Recently in Government Category

As I posted about last week, the superintendent of the Central Falls, RI schools threatened to fire every teacher and administrator at the high school because they weren't willing to go the extra mile to turn the failing school around. They wanted extra pay to do the jobs they were supposed to be doing to begin with.

Today the Central Falls School Board voted to carry out that threat, firing every teacher and administrator at the school as promised.

Keeping in mind President Obama's latest push for a lamely warmed over Senate health care reform bill, another appropriate preview of what we can expect should health care destruction make it through Congress can be found here.

Remember Danny Williams? He's the Newfoundland and Labrador Premier who decided that the Canadian socialized health care system just wouldn't cut it for his health. Why?

In an interview with The Canadian Press, Williams said he went to Miami to have a "minimally invasive" surgery for an ailment first detected nearly a year ago, based on the advice of his doctors.

"This was my heart, my choice and my health," Williams said late Monday from his condominium in Sarasota, Fla.

What it came down to was that he wanted the best medical care possible, so, rather than deal with what he would get in Canada, he came to America.

Should we go the way of Canada and many other countries with government health care, Canadians will have no place to go for superior health care. The problem is that we Americans will have no place to go either, unless the smarter doctors move their practices out of the country and start a cash only operation.

One upside should this happen? The medical tourism business will boom as those with the means will leave the country to get the medical treatment they need.

Remember the scene from Dickens' Tale of Two Cities? I thought of it when viewing this, about a State Department vehicle in the wrong and severely injuring a conservative blogger. Someone, as of yet unknown, contacted the woeful DC cops and had a ticket issued to the injured blogger for jaywalking--a false assertion, BTW--while in hospital.

Our new overlords. This is what caused people to take down their rifles some 235 years ago. We exist to perpetuate gubmit; you dupes thought it was the other way round, didn't you? Ha ha!

And I'm still trying to think why I shouldn't become an anarchist. The arguments I'm furiously putting forward seem more ineffectual by the day.

I always try to showcase unpublished writers, specifically those with political or philosophical outlooks similar to the WP team.

Without further ado, I present guest blogger William Johnson:

A very simple truth about humans, human systems, and humanities development is...that there is no system that can be exercised or imposed from any outside source or structure, no matter the theme, onto humans or any human population that can rival the effectiveness and resulting productivity of any human construct that is created from within. Humans, and Nature, are dynamic and sometimes random beings. To exercise and focus the commonality from within is of greater respect and utility of that same nature, than it is to attempt to overwhelm it and rigidly orchestrate it. In hubris or lust of power, to rend that which is Natural into something that it is not, demands an all consuming endeavor to try to compensate for its inherent frailty.

In this knowledge, when the Natural order is subjected to an unrealistic ideology, the seed of the tyrant is found. In this knowledge is part of the why they need to be invariably inevitably cruel, murderous, and despotic despite its propaganda or original beneficial intent. When healthy systems are forced, from within or without, to be something different, or distanced from what makes them healthy, it will first be stressed and eventually decay into nothingness. If the cause for the distress is ideologically driven, if the cause for the distress is linked to mans pursuit of some goal then the injected disease will be progressive. Because unrealistic/unnatural ideologies are dependent on people that are compulsive/obsessive to only a small collections of ideas, though developed to a great degree, when challenged, they will not react dynamically, they will react by concentrating on their core beliefs. By trying to regroup to this small unhealthy collection of beliefs, they will continue to distill this internal dysfunctional. When these people are in positions of political power, they will, when challenged, react with a continuation of a distillation of an incomplete, incompetent, unsustainable, and overly rigid mindset, which in turn will lead to ever increasing aggression, irrationality, suspicion, desperation, misuse of language and facts, lying, propaganda, and manipulation by multiple means to achieve fewer and fewer ends.

The ongoing pursuit of an unsustainable, ideologically driven social order will demand an ever increasing amount and breadth of brutality to sustain its power structure.

