A few draft-versions of health care reform have been offered since this spring; all of them have had one thing in common. Conservative pundits have done a great job of highlighting a commonality in all of them: 2013. The regulations limiting freedom in choice will begin in 2013. So much for the plea that we need reform now!

Commentators have forwarded the notion that those in leadership now facing re-election in 2012 will be, beating the ill effects of government-controlled healthcare as they are not implemented for another year. I consider this "Plan A."

Politicians like Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and other liberal congressman have little to fear. The districts they are elected from will continue to elect them. Voters in these locales have drunk the Kool-Aid. The only thing that matters is that we are one step closer to Universal Healthcare. Any problems with the new will be moot. As President Obama says at every option, "this is not a perfect bill. But it is a step closer..."

Plan A relies on the Democrats being re-elected en masse under the belief that they were successful in causing reform. And it any loss of seats or control would come after 2013. Kind of a drive-by lawmaking. Consequences be damned, the change enacted.

Plan B relies on realization that over the next three years, enough light will be shed on aspects of the bill. "Regular" people will be so upset with the unintended and intended consequences alike that they vote out the Democrats in 2012. Given enough time - a single election cycle is a lifetime - the assumed new Republican majority will pegged with causing any downsides relating to the healthcare regulation. In 2016 another Democratic sweep will take place as the Fourth Estate successfully paints the Republicans responsible.

Don't think it is possible? It worked for No Child Left Behind (NCLB) and W. My wife gets all the Union magazines for educators. Every issue contains how George Bush messed up the law or wasn't funded properly. There is no mention of NCLB's author, Ted Kennedy! Never mind that the president neither writes legislation nor controls the "purse strings."

Plan A is the optimal option, it keeps power going. Plan B, less desirable, is still suitable for the Dems. They have a scapegoat for the complications which will reverberate through America on all levels. 2016 isn't too far away for them.

Where Does It Stop?

The Pitchforks and Torches Are Raised into the Air

In the past day, the Obama Administration released its preliminary findings regarding the compensation of CEOs of companies receiving Troubled Assest Relief Program (TARP). The executives will be, if the plan as proposed remains, will have 90% of their compensation snatched back by the federal government. The "Pay Czar" can arbitrarily set the pay of private businesses - some of which were forced to take TARP money.

Where does the Pay Czars reach end?

No one thought they would go below middle management, but the Fed admonished of the horrible misdeed in giving mail room, file room, and kitchen employees bonuses. The likely non-salaried, lowest on the proverbial totem pole, are being slammed for receiving up to a few thousand dollars.

Sure, Rush Limbaugh questioned will dealings with the government, such as Lockheed-Martin selling jet engines, constitute "taking tax payers money" and therefore, allow the bony fingers of Uncle Scrooge into Lockheed-Martin's day-to-day compensation? This is why Home Depot just a few years ago welcomed government shoppers but required they pay in cash. It was a way to keep the requirements and constraints from hamstringing the "Big Box" retailer.

Where does it government's reach cease?

In Minnesota Legislators could not successfully determine what and how welfare recipients spend our taxpayers money. They willingly - have to seek out - accept said subsidies from the government, but have very little responsibilities with our money.

Then there are corporate subsidies. Taxpayer monies such as Tax Increment Financing (TIF) are doled out for sports teams, retailers and corporations. Can governments at all levels, now determine how employees of Target or the Twins or Honeywell - from the top down - are compensated? Will the Pay Czar determine bonus amounts or even if they are paid out at all?

I Haven't Even Gotten to the Most Frightening Aspect

We do not know how far the government will go. We can only speculate at this time.

Allow me to speculate. Several weeks ago I posted the text of a bill attempting to "save" the printed press. The newpapers would become non-profits. The would also become tax-exempt in some cases. The would be free from tax liability. Would the government stop at determining compensation? As Obama did with his car company, would the Administration install "their" editor?

The class-envy slope can be the slipperiest!

Links

• Home Depot Refuses Sales to Federal Government - Wall St Journal; 06/18/2002 (subscription required)


• Home Depot Changes Tune on Government Business Atlanta Business Chronicle; 06/28/2002

When You Say It Enough...

Your prejudices don't seem so distasteful. This past Sunday morning [October 18, 2009] I stopped clicking on ABC's weekend news show This Week. I normally don't watch them, but when I do, it is usually the Fox offering with Chris Wallace. This particular Sunday I recognized why I do not patronize most non-Fox shows.

George "Clinton Administration" Stephanopoulos host the show and moderates the group opinion-discussion portion. This Week, not unlike all the others, try to have a bi-partisan panel. Yet on this particular broadcast, George's political persuasion was revealed - and he may not have even noticed it. [Although I didn't need "proof" of his belief, this incident lends credence.]

