Pt. 2 The formation of the plan and it's advisers

The fiscal and philosophical group

The most successful leaders in history have surrounded themselves with the best and brightest they could find to fill in the gaps in their own knowledge base. This is necessary to have any kind of success in business. If you have the best, you can expect the best. The same holds true in government as well. Throughout history, presidents have chosen the top minds from business, industry and academia to fill key roles in cabinet posts. These men and women have shaped the direction of the decisions of many presidents and some have even stood as examples of what our country stands for--Henry Kissinger, Colon Powell and Robert McNamara to name just a few.

In order to better understand the current plan the President has in place for overhauling the health care system, it's important to know the people he has chosen to advise him on such an important issue. He chose the best and brightest he could find to insure he would come up with the best plan possible. Let's meet just a couple:

Cass Sunstein - Sunstein is a legal scholar and the next head of the Office of Information and Regulatory affairs (OIRA). This position puts him in place to make decisions on budgetary items regarding the cost of a government run health care plan. Let's leave aside his radical views on animal rights, he actually believes that animals have a right to sue for grievances, and delve deeper into his thoughts on how government plays a role in our lives. He has written in the past his belief in the celebration of tax day this way,

"In what sense is the money in our pockets and bank accounts fully ‘ours’? Did we earn it by our own autonomous efforts? Could we have inherited it without the assistance of probate courts? Do we save it without the support of bank regulators? Could we spend it if there were no public officials to coordinate the efforts and pool the resources of the community in which we live?... Without taxes there would be no liberty. Without taxes there would be no property. Without taxes, few of us would have any assets worth defending. [It is] a dim fiction that some people enjoy and exercise their rights without placing any burden whatsoever on the public fisc. … There is no liberty without dependency."

This line of thinking presupposes that every thing we have is the result of a generous gift from government. The money in our pockets, the cars we drive and the very lives we lead are all extensions of the government. Now, I may not be a thinker at any level near Mr. Sunstein's but the idea that I owe my very existence to the government scares me more than just a little. This is just a taste of the philosophy he believes and we've barely scratched the surface so far. Let's hear Mr. Sunstein in his own words on the subject of "life years", a controversial idea in which he proposes that some humans are inherently more valuable simply because of their age,

"I urge that the government should indeed focus on life-years rather than lives. A program that saves young people produces more welfare than one that saves old people."

Gone are the days where we used to honor the elderly in our society for their past contributions if Mr. Sunstein has his way. All that matters to him are future contributions. I wonder if he could be so callous, so unfeeling if it were his own mother or father suffering needlessly because a government bureaucrat decided that a life extending treatment has been deemed "not in the best interest of the collective". One last bit of information about Professor Sunstein is his admiration for the noted philosopher, Peter Singer, a bio-ethicist. Singer, a far left wing animal rights activist, has said that a border collie has more intrinsic value to the collective than does a child with developmental disabilities.

As I write this, I feel a chill at the thought of a man like Singer having sway over the opinion of someone who may decide one day that I am of no further value to the collective and should be "put down".

Next in line to meet is,

Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel - brother of White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel and also a noted bio-ethicist. Dr. Emanuel has formulated what many in academia consider to be a brilliant work on the concept of the "complete life". In Dr. Emanuel's own words he describes how a child is not truly "human" until it has been socialized. This lesser stature leaves an infant in the precarious position of being considered not "viable" to society,

"Strict youngest-first allocation directs scarce resources predominantly to infants. This approach seems incorrect. The death of a 20-year-old woman is intuitively worse than that of a 2-month-old girl, even though the baby has had less life. The 20-year-old has a much more developed personality than the infant, and has drawn upon the investment of others to begin as-yet-unfulfilled projects.... Adolescents have received substantial education and parental care, investments that will be wasted without a complete life. Infants, by contrast, have not yet received these investments.... It is terrible when an infant dies, but worse, most people think, when a three-year-old child dies, and worse still when an adolescent does."

"Unlike allocation by sex or race, allocation by age is not invidious discrimination; every person lives through different life stages rather than being a single age. Even if 25-year-olds receive priority over 65-year-olds, everyone who is 65 years now was previously 25 years. Treating 65-year olds differently because of stereotypes or falsehoods would be ageist; treating them differently because they have already had more life-years is not."

