Of Republican Senate Hope-Fools and the Separation of Church and State

Last Tuesday in a debate with her Democrat opponent Chris Coons, Republican and Tea Party favorite Christine O’Donnell said “Where in the Constitution is ‘separation of church and state?’” once again showing what the mainstream press and establishment politicians knew all along: The Tea Party is full of nothing but racist conspiracy theory nut jobs and tax protestors.

Chris Coons, who is Ivy League educated like our esteemed President Obama, of course found this statement by O’Donnell quite laughable.  He and Wolf Blitzer exchanged knowing glances like two parents dealing with a three year old.  After all the separation of church and state is clearly written in the First Amendment:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

No question about that…

Consider this: 

The definition of religion -

“a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.” – dictionary.com

Definition of ‘belief’:

“confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof” – dictionary.com

Charles Darwin regarding his theory of evolution by natural selection:

Quoted from the book "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life," 1859, p. 155:

"To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree."

Fact

Molecular biology, biochemistry and genetics has already confirmed the even the tiniest bacterial cells are far more complicated machinery than anything built by man.  The idea that living organisms simply evolved randomly without any intelligent guidance is nothing short of a statistical impossibility.

Evolution exclusively by natural selection and random mutation as the origin of life and humanity as we know it is nothing more than a belief and, due to the complexity of even the smallest living organism, is about as close to impossible a belief as you can get requiring as much faith as believing God created the universe.

That living organisms evolve is not in question.  However ideas about how it happens and what drives and causes it to happen is definitely in the realm of religion – even when that religion is materialism.

Coons vs. O’Donnell on the First Amendment

Coons would support what legislators in several states have already done by outlawing the instruction of the idealist intelligent design theory of evolution in public schools while the materialist theory of evolution by natural selection remains sanctioned by the government.

Legislative condemnation of one while sanctioning the other is exactly what the First Amendment is there to protect against.  Separation of Church and State does not mean the Government is to respect materialistic explanations over anything else.

Materialism as a basis for the origin of life and the universe and all its phenomena is far from proven fact.  People who believe that all life and living organisms are no more than meat bags animated by chemical reactions are as much taking a leap of faith and subscribing to a religion as are Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus and others.

Either outlaw teaching any of it in public schools because the government cannot respect one over the others or permit teaching it all in the name of freedom to exercise all religions.

When Republican O’Donnell told Democrat Coons"Talk about imposing your beliefs on the local schools. You've just proved how little you know not just about constitutional law but about the theory of evolution," she was actually right on the money.

Of Mosques and Men: A Conspiracy Theory

I have been watching in horror some Republicans loudly make an issue out of a mosque being built somewhere near Ground Zero.  The reason this horrifies me is because Republicans often come close in their platform to what we really need right now:

• Repealing this new health care legislation and bringing true reform to our health care industry by bringing true free market competition to this sector of our economy.
• Lowering taxes and getting government spending under control so that the people and private industry can get back to creating economic activity.
• Government support of the free market instead of falsely vilifying it.
• Respecting the citizens that empower them with rule of law that safeguards our Bill of Rights.

OK – so that’s not really the Republican platform-but they do seem to be the closest to it.  That is until some of their members decided to express themselves about the Ground Zero mosque.

The Ground Zero mosque is such a non-issue it is jaw-droppingly absurd how much press it is getting.  Is there any consensus of real citizens that give a crap whether this mosque gets built near Ground Zero?!?!? 

I get out and come in contact with a lot of people from various walks of life and there are plenty that are up in arms about the horrible health care legislation, the bailouts and the stimulus.  But I don’t know anyone who was going around saying “Muslims should not be allowed near Ground Zero”.

That’s how I come to my conspiracy theory.  There are some extremely influential interests that have attached themselves like parasites sucking obscene amounts of wealth from the American citizens.  They are able to do this by manipulating the power that has concentrated in Washington over the years even though their power is dwarfed by the voting and tax paying power of the American People.

