Republicans: $2.5 Trillion
Democrats: 4.2 Trillion (and increasing more rapidly than ever)

Democrats are equally responsible for the Bush years debt and have increased it greatly since then. They have NOT, in fact, given us a tax cut nor spending cut. Tea Party folks are taking the time to understand the constitution and its delegation of authority and responsibility. Based on actual facts, if you're interested, we're neither ignorant of the facts (or constitution) nor hypocritical.

Jobless Recovery Hypocrisy

We've been hearing from the president and legislative democrats for several months now that, yes, this is a 'jobless recovery'. Yes, jobs aren't picking up fast enough but at least it's a recovery. They say that a jobless recovery is a good thing. I suppose that does sound good but do you remember how democrats railed against the economic recovery after Bush's tax cuts? They said that was a 'jobless recovery' too ... yes there's a recovery going on but the jobs aren't picking up fast enough.

So, to these democrats, a "jobless recovery" was a really bad thing during the Bush years but the exact same nature of 'recovery' is acceptable when democrats are in charge. Sounds like a double-standard to me.

A bad thing is unacceptable when the other guy is in charge but the same bad thing is acceptable when we're in charge. Americans are beginning to understand how both parties routinely practice hypocrisy. We crave more honesty, openness, and clarity. To all our elected representatives: have you no self-respect or respect for us? Integrity matters! Practice it or please find another line of work.

Please, Please Listen Up: Just Because You Call It A Tax Cut Doesn't Mean Conservatives Like It!!

President Obama, Democrats in general and letters to newspaper editors are calling Tea Party folks hypocrites and stupid for making an issue out of wanting tax cuts when Obama, as he claimed on tax day, says he gave us exactly that ... a $173B tax cut immediately after taking office. He said, "You would think they'd be saying thank you". And he asks, 'So what do they want'?

What we want, President Obama, is a REAL tax cut and accompanying spending reduction. That $173B Economic Stimulus (delivered in the mail to taxpayers) was, in fact, not a tax cut but, rather, a tax credit. It was temporary and does so little to resolve our over-taxed condition it isn't significant as a 'tax cut'.

The other bad thing about President Obama's tax credit was that it added to the debt. Yes, we conservatives in general, Tea Party folks especially, want tax cuts but we also want spending cuts so the tax cuts don't increase the debt. That is where Bush and congressional Republicans let us down too ... they delivered a real tax cut, yes, but they increased spending (and the debt!) which is a big reason why we're upset with them too. Yes, we're upset with BOTH party's leadership, not just Obama!

Where's A Good Cowboy When We Need One?

Saw an article wondering who does all the domestic/international defense, inventing, etc when (not if!) we become Europeanized (where 50% of GDP goes to welfare, leaving not enough for actually inventing stuff and for other's defense let alone one's own). (Europeans have PROVED you can have welfare or an adequate military but not both!) Now we're 'un-' growing a spine under the 'leadership' of these people.

This utopian state of existence that Obama thinks he can create for the whole world is the most irrational thing I've ever heard from a nation's leadership, perhaps from any human ... ever. It ignores both ALL of history and simple human psychology. Socialists have done stuff like this throughout history and it has invariably led to nations' internal troubles (too much debt, spending, taxes, dependence on government) and wars (inability to adequately defend one's self invites bullies to do harm to you and your friends). This president is doing much the same and expecting different results. Gads!

The important truth is, we could use a few cowboys in leadership. The world will still function like the 'old West', given a chance. We can choose to become spineless and allow the lawless to have their way or we can encourage and welcome men of moral courage and strength to do what needs to be done. Good guys vs bad guys. It's the way things are. Wanting everyone else to play fair just because you do doesn't mean they will. In fact, history proves(!) they won't.

Haven't these guys EVER been on a playground where bullies cause problems? Haven't they ever experienced some sociopathic adolescent walking up to them and kicking them in the groin just for the fun of it? Obviously not because they don't understand bullies happen and weakness is an invitation to them to at least experiment on harming you just to see if they can get away with it. (And when they do, it begs even worse treatment! DUH!) Moral strength (exercised!) and courage beget a measure of both voluntary and imposed civility sufficient to allow people to live decent lives. I worry about where this president is leading us.

God Bless Our Country. We need you more than ever!

Freedom Through Strength

So, President Obama thinks taking the teeth out of our 'deterrent' strategy is a good thing. We don't want our enemies to fear us, right? We want them to like us enough to play fair and dumbing down our nuclear and other strategies achieves that, right?

Well, here's what one of the greatest threats of our age has to say about that:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36212348/ns/world_news-mideastn_africa/

Hmmmm. Gives one pause, eh?

By the way, President Obama and his administration made a huge deal out of his recent nuclear warhead reduction announcement as a terrific accomplishment. Obama said he's reducing the number of warheads from some 2,500 today to 1,500 which sounds good, right? Problem is Bush left office with us already on track to reduce them to 1,700 so in reality Obama has only increased the reduction by 200. Some accomplishment!

Here are the FACTS if you're interested in them (versus the Koolaid from The Media and the administration):

Jan 3, 1993: US and Russia both have about 10,000 warheads. Today Bush Sr (after working on this throughout his time in office) and Yeltsin signed START II in which they agreed to reduce these levels by 3,000 to 3,500 each. In addition, sea-based weapons were to be cut to 1,750 each and ALL land-based multiple-warhead missiles were to be eliminated. It all meant that by 2003 ¾ of all nuclear warheads possessed by both sides would be destroyed.

May 24, 2002: Putin and Bush Jr signed the Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty by which they agreed to cut the nuclear warheads of each side from levels of between 6,000 and 7,000 to between 1,700 and 2,200 each by 2012. By the time Bush Jr left office this plan was on track toward the goal of 1,700 by 2012, having reduced the stockpiles by half so far during his time in office.

April 5, 2010: Under the Bush Jr agreement, the number of warheads has now been reduced to approximately 2,500 by each country and is still on track toward Bush Jr’s goal of 1,700 by 2012. Today Obama announced that he’s reducing the stockpile from that current 2,500 to 1,500 by 2012 which is only 200 less than Bush Jr had agreed to and was on track to accomplish.

While Obama loudly touts this ‘big’ accomplishment in warhead levels, it’s interesting to put his further reduction of 200 warheads in true perspective relative to what Bush Sr and Bush Jr actually accomplished ... from 10,000 to 2,500 and on track to 1,700 by 2012. Hmmmm.

Question, based on actual facts: which party's presidents have done the best job of ridding us of nuclear weapons (by a ratio of 8,300 to 200)?