"Ultimately, the complete lives system does not create 'classes of Untermenschen whose lives and well being are deemed not worth spending money on,' but rather empowers us to decide fairly whom to save when genuine scarcity makes saving everyone impossible."

"When implemented, the complete lives system produces a priority curve on which individuals aged between roughly 15 and 40 years get the most substantial chance, whereas the youngest and oldest people get chances that are attenuated" (emphasis added)

So anyone who doesn't fall into the age range of 15-40 deserves less care? Less attention? I am horrified by these remarks but Dr. Emanuel takes it even a step further,

"Doctors take the Hippocratic Oath too seriously, as an imperative to do everything for the patient regardless of the cost or effects on others"

"Many have linked the effort to reduce the high cost of death with the legalization of physician-assisted suicide. One commentator observed: "Managed care and managed death [through physician-assisted suicide] are less expensive than fee-for-service care and extended survival. Less expensive is better." Some of the amicus curiae briefs submitted to the Supreme Court expressed the same logic: "Decreasing availability and increasing expense in health care and the uncertain impact of managed care may intensify pressure to choose physician-assisted suicide" and "the cost effectiveness of hastened death is as undeniable as gravity. The earlier a patient dies, the less costly is his or her care." (emphasis added)

"Drawing on data from the Netherlands on the use of euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide and on available U.S. data on costs at the end of life, this analysis explores the degree to which the legalization of physician-assisted suicide might reduce health care costs. The most reasonable estimate is a savings of $627 million, less than 0.07 percent of total health care expenditures." (emphasis added)

In those statements, we all cease to be individuals and become only numbers on a balance sheet. I find it comforting that doctors take their Hippocratic oath seriously. I want them to, in fact. That oath is, "First, do no harm." According to Dr. Emanuel it should read, "First, consider the cost and the benefit to the collective."

The President has more advisers helping him form his health care reform bill but these two alone should give us all pause to wonder at his good sense. In the weeks to come the views of these two men would shape what would be written into the bill the president hopes to pass in his first term.

Pt. 1 The Creation Of A Crisis

Talking down and taking down the current system.

It is March 2008 and a young, hopeful Senator from Illinois is speaking before a forum sponsored by the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) about the issue of health care reform. He speaks of rising premiums and bloated profits by the health insurance fat cats. It's nothing new to this crowd. They're used to hearing the chants of evil corporate America and his words resonate well with them. He sits in a swivel office chair, completely at ease with the crowd and with himself. His mastery of oratory is well known by now and he does not fail to please in this instance. He intones solemnly about the need to bring down the costs of health care so that the average American can afford it. He uses the statistics that never fail to elicit emotion and a sense of outrage amongst his audience. He has them in the palm of his hand as he says casually,

"My commitment is to make sure that we have universal health care for every American by the end of my first term as President...but I don't think we're going to be able to eliminate employer coverage immediately. There's going to be potentially some transition process. I can envision a decade out or 15 years out or 20 years out..."

In that one, deft admission he lays the groundwork for what he sees as his monument to himself. A shining example of the mark he will leave on the country where he would very soon, be elected President. This is the great pyramid of his legacy. More impressive than a statue and longer lasting than one of his speeches. He continues talking about how corrupt the current health care system is, how patently unfair the whole thing is to the poor and disadvantaged. He is a class warrior with hardened armor borne of Chicago politics. It is strong, impenetrable and weathered well with the political blood of those who have dared to challenge him. He is a machine by this point, unstoppable and careening right up Pennsylvania Avenue with the ultimate next stop--The White House.

