I couldnt help but repost this after seeing it on National Review Online. There are a lot of good quotes in in a monologue scene out of Dragnet regarding our nation. I cant help but wonder how many people dont know how good we have it and are willing to trade our freedom and liberty for a bureaucrat’s reassurance of security.

Many times it helps when we look to history when trying to understand the present. This can be applied to the current “health insurance reform” debate.

Democrats and socialist then were trying to pass much of what is being attempted now, but in a more mild form.

The principles and dangers which Reagan espouses in the speech still ring true.

The ultimate question is not how to help reach people who do not have health insurance. It is a question of freedom and whether or not the government can or cannot control our lives.

People know this. The writers of the bill know this.

To that extent the larger question which remains to be seen is whether or not people, without a leader, can withstand whither coordinated counter attacks by Democrats and their allies. Similarly, what how far will the Obama administration and its counter parts in the Senate and House of representatives go to consecrate the law into stone.

Of course, the glimmer of hope is that people engaging themselves in the process and reminding there representatives of their wishes to hold on to freedom. This echo of Reagan’s call for civil involvement during the debate then rings true now.

This video explains the direction President Obama and Democrats are taking concerning our national debt. It should be noted that this does not include proposals such as providing universal health care or a second stimulus bill.

A few weeks ago I posted a piece regarding candidate demagoguery of the entire earmark issue. I predict that the issue will be raised repeatedly in the Seventh Congressional District (Missouri) primary.

To that end, Chad Livengood’s piece today is a home run and must read.

Why? Because it provides at very least a glimpse into the soul of each of the perspective candidates (at least the announced ones) and how they not only view what the earmark is, but how they would approach the process if elected.

I will defer my personal feelings on earmarks for another time but leave everyone with this question: Congress abused what used to be a legitimate process and corrupted it. Does this mean the process should be reformed or completely abandoned?

Whats more, Democrats are spending in excess of four times what the GOP Congress proposed with thousands of more earmarks - yet they seem to be still riding high. Why does this issue not plague them?

Democrats apparently are looking at adding a regressive tax to fund a trillion dollar experiment in nationalization of health care.

The tax, traditionally know as a VAT (Value added tax), would be a tax on all goods and services. This is not to be confused with the fair tax which would drop all other form of taxes since VAT is an additional revenue stream.

While this would generate much more money for the government to use, it could cripple many businesses, some of which are services and are doing just fine.

Redstate.com’s Francis Cianfrocca has an excellent analysis of how a VAT will impact us in broad terms - none of which are positive.

Here is the most important item question from my perspective: Why are we looking to add another trillion to our deficit which has quadrupled since Obama took office?

Kinda makes one feel good upon receiving our twelve dollar a week tax break, eh?

In a poll that is certainly going to change between now and November 2010, Republicans took a slight two percent (within the margin of error) lead.

The significance is not so much the lead, is that the ballot is so close and the mood of the country still may be in an anti-incumbent mood - simply that people believe Democrats are now (as they were back in 2008) control or simply own the problem.

It should be noted that results will vary and people will of course have a different opinion of their own Congressman than the impression at large.

The difference between now and November, 2008, is a spread of Democrats plus six.

Republicans still are not breaking above the 41% mark, but Democrats have fallen eight points.

For those who believe President Obama and Democrats in Congress are some sort of God send and fiscally responsible, the Congressional Budget Office has some news for you - the United States is 11 trillion dollars in debt.

While presidents past (including George W. Bush) added to this deficit, none have accelerated it to the levels we now face - a whopping 13% of our Gross Domestic Product.

President Obama does not share this blame alone, however. Democrats who took control of Congress in 2006 and are current operate with nearly no checks in place to balance them are perhaps even more responsible.

Democrat sponsored legislation including the original TARP bill (which included almost two hundred billion more in spending in addition to a 20% kick back to organizations like ACORN), Stimulus/Porkulus (nearly a trillion) bill and the current budget over all budget (a proposed 3.4 trillion) all accelerated the slope we are currently hurdling down.

Whats worse, perhaps, are the various discussions we’ve heard regarding additional resources being spent because there isnt enough being done.

Is it no wonder its been recently reported that many countries are refusing the path of massive deficit spending which we are on?

Not to be left out is Republican opposition to particular provisions of the AIG bailout which were inserted by Senator Chris Dodd which allowed executives to pay themselves fat bonuses for a failing company.

Nor is the coming carbon based tax hike for everyone which Democrats in Congress are trying to rubber stamp with, save for eight “moderates”, with little or no debate.

Perhaps most perplexing to me is how these same Democrats who vote for these bills, such as Missouri Senate Claire McCaskill, to call them selves fiscal conservatives to which the media seemingly acts as nothing more than an echo chamber for.