"Do the ends justify the means?" is a question debated for centuries. A battleground of moral equivocation and effectiveness. There exists a number of seductive groupings of ideas and belief systems that claim to be able to cure all of mankind's failings if only they could be fully manifested. Yet, when an ideology claims to be able to dispel some injustice or all tales of woe but is not actually capable of curing the problems despite its propaganda's assurance, then the "ends", being unattainable, are proven to be no longer the point. It's the Means that are the point. The Means to pretend to fix some problem, while never genuinely fixing or even trying. No utopia of any Socialist or Communist regime has ever conquered poverty, or given decent health care to its citizenry, or given justice to those needing it. Nor were they ever able to dissuade human greed or lust for power. But they continued to expound their virtue to do so "at any cost" and continued the requisite absorption of power and wealth to fulfill the illusion to do so. So the question is forced to be "Do the means justify the means?"

One can only respond with "....wait, what?....no..."

And unless we all answer the question the same way we will suffer the same fate so many others have suffered before us.

I'm selfish--I want them to be in a position to take care of me when I'm decrepit, which is now less than half a lifetime away. How'd it happen so fast?

Well, thanks to John Derbyshire's link from The Corner--ahem, have you read his new book? I loved it--we get the 13 careers for the next decade. Care to guess which is number one?

I have to say the opening statements of the President's State of the Union address were on target, talking about the problems that we, as a nation and as individuals, are facing. But once he started addressing the main issue we face - the economy - he lost me.

He talked about tax cuts, but only the temporary tax cuts. The somewhat more long term cuts, the Bush tax cuts, expire next year, meaning everyone will see a tax increase once they're gone.

On the stimulus bill - blah blah blah blah blah blah. (At least that's what I heard.)

As much as I agree that jobs are an issue, I have to disagree with the president that somehow it's up to the government to stimulate them with our money. Better that government get the heck out of the way. We don't need it to take $30 billion of the repaid TARP funds and spend it again.

I agree with Obama that we need to upgrade our infrastructure to help American businesses compete in the global marketplace. But what do high-speed trains have to do with that? Better that electrical systems and broadband communications networks be built, which will do far more to support American businesses than trains.

And while the president says he "won't accept second place for America", he's been doing what he can to make sure that's where we'll end up, if not third or fourth place.

After that I started nodding off as he started mouthing the same old platitudes but in different wrappers. (Make energy less expensive by taxing the hell out of it. Punish all the banks for the actions of a few. Spend billions more on education even though study after study after study shows more money doesn't equate to better education. Destroy our health care system in order to save it. And so on and so on.)

I. GOT. BORED.

ZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzz........

UPDATE 1/28/10: Going back and watching the address again, I saw that as time passed he shifted more and more blame for all our troubles on to others. He laid all the blame for the failure of health care reform and cap-and-tax squarely on the Republicans, saying they now owned the blame. Senator John Kyl rebutted that allegation today on NPR, stating the Senate Republicans were following the will of their constituents, blocking bad legislation that would do little more than cost the American people untold hundreds of billions of dollars with nothing to show for it.

Evidence is here. That she can say the new giaganto health bill won't add a penny to the deficit shows her to be an empty suit merely parroting the Democratic party line.

How's it we go from pro-life libertarian John Sununu to this? It's like dating Christine Brinkley and switching to Bette Midler.

I am not enjoying being represented by such a person in DC. I sorely miss the only engineer in the Senate whom the former governor replaced. Didn't she do a good job on health care for the state, though? One word: SB 711.

If people knew as much about politics as about sports box scores a lousy candidate like Shaheen would be on the B team, not the A team as she is now. Most politicians in Washington DC are only good at getting elected. They lack intelligence and don't have a conscience. I am sorry to say that NH hasn't deviated from the general path with Shaheen who felt it acceptable to feed her family on Domino's pizza almost every night when a state senator from Madbury. I briefly worked at the Durham franchise in the early 1990s and was stunned when a call came in almost every night for a home delivery to be made. The manager described her "as our best customer."

She had three young daughters at the time. One of the drivers, a high school classmate, said the pizza was going to feed them. Her husband was a lawyer in York, Maine, or nearby. It's amazing that the Pizza Mom is now senator.

But that's how it is with politics in our decadent country. If you don't think we've been in decline you should read this Pat Buchanan column or John Derbyshire's new book We Are Doomed.

That's where the easy work, large pensions, and low stress is. John Derbyshire is right. The government people have won.
The Derb writes:

Let's face it, in the great 20th-century struggle between the State and the individual, the State has won, game, set and match. By the time my kids hit the workforce, the "A" in "USA" will stand not for "America" but for "AFSCME."