Fast forward to one year later, the former Senator from Illinois, now President of The United States, stands poised to launch the greatest social change in the country since civil rights. Not since the march on Selma has there been an opportunity like this. His popularity is soaring despite record unemployment and a massive crash in the housing market. He can do no wrong with the country and he knows it. Very little of what he has tried to rescue the flailing economy has worked and it's beginning to show signs of weakening even further in spite of the billions of dollars he's had Congress pump into it. GM and Chrysler are showing signs of impending collapse, banks are failing at an astronomical rate and the general mood of most Americans is one of outright fear. Even amidst the chaos of all that is going on around him, he sees the future he has planned for so long within his grasp. The time is right and the pieces are all in place. He gives his first speech before a joint session of Congress and includes this short paragraph outlining things to come,

"I suffer no illusions that this will be an easy process. It will be hard. But I also know that nearly a century after Teddy Roosevelt first called for reform, the cost of our health care has weighed down our economy and the conscience of our nation long enough. So let there be no doubt: health care reform cannot wait, it must not wait, and it will not wait another year."

Throughout the next few months he continues to ratchet up his rhetoric and hone his message to a razor sharp point,

"...right now families are being crushed by the cost of health care. Right now businesses are being crushed by the cost of health care. Right now our government is going bankrupt at the state and federal level because of health care. Right now 46 million people are without insurance."

The numbers don't lie do they? The statistics fall easily from his mouth as if he were channeling them from above. He has the country at a fever pitch and all because of those evil, greedy health insurance companies. It's a crisis of epic proportions and he's got us all convinced that we're doomed unless we do something about it. The country will surely break apart at the seams if we don't.

What he doesn't mention in those statistics are the hard numbers lurking inside that paint a very different picture. Of those 46 million people without health care, nearly one third make more than $50,000 per year and choose not to buy health insurance, one third are eligible but simply choose, for whatever reason, not to enroll and nearly 20% are illegal immigrants according to a CDC study. Another facet of the debate that never seems to get much mention is that excessive and burdensome governmental regulation has forced the cost of health to rise faster than the cost of living. He quotes statistics that show our health care system ranked lower than most of our civilized neighbors in the world but chooses to cite the worst of those statistics. He's laying the groundwork again to tear apart one sixth of our national economy with a constant barrage of doom and gloom. What is good about our health care system over our neighbors in the world, shorter wait times for treatments, more life saving research and treatments--those things are never mentioned when he talks about the uninsured and Americans quietly begin to doubt the level of crisis. This doesn't quite pass America's "smell test" but he remains undaunted in his goal of achieving the single greatest overhaul of the US economy since the New Deal. He's determined to succeed where Teddy Roosevelt, Harry Truman and Hillary Clinton have all failed in the past and he begins to make the list of those who will advise him on his victory over capitalism.

Excorcising The Demons In The Health Care Debate

As massive an undertaking as this may prove to be, I'm going to attempt to boil it down as simply as I can in a four part study on the debate from it's quiet beginnings to where it stands right now.
The Congress, for the most part, has gone on break and returned to their home districts to listen to the voice of the people on the issues at hand. In the coming weeks we can expect to hear more about "angry mobs" wreaking havoc at town hall meetings. I thought this would be a good opportunity to lay the case out as best I can as to why reforming something as big and as important as health care at a time when we're already faced with crushing debt and out of control unemployment numbers, is dangerous and misguided.

This will take an extraordinary amount of research to complete but I'll lay out the major points briefly.

I The Creation Of A Crisis
A.Talking down and taking down the current system
1.The numbers game
2.The facts

II The Formation Of The Plan And It's Advisers
A. The fiscal group
B. The medical/philosophical group

III The First Bill
A. What we were told
1. Initial poll numbers
2. The critics
B. The Truth We Learned
1. Aftershocks
2. "Angry mobs" and "astro-turfing"
C The meltdown
1. Backpedaling
2. The blame game

IV Final Analysis

This will either prove to be the best thing I've ever written or my worst nightmare. I've devoured so much information on the subject in the last few weeks and I've debated it myself and heard many of the opposing viewpoints so I think I have a strong grasp on the subject matter. My only wish is to lay it all out in a format that's easy to understand. It's difficult sometimes, during the frenzy of a national debate, to remember how it all started in order to see the contrast of where we are. I will try to remain as neutral as I can but my own feelings on the necessity for reform is quite apparent. My own views are inevitably going to sneak in. Since this is my own opinion, my own opinions will factor in.

Stay tuned!