But wait, one of the chief economist of Citi (yeah, the company who is begging for nationalization) is going to work for the Obama administration.

Who do they think they are kidding? My guess is that they and the media pat themselves on the back with a high rate of frequency, facts be damned.

Normally I dont repost chain email or press releases, but in this case the analogy regarding the stimulus bill (aka porkulus) is so telling that I felt it needed reprinting. Keep in mind this is a fictional story, but states many truths.

Shortly after class, an economics student approaches his economics professor and says,

“I don’t understand this stimulus bill. Can you explain it to me?”

The professor replied, “I don’t have any time to explain it at my office, but if you come over to my house on Saturday and help me with my weekend project, I’ll be glad to explain it to you.” The student agreed.

At the agreed-upon time, the student showed up at the professor’s house. The professor stated that the weekend project involved his backyard pool.

They both went out back to the pool, and the professor handed the student a bucket. Demonstrating with his own bucket, the professor said, “First, go over to the deep end, and fill your bucket with as much water as you can.” The student did as he was instructed.

The professor then continued, “Follow me over to the shallow end, and then dump all the water from your bucket into it.” The student was naturally confused, but did as he was told.

The professor then explained they were going to do this many more times, and began walking back to the deep end of the pool.

The confused student asked, “Excuse me, but why are we doing this?”

The professor matter-of-factly stated that he was trying to make the shallow end much deeper.

The student didn’t think the economics professor was serious, but figured that he would find out the real story soon enough.

However, after the 6th trip between the shallow end and the deep end, the student began to become worried that his economics professor had gone mad. The student finally replied, “All we’re doing is wasting valuable time and effort on unproductive pursuits. Even worse, when this process is all over, everything will be at the same level it was before, so all you’ll really have accomplished is the destruction of what could have been truly productive action!”

The professor put down his bucket and replied with a smile, “Congratulations. You now understand the stimulus bill.”

Any reasonable observer of our political system will tell you that the earmark process needs honest reform. From the notorious bridge to no where to money spent on various home district pet projects.

Still, while proven reformers like Representative Jeff Flake and Senator John McCain from Arizona lead the way, others try to mimic their actions for personal gain. There were two such instances here in Missouri this week.

Junior Senator Claire McCaskill started the process this week by making a call for “tougher pork barrel spending reform.”

The former “porker of the month“, voter for “porkulus” and TARP 1 legislation offered the following proposal with co-sponsor Senator Udall from Colorado.

• Include all earmarks in the text of the bill. Congress has attempted in the past to crack down on adding earmarks to bill text during closed-door conference negotiations between the House of Representatives and the Senate, but in practice members continued to add earmarks by including them in the “statement of managers” (a document attached to the bill that is not technically part of the text and therefore not subject to the rules). McCaskill’s bill would close this loophole by requiring that all earmarks appear in the bill’s actual language, rather than in a statement of managers.
• All authorization bills must comply with the same earmark requirements as appropriations bills. Both appropriations bills and authorization bills frequently include earmarks, but currently only appropriations bills are subject to the most stringent earmark rules. McCaskill’s legislation would ensure that authorization bills are subject to the same rules as appropriation bills.
• All earmark requests must be made public on the internet within 48 hours. Under the McCaskill bill, senators must post on their website all their earmark requests - not just those that actually make it into appropriations and authorization bills - within 48 hours of submitting them to committees. Committees must also post these requests within 48 hours.
• All appropriation and authorization conference reports must be electronically searchable. Although bills are required to be electronically searchable before they reach the Senate floor, there is a loophole that allows bills emerging from House-Senate conference negotiations to forego this step. McCaskill’s legislation would fix this loophole by explicitly requiring that all appropriations and authorization conference reports be electronically searchable at least 48 hours before they are considered by the full Senate.
• Eliminate earmarks for private companies and non-profit organizations. Private companies currently receive billions of dollars in earmarks, bypassing the competitive bidding process. Congressional offices simply do not have the capacity to conduct objective, cost-benefit and merit-based analyses of the private companies and non-profit organizations requesting earmarks each year.

These points sound good until one digs into what happens in Washington, then its a completely different story in which find the proposal either duplicates existing policies or does more harm than good.

Democrats proved with the passage of the stimulus bill (aka porkulus) such rules simply do not matter as unrelated projects are tucked skillfully into places which most of our legislators or their staff never got the chance to read.

Similarly, the blanket exclusion of earmarks for private and not for profit organizations in the name of “competitive bidding” could cripple local or state organizations and or one time projects which can be vital to a community while entrenching established bureaucracies.

