Obama vs The United States Obama Wins!

So far, nothing has changed. Oh, the USA is now being run by Chicago politco-mobsters (my apologies to actual mobsters), but other than that, all is well.

I'm kidding, of course.

When the will of the people is ignored by politicians who are eager to paint the opposition as violent, intolerant, xenophobes who must be reined in, what other excesses can be expected by those politicians.

The Democrats are giddy over this victory. But whom was it a victory against since if there are winners there have to be losers? The victory was against you and me. We were the enemy because the Democrats were fighting the majority of the American people. It's not like Americans didn't try to kill the bill and there was every legal reason to think they'd done so. Americans showed up by the tens of thousands. They flooded e-mail boxes, burned up the internet, jammed phone lines. And the response of Obama and his party could be summed up as, "Let them eat debt."

To quote Obama's Marxist mentor, Saul Alinsky, "There's another reason for working inside the system. Dostoevsky said that taking a new step is what people fear most. Any revolutionary change must be preceded by a passive, affirmative, non-challenging attitude toward change among the mass of our people. They must feel so frustrated, so defeated, so lost, so futureless in the prevailing system that they are willing to let go of the past and change the future. This acceptance is the reformation essential to any revolution." (Saul Alinsky, Rules for Radicals, 1971) Who is the "they" Alinsky is referring to? The same "they" that lost to the Democrats.

Not a single Republican voted for the bill. Virtually every Democrat did. We'd heard a lot about Blue Dog Democrats, those who were either supposedly conservative or at least represented conservative voters. But at the crack of Nancy Pelosi s whip, the Blue Dogs took out their teeth and heeled. And those Pro-Life Democrats who would not support tax-payer supported abortion? Well the wind changed, money or influence changed hands, an arm or two got twisted, and they quietly stepped into the pro-baby killing camp.

Sixty-two percent of Americans want the Republicans to continue challenging the Obama Health Care Bill (CBS News Politics, 24 March). A March 22, CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll has 59 percent opposing Obamacare (only 39 percent like it). 62% realize that the bill increases how much money they'll spend on healthcare; 70% think, correctly, that deficits will increase, despite Obama's promises.

I don't know a lot of people who think the government running anything is a good idea. Fanny Mae, Freddie Mac, Social Security, Amtrac, the Post Office, et. al., are all near or completely bankrupt. So are the cities and states we live in.

It's not like there's no proof that nationalized health care doesn't work. It's been tried in most of Europe and on our own doorstep in Canada. The result: rationed care, life-threatening (and ending) waits for care, no competition, few options, and as a bonus, dirtier facilities. It's even been tried in our own American state of Massachusetts (thanks Republican governor Romney). How'd that work? Massachusetts now has the highest premiums in the country. Well, at least under Obamacare, all states will now have higher premiums -- equality at last!

Obama and the Democrats have made a lot of promises, not one of them true. President Obama's fiscal 2011 budget will generate nearly $10 trillion in cumulative budget deficits over the next 10 years -- $1.2 trillion more than the administration projected -- and raise the federal debt to 90 percent of the nation's economic output by 2020, the Congressional Budget Office reported (Washington Times, 26 March 2010).

Did I mention taxes will be going up on the American loser, er, tax payer? The Bush tax cuts die this year as does a break on capital gains. That's not counting Obama's own increasing taxes, not to mention those going on in your own state and town. Taxes, fees, add-ons, penalties -- it's death by a thousand cuts.