Upcoming Items

WHAT'S NEXT!

I'm working on several new posts at the same time. The research alone is consuming most of my time when I'm at home. I'm researching posts about immigration, community organizing, the coloring of the news and more background on single payer health care and a breakdown of the original House bill. Since I don't actually have a research staff it may take awhile to get all the facts straight before I write them.

IMPORTANT!
If you get the chance to attend a town hall meeting, do so respectfully but make your voice heard. Those who oppose health care reform are not an angry mob. A new Quinnipiac poll shows the growing dissatisfaction for the President's handling of health care. His intial support lost ground when parts of the bill were made public. The numbers are overwhelmingly against now and gaining.

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1295.xml?ReleaseID=1357

If you do, or already have attended please give me a run down of how the proceedings went.

Modern Mythology

myth: - noun, an unproved or false collective belief that is used to justify a social institution.

I remember learning Greek and Roman mythology in school. I was fascinated by the stories of heroic acts, divine intervention and dark powers. The Greek and Roman Gods seemed so...human. Flawed, imperfect and governed by their passions, they warred with each other and mankind. I secretly wished for them to be true and not just a collective belief. One could argue that there are no more great myths being written today.

That is...unless you count Washington D.C. and the storytellers we elect to run the country. They seem to be writing new myths every day with the ease and fluidity of Homer. I shall endeavor to relate to you their latest yarn entitled, "Cash For Clunkers".
It's a tale of greed, lust for power and a deceptive, God-like hero whose deeds rival those of Hercules and Achilles combined.

It all started on bright and sunny summers day on Olympus. Our hero, Obamacles, lay on his cloud wondering what he might do as a gift to the lesser humans on whom he had already bestowed his love and care.

"I know!", he said loudly to his scurrying minions, "I'll give them some money to buy new cars. When my children are happy, then I am happy!", he exclaimed gleefully and set about magically making 1 billion dollars appear. "This will do nicely I think." he said triumphantly.
He gave instructions to his servants, Barneyopholus, Doddocles and Reedera to spread the wealth around.
"Give this to my children, that I might shower them with my love!"
Away they ran, as fast as their little legs could carry them to trumpet the gifts of Obamacles to the poor, unwashed masses. Sadly, Obamacles did not know that his servants would run out of money before all his children could receive their gift. This made Obamacles very cross and in a loud and thundering voice he spake, saying, "WE NEED MORE MONEY!" ...and it was so.

Told like that, the "Cash for Clunkers" program (C4C) sounds almost peaceful and heraldic doesn't it? Told the way it's really happening just sounds sad and stupid though.

What can one say about the unqualified success of the C4C program that hasn't already been said? Quite a bit actually, considering the Pollyanna like coverage by the press and the lack of foresight in the original funding cap for this bill. As of this post, the House has approved an additional 2 billion dollars and it's fate is still pending in the Senate.

This begs an obvious question, allocated from where? From an already bloated Federal deficit? From the "automobile fairy"? If I lift up my pillow will I find 2 billion dollars under there? Let's just say I'm not holding my breath on that one. No, this will ultimately be paid for by you and I my friends in the form of higher taxes. That is, after all, the only way any government gets money since they produce nothing but layers of bureaucracy.

On it's face, the program seems to have nothing but the best of intentions but a closer look at the periphery reveals what we all know to be true about "feel good" legislation, that it is rife with unintended, negative and costly consequences. Let's break down the major points of this "feel good hit of the summer!"

Myth #1 "This program will spur new care sales which is good for the economy."

Edmunds.com's CEO Jeremy Anwyl had this to say about the program's inception and application,

As we noted earlier in July, over 100,000 buyers had put their purchase on hold waiting for the Cash for Clunkers to launch. Is it any wonder that showrooms filled and the government servers crashed when this backlog of buyers rushed to finalize their purchase?

Secondly, last week we published an analysis showing that in any given month 60,000 to 70,000 "clunkerlike" deals happen with no government program in place. In other words, the 200,000-plus deals the government was originally prepared to fund were barely above the "natural" clunker trade-in rate.