How do they keep us from rising up and destroying them?  By dispersing us with the belief that we cannot reach a political consensus.  Right now there is the appearance of widespread discontent and intolerance amongst our ranks over this issue.  It gives the majority of us who understand the law in this country – private property, freedom of religion – the idea that there are others among us who don’t understand and are intolerant bigots.  And guess what these intolerant bigots are positioned with?  The policies we do agree on – real healthcare reform, lower taxes, less government spending and intervention.

Economics and Idiots

This past week it seems that the idiots in the field of economics have been particularly vocal.

Namely Nobel Laureate Paul Krugman demonstrated that winning a Nobel Prize basically shows that you are either well connected or duly shilling the appropriate political message.  Paul gleefully announces that unless we engage in more wasteful government spending (aka “stimulus spending”) we are heading for a terrible depression.  He uses the specious argument that it is spending that will prevent us from falling into a horrible abyss never to return for years and it is the government who is the right entity to do that spending.

President Obama in his weekly address announced how $2 billion dollars will be siphoned from the pockets of each and every tax payer into the coffers of two profit making companies so that they will grace us with their business.  Does this mean I will get some solar panels in return for my and my children’s investment in this?  Will I get some free electricity from that power plant?  Probably not and it begs the question “Why won’t the companies come and create these plants here on their own?  Is it because the fact is what they are doing actually isn’t profitable and thus we just spent $2 billion on businesses that will shut down after that money runs out?"

Paul Krugman and President Obama both know that we need economic activity but are sorely misguided on how to make it happen.  It seems they believe it is the governments job to create that economic activity and the way to do that is to spend.

Well lets take a look at our economy and the argument of “spend vs. don’t spend”.  We are being told that someone needs to be spending and since private citizens won’t do it then the government will borrow on our behalf and use force of law to make us spend.  The government spending will put money into the economy and voila – economic recovery.  Right?!?  Our government of about 500 bureaucrats are very highly educated and they know what the “industries of the future” are so they will spend this money well.  But don’t even worry about that – it doesn’t really matter what the money is spent on – just spend it.

Wrong.  Spending on things that do not add value to the economy will result in inflation and oxygen depleting tax burdens on the true engine of our economy.  That kind of spending will cause the economy to sputter and lose power and that is exactly the kind of spending that is most likely to occur when the government does the spending.

Does anybody think that a group of about 500 people will correctly use hundreds of billions of dollars to add the necessary value to an economy of 300 million people?  That these 500 people won’t waste the money or spend it on stupid things to help out their buddies?  They won’t bicker among each other trying to get money for their own special interests which will, in and of itself, waste not only money but time?  They won’t make mistakes and spend a couple billion on things that look good through academic glasses from Washington but in reality are useless?

What we need is spending on things that add value to the economy.  How do we do that?  Who is to judge what “adds value”?  If you are an Eskimo what would add value for you? Perhaps more portable and cheaper sources of heat and a sauce that makes arctic eel taste like ambrosia.  If you live Florida you want better air conditioning and a new sauce that makes gator taste like ambrosia.  In other words each and every individual makes those decisions and value is relative so 500 people will never ever be able to get it right for a population of 300 million people.  Sorry Barack and Paul.

So what should the government do?  Cut their own spending and “grant giving” to the point that we can eliminate both corporate and individual income tax and get rid of our sovereign debt.  Then stop making excuses that there isn’t enough regulation while not even doing the job of enforcing the regulation that does exist.  The economy needs stable rule of law and not a shifting landscape.  Remove those regulations that give advantages to certain interests and simply enforce an honest business climate.

It’s not hard and it’s not complicated.  In the end we the people are responsible for this mess because we do not hold our politicians accountable and we have been complacent.  But it is never too late.