Looks as though many are heeding this advice. How people in gubmit think of those in the private sector: You're saps! You exist to feed us! HT: Instapundit

We bemoan public education; yet we send our children there.

We have a horrible opinion about Congress; yet we like our particular representative.

We think taxes are too much; yet when programs that are obvious failures (federal Dept. of Education) are on the chopping blocks we go nuts.

We revere the Founding Fathers; yet we have aren't courageous enough to do what they did.

We want our children to be readers; yet they rarely see us read.

All right, all right. We may hate being pushed around by the feds, Hugh Hewitt, but we also love the security from gargantuan entitlement programs the feds have been giving us. Even if the day of reckoning is hurtling towards us faster than many think.

Here's an important IBD editorial about socialism and Barack. Pretty devastating. How could the media have dropped the ball so badly on properly vetting this candidate for the presidency? I know I'm being somewhat facetious in asking that, since it's obvious they're water carriers for him.  But check out this "the dots are right there for connecting" excerpt:

We wrote that in 1995, South Side Chicago pol Alice Palmer introduced her chosen successor, Obama, to a few of the district's influential liberals at the home of two well-known figures on the local left: William Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn, self-described Marxists and ex-leaders of the terrorist Weather Underground.

"I remember being one of a small group of people who came to Bill Ayers' house to learn that Alice Palmer was stepping down from the Senate and running for Congress," said Quentin Young, a prominent Chicago physician and advocate for single-payer health care. "(Palmer) identified (Obama) as her successor."

We asked the following: "Before old-style Chicago politics as practiced by an ambitious Obama doomed their friendship, he thought Palmer was a good public servant, and Soviet admirer Palmer thought he was a worthy heir. Why?"

Well, now we know.

If one wants gubmit employment--where the action is--it's time to party on. I've thought of my high-ranking GS buddy who anticipates retiring at $125k a year in about ten years' time. He'll be in his early fifties. A lot better deal than mine in the private sector. Working as a layman for the Catholic church has got to be the worst financial decision one can make.

Do you want to see the future of the US under the policies Obama, Pelosi, and Reid are trying to impose upon us? Then check out this video, courtesy of PJTV.

After 50 years of leftist policies and politics, Detroit has gone from the peak to the valley, having shrunk in population by 50%. Is that's what in store for us under leftist leadership for the rest of the country?

The average DC bureaucrat earns a salary of $71,206. HT: Instapundit

People in the private sector are the serfs, laboring in the fields to support their lords.

Watching what's happening to our economy today it's easy to forget that this isn't the first time we've been through this, with government trying to spend its way out of a recession. The effort back in the 1930's failed miserably, extending the Great Depression for years, as did the 'stimulus' of 1962, which prompted Ayn Rand to comment on the error on the part of government in thinking such spending would do anything but have negative effect, that our economic IQ was sadly deficient. From her column in the L.A Times back in 1962:

Since "economic growth" is today's great problem, and our present Administration is promising to "stimulate" it--to achieve general prosperity by ever wider government controls, while spending an unproduced wealth--I wonder how many people know the origin of the term laissez-faire?

France, in the seventeenth century, was an absolute monarchy. Her system has been described as "absolutism limited by chaos." The king held total power over everyone's life, work, and property--and only the corruption of government officials gave people an unofficial margin of freedom.

Louis XIV was an archetypical despot: a pretentious mediocrity with grandiose ambitions. His reign is regarded as one of the brilliant periods of French history: he provided the country with a "national goal," in the form of long and successful wars; he established France as the leading power and the cultural center of Europe. But "national goals" cost money. The fiscal policies of his government led to a chronic state of crisis, solved by the immemorial expedient of draining the country through ever-increasing taxation.

Colbert, chief adviser of Louis XIV, was one of the early modern statists. He believed that government regulations can create national prosperity and that higher tax revenues can be obtained only from the country's "economic growth"; so he devoted himself to seeking "a general increase in wealth by the encouragement of industry." The encouragement consisted of imposing countless government controls and minute regulations that choked business activity; the result was dismal failure.