There's myth #1 exploded by a man with no political ax to grind at all. He works, in a roundabout way, for the auto industry so sales figures have no real meaning to him. He's simply watching the numbers and reporting them to the auto industry. They in turn use this information to help them determine car buying trends for the future. Whether this program succeeds or fails is irrelevant to him.

Myth #2 "We're taking low mileage cars off the road and replacing them with more fuel efficient models."

Let's go back to Mr. Anwyl again to reveal the simple truth of economics that the President and members of Congress don't seem to understand,

"Clearly, the sales frenzy of last week was inevitable. In fact, students of economic theory will quickly recognize the dynamics of a classic shortage. We have taken three to four months of normal activity and caused them to occur over a few days, as consumers rushed to not miss out.

What everyone fails to realize is that once this backlog is met, interest in the program will quickly fade.

As is the case, there is also an ironic unintended consequence. Car companies have reduced production levels as one response to this downturn. Shortages are developing -- particularly around clunker-favored fuel-efficient models. As these prices rise, non-clunker buyers will inevitably shift to less-efficient models, crushing one of the touted environmental benefits of C4C."

What he seems to be saying is a simple supply-side economic realty that most Liberals have no clue about. Even if this program has spurred sales which I seriously doubt, it has unwittingly removed most of the supply of the cars they were targeting to put on the roads from the available stock. The response dictates the outcome. Overload the system and then when automobile industry runs out of fuel efficient cars in stock, consumers will inevitably buy less fuel efficient cars to grab up all the "free money". I actually heard someone on a radio show refer to this plan as a "tax cut". I was mystified at the stupidity of this statement. Where, in heavens name, does he think that money is coming from? Obamacles magic wand?

Myth #3 "This program is good for the economy because it will spur job growth."

That myth is a throw away line used about everything the government says about why they need to take us deeper into debt. The stimulus bill hasn't done it yet. Most of that money is still sitting in a room somewhere unused so far. The ugly truth about the C4C program is that just below the surface are a host of thousands of after-market repair shops, small business owners, who have already seen a sharp drop off in the amount of work they would normally do. That's because the cars they would normally be repairing and the money gained is quickly drying up. Some have already started to lay off employees as a result and just below that level is the used parts business that will also ultimately be hurt by this boondoggle.

The most disturbing part of this fiasco is that the government, by offering this money to consumers, is essentially giving money back to car companies...IT ALREADY OWNS! We gave them money when we bailed them out. That failed and they went bankrupt anyway so we gave them MORE money when we bought them...and NOW we're giving another little perk for reasons only the President and his friends in the labor unions know for certain.

Do you seriously want me to give you MORE of my tax dollars now? What this reminds me of is Barney Frank saying that "All Americans deserve a house." and then setting about to destroy not only the housing industry but the economy as well. This is the housing bubble for cars simply put. It's another in a long line of promised "changes" to our country that bear no resemblance to the way the world really works.

If this level of rampant stupidity is allowed to continue, there will be no future for our children and grand children. There will be only government and slavery to a debt that we will never see the end of in our lifetimes.

An inconvenient speech...

"My commitment is to make sure that we have universal health care for every American by the end of my first term as President...but I don't think we're going to be able to eliminate employer coverage immediately. There's going to be potentially some transition process. I can envision a decade out or 15 years out or 20 years out..."

This was taken from a 2007 speech. Obama made those remarks during an SEIU health care forum when he was making his bid for President. He spells out quite clearly that it may take a decade or more to be implemented but that is his ultimate goal. A single payer, socialized system akin to Canada, Great Britain and France. For you naysayers and disbelievers, I will provide a link at the bottom of this post to dispel any disbelief you may have.

I have believed from the outset of the debate on health care reform that something just didn't smell right about the way it was reported on, the speed with which is was being implemented and the lack of clear definition of what was being proposed. Something just didn't sit right with me and it left me with a bad taste in my mouth. Perhaps I had seen the video during the campaign and it played on my subconscious or perhaps my natural skepticism made the little hairs on the back of my neck go up. Either way, the truth is undeniable and irrefutable. The "public option" as it is adoringly referred to in the press is actually the first step towards single payer, socialized medicine after all. I made mention of Sen. Barney Frank's comments on reaching single payer through a public option in a previous post and knew the truth then. Seeing these videos has now brought it all into sharp focus at last.