The Lessons of Obama’s Deal

Just finished watching the PBS special Obama’s Deal on demand and I am now enlightened:

Big Pharma Trumps Big Insurance

That’s right people, in case you were curious, its OK to make Big Insurance your enemy but don’t f*ck with Big Pharma.  Just ask the Obama administration.  From an article published on the Fox Business web site published four days after the new health care (cough) reform was passed:

"I was unable to find anything in there that would cause me to have anxiety if I were a shareholder in a pharmaceutical company," said Ira Loss, a senior health-care analyst at the research firm Washington Analysis.

Of course not Mr. Loss!  Early in the health care reform process Obama’s administration made a deal with big pharma including:

1. Americans will be prevented from buying cheaper pharmaceuticals imported from Canada (or any other country).
2. Pharmaceutical Companies have been given 12 years exclusive rights on medications before alternative (a.k.a. generic) drugs can hit the market and bring prices down.
3. The Federal Government will be prevented from using its immense buying power through Medicare and Medicaid from negotiating lower prices on pharmaceuticals.

The last one is the real kicker.  That’s right folks, we gave a no holds barred route to pharmaceutical companies right into the pocket of every single tax paying American.  Consider the following from an article by The Center for Public Integrity:

Securing approval of the Medicare Prescription Drug Improvement and Modernization Act of 2003, legislation termed "historic" and "breakthrough" by PhRMA, is considered to be among the pharmaceutical industry's most substantial victories. The law yielded the first prescription drug coverage under Medicare — a benefit that according for 2006 through 2015 is likely to cost the government more than $1 trillion according to March 2006 Congressional Budget Office estimates. The legislation was passed after a sustained lobbying campaign in the states and in Washington, D.C.

But wait,  the plot sickens…

One of the law's controversial aspects is a provision that bars the federal government from negotiating price discounts with drug companies. An October 2003 study by two Boston University researchers found that 61 percent of Medicare money spent on prescription drugs becomes profit for pharmaceutical companies.

I have a feeling that the pharmaceuticals will be making a crap load more than $1 trillion over 9 years.  Oh – by the way – when the article says “will cost the government $1 trillion” they mis-spoke.  Legislation never costs the government anything – it costs the American tax payer. 

Interesting how legislation aimed at controlling the cost of healthcare aims at slowing the increase in insurance costs but does nothing to containing the much larger cost of prescriptions.  As a matter of fact, between the Bush legislation from 2003 and Obama’s vast expansion of it, everything has been done to ensure we will all be paying much more for prescription medications – even if you don’t take any!

When do we get the change we can believe in?

Boo Hoo for British Pensions or Any Other Investors in BP

You Have Got to Be Kidding

1. How ridiculous is it to hear British politicians and the PR about how we should go easy on BP because of all the pensions that are invested in BP and all the people they employ.

Here is where we can see true capitalism at work and can see how that is different from a free market system.  No matter what else you may have heard or seen defining capitalism in a positive free market light – capitalism is not the same as a free market.  Capitalism is the idea that money or capital rules.   It has the concept that you can accumulate money and then once you have it you can then put it in a bank or some other investment and get a return for being nice enough to give your money to someone else.  Your money will “work for you”. 

The sad and unfortunate truth is that money has never done a days work for anyone.  I invite you to lay a stack of 20’s on your kitchen sink and see if it will do the dishes for you.  True that you can take your stack of 20’s, go find someone who knows how to wash dishes and probably get them to do the dishes for you.  This is not the same as your money working for you – this is using your money to increase the amount of work that you can get done in a given period of time.  That is the correct use of capital and it involves responsibility on your end: You have to find the right person, ensure the job is done correctly etc.

British pensioners should have known that prior to this tragedy BP had over 700 safety violations at other facilities (vs Exxon that only had 1 in the same time period).  I am sure there were other signs of gross incompetence and negligence that the pensioners, their representatives and BP employees should have been on top of.

