GM Repays their loan…SORT OF?

Okay, seems like everyone has seen the ads on TV where the CEO of GM is reporting that GM has repaid all their government loans ahead of time and with interest. GM, President Obama and Vice-President Biden have been all over the press lauding GM for repaying the loans it took from the government last year. But hold on, there is a fly in the ointment that is pretty glaring.

Neil Barofsky, the Inspector General for the bailout, also known as TARP (Troubled Asset Relief Program), came forward this week and announced that GM had indeed repaid the loans, with money it received from a TARP escrow account controlled by the Treasury Department.

So let’s get this straight, rather than GM paying this loan off with monies it earned from the selling of automobiles and thereby being profitable, it used a government controlled TARP slush fund to repay a bailout loan of TARP money. Essentially, they took from one pot of TARP money and put it in another pot of TARP money to pay it off – WHAT.

Where does a person sign up to get that deal? Imagine how easy it would be to pay taxes if this held true for everyone!

Once again it looks like truth in advertising has no affect on the GM and their new advertising; nor is there any truth with senior government officials who called the repaying of these loans (with government money) a major achievement for GM and for the nation.

America owes a big thank you to Mr. Barofsky for his diligent service and honest reporting.

Still driving a Ford,
Bill

How About a Regular Person

First of all, whether you agree with his positions on the issues of not, I think it is important to thank Judge John Paul Stevens for his more than 30 years of service on the high court of this nation. For those of you wondering, President Ford appointed Justice Stevens and he was then approved by the senate 98-0.

Some have criticized him for being too Conservative in his early career on the Supreme Court while many have labeled him the leading Liberal on the current high court. Maybe if President Ford would have known where Justice Stevens’ judicial philosophy would have ended up he might have rethought his selection…who knows. But that is the luxury and the responsibility of the being the president, you get to make these sort of appointments.

Much has been made of Justice Stevens stepping down and President Obama appointing a new justice. Will he appoint a middle of the road appointee, or a far-left appointee? I don’t think that is the question we should be asking ourselves. I think the question should be the same one we have been asking for a while of our elected officials. Are we going to have more of the same, or Change?

I believe whoever the president chooses as his nominee should be respected and allowed to serve, after all elections have consequences. I would like to make one recommendation though. When Justice O’Conner retired a few years ago, President Bush replaced her with an Ivy League selection making Justice Stevens the only non-Ivy Leaguer. Now that Justice Stevens is stepping down, President Obama is looking to appoint yet another Ivy Leaguer to the high court. He already did once in Justice Sotomayor, and likely will again.

Now I have nothing against the Ivy League, I just think that making another Ivy League alum a Supreme Court Justice, thereby having the entire high court made up of people from either Harvard, Columbia or Yale, would be a slap in the face to the rest of the entire country.

Yes I know President Obama is a Harvard Law man, but we need to realize that the people who have done the most and made the biggest impacts in American Society have not always, and not usually, from the Ivy League. Appointing yet another Ivy League Lawyer to the high court of the land just moves us one step closer to cementing the elitist ruling class; an Oligarchy that most Americans, from all walks of life, seek to avoid.

So with this said, it is incumbent on all of us to demand from our elected officials a few things of their political appointments. 1. That appointees are qualified for the appointment, 2. That the newest appointment somehow blends with the court to help it better represent America as a whole, 3. That the appointee is of sound mind and an unquestionable morale character that is beyond reproach, 4. And finally, if the appointee meets the preceding requirements, the approving authorities not challenge the appointment for the sake of partisan party rancor.

Yes I know this will probably not happen and that the whole thing will more than likely disintegrate into a political bloodbath. As a matter of fact, most people that read this will immediately begin to think, “Well if the (Democrats/Republicans) had not done this…” And that would be the wrong thing to do. If this nation is to ever come together and solve the problems that face us all, then we must first find a civil way to run government for the people and not for the ego-driven career politicians.

ALL RISE,
Bill

CBO Scoring

Just a quick note on the Federal Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and their scoring process – OK, quick for me.

As designed, the CBO was set up to be a non-partisan federal agency inside the federal legislature that among other things would score, or project, the future efficiency of a bill before debating and voting on a bill. This organization has worked well in the past, but has been little noticed up until the beginning of the Obama Administration. Suddenly, the CBO has become big news over and over as we try and determine just how much damage the actions taken by the country’s Democrat leadership will actually do to our country.