Colbert was not an enemy of business; no more than is our present Administration. Colbert was eager to help fatten the sacrificial victims--and on one historic occasion, he asked a group of manufacturers what he could do for industry. A manufacturer named Legendre answered: "Laissez-nous faire!" ("Let us alone!")

Apparently, the French businessmen of the seventeenth century had more courage than their American counterparts of the twentieth, and a better understanding of economics. They knew that government "help" to business is just as disastrous as government persecution, and that the only way a government can be of service to national prosperity is by keeping its hands off.

Regardless of the purpose for which one intends to use it, wealth must first be produced. As far as economics is concerned, there is no difference between the motives of Colbert and of President Johnson. Both wanted to achieve national prosperity. Whether the wealth extorted by taxation is drained for the unearned benefit of Louis XIV or for the unearned benefit of the "underprivileged" makes no difference to the economic productivity of a nation. Whether one is chained for a "noble" purpose or an ignoble one, for the benefit of the poor or the rich, for the sake of somebody's "need" or somebody's "greed"--when one is chained, one cannot produce.

There is no difference in the ultimate fate of all chained economies, regardless of any alleged justifications for the chains.

It seems that we still haven't learned that lesson four decades or four centuries later. As the late Ronald Reagan said more than once, "Government isn't the answer. Government is the problem." It was true back during Louis XIV's reign and it's true today. Our government is bent on controlling more businesses, either through direct take over like GM, Chrysler, the banks, and health care, or through onerous regulation and taxation, all in the name of 'stimulus' and 'fairness'.

Apparently our leaders have learned nothing from past attempts to tighten control over economies and businesses that their attempts won't work, won't create the results they want, and won't lead to anything but more poverty, less business, and a weaker economy than if they'd just left everything alone. But government is incapable of not fiddling about with things they really don't understand. And that's our biggest problem today.

If you want a preview of what ObamaCare/PelosiCare is going to be like, take a look at this:


The only problem we'll have is that we'll have no place to go to get the care we want, unlike our Canadian brethren do now. Hmm, maybe some of the more enterprising physicians in the US will move their practices offshore to one of the Caribbean islands in order to give the care we Americans will soon be deprived of by the oh-so-caring US Government.

(H/T Instapundit)

It still smarts that John E. Sununu, the Senate's only engineer, lost to what I consider an intellectual lightweight and a crass triangulating politician, Jeanne Shaheen, for the US Senate.

One datum that still shocks is how much higher the female vote was for liberal Shaheen, thirty-one points.  That still doesn't make sense.

This book, linked to by my homepage Instapundit, has a reviewer who attempts to defend the modern leviathan state in a way almost certain to draw guffaws. At least from me.

I'm reminded how Benjamin Franklin records in his Autobiography how he became a deist, a believer in the clockwork universe, after reading a book attacking it. The quotations it used from deists was enough to convince Franklin that deism had something going for it.

I'm forty-two years old. During that time, the US federal government has grown enormously and, frankly, I don't think there's much to show for it. That's another debate, but to defend it by obstetrician competency boards as this one-star reviewer does of the little book is laughable.

As we saw with Hurricane Katrina, when the state is no longer able to provide and defend women who have largely used it to replace husbands, they can be in a world of hurt. I'm afraid women are much more likely to embrace security in exchange for liberty.

I think John Derbyshire touches upon this in one of his early chapters in his new book We Are Doomed. I love it!

Remember when this country was founded we had the "Liberty Song," Liberty Bell, liberty trees, etc. It was about freedom. How quaint it all seems as we rush headlong into socialism.

This is yet another great post from Nathan, in this case covering a subject near and dear to my heart - the Land of Fruits and Nuts.

********************

Upon reading this, my emotions are mixed.

Sacramento - The influential lobby group Consumer Electronics Assn. is fighting what appears to be a losing battle to dissuade California regulators from passing the nation's first ban on energy-hungry big-screen televisions.

At first, what I felt was disgust: yet another way for (soon to be) Uncle "Big Brother" Sam to control me, an American citizen, and force me to do/have/buy what he wishes. However, a second later I had a brilliant thought. Perhaps this really was for the good of the people. After all, California is in the midst of just about every crises known to the modern US state, so much so, that it has been referred to as a possible "failed state". Clearly, "desperate times call for desperate measures", right? The old adage must have some meaning to be passed down through all those parental lectures. But then, I came across this in the article:

On Tuesday, executives and consultants for the Arlington, Va., trade group asked members of the California Energy Commission to instead let consumers use their wallets to decide whether they want to buy the most energy-saving new models of liquid-crystal display and plasma high-definition TVs.

