Posted by
William D. Dannenmaier on Sunday, February 07, 2010 2:46:29 PM
Senator Schumer of New York was quoted in Bloomberg.com (December 24) as saying that not just a few states, but all states received special, specific, benefits under the Senate health bill. In other words, the Senate bill is not a national bill, but a collection of 50 differing state health bills, to be supported by all taxpayers and overseen by a new and large federal bureaucracy. It is one way of creating thousands of new jobs, all at taxpayer expense. You take money from the working people and recycle it back to them after taking out part of it to pay the new bureau for taking it and recycling it. Seems like a lose/lose game for taxpayers.
It has become customary for the Obama administration to brag about the fact that the number of newly unemployed is dropping each month. With 10% unemployed and a total of 17% either unemployed or under-employed fewer are becoming unemployed. Why is this something to brag about? Think of a large pot of soup. If you take several large bowls of soup out of it, is it surprising that future helpings of soup will be smaller? Naturally, as fewer people are employed, there will be fewer to become unemployed. It is difficult to get soup out of an empty pot.
Martha Coakley lost in Massachusetts. She deserved to. I believe that after what she did to the Amault family she should have gone to prison. I don’t believe that is why she lost, although I hope it helped. She lost for the same reason that the Republican lost in New York. The party simply nominated a dependable political hack for an elected position and people are tired of dependable political hacks.
Reading this morning about how it is Bush’s fault that Coakley lost – along with other problems that are all of Bush’s doing, I thought about Congress. I have yet to read an article which pointed out that a Democratic Congress was enacting laws during Bush’s last two years, the two years that began our current depression. Other articles question whether Obama will be able to move to the center, as Clinton did. They also forget to mention the role of Congress, the Republican Congress elected after Clinton’s poorly managed first two years, which passed the reforms that Clinton is now credited with creating. This continued failure by the major media to report fully the role of Congress and of specific Congressmen in our troubles interests me. I can think of only three possible reasons for it. One, the reporters are too lazy to do their job properly. Two, the media bigwigs think the American people are too stupid to understand that it is Congress which makes the laws, the Federal government under the President that carries them out. Or, three, the major media all support the Democratic Party and will distort the news for their party’s benefit. Unfortunately, until the news media give the elected Congressionals full credit for their role in government – by name and party – people will be unable to vote intelligently in Congressional elections.
Coakley’s pursuit of the Amault family reminds me of the trials of witches in colonial Massachusetts. Just as the burning of witches has been a historical blot on the Puritan rule of Massachusetts, the destruction of the Amault family will be a continuing disgrace for Ms Coakley and the Democratic Party.
Sheila and I were interested in President Obama’s appeal to the Republicans to assist in getting bills passed rather than being, according to him, obstructionists. Sheila has taken time to write to our Republican Senators suggesting that they take one of their small suggestions, such as permitting people to purchase health insurance across state lines, and ask for his support in passing that. Of course, the idea that Republicans have been able to block any of his plans in his first year is absurd considering the Democratic blockage proof majorities in both the House of Representatives and the Senate.
I am astonished by the media’s expose′ and surprise of the fact that Sarah Palin and her husband talk with one another, perhaps for a different reason than that shocking the media. In my world, and I believe it is one shared by millions of others, husbands and wives talk to one another, advise one another and help one another. Why is this so surprising to the titans of the media? Whom do they trust in their private moments? It is true that the Clintons made no secret of the fact that they advised each other, but everyone knew their marriage was one of political convenience. Perhaps that is why their public cooperation was not shocking to the media personalities. What sort of marriages do these media personalities have? What sorry lives these people must lead to not understand that marriages are partnerships of mutual trust and support!