Now, before making the next two points, it is important to remember that this organization was established with the best of intentions. It would be good to believe that it was awesome forethought and a desire for true public introspection by the federal legislature to create an organization such as the CBO; however, without truthfulness in reporting by the legislature, the CBO can only do so much. So with that said, let’s look at the two things that need to be pointed out.

First thing is that the CBO looks at budget, tax, and revenue figures for proposed legislature and makes projections only as far out as the next ten years. This is significant when looking at the proposed federal healthcare bill and the seemingly positive scoring that the CBO has given it. While the projections for the next ten years are positive, many on the CBO have publically estimated that the projections become gravely worse in the second decade of this healthcare bill. We won’t even discuss beyond that.

Second thing to remember is that the CBO scores bills via the vacuum of variables contained within the bill for scoring. A simple (and yes cheesy) example of this would be id a bill were presented with an explanation of funding that would show how the bill should be funded by a leprechaun with a pot of gold behind the rainbow. Yes that is simplistic, and fantasy-laden, but it explains how the CBO Scores within a vacuum. This is how the CBO can score the healthcare bill positively when the same healthcare bill states that much of the funding comes from money saved from Medicare cuts and that those cuts will be spent twice later in the healthcare plan.

Opposing the CBO’s official report in the case of the current healthcare bill, some members of the CBO privately leaked to the press that they believe the healthcare bill will not reduce the deficit as reported, but instead will drive even deeper the hole created for our grandchildren. This private acknowledgement is based on the fact that the healthcare bill provides flawed figures (the variables) used to show how the bill will be funded and not factual evidence.

Basically, when created in 1974, the CBO was a needed agency for use by the federal legislature; however, in today’s world of information manipulation and tragically partisan politics, the CBO’s use is not directed as it was intended and is not utilized to the benefit of America as it should be.

Did anyone see my calculator?
Bill

Liar?

So, I guess Rep. Joe Wilson (R-SC) made one mistake when he said “You Lie,” to the President during his September speech before a joint session of Congress – He Apologized. I mean, come on, was he not telling it like it has turned out to be. So while I am writing this, let’s look at the record and check out just a few of our president’s non-truths. I could include them all but I have to go to work tomorrow.

During the election, Senator Obama said he would end the “Rendition” program of taking prisoners to foreign countries for further interrogation. This has been policy for many years and under many presidents. Actually known as Extraordinary Rendition, this program has been used in some form since the Reagan administration, but it was President Clinton who actually signed an executive order to allow this to occur.

During the campaign, then Senator Obama said he would do away with the program and only two days after the inauguration he did just that signing an executive order ending the policy as part of a larger order that also would close the Guantanamo Bay Prison (a whole other debacle). But eight days later, by February 1, 2009, many papers reported that President Obama signed an executive order allowing Rendition to continue under the operational control of the CIA. Of Course this was on a weekend after the normal weekly press cycle. You’ll see this pattern more and more.

Another lie, during the Campaign, Senator Obama said he would do away with warrantless wire-tapping and even lambasted President Bush for using legal tools under the state’s secrets privilege to continue the practice and stifle any legal effort to end the practice. Then between January and April, and in small quiet Friday afternoon steps, President Obama makes the necessary moves to continue the practice he so readily railed against while on the campaign trail.

Also while on the campaign trail, then Senator Obama proudly went from event to event touting the firm call to eliminate lobbyists from an Obama Administration saying “lobbyists won’t find a job in my White house.” Uh-Oh, according to the Washington Times and the National Journal, by May 7, 2009, 30 of the Obama Administration’s 267 senior administration officials came straight from the private sector where they were working as lobbyists. So much for that pledge.

Then throughout the campaign, Senator Obama said repeatedly that the healthcare debate would be televised on C-SPAN. He even whipped up on poor old Hilary in a debate in Austin for the Clinton’s healthcare failure and said part of the reason it failed was because the Clinton’s meetings were held in private and that he would have the meetings held on live on C-SPAN. Of course we know where that one stands.

So maybe Joe Wilson should not have taken the beating he took for calling the President a liar when Obama said illegal aliens would not be able to take part in this healthcare plan. With a track record as good as Obama’s and a Senate plan that pulled an around the back shuffle to include illegal aliens in the coverage, maybe we should apologize to Rep. Wilson for simply trying to warn us.

Liar, Liar, Pants on Fire!
Bill

Can Healthcare Insurance Really Be Required?

Many in favor of the healthcare bill and its mandated healthcare coverage for all Americans say that it is the same as requiring all drivers to get Auto Insurance.

I think we need to remember one thing.

