First, ask yourself, what other President has had a logo? A logo that is included on his own personal basketballs? How about the vanity leash that dog Bo is sporting? He’s got his own promotional team in Hollywood. Obama is not just a President, he’s a brand.

Now he’s taking that brand into public schools. He’s going to give the schoolchildren of America a pep talk. A stay in school and stay off drugs motivational speech from the President. The original lesson plans that the Department of Education sent to schools to accompany Obama’s speech to students on September 8, included prompts to students suggesting they consider what they could do to ”help the President.” The lesson plan has now been revised, but only after objections. My question is, what happened to parents motivating their children? Why does Obama feel that his two cents are necessary here? I guess when you’re a brand, you probably assume everyone is just waiting for your view on every topic. I guess in this media-driven society, the President as spokesman isn’t too far from the truth.

It seems like a great plan, right? Get people to buy new cars by offering a rebate if they buy a car with better gas mileage than their old car. People spend money and the car industry gains. The government probably hopes you’ll buy a GM, of course. But, like the government’s misguided meddling in lending practices that ultimately led to the housing crisis, this is another government brainstorm gone awry.

People are flocking to the dealerships to take advantage of the big rebate. However, what the program comes down to is taxpayers subsidizing the car industry. Again. You may not be taking advantage of the program because you don’t have a “clunker” or you aren’t in the market, but trust me, you’re paying for it. First you own the company and then you pay for the cars as well. The car industry gets a temporary and artificial boost and you get the bill.

In addition to this questionable soaking of the taxpayers comes the waste of destroying perfectly decent cars in the name of reducing emissions. Since the clunker cash only comes with proof that the old car was rendered inoperable, cars that run and would be reliable transport aren’t going into the used car market. People who can’t afford a new car now won’t have access to thousands of older reliable cars because they have to be destroyed. But, it’s all for the environment, right? So, it’s worth it, right? The cars still have to be scrapped, filling up with landfill with non-recyclable parts. Are people really trading in Ford F150s for Honda Insights? Just like cap and trade, the environmental benefit isn’t worth it when you consider the cost.

Just like everything else the government touches, cash for clunkers is a mess. Artificially inflating the car industry sales on the backs of taxpayers just adds more debt without solving any of the problems it pretends to tackle. Time to pull the plug and let the car industry succeed or fail on it’s own.

By Laura Adelmann

The Democrats are again steamrolling their agenda through Congress. Whether the vote takes place this week or after the August recess, it is likely that the Democrats’ plan for healthcare reform will include a public option or government run insurance program intended to compete with private insurance. Underestimating the damage this public option can do would be a mistake.

Democrats argue that the public option is the only way to keep private insurers “honest.” They believe it would control costs by competing with private insurance. This public option would be based on at least the current Medicare provider network. Democrats actually contend that this would cut costs. In reality, the public option would reimburse doctors and hospitals at the same meager rate that Medicare doles out and the private insurers would bear the cost of