At the risk of being redundant

I will say one more time -- we can't recover economically without production and the creation of new wealth. California and NY are prime examples of what will happen to the nation if we continue to tax the wealthy, burden industry with more regulations, favor big corporations over small businesses and spend like there's no tomorrow.

I read where Prince Charles has blamed capitalism for the world's condition -- he says there is too much consuming going on. First off, Prince Charles is an out of touch clown, and, secondly, he knows nothing about capitalism, and, thirdly, I'll await his vow of poverty.

I'm a little irritated with the world today, so if I sound grumpy, it's because I'm up to my ears with anti-free market bull shit,  with government central planning, with G8 goons wasting time and money in Italy doing absolutely nothing but cirle-jerking, with attention-whores selling the last pieces of their soul for 15 minutes of fame, with politicians lying, stealing and betraying their constituents (in other words, acting normally) and with the media ignoring what's important and reporting what's frivolous.

This country needs to get to work building for the future and quit depending on government like a bunch of pitiful orphans. Holy Jeebus, peeps, what have we become? 

Strongarm tactics

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=106393408&ft=1&f=1001

The hospitals were obviously muscled to give up the money. This is just the beginning. I don't think enough people realize what's happening. Perhaps I'm overreacting, but I don't think so.

Healthcare bonanza

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31782553/ns/politics-capitol_hill//

Higher spending in the short run
One thing seems certain: even though the dominant theme of the debate so far has been the need to achieve cost savings, insuring the uninsured isn’t a cost savings measure, at least not in the short run.

If an individual mandate became law, there would be higher — not lower — national health care spending, at least initially, said MIT health care economist Jonathan Gruber. “Higher for sure in the short run,” Gruber said. “If you newly cover 47 million folks, costs are going to go up. But hopefully this can lower costs in the long run” as people use medical care more efficiently.

Blumberg agrees with Gruber. “If everybody is in the system, at least in the near term, we are going to see an increase in national health spending,” she said.

That’s because, she said, “there are a lot of people who are currently not getting the care that they need. Once they are brought into the system, at least in the early years, health care costs are going to go up.”

But, she added, the hope is that cost-containment efforts will lead to lower spending than if reform hadn’t been done.

It's very likely healthcare spending will go through the roof if they require everyone to get insurance, unless they deny care based on over-use or frivolous use. But how is all this going to be managed? I foresee a bureacratic nightmare. Plus, forcing people to buy insurance is a form of tax. It's also an affront to freedom of choice. Where does government power to force people to do things against their will end? What will happen if people are fined for not buying healthcare but refuse to pay the fine? Will people be jailed? Will their property be seized? This intrusion into our lives is dangerous. The potential for massive waste of dollars to manage and enforce all this is a depressing thought.

The "hope" that cost-containment efforts will work is a weak hope against a high probability they won't.

Looking for objectivity

Perusing the internet, searching for sites that offer intelligent, objective political discourse is often a frustrating and fruitless endeavor. Too many sites offer little but partisan ass-patting. That's the problem with many sites. I don't mean that a site can't have a political point of view in which the owner believes, but when the site becomes a senseless defense of one particular party, it is uninteresting and predictable. There is enough wrong with both political parties, with the two-party system itself and with statist-leaning government in general that objectivity is vital if there is be any value to the discourse.

In the pursuit of truth, nothing should be out-of-bounds, and no politician, or political ideology, should be so special to receive favored treatment. The only way people can get to political solutions is to call things as we see them after careful, objective consideration, not be defenders of a political party as if it's a game to see who wins at election time, just for the sake of winning and being part of the power prize. The country has been divided into two parties and in the meanwhile the government has grown more powerful and intrusive. An objective approach will end the game and allow grown-ups to seriously look for innovative ways to deal with the future.

I'm hoping that the recent reports of independents growing in numbers means that objectivity is becoming a reality among those who care about our future. To my way of thinking, objectivity is the only means to assure intellectual honesty. There is too much emotional appeal which doesn't take an honest, objective account of issues. It's one thing to be passionate about beliefs and to have compassion for those who suffer, but we'll never work out the best way for people to get what they need unless we cool the heat of emotions and rationally consider the best solutions, even if they are different than the party line. The problems we face, such as healthcare, are difficult and complex, and it will do no good to allow fear or anger or stirred-up passion for change to cause hasty decisions being made just to get something done. Some of the changes being proposed in government right now could affect this country for a long time to come, and we need to make sure the changes aren't setting up consequences we'll regret. I just don't hear enough real debate on these issues -- rather, I hear spin and hyperbole and fear-mongering. In the heat of battle, cool heads should prevail.

Remembering Gerald Walpin

I haven't forgotten Walpin. As more things happen and it all piles up, it's difficult to keep up with potential scandals -- they slip on by, and the media lets it go. I hope during the next four years that internet news -- the new media -- reaches most people so that we aren't dependent on the old media to follow a story like Walpin's dismissal. Americorps and ACORN must be investigated if we are going to know the truth about Walpin's allegations of corruption. This shouldn't be forgotten.

Update on Wednesday, July 8, 2009 at 07:37AM by M. Farmer

This is the latest I could find. Thin evidence against him -- more smear tactics.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/federal-eye/2009/07/cfcs.html?hpid=news-col-blog