Breaking campaign promises is nothing new really. You grow immune to it after so many years of watching the political machine go through it's gyrations. One expects to be lied to during a national political campaign. It's so common place these days that we rarely ever notice anymore. Not only have we learned to accept it, we've come to expect it quite frankly, so jaded have we become on matters of politics of late. In fact, when a politician says they will do something and then actually does it, we are suspicious of them instantly. How dare you let us down by keeping your word!

I fear that is not the case with Obama-care though. I fear that he is actually putting lipstick on a pig and asking me to kiss it... deeply. "Beware of Trojans bearing gifts." comes to mind in this instance. Those of you skeptical of the end goal need not be skeptical anymore. It's laid out in black and white and with little chance of being mistaken as to the truth of a public option. It's only goal is to stamp out private health insurance as it's primary focus and to leave us all with no option at all really. Government run, funded (with our tax dollars) and administered and with no where else to turn when the system breaks down, and it will.

This change from free market to public option will stifle competition, put thousands more Americans out of work and spell the final doom for an economy already teetering on the precipice of total disaster. Out of control deficit spending, pie in the sky promises of free money from the government and now this. What's next...an Ipod in every home filled with Obama's speeches? Meant to comfort us when we lose our jobs?

Act, react and make your voices heard. Say no to socialism of any kind. This country was founded on freedom and the pursuit of liberty not on promises of "spreading the wealth around".

Glenn Beck - Current Events & Politics - Video: Obama Explains How His Health Care Plan Will ‘Eliminate’ Private Insurance

The Week In Review

Well, it certainly has been an interesting week in these United States hasn't it? It's been a week of racial tension, subterfuge and double talk about health care and having a beer at the "picnic table of peace" with the pres and the cop who loves the Red Sox and the prof who loves being arrested.

We've seen furious debate over health care reform...from Liberal Democrats versus the "Blue Dogs", a group of candidates hand picked by now Chief Of Staff Rahm Immanuel for their conservative tendencies. It seems he wanted to court the moderate and conservative Dems so badly that he wound up getting a group elected that may ultimately spell doom for his boss' health care " overhaul" plans. How about that bill too? It seems that it's length of more than 1,000 pages made it impossible for anyone in Congress to actually read it. Said Senator John Conyers (D) MI, of the behemoth bill this week,

“I love these members, they get up and say, ‘Read the bill!' What good is reading the bill if it’s a thousand pages and you don’t have two days and two lawyers to find out what it means after you read the bill?"

What good is reading the bill? Because that's your job you idiot. That's what we elect you to do and what we ultimately have taxes taken out of our paychecks to pay you for. The arrogance here is breathtaking. The utter lack of respect for his constituents and the rest of us is mind boggling. He may as well have said, "Do I have to do my entire job or can I just do the parts that enrich my financial portfolio?" Why read the bill? Because you are supposed to be safeguarding those of us who can't read or even understand this gargantuan piece of socialism. Think about it...it was written by lawyers after all. No one without a law degree could even get close to comprehending it and I suspect that more than a few lawyers would have hard time with it. On Monday, Barney Frank explained what most Americans already understand: the public plan will lead to single-payer, socialized medicine. In response to questions about the current House health care proposals, Frank said,

“I think if we get a good public option, it could lead to single-payer, and that’s the best way to reach single payer.”

Frank is right. A public plan would “demonstrate its power” and drown private competitors with rates subsidized by the taxpayers. The Lewin Group estimates that a subsidized public option could quickly drive over 119 million people out of the private insurance market. As the Wall Street Journal explains, it has never been a secret that the public plan connects naturally into a single-payer health care system:

Jacob Hacker, now a professor of political science at Berkeley, came up with the intellectual architecture for the public option when he was a graduate student in the 1990s. "Someone once said to me, 'This is a Trojan horse for single payer,' and I said, 'Well, it's not a Trojan horse, right? It's just right there,'" Mr. Hacker explained in a speech last year. "I'm telling you, we're going to get there, over time, slowly."