In America we have the RIGHT to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. So there is a right to be alive, and have a life, and live a life, and be alive (oh, I said that already)….Well, you get the point.

In the new healthcare bill the Democrats want to say that since we are alive we have to have health insurance and that it is similar to having auto insurance.

Well, let me clear something up for my friends on the left. Auto insurance is only required if I want to drive. If I do not drive, then I do not have to have auto insurance. Driving is a privilege, not a right. So I can understand having to have auto insurance to drive; however, now the Democrats want to suggest that in order to have the right to live, you must have health insurance.

To live our lives in America is a right that we are privileged to have. To force people to have to buy insurance or face a fine or jail time would seem to be unconstitutional at best. Of course, when was the last time Washington allowed the constitution, or the facts, to get in the way?


Better check my policy,
Bill

HealthCare Bill Part 2

Here is the second in a series of blogs that will address the amendments added to the comprehensive healthcare bill that is supposed to “reform” the healthcare system in America. This one deals with some of the problems as reported by Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT).

Senator Sanders is the only acknowledged Socialist in the United States Congress and has several problems with the current bill which he expressed on his senate website. Here are a few of them paraphrased. You can see the entirety of his statements on his official senate website. So using Senator Sander’s own writings, here are a few of the problems with the bill as they deal with insurance REFORM from a socialist, hard left point-of-view.

First, the bill contains provisions that will place caps on what insurance companies can spend on things like executive salaries and other non-medical costs. Now here comes the Funny part, there are no penalties for exceeding these caps. So where is the motivation for the insurance companies to avoid going over the caps? Where was this when I was a kid and my parents told me not to eat any candy before supper? This could have saved me a few encounters with Dad’s belt. So this is insurance REFORM (that word sure does get used a lot).

Here’s another REFORM – everyone will have to get coverage now. To cover those healthy young people who usually choose not to have coverage, insurance companies will be selling them low premium, high-deductable, catastrophic healthcare plans. Now, those people will have to pay for insurance they probably won’t need and they’ll have an absurdly high deductable if they have to use it. A high deductable that would be similar to their costs without health insurance, thereby defeating the purpose of mandating coverage in the first place. So who reaps the windfall here? I know, I know, big insurance – Nice REFORM.

Lastly on insurance, based on the customer’s age, insurance companies will be able to vary the cost of the coverage by three to one for varying customers. This makes the insurance affordable for some and not for others, but this isn’t age discrimination or anything. Once again, here is some more REFORM that helps who?

So these are only some of the problems with the insurance REFORM portion of the healthcare bill that Senator Sanders pointed out. He has many more on his website covering other topics and they are all pretty eye-opening.

By the way, even with these problems and without his desired single payer health system, he is voting for the bill, but that has nothing to do with the special deals placed in the bill for his home state of Vermont – Nah.


Healthcare Bill or Insurance Entitlement…You Decide,
Bill

HealthCare Bill Part 1

Here is the first in a series of blogs that will address the amendments added to the healthcare bill was supposed to take strides to “reform” the healthcare system in America. This one deals with an amendment that was important to Connecticut Senator Chris Dodd.

Senator Dodd is credited with taking the healthcare torch and running with it after cancer left Teddy Kennedy incapacitated. Senator Dodd did an excellent job as the acting chairman of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions and it is important to give credit where credit is due.

One of the provisions Senator Dodd worked hard to include (this last Saturday night) was a provision adding $100 million to build a healthcare facility in Connecticut. Okay, technically this money is not specifically for Connecticut. It is to be dispersed under the direction of the Health And Human Services Department (HHS). While this is theoretically true, it should be pointed out that there is a big “NOT SO FAST BUCKO,” that should be highlighted here.

The fact is that the language in this legislation does leave the money up to the discretion of the HHS. Simply stated, the HHS has to award the money to “a health care facility that provides research, inpatient tertiary care, or outpatient clinical services.” It must be affiliated with an academic health center at a public research university in the United States “that contains a State’s sole public academic medical and dental school.” (OK, maybe that’s not so simply stated)

Pretty nifty writing there, but what that means is that Senator Dodd’s home state University of Connecticut (UConn) is one of about a dozen schools who could even compete for this grant. One has to imagine that UConn will have a pretty good chance of collecting this money with Senator Dodd being the chair of the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs and a senior member of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions.

Not sure how this affects the reform of healthcare in America, but it’s not a bad pick up for a Connecticut senator who is doing poorly in the polls with a reelection campaign coming up in 2010 – Just Saying.

Go Huskies,
Bill