There are only two ways that the available supply of any good or service can be rationed out. The first is the American way – price. Those willing and able to pay the price get the supply. Those unwilling or unable to pay the price go without. The second is the Obamunist way – waiting lines. In the old Soviet Union, those who were willing and able to wait in long lines for hours got the available bread supply. Those at the end of the line or those who gave up and dropped out of line received no bread. The Obamunists way is to ration the available supply of health care with waiting lines. Those who are unable or unwilling to pay the new “price” of waiting in line for health care will never get any. Moreover, the Obamunists want to decide who gets to cut to the head of the line, that is, they will decide who gets health care and who does not. Page 26 of the Obamunists’ House Bill has the provision for waiting lists:
“If the Secretary estimates for any fiscal year that the aggregate amounts available for payment of expenses of the high-risk pool will be less than the amount of the expenses, the Secretary shall make such adjustments as are necessary to eliminate such deficit, including reducing benefits, increasing premiums, or establishing waiting lists.”
That’s the Obamunist way, but it’s not the American way. The American way is to allow price to ration the available supply and to spend every effort increasing that available supply so the price will be low and everyone can afford it. We need more physicians, nurses, hospitals, clinics, medical research and non-government subsidized insurance companies – not less. How do we get more of these things? The Obamunists will promise to increase the available supply by putting more of these people on the government payroll and by creating government subsidized and government controlled insurance providers. But will they really spend more to increase the available supply so we don’t have to wait in their line very long? It’s doubtful, since the easy way out - the path of least resistance – is to simply decide not to spend on certain groups who then die or are too sick to go to the polls and vote them out of office. The Obamunists won’t give you the choice to pay the price of private health care. Instead, they will decide who pays little and who will receive no health care and thus pay the ultimate price. If you vote against them or speak out against them – don’t expect to go the the head of the line. The Obamunists have a special “economy healthcare package” just for you.
Bill Frezza has some skeptical thoughts about the recent move to subsidize financially ailing newspapers:
Behold the “Independent Journalism Tax.”
In order to preserve independent journalism in the age of the Internet, a national Fund for Local News should be created with money the FCC now collects from or could impose on telecom users, television and radio broadcast licensees, or Internet service providers.
This is the key recommendation buried on page 91 of a 100 page report issued last week titled “The Reconstruction of American Journalism” by Leonard Downie, Jr. Vice President of the Washington Post, and Michael Schudson, a professor at the Columbia School of Journalism. In the current era of single party rule, is there any chance that this further intrusion of the government into our lives might actually come true? Might we one day be forced to pay a tax every time we make a cell phone call to make sure the Press Room in the White House is stuffed with even more reporters eager to credulously swallow whatever nonsense comes out of the President’s mouth? Could truly independent newspapers be forced to compete with government subsidized lapdogs like, say, truly independent banks or car companies?
Yup, this idea is not really intended to support the newspapers, it’s intended by the Obamunists to make government control of the once free press permanent in the US.
Major news media don’t even mention the fact that Green Jobs Czar Van Jones is a communist when reporting about his Labor Day weekend resignation. The Obama Administration knew all along that Jones was an admitted communist, yet welcomed him into their fold. Why?
The Obama Administration has given permission to hold a celebration to honor the founding of Communist China by flying their flag at the White House. Why?
The Obama Administration has directed Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State to terminate a broad range of assistance to the government of Honduras, charging the de facto regime with continuing failure to “restore democratic, constitutional rule to Honduras”. The State Department has said that they will restore the terminated assistance upon a return to “democratic, constitutional governance in Honduras”. Their normally scheduled presidential election will be in November. But, the State Department says “we would not be able to support the outcome of the scheduled elections.” Why?
The Honduran Constitution may be amended in any way except three. No amendment can ever change (1) the country’s borders, (2) the rules that limit a president to a single four-year term and (3) the requirement that presidential administrations must “succeed one another” in a “republican form of government.” Article 239 of the Constitution specifically states that any president who so much as proposes the permissibility of reelection “shall cease forthwith” in his duties, and Article 4 provides that any “infraction” of the succession rules constitutes treason. The rules are so tight because these are terribly serious issues for Honduras, which lived under decades of military rule. The Hondurans were following their constitution when they refused to allow their president to serve more than one term and refused to allow their constitution to be amended in an area where it can not be amended. There is presently a joint resolution proposed in Congress to repeal the 22nd Amendment to the US constitution in order to allow Barack Obama to serve more than two terms as president, just as Hugo Chaves did in Venezuela and as the former president of Honduras tried to do. In this light, it gets easier to see why the Obama administration opposes the freedom of the Hondurans. We hope that Mrs. Clinton soon distances herself from this travesty. She is better than that.
Accuracy in Media says the communist leanings of the Obama administration threaten to be its undoing. We agree. The media is either afraid to deal with the real issue that these examples of Administration doctrine are highlighting or the media itself supports a conversion of the United States to a Communist regime. Either way… it’s the communism – Stupid!