According to the Wall Street Journal, tens of thousands of new employees, supervisors, and investigators will be in charge of our health-care system's day-to-day operations. And the Heritage Foundation estimates the original Senate bill will retard economic growth to the tune of 620,000 lost jobs. There will be a new 3.8% Medicare tax increase on investment incomes -- interest, dividends, capital gains, annuities, royalties, and rents -- for individuals with annual adjusted gross incomes over $200,000. Those increased rates are estimated to reduce disposable income by $17.3 billion a year. A second Medicare tax increase will take 0.9% of upper-income workers' earnings

Economist Stephen Entin estimates that "the investment taxes discussed above would depress gross domestic product by some 1.3%, reduce capital formation by 3.4%, and thus reduce the after-tax incomes of everyone not paying these taxes by perhaps 1.2%. In other words, federal taxes will rise and personal incomes will fall." (Wall Street Journal, 25 March 2010) At the same time, Medicare itself will be gutted by half a trillion dollars.

Well, some folks still like the Obama Health Care Bill. Fidel Castro said of Obama, "We consider health reform to have been an important battle and a success of his government." Yippee! At least the Democrats can count on the Cuban communist vote come this November.

But let's not just concentrate on the losers. Who else won besides the Democrats in their grab for the power ring (Nancy Pelosi said in the days before the OHCB vote: "Once we kick through this door, there'll be more legislation to follow")? How about the IRS? Who knew you could call them winners, but $10 billion (that's a "B") will be spent to hire 17,000 new tax collectors, some of them being armed with, I kid you not, shotguns (Remington 870 combat shotguns, to be exact).

Another winner? The insurance companies. I know, I know, Obama painted them as evil, heartless demons, but Obamacare will funnel around a half-trillion (that's a "T") in subsidies to Big Insurance. This could explain why health insurance firms just took Obama's abuse. They knew it was all for show. More government control of the insurance companies, already one of the most regulated, red-tape, bureaucratic industries? Sure, because they may be able to improve their monopolies which had rather pitiful profit margins (about 3% in 2009).

If Obamacare is so great, why is Obama himself exempt from it? Same for Joe Biden, his silver-tongued VP. Obama's cabinet? Ditto. The cabinet's staff? Check. Congress? Off the hook. Congressional staff? The same. Iowan Senator Chuck Grassley said, "It's only fair that top administration officials, who fought so hard for passage of this health-care overhaul, experience it themselves." I agree Mr. Grassley, but I won't hold my breath.*

Do I really need the government to manage my care? Do you? Obama swears that if we get preventative care, that will cut health costs. But I already get preventative care: I watch what I eat, get plenty of exercise, and get a good night's sleep. Oh, and I'm married, pray, and go to church, all helpful in health. I go to the doctor only when I'm sick and for the occasional plumbing check (my wife makes me). I also see the dentist twice a year. In other words, I don't need the Democrat party and the American government to help me keep healthy. I don't need Uncle Nanny banning salt, transfats, tobacco, alcohol, and sugar.

"Single acts of tyranny may be ascribed to the accidental opinion of a day; but a series of oppressions, begun at a distinguished period, and pursued unalterably through every change of ministers, too plainly prove a deliberate, systematical plan of reducing us to slavery." (Thomas Jefferson, Rights of British America, 1774)

Thomas J. Clement

*UPDATE 15 April 2010

It is often said that the new health care law will affect almost every American in some way. And, perhaps fittingly if unintentionally, no one may be more affected than members of Congress themselves.

In a new report, the Congressional Research Service says the law may have significant unintended consequences for the 'personal health insurance coverage' of senators, representatives, and their staff members.

For example, it says, the law may "remove members of Congress and Congressional staff" from their current coverage, in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, before any alternatives are available.

The confusion raises the inevitable question: If they did not know exactly what they were doing to themselves, did lawmakers who wrote and passed the bill fully grasp the details of how it would influence the lives of other Americans? "It is unclear whether members of Congress and Congressional staff who are currently participating in F.E.H.B.P. may be able to retain this coverage."

Representative Jason Chaffetz, Republican of Utah, said lawmakers were in the same boat as many Americans, trying to figure out what the new law meant for them. "If members of Congress cannot explain how it's going to work for them and their staff, how will they explain it to the rest of America?" Mr. Chaffetz asked.

(Robert Pear, New York Times, 12 April 2010)