What? What is this? Let consumers decide with their wallets? What revolutionary concept is this? But of course, instead of banning a product, why not just tax the product? No one will argue that these large televisions are "better" (in terms of power consumption) than these smaller, more energy efficient ones. However, if an individual works a hard, honest days' work and wishes to use the proverbial fruits of his labor to watch the Pats take the Super Bowl in 55" of HD glory, by all means, I say we let him. Does this mean I am advocating a tax on these "power guzzlers"? In all honesty, no. I think the only "tax" this man should pay for his "power guzzling television" should be to his electric company. In any case, far be it from me to question the all-knowing lawmaker. Clearly, this idea of consumers deciding with their wallets must not be happening, right? They must be spending every last penny they have to make sure they get the least energy efficient model possible, right? That's why we need Uncle "Big Brother" Sam to step in and save the environment and the stupid citizens from themselves. Oh, wait...

"Voluntary efforts are succeeding without regulations," said Doug Johnson, the association's senior director for technology policy.

Oh? Odd. Does this mean that the "stupid consumer" may not be so stupid after all? Could we, as citizens, possibly be capable of making an environmentally friendly choice completely on our own?! Clearly, this is an age of miracles. Again, I believe represents another piece of "Trojan Horse" legislation delivered by our government management team. Sure, saving the environment is a good thing. Whether or not one believes that global warming exists is irrelevant here. This is just about being good stewards and taking care of what we have. Even those that do not believe in global warming cannot argue that it is good to save energy when we can, to invest in cleaner, more efficient technologies. The consumers have shown that they do, in fact, care about their environments, and have already shown that they are capable of making an "eco-friendly" choice without any government intervention. Why, then, do they insist on making more and more laws to govern what clearly is not in any need of governing? Again, from the article:

Too much government interference could hamstring industry innovation and prove expensive to manufacturers and consumers, he (Doug Johnson) warned.

Another novel concept brought to us today. Of course too much government involvement can hamstring an industry, and for those who "don't know", once you come out of your rock, I invite you to go to that glowing thing with a keyboard and type in "General Motors". Read for about five minutes, and I'm sure you and I will be on the same page. This isn't about helping the environment, or even "solving the energy crisis". This is about power, plain and simple. There is no other reason for legislature to be passed on this issue. The populous is already moving in the direction that has been deemed "good". It would be one thing if these were causing widespread black/brown outs, etc. But they are not. Simply put, Uncle Big Brother Sam wishes to take one more freedom away from the citizen. As previously mentioned, I firmly believe that if you work an honest day's work, you should by all means be able to take your check and buy that 55" inch behemoth. As to Uncle Big Brother Sam, I'd offer you this bit of advice: Focus your powers on the ones that are spending other people's money, not the ones that are spending their own. (I know, one's own money. Such a concept). In closing, I believe I could sum up my view on this entire article with this one good old fashioned New England quip:

If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

---TNJ

This was stolen shamelessly in its entirety from Maggie's Farm. It was too good to just link it. (The only changes made were in formatting and one or two minor spelling error corrections.)

I do not think it's so much because people want freedom and choice (although they do) as it is because people have no confidence in government entitlement programs (which the Dem plans are all about, ultimately). Why?

Social Security - bankrupt
Postal Service - bankrupt
Welfare - had devastating unintended consequences for which the nation still pays and from which the nation continues to suffer (eg huge rates - up to 70% - of single motherhood among beneficiaries)
Medicare - bankrupt
Medicaid - bankrupting the states
Government-run (ie union-controlled) schools: are people thrilled with them?
Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac - bankrupt
The "stimulus" - a failure, but it did create 25,000 new government jobs!

The future tax consequences of the above are daunting to people, and the idea of adding another trillion or so frightens the heck out of people who are thinking about their own well-being, their kids' futures - and also about the nation's.