An interview with Anna Schwartz on the performance of the Oministration on the economy…she’s not impressed:
Ryssdal: In your mind, these toxic assets, the bad assets that these banks still have on their books, are they still a big problem or have they worked their way through the system now?
SCHWARTZ: No, and I think the big shortcoming of the Obama administration, and Bush before that, was that it didn’t make a concerted effort to get rid of these assets. I mean in a sense it’s a condemnation of the Federal Reserve. They did not respond to securitization, which is the basic condition for the creation of these toxic assets. Neither Alan Greenspan or anybody else at the Fed seemed to be concerned.
Ryssdal: When an economic historian comes along in 25 or 30 years and tries to do for this episode what you and Professor Friedman did for the Great Depression, what’s their verdict going to be on the monetary policy that the Fed has been following?
SCHWARTZ: Well, there has not been a straight line in the programs that the Fed has introduced over this period. So, I don’t know whether the verdict will be charitable. It’s always possible to find reasons why other alternatives were not really available. But I think on the whole the performance has been disappointing. Because now two years and more after Bernanke came into office we don’t see visible signs of change for the better.
Zero Hedge has a must read on Judicial Watch’s release of Treasury Department talking points of the meeting with the nine big banks in October. The release demonstrates that Ken Lewis was telling the truth when he says he was threatened. The Obama Administration withheld information specific to Tim Geithner’s role. This paste is from Judicial Watch, but read the ZH post too:
“Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, announced today that it forced the Obama administration to release documentsabout the October 13, 2008, Treasury Department meeting that coerced major banks to allow the government to take $250 billion equity stakes. Among the other news, the documents confirm former Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson told the CEOs of nine major banks that they had no choice but to allow the government to take equity stakes in their institutions. The documents show Obama Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, FDIC Chairman Shelia Blair, and Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke co-hosted the meeting with Paulson.
“These documents show our government exercising unrestrained power over the private sector. Despite promises of transparency, the Obama administration tried to cover up the very existence of these smoking-gun documents. And the cover-up continues, as the Obama administration protects Timothy Geithner by withholding a key document about his role in this infamous bankers meeting,” stated Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.”
Bill Frezza on the Obama administration’s vilification of Chrysler’s bondholders and favoring the union, even if it means trampling the law.
Larry Kudlow interviews Tom Lauria, lawyer for Non-TARP lenders who client was threatened by the government for opposing taking from bondholders and giving to the UAW.
First is the original radio interview of Mr. Lauria. He now refuses to talk about it because he is afraid he will be sued by his now “former” client. The second video is Kudlow’s interview.
Baseline Scenario is calling for laws to prevent conflicts of interest like that reported by the NYT: the CEO of AIG, Edward Liddy owns $3million of Goldman Sachs stock.
“Let me be very clear on my position vis-a-vis AIG-Goldman and the broader Washington-Wall Street Corridor. I’m not saying that anyone has broken any laws, but rather that laws need to be changed.”
But really, we already have laws against this- they just aren’t being enforced by the Obama administration. Why not? It’s simply not in the best interest of the government to enforce the laws of the land when the government is complicit in violation. Manipulation of the stock market to benefit the banks is illegal too, but that law’s not being enforced either. Why not? We guess the government doesn’t have to obey the law “in times of crisis”.
“If we lie to the people and they believe us, all will be well.” We think only the most naive don’t already know it, but since we have seen the suckers move markets on ignorance in the past, it may help to let experts, like Bill Black, a former senior bank regulator responsible for helping wind down the S&L crisis in the late 80′s tell us all again: the Geithner bank stress tests are a sham. The Treasury controls the outcome of the tests and insolvent banks will not be identified…unless the bank is not “playing ball” with the Obama administration.
In a WSJ opinion, Stuart Varney of FOX Business News acknowledges that about $340 million in TARP money was returned to the government this week by four small banks in Louisiana, New York, Indiana and California. But for at least one larger bank on whom TARP money was previously forced by the Bush administration, Mr Varney reports the Obama administration is refusing to accept the return of TARP funds because:
“The government wants to control the banks, just as it now controls GM and Chrysler, and will surely control the health industry in the not-too-distant future. Keeping them TARP-stuffed is the key to control. And for this intensely political president, mere influence is not enough. The White House wants to tell ‘em what to do. Control. Direct. Command.
The [bank] chairman offers to write a check, now, with interest. He’s been sitting on the cash for months and has felt the dead hand of government threatening to run his business and dictate pay scales. He sees the writing on the wall and he wants out. But the Obama team says no, since unlike the smaller banks that gave their TARP money back, this bank is far more prominent. The bank has also been threatened with “adverse” consequences if its chairman persists. That’s politics talking, not economics.
Think about it: If Rick Wagoner can be fired and compact cars can be mandated, why can’t a bank with a vault full of TARP money be told where to lend? And since politics drives this administration, why can’t special loans and terms be offered to favored constituents, favored industries, or even favored regions? Our prosperity has never been based on the political allocation of credit — until now.”