As Rush Limbaugh has pointed out so many times before, "You don't boil a frog all at once. If you throw him into hot water, he'll simply jump right back out. If, however, you drop him into cold water and then slowly raise the temperature, he'll be dead before he knows what's happening."

In other news, radio talk show host and Fox News rising star Glenn Beck called the president a "...racist with a deep seated hatred for white people or the white culture." He was instantly set upon by the left leaning press, called a hate monger with race issues of his own. That's right out of the Democrat play book though. When someone accuses them of lying, they simply point out what liars we all are. As if that non-admittal admittal means they're any better. Beck's case for his accusation was made on his radio program in a compelling and often heart stopping way. I won't say that I followed his line of reasoning except to say that if any case can be made against the president it is that he is a bigot at minimum with a deep seated mistrust of white people. So much for the post-racial candidate he appeared to be. Beck leveled this accusation after the president inserted himself into the Gates kerfuffle which ended with what is laughingly referred to as the "Beer Summit" now. It became a huge distraction to the president during the critical time when his health care bill might have made it to the floor for a vote had it not been for his insertion of himself into the fray. We learned something important through this little scandal though, "Being Barrack means never having to say you're sorry".

Even when you're wrong.

Elsewhere, up in the frozen tundra, Sarah Palin, former Veep nominee and the subject of Liberal scorn and Conservative fantasy, bade farewell to the citizens of Alaska saying that she would stay engaged and continue to work on their behalf but in the wider scope of public service. Speculation swirled about her future, would it be radio, television, a continued career in politics or a centerfold spread in Playboy? No one knows for sure yet. She's been very hush hush on details and very scathing in her assessment of the "main stream media", calling them out and reminding them that their profession should be a noble one of service to the public, not service to a political party. She's right on that score. They shamelessly carry water for the president and hang on his every word as if he were the Christ child about to speak his first syllables. There have been some chinks in the armor of late with the AP reporting some very disturbing facts about the true economic state of the union and Obama's poll numbers, which coincidentally have been dropping faster than Oprah's ability to resist a Twinkie. While CNN is reporting that the recession is over, AP had some sobering statistics on the rising debt and continued shrinkage of the job market. Sarah has been almost a constant news story at a time when she should be fading from our political view. The media hasn't let her fade though. They keep finding reasons for us to mistrust and despise her and they keep her on the front burner as often as they can.

The "Cash For Clunkers" program, initially slated to be only 1 billion dollars ran out of money in just under 6 days. Oddly, that money was supposed to last until mid October but for reasons unknown to bureaucratic dunderheads it disappeared faster than ...well...money in Washington. As of this note, an additional 2 billion dollars is being gathered to continue the program. It seems that nothing ever costs as much as they say it will and it never works like it's intended. Seems lots of folks trying to get the subsidy are being denied because the rules keep changing so quickly that car dealers can't keep up with it all. Lots of applications, precious few of them accepted. Honestly, who didn't think that Americans, when presented with the idea of snatching some stimulus money, wouldn't respond this quickly? Apparently the rocket scientists on Capitol Hill didn't and their emergency supplemental funding is proof. Oh, and speaking of stimulus money, it seems that the National Endowment of the Arts is using some of it's stimulus money for shall we say...less than pure endeavors. The NEA may be spending some of the money it received from the Recovery and Reinvestment Act to fund nude simulated-sex dances, Saturday night "pervert" revues and the airing of pornographic horror films at art houses in San Francisco, as first reported Thursday by FOXNews.com.

Now why am I not surprised?

I love this country. No where on earth could you have this kind of fun and all of it made possible with taxpayer dollars. Perv reviews and dwindling money and socialized medicine...OH MY!
If Nancy Pelosi is Dorothy and Barney Frank is the scarecrow (no brain)...that would make Beck the cowardly lion, John Conyers the tin man (no heart) and of course...Obama as the great and powerful wizard of Oz.

Pay no attention to that man behind the screen. That's just Rahm tightening the thumb screws on some pesky blue dogs.

We are certainly NOT in Kansas anymore Toto.