The sad thing is that most of what people complain about in health care can be easily solved without giant government controls and bureaucracies:

1. Permit interstate competition among insurance companies so people can have a wide range of choices of types of policies including cheap major medical which is what makes sense for most people, and explain the basic fact that medical care has to be paid for, and even saved for, same as car repairs and house repairs and vacations (and legal costs). That is what grown-ups do. You can get major medical for a family for the price of a big-screen TV.
2. Portability of insurance - so you own it (that is complicated tho for companies that self-insure)
3. A law that says you cannot be canceled if you get sick
4. State "pools" for the uninsurable, same as for uninsurable drivers. We already have (bankrupt) Medicaid for the poor.

How easy and non-controversial would those changes be? Abundant, high quality, and fairly expensive medical care is one of the great blessings and privileges of a prosperous society, and thus an important economic engine. Why kill it? People want these things.

Do Americans want to be grown-ups, or children? It's our call.

The Barrister also suggests we contact our Senators and House Representatives and let them know our views on the Democrat health care reform plans. I have already done so and my congresscritter, Carol Shea-Porter (D-NH1), has made it quite clear she doesn't give a damn what I think. The same is true of one of our two senators, Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH). But that doesn't mean I won't stop contacting their offices (I use snail-mail rather than e-mail because it's too easy to hit the Delete key), and let them know my thoughts on various issues and legislation.

One thing far too many people promoting national health care reform have overlooked has been the actual economics of the main proposal (HR3200). In their minds the numbers will come into alignment if we all just wish hard enough and keep our fingers crossed. But taking a look at the economics with a (hopefully) dispassionate eye reveals some disturbing issues that have been ignored, either by design or through ignorance. (I, being the kind of guy I am, am willing to give the proponents the benefit of doubt and assume it's from ignorance.)

Whenever government gets involved, and particularly the federal government, costs go up. It is inevitable. Our own history has shown again and again that is the case. Why does anyone doubt that it will happen again if government takes a broader role in health care? All anyone needs to do is look at what's been happening in Massachusetts, where their preview of nationwide health care reform has done nothing but increased costs and wait times. Can anyone say that won't happen across the board if Obama gets his way?

So before there's any progress on such reform, proponents cannot defy the economics of that reform and what it really means. Too many parts of the most well known health care reform bill - the aforementioned HR3200 - ignore the economic impacts, which in turn will lead to the failure of the reform measure while at the same time damaging or destroying the existing medical care infrastructure. That's no way to 'fix' the problem.

A few 'lowlights' of what we can look forward to if HR3200 should pass:

Massachusetts reduced its uninsured population by two-thirds -- yet the cost would be considered staggering, had state officials not done such a good job of hiding it. Finally, Massachusetts shows where "ObamaCare" would ultimately lead: Officials are already laying the groundwork for government rationing.

The most sweeping provision in the Massachusetts reforms -- and the legislation before Congress -- is an "individual mandate" that makes health insurance compulsory. Massachusetts shows that such a mandate would oust millions from their low-cost health plans and force them to pay higher premiums.

The necessity of specifying what satisfies the mandate gives politicians enormous power to dictate the content of every American's health plan -- a power that health care providers inevitably capture and use to increase the required level of insurance.

--snip--

Those requirements can increase premiums by 14 percent or more. Officials further increased premiums by imposing new limits on cost-sharing.

Over time, as mandates eliminate low-cost options and price controls eliminate comprehensive options, both the Massachusetts and Obama reforms will march consumers into a narrow range of health plans.

As goes choice, so goes quality. Statistics on waiting times for specialist care in Massachusetts read like a dispatch from Canada. In 2004, Boston already had the longest waits among metropolitan areas. By 2009, waits had generally shortened in other metro areas (average wait: less than three weeks) but lengthened in Boston (average wait: seven weeks), according to the Merritt Hawkins survey.

Some may argue that the national version of this program won't suffer from the problems seen in Massachusetts, but anyone with even a little knowledge of history will understand that the problems with a national program will be far worse. In the end it will benefit no one but the government. Disincentives for health care workers will make sure the quality and quantity of health care available will fall, particularly after the more gifted and dedicated workers are finally driven out by frustration and stress. It's already started in Massachusetts and has been an ongoing problem in the UK.

One does not promote better health care by penalizing those giving exceptional care. But that's exactly what this latest version of socialized medicine will do.