But they weren’'t and now they should suffer the consequences just like the banks and their investors should have.  In a truly free market, where those with capital are treated the same under the law as anyone else, there would be no caps or other legal protections on the damage claims against BP.  As a matter of fact if this were true the lawsuits from this could be enough to put BP out of business or cause enough serious harm that would be enough to deter any oil company from failing to take the proper steps to ensure something like this does not happen again.

Stealing My Freedom Softly with Entitlements

Reading this recent article about the situation in Greece is really a wake up call.  Greece just had its national sovereignty usurped by the European Central Bank.  The people of Greece gave up their democracy for early retirement, health care benefits, pensions, vacation bonuses, allowances and who knows what else in trinkets and niceties.

And what is the real kicker here?  That the Greek government in the name of helping to “manage the economy” and save the consumers from the evil of Capitalism became the biggest facilitators of greedy Capitalism by taking bribes and funneling business to the big companies that paid them.  The consumer who forfeited his/her rights in hopes that the government would take care of them gets royally screwed in the end.    A great quote from this article in Der Spiegel says it all

"Anyone who pays bribes to get a government contract can pad his margin with a few extra million," says one investigator. "The excessive prices are of course shouldered by taxpayers."

Here is how it works fellow Americans:  The government takes control of a market in the name of protecting it’s citizens from greedy corporate interests.  Something like…um…health care – just as an example.   Citizens are now paying for the services via a series of taxes and have totally lost control over where the money gets spent or how much gets spent on what. 

Now that control of the market is in the hands of a relatively small number of politicians the big corporations move in to bribe those politicians with hundreds of thousands or even millions of dollars to gain access to hundreds of millions to hundreds of billions of tax payer dollars.  Funds that used to be controlled by the hundreds of millions of consumers and had to be competed for now just requires the bribing of maybe a maximum of 60 Senators, a couple hundred Representatives and one President. 

But wait – the plot sickens…

Now consumers are being forced to overpay for some service and the real damage gets done.  With the politicians deciding how much the populace should pay for something and who they should pay it to they ALSO decide whether or not the citizens should borrow money to pay for it.  This now adds debt interest to the cost of services.

Guess what - banks make a lot of money off of lending money.  How much interest do you think a bank can make off of a couple hundred billion dollars?  As a banker,  wouldn’t it be nice if instead of having to convince a hundred million people to buy beyond their means and borrow from you to do it you just had to deal with a few hundred?  Even if you had to give them each a million dollars so they would take out a hundred billion dollar loan on behalf of the people of an entire country it would easily be worth it.

Another great quote from Der Spiegel:

“According to statements made by company executives involved in the payoffs, up to 2 percent of the revenues from the Siemens Hellas telecommunications division were paid to the two main political parties, the Panhellenic Socialist Movement, better known as PASOK, and the conservative New Democracy.”

In Greece now the austerity measures have to do with cutting back the retirement age, vacation bonuses etc.  For what?  To pay the debt that has been basically accrued by politicians giving money to corporations on behalf of their citizens for bribes.

Americans – lets not make the same mistakes.

Obamacare: Is it Socialism and What’s Wrong with Socialism Anyway?

I found this great image on the net (hopefully I am not violating anyone’s copyright).  Some people may think I am being harsh.  After all most reasonable people don’t sling such derogatory terms like socialism or communism around.

To judge whether or not something is socialistic or communistic one needs to go to the source and understand the philosophy, simply and succinctly:

“From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.” – Karl Marx

There are two questions to be asked here:  “Does this policy adhere to the above philosophy?”  and “Why are socialism and communism considered derogatory anyway?”

The answer to the first question is obvious.  Obamacare levies taxes on people who make more than $250K, people considered able to pay, and gives it to families considered in need.  Socialism fact check – Karl himself would give this the thumbs up.

So it is socialism – what’s wrong with that? 

Pretty much anybody aside from the welfare mother portrayed in the movie Precious feels bad when they get something they know they didn’t earn.  Don’t believe me?  Go have someone give you money for nothing and see how it makes you feel.  Unless you are a flat out criminal you will feel like you now owe that person.  For sure if that person asked you for a favor you will feel a certain obligation to do it.