In the end the only true advantage of the proposal is to give Democrats political cover and perpetuate an on going media generated myth regarding their budget record in Congress.

Not to be out done, former Missouri Treasurer Sarah Steelman decided to chide Congressman Roy Blunt and Republicans for praising Senator Bond for fighting for Missouri in Congress while labeling the process and most Republicans in the process as “corrupt.”

Steelman, who seemingly is more interested in getting even with Roy Blunt and other Republicans who endorsed her primary opponent last year, lashed out against a series of questions posed toward Democrat Senate candidate Robin Carnahan.

The implication filters down to the Republican State Committee not supporting wasteful spending and earmarks being evil - and by extension those who are currently in office (with a focus on the Roy Blut, Kitt Bond) being corrupt.

Steelman is correct that Missourians do not support inefficient and wasteful spending. However, she could not be more wrong regarding the lack of accountability or what her apparent targets do in Congress.

To be sure, Blunt and Bond are not perfect.

I would mark 2002 as a low point for Roy Blunt specifically with his insertion of tabacco interests into legislation and massive spending votes. This was wrong, as was the increased levels of pork which as whip he helped pass. This is not an accurate picture of where Roy Blunt is or his entire legislative list of accomplishments, though.

Since then Roy Blunt recanted and rebuked past budget votes and committed him self to earmark transparency and budget reform. In fact he championed many “clean” defense and various budget bills which never allowed a vote because of rules put in place by Speaker of the House, Democrat Nancy Pelosi.

Of those earmarks Roy did submit, all are listed in plain speaking on his Congressional website.

Outside of defense spending earmarks which certainly are debatable, the list is filled with financial requests for first responders, schools, much needed highway maintenance and the White River Basin project.

For fiscal year 2008 the list includes money for local reading programs, law enforcement, schools and “Crisis Nursery of the Ozarks” - a battered women’s shelter.

My question would be to both Steelman and McCaskill which of these earmarks are unethical? Which represents irresponsible government spending?

Niether McCaskill or Steelman offer real reform. Neither one offer any real reform beyond lip service and media wagging rhetoric.

America needs real earmark reform which serves our needs but takes as much political preference out as possible.

It is apparent to this political observer that both are unaware of the earmarks being requested and simply want to gain positive media experiences to further their own careers.

Such demagoguery must stop.

If reports from the Wall Street Journal and the Hill are correct, then the Obama administration will be making unprecedented grabs of power in depth, breadth and perhaps most concerning the speed at which the expansion of government control will increase.

To start off, Obama is promising unions that the Orwellian named Employee Free Choice Act will pass. The legislation allows unions to bypass a federal requirement that organizations take a secret ballot vote on whether or not to form a union. Instead, union organizers simply could pressure a simple majority into signing a document which would the government would immediately recognize as a union.

The financial impact on businesses nation wide would leave a wake of unprecedented devastation while businesses would be shackled with new government imposed requirements and union contracts.

Of course this wouldnt matter to President Obama or the Democrat party who apparently believe financial institutions like the stock market do not measure the American economy. The highly partisan act would increase union membership in intern funnel millions of dollars into Democrat campaign funds.

To that end, the mission would be accomplished.

If that piece of legislation wasn’t enough to pause for concern, then a not so little matter reported by the Hill today should. Apparently the Obama administration is contemplating pushing government controlled health care and a cap and trade tax system through Congress in a manner which would mean little to no debate and guarantee its passage.

Instead of debating government controlled health care as a separate matter, the legislation may be slipped into a budget bill which only requires fifty votes.

Does anyone else find it a little disturbing that legislation which would take over large sections of our economy would require not even a simple majority with little or no debate? Whats worse, perhaps, is the far reaching implications of such legislation.

With government controlled health care we as individuals will lose a quality health care system as choices are removed from doctors and services are rationed.

Not to be outdone would be a 100% cap and trade system which the Obama administration champions that would tax many farms and businesses out of existence because of their “carbon foot print.”

Each of these proposals removes freedom and liberty from our nation and are proven losers when implemented abroad. Yet there is still no objective analysis in the media few willing to stand in the gap and act as any source of reason or impediment.

I am guessing that as long as Americans give Democrats a pass and ignore what is going on in Congress and what is actually hurting the economy, this will be the case. By then I can only wonder what will be left of our nation.

In the mean time I will offer a glimmer of hope based on a recent NBC/Wall Street Journal poll which surveyed more Democrats than Republicans by a thirteen percentage point margin.

While self described “moderates” dominated the poll at 38 percent, 34 percent called themselves conservative compared to 23 self identified liberals.

More to the point, on health care, nearly seventy percent of people believe someone else besides the government should be responsible for taking care of health care needs. (question 32d)