I always thought the way to ensure more 'equality' when it came to any issue, be it economic, political, or medical, was to raise everyone up to a higher level, not pull everyone down to the lowest common denominator. That's what health care reform as proposed will do, making sure no one but the most wealthy (and members of the ruling elite) will receive exceptional care. The rest of us will be left with an ever declining quality and quantity of health care because reform made it inevitable that it would be so.

If nothing else such a move should be considered criminal because it looks like just what it is: racketeering. And we must remember racketeering has a long, fruitful history in Chicago.

Another problem with health care reform is that viable, workable plans are being ignored. It could be because the plans are being proposed by people other than those belonging to the 'right' party. Never mind that they might actually work as compared to ObamaCare.

One would thing the Democrats would pay attention to some of those plans, particularly those put forth by knowledgeable health care professionals, like Dr. Arthur M. Feldman:

As a cardiologist and the administrator of a large practice that includes general internists and specialists, I spend much of my time trying to figure out how to provide care for a growing number of uninsured or underinsured patients. I also have to battle billion-dollar private insurance companies that don't adequately cover patients with preexisting illnesses and often deny coverage for necessary treatments.

On a basic level, I'm with the president: Our health-care system needs to be changed so that all of my patients, and all citizens, have access to the care they need. But I don't agree with how he wants to fix things. Most of my colleagues and I strongly oppose the health-care reform bills that Congress will take up again this week. The proposals leave enormous gaps unfilled.

Before President Obama addresses a joint session of Congress on Wednesday, I hope he will consider these 10 major reasons why I -- and doctors like me -- worry that the legislation on the table will leave us worse off.

1.Private insurance companies escape real regulation.
2.We urgently need tort reform, but it's nowhere to be seen.
3."Prevention" won't magically make costs go down.
4.Reform efforts don't address our critical shortage of health-care workers.
5.We need more primary-care physicians -- but we also need specialists.
6.We have to streamline drug development and shake up the Food and Drug Administration.
7.We can't fund health-care reform by cutting payments to doctors.
8.We can't forget about research.
9.Cutting reimbursements could shut some hospitals down.
10.We need to improve the quality of care.

Each of Dr. Feldman's points bear looking into. (In his article linked above, each of his ten points are explained in detail.) Failure to address these issues will cause health care reform to be a dismal failure, creating both medical and economic chaos. Of course, I always thought health care reform was supposed to make things better, not worse. But if Congress does not abandon its ill-advised course of action in this regard, we will all be worse off for no other reason than they made it be that way.

More to follow in Part II.....

You know our government has a problem when even something that's free is too expensive for it to use.

QUESTION: Can you please let the staff use an alternative web browser called Firefox? I just (applause) I just moved to the State Department from the National Geospatial Intelligence Agency and was surprised that State doesn't use this browser. It was approved for the entire intelligence community, so I don't understand why State can't use it. It's a much safer program. Thank you. (Applause.)

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, apparently, there's a lot of support for this suggestion. (Laughter.) I don't know the answer. Pat, do you know the answer? (Laughter.)

UNDER SECRETARY KENNEDY: The answer is at the moment, it's an expense question. We can --

QUESTION: It's free. (Laughter.)

Your tax dollars at work.

That's sad.

I have to wonder why Barney Frank is still in office.

First, he torpedoes any effort by Congress or President Bush to tighten controls on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, declaring they were both financially sound even though their lending practices were sketchy at best.

We all know what happened to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Now dimbulb Barney wants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to loosen their lending standards again.

Back when the housing mania was taking off, Massachusetts Congressman Barney Frank famously said he wanted Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to "roll the dice" in the name of affordable housing. That didn't turn out so well, but Mr. Frank has since only accumulated more power. And now he is returning to the scene of the calamity -- with your money. He and New York Representative Anthony Weiner have sent a letter to the heads of Fannie and Freddie exhorting them to lower lending standards for condo buyers.

You read that right. After two years of telling us how lax lending standards drove up the market and led to loans that should never have been made, Mr. Frank wants Fannie and Freddie to take more risk in condo developments with high percentages of unsold units, high delinquency rates or high concentrations of ownership within the development.

Isn't this how we got into trouble in the first place? He doesn't get it, does he? He really doesn't get it.