The uproar from the public over this bill and over socialism is that we all know you don’t get something for nothing.  Not even healthcare or insurance policies that cover pre-existing conditions and give unlimited benefits for life.   And when politicians give people something for nothing it always leads to slavery in greater or lesser degree.

An Actual Good Idea for Healthcare Reform Seen on CNN

That's right, I didn't believe it either.  My wife and I were watching CNN this morning when my wife proclaimed "they are going to give their thoughts on the healthcare reform".  My knee-jerk reaction was "they are just going to support the Obamacare plan".  The reality was a pleasant surprise...

It was Sanjay Gupta's show an he was interviewing a Harvard business professor who was strangely reminiscent of Julia Childs.  Anyway she starts off with the standard talking point of how there are 50 million uninsured people in this country and how much of a moral shortcoming that is for all of us.  We notice how the figure changes from 30 million to 50 million to sometimes less than 20 million depending on who is making the statement but I digress...  She praises the administration for the desire to cover these people and I braced myself for the worst - and to my surprise she starts talking sense!

Her next point is that Medicare and Medicaid is running a $30 TRILLION dollar unfunded mandate that will fall on those of us working today and our children and grandchildren.  Basically we put a train on the tracks, tied ourselves to the rails, pointed it in our direction and started it up hoping our children and grandchildren will arrive in time and with enough wherewithal to save us.  She accurately points out how the political realities of this country include the fact that current politicians will use entitlements like Medicare and Medicaid to give unfunded benefits today to get votes today.  They do this by borrowing money since they also don't want to raise taxes to pay for the entitlements which would similarly cost them votes.  My solution to that problem - don't allow government to engage in entitlements and that applies to any expansion of Medicare, Medicaid or any other subsidizing of health insurance under any circumstances.

Then she offers the solution - "consumerize" health insurance.  What is that you ask?  It means instead of insurance companies catering to employers they would have to cater to us - the consumer!   She makes an accurate point by comparing Switzerland to the United States in the right way:  Switzerland has 48 insurance companies while the U.S. has 15.  Note that Switzerland is about the size of Massachusetts.

So some things to know:
1. The problem with the cost of health insurance is not complicated - there is no competition among health insurance companies.  15 health insurance companies for a country of 300 million shows that there are regulatory blocks to competition that we need to remove.  That is economics 101.  When health insurance companies compete you win!  This will make health insurance affordable for the majority of people and bring about real improvement in the system.

2. Government funded health insurance will destroy our economy.

Until the debate turns to this simple point we are all losing and with that $38 trillion Medicare "train" charging at us we cannot afford to ignore this. Don't let the politicians screw it up just because they think some healthcare reform is better than no healthcare reform and they need to get it done before their term runs out.   Real reform based on the above costs us nothing, is easy to do and brings about meaningful change.

Medicare expansion - is it a great idea?

Right now almost one third of the Federal Budget is for Medicare and Medicaid and that quantity of spending actually comprises over 5% of our economy.  Just imagine that a full third of your tax burden right now is already going to pay for a program that most tax payers do not benefit from.  On top of that realize that conservative estimates put that 10% of Medicare and Medicaid payments are fraudulent.

We wonder why the U.S. spends so much on healthcare??  It is because the government basically forces us to!  Aside from the built in 10% fraud that is occurring in the Medicare and Medicaid system there is also all the money being spent on mental health drugs - drugs that treat illnesses for which there is no physical diagnosis and for which there is no cure, only limitless treatments with drugs.  If you don't think that is important consider this report about Medicaid expenditures in the state of Texas:

“According to a report on the state's Medicaid Vendor Drug Program, mental health drugs made up the largest category of expenditures among the top 200 drugs in 1999.  They accounted for nearly $148 million. Those costs have more than doubled since1996.”

