Both author Michael Barone and Limbaugh questioned how someone like 'green jobs' czar Van Jones, a self-avowed 'truther' could end up in the Obama administration, especially given his other beliefs and associations. Could it be that the Obama administration didn't know? Or is it that they knew, and approved?
Either way, it spells long-term trouble for the president. If he didn't know about Van Jones, what else doesn't he know about the other czars in his administration who are in charge of multiple initiatives and public funds? If he did know and brought him in anyway, is it an indication of Obama's belief in and/or support for such theories or philosophies?
Perhaps only time will tell.
* This same article also had an interesting opinion on 'green jobs' which I fully share:
"If there were money to be made in green jobs, private investors would be creating them already. In fact big corporations like General Electric are scrambling to position themselves as green companies, gaming legislation and regulations so they can make profits by doing so. Big business is ready to create green jobs -- if government subsidizes them. But the idea that green jobs will replace all the lost carbon-emitting jobs is magical thinking."
I only hope our local mayoral candidates will remember this fact about the free market.
* Michael Moore's new movie premiered this week and basically says that capitalism is evil. Here's my question for all candidates, especially those who say they are Democrats (as that party has embraced this filmmaker and his films): Do you agree with Michael Moore that capitalism is evil?
The answer to that question will tell more about the candidate than any policy or position paper or press conference.
I'd also like to know what the everyday Democrat thinks of this opinion? Is this really what my neighbors, who are registered as Democrats, think of our economic system?
Or is that some people are evil and do bad things - and that even good people will make bad (evil) decisions?
* There's been a lot of discussion about the conservative opposition to the health care bill and government-run health care versus Medicare and Veteran's Services health programs.
Here's the thing: I oppose the concept of Medicare and of the government forcing our Veterans to use a government-run program for their health care needs. I can find no authorization in the Constitution (except the 'general welfare' clause which our founders specifically said should not be used as a catch-all for anything government wants to do) for such programs.
However, individuals have participated in and paid into the Medicare program and expect a return for that investment and promise. So it wouldn't be 'fair' or 'right' to suddenly eliminate a program people are participating in, or expect to provide for them in the future.
There is another way, though, that those on the left fail to consider. Instead of continuing to collect the money from today's payers in order to fund yesterday's enrollees (which is causing the bankrupting of the system as it goes broke), modify it so that the individuals get the funds back and make the decisions about how to spend those funds on their own. That way, they get more purchasing power for their money since the government isn't taking its share (for government salaries, program administration, etc...) right off the top.
What would happen if we suddenly returned to the individuals their portion of what they'd paid in and then said, 'we trust you to make good decisions that are in your best interests without us telling you what to do?' Or would there be too many who truly believe that people cannot make good decisions which is why the government must do it for them?
Again, the answer to that question tells us everything we need to know about the person giving the answer.
* I heard a sound clip on one of the talk shows yesterday about a businesswoman in California at one of the health care town hall meetings - it should be heard by everyone, especially the elected officials.
What go her so upset to begin with was that she had taken the time to call and write her representative. But she said that when she did so, she got a form letter response saying 'thank you for your support', which obviously indicated no one had really read what she'd written; or she was condescendingly told by staffers that the representative really knew better than she did.
Her point was that as a business owner, there were two things Congress could do immediately to help 'solve' the claimed health care 'crisis': 1) tort reform and 2) open up the market between states. She then said something startling: there are 1,300 insurance companies in the nation but only six that are available in California for her to choose from.
Can you imagine? Over 1,300 companies that could be offering plans and competing for our business, but only six that Californians can select? I have no idea how many there are in Ohio, but could it be a similar amount?
Opening up inter-state competition wouldn't cost a thing. And it could be done by Congress pretty much immediately. Why not try it and see if providing such immediate 'choice and competition' would have any effect before setting up huge bureaucracies to 'provide choice and competition'????
The only reason why that would be opposed would be in lawmakers thought they'd somehow lose either control, power or campaign funds in doing so.
It's an instant way to provide exactly what they say they want to provide without costing taxpayers a single penny. Why wouldn't they do so if 'choice and competition' were truly the goal?
* Hourglass 1941 blog has a second video of Rep. Mary Jo Kilroy refusing to answer questions about H.R. 3200, America's AFfordable Health Choices Act of 2009, will be paid for. Instead, she walks away. She should either admit she doesn't know or explain how the bill will be funded. Perhaps she just afraid that doing either would look worse than just walking away?