Who writes the bills? Who is the Apollo Alliance? A high school student asks Congressman Steve Buyer – if HR 3200 passes, and salaries for physicians are capped, what motivation does he have to enter med school?

Advertisements

More questions:

Part 5:

Part 6 (SCHIP):

Part 1:

Part 2:

Part 3:

Read about the double standard in this article by Michelle Malkin.

Remember that famous quote from John F. Kennedy in his inaugural address? That famous line, “Ask not what your country can do for you, but ask what you can do for your country,” has been repeated by many different people over the past 48 years in a variety of contexts and for a variety of purposes. But it seems that we have forgotten it, and are only asking what our country or our government can do for us.

During this past election cycle, I got in a conversation with someone who was planning on voting for Obama and basically an entire Democrat and/or liberal ticket. She asked me why I was going to vote Republican, because “what have the Republicans ever given you?” I’ve thought about that question a lot in the past several months, and found it to give insight into the reason why government is so big, why they take so much from us in taxes, and why they are elected into office again and again, despite their massive failures. [Massive failures? Yes! Pres. Johnson declared “War on Poverty” in the 60s, and it’s only gotten worse. Yet we continue to throw good money after bad, in the apparent insane hopes that maybe this time history won’t repeat itself. And that’s just one example.]

This woman didn’t realize it, but she was selling her vote to the highest bidder — to whomever was able to convince her that s/he was going to give her the most. In one way, that’s not too different from what everyone does — everyone votes for the person that s/he thinks is the best. The difference comes in the way someone determines who will be the best candidate for the job. It’s an easy thing to vote for someone who promises you to “give” you what you want (even if, like so many campaign promises, the promise is forgotten the day after the election). It’s much harder — requires more discipline, more maturity, more circumspection, more thought — to vote for someone who does not promise you the moon.

But it is important to remember, that “the government” cannot give unless it first takes. They take our money in the form of taxes, then they take a percentage of our money off the top for bureaucracy, then they give us back a smaller portion of our money in the form of “benefits” and services. Some taxation is necessary, and some benefits and services are needful; but it’s time to say enough already!!!

We have to step up and let our voice be heard. A reader named Craig sent the link to this news story about various Representatives and Senators going apoplectic about proposed budget cuts, because the cuts were going to affect their districts. One of the items was a Presidential helicopter that Obama says is not necessary. Although $800,000,000 is a drop in the bucket, compared to the monstrosity of the “stimulus” package, it is still eight hundred million dollars of your money and my money that will be spent unnecessarily unless it is ultimately cut. And it will be spent because people voted, not for what they could do for their country, but what their country could do for them. Unfortunately, that comes at a very steep price, because as I said before, the government cannot give anything that it does not first take away.

Add to FacebookAdd to NewsvineAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to TwitterAdd to TechnoratiAdd to Furl

Did the Obama Administration overstep its Constitutional bounds, in the dealings with Chrysler? That is the topic of an editorial written by Todd Zywicki, which appears in the Wall Street Journal. Entitled “Chrysler and the Rule of Law,” Mr. Zywicki explores the ramifications of what the current President has done, not just for Chrysler, its shareholders and financiers today, but also for all businesses of all types in the future.

The Obama administration’s behavior in the Chrysler bankruptcy is a profound challenge to the rule of law. Secured creditors — entitled to first priority payment under the “absolute priority rule” — have been browbeaten by an American president into accepting only 30 cents on the dollar of their claims. Meanwhile, the United Auto Workers union, holding junior creditor claims, will get about 50 cents on the dollar.

Later on, he says,

By stepping over the bright line between the rule of law and the arbitrary behavior of men, President Obama may have created a thousand new failing businesses. That is, businesses that might have received financing before but that now will not, since lenders face the potential of future government confiscation. In other words, Mr. Obama may have helped save the jobs of thousands of union workers whose dues, in part, engineered his election. But what about the untold number of job losses in the future caused by trampling the sanctity of contracts today?

The value of the rule of law is not merely a matter of economic efficiency. It also provides a bulwark against arbitrary governmental action taken at the behest of politically influential interests at the expense of the politically unpopular. The government’s threats and bare-knuckle tactics set an ominous precedent for the treatment of those considered insufficiently responsive to its desires. Certainly, holdout Chrysler creditors report that they felt little confidence that the White House would stop at informal strong-arming.

If American businesses are not safe from “arbitrary governmental action,” can the American public be?

Remember, also, that Chrysler was one of many companies that got money from the government — that’s our money, folks — just a few short months ago, which will probably never be repaid. That means that our children will have to repay for the stupidity of our elected officials’ actions.

Add to FacebookAdd to NewsvineAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to TwitterAdd to TechnoratiAdd to Furl

Recently, Bill O’Reilly appeared on Glenn Beck’s show to discuss the disparity between the “Earth Day” coverage and the TEA Party Day coverage.

Everybody knows that NBC and MSNBC is totally in the tank for Barack Obama, and has been ever since he became the Democrat candidate for Presidency. But this goes deeper than just the heads of NBC being politically or idealogically aligned with liberal politicians! As Beck and O’Reilly explain, NBC and MSNBC are owned by GE… which makes wind turbines and other “green” things… which they hope to be able to sell to companies if and when the “Cap and Trade” legislation passes.

This is quid pro quo. Dirty Chicago politics gone national. NBC/MSNBC promoting — heavily promoting — politicians and policies that will eventually serve to make them billions.

Any wonder why Barack Obama wasted 9000+ gallons of fuel flying half-way across the country to deliver an “Earth Day” speech in front of a wind turbine, when he could have saved all that fuel (and time, and money, and Secret Service activity) delivering a “save the planet” speech from the White House?


Bookmark and Share