Video: Roundtable: 2010 Midterms

Discussing a few local races and problems they each have, E.J. Dionne Jr. appears unaware of the Tea Party's actual name :

Dionne Jr.: The conservative party in New York state put up a right-wing candidate supported by the "teabaggers"... {video -5:16}

Mr Dionne finished his point by presuming the Republicans have a long struggle ahead of them. Then George springboards off E.J.'s point to facilitate the discussion, addressing Peggy Noonan, he says:

Stephanopoulos: This hardcore part of the [Republican] base is in a world unto its own. Uh, right now. The "Teabag Movement" and they are sort of driven by the idea that President Obama and Democrats have a secret plan to impose Socialism. {video -4:50}

While George was speaking, the camera was trained on Peggy Noonan. She was ready to respond to the question George was asking when he uttered "teabag movement." Peggy does a little speculating why the Republicans in upstate New York in turmoil before subtly admonishing E.J. for using the slur "teabagger." {video -4:16}

What if sportscasters were to start referring to Green Bay's football team as the "Fudge Packers?" Would that not cause a big problem? Well, degrading a large group of Americans peacefully protesting to show their disagreement with the government's spending and law making is of poor taste for a media outlet. I would expect this from cable channels or left-wing black helicopter blogs.

{video -4:16} = point in ABC's clip where quote was made

A Very Telling Line

The LA Times article addresses and focuses on the artist's, Shepard Fairey, "fair use" and copyright problems. They also spend considerable time pointing out how he lied, lied to cover-up a mistake, and based a counter lawsuit on his lie. I am not disagreeing with that angle of the article.

What I found so telling is the paragraph:

"The artist expressed his remorse in his statement, saying that he is taking 'full responsibility for my actions which were mine alone. I am taking every step to correct the information and I regret I did not come forward sooner.'"

His admission that he acted alone and take "full responsibility" raises a huge flag, at least to me, that he is the fallguy for someone or some group. Why would he have to say this, as a caveat? A prosecutor may be accusing him of being part of a conspiracy, and if so, his defense is understandable. Please understand, I am not stating that he is taking the hit, but with dealings recently uncovered with the National Endowment for the Arts, it is questionable.

Shepard Fairey admits to wrongdoing in Associated Press lawsuit

Rush is Right, Again!

I am a "Dittohead." An unabashed listener. A dedicated fan to Rush Limbaugh's radio show. Some may now reject me as biased and therefore write me off as just another racist protecting my "kind." Others will understand I am well versed in Rush's philosophy and know he does not espouse racism. If he did, I wouldn't listen.

I am lucky enough to have a job which offers me the opportunity to hear almost all fifteen hours of his broadcast each week. I have now been a listener for over a decade. Due to my faithful attendance in the EIB "Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies," I rarely miss much of his broadcast. One of my rare, unexcused absences caused me to miss Rush's comment where he dared utter "Crips and Bloods" in the same sentence as the National Football League. I have no idea when he made this observation, nor do I know in what context he spoke.

Initially I was left to cable news network pundits to understand of what Rush referred. Hosts and guests alike could only paraphrase Rush's daring comment, call a football game like a battle between the Bloods and Crips without weapons. I too have to paraphrase the pundits' loosely quoted attribution, into an aggregation of adulterated restatements with one theme in common.

The picture my mind painted was a collage of past news articles covering violence which does not belong on the football field or certain hand gestures having nothing to do with play calling.

Two instances came to my mind each time I heard cable news show pundits excoriate Rush. First I recalled a leading news story about the NFL concerned over the possibility of gang signs being used on the sidelines. A simple Yahoo! search brings up articles from June 2008 from such sources as LA Times, ESPN, Chicago Tribune. The articles relate how the NFL hired a consultant - an expert - to review hours of game film, to find out if, in fact, any hand gestures were being falshed by players.

Secondly, one episode of violence came to mind. While no evidence of intentional gouging was found, and no fine levied, the event of the September 2008 event made news headlines. A little further back in history brings to mind "an uprecedented" suspension for a player how reportedly knocked off the helmet of an opposing teammate before stomping on his head. This incident, is reported at ESPN.com.

Rush did explain the genesis of his comment. He uttered his opinion after a play during a Patriots'-Charger game in which an unsportsman like conduct penalty cost the game. More of his extemporaneousness showing his passion for the game and increasing loss of sportsman like conduct. Was Rush that far off the mark? No. Does the NFL have problems with gangs and violence similar to a gang fight without weapons? Sure seems that way to me.

Some links I used to reaffirm my vague memories

• Yahoo! Search results: nfl gang signs


• Yahoo! Search Results: nfl eye gouge


• Yahoo! Search results: nfl head stomp