“For the proposed 2002-2003 budget, lawmakers have increased by $1 billion theamount of money allocated to health and human services. A significant portion of that will go for medications,officialssaid.”

So if you are thinking all that Medicare and Medicaid money is going to treat people with broken bones, cancer, heart disease and things like that - think again.

This brings us to the next point.  It seems that if you open the tax payers' wallets to health care expenditure it is certain that someone will reach in there an take it.

Stimulus Success

It has been great this morning listening to CNN commentators argue about whether the stimulus created jobs or not.  The point of these programs seems to be to discredit people who are saying the stimulus didn't create any jobs by bringing up isolated companies and how they got money and hired some people.  As usual what is considered the "main stream" media is way off the point.  I think even my 5 year old daughter could take $100 billion and wind up creating a bunch of jobs.  The question is whether this was effective legislation to fix the problems with the country's economy.

So really what do we know?  The net loss of jobs appears to have been around 6 million and the unemployment rate, even when taking a "rosey" view of it is over 10% right now.  We have a huge national debt and our entitlement programs like Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid are constant sources uncontrolled public expense that basically threaten all private citizens and businesses.  In other words anyone deciding to create a life or a business in this country knows they will automatically inherit huge expenses beyond their control.  Many states have saved public sector jobs with stimulus dollars - jobs that will wind up unfunded when the stimulus runs out.

In the end has our government done what it takes to address the underlying problems?  Did stimulus dollars just rob from Peter to give to Paul?  Did the $100 billion spent result in more in added value to the American people than $100 billion plus whatever interest will have to be paid on that money?

These are the questions that we need answered.

Left and Right - the Political Conundrum

As I have been getting myself more and more worked up reading about how Goldman Sachs and other bankers basically fleeced every single tax paying American right in our faces and how our government opened up OUR checkbooks making it all possible I think about the Enlightenment in France and the struggle of the common folk against the aristocracy.  That struggle ended with the people of France rising up and cutting the heads off of a lot of arrogant aristocrats in the bloodiest revolution known to man.

First - if you are not totally pissed at our politicians  who have sold their souls to banking and healthcare special interests you need to wake up.  Do you really think that defaults on what amounts to 20% of the subprime mortgage market that makes up only a quarter of the entire mortgage market was going to cause a total failure of the banking system?  By the way those are generous figures.  Folks, we were robbed by a scam and it was our elected officials, both Democrat and Republican, that provided the pipeline to suck the money out of our pockets and put it in the hands of these criminals.

Also, do you think that a several thousand page healthcare legislation that was crafted by healthcare lobbyist was ever going to benefit the people?  That didn't pass (yet) but it doesn't really matter because healthcare special interests already have enough political clout at the state level to continue to fleece us via our taxes and Medicare payments.

The coining of the terms Left and Right politics came from the Enlightenment period in France when the aristocrats sat to the right of the king and representatives of the people sat on the left of the king.  During that time period those on the left were tired of special treatment and benefits those on the right were receiving at the expense of the people.  Today we have a similar struggle.  There are special interests that use our elected officials to guide money from our pockets into their own and there are those elected officials in both parties that facilitate this activity.

Today political discussion likes to refer to Democrats as leftists and Republicans on the right but this is totally false.  Right now both Republicans and Democrats are on the right because they refuse to take effective action to break the stronghold of special interests.  Another misleading concept is that big government, socialism and communism are left wing concepts.  History has shown us that big government ALWAYS winds up serving special interests at the expense of the people.  Sometimes, in the case of communism, it is the politicians themselves who simply become aristocrats who use the state police forces to maintain their power.

Left wing politics would be politics designed to protect the rights and opportunity of all and favor none.  It could never enact entitlements as entitlements always take more from some and benefit more others thus favoring one public sector over another.  It also has the side effect of enslaving to a certain degree those that receive the benefits and starts to favor the politicians who give the benefits because they, as the "slave owners", now have a group of people who will vote for them to keep the entitlement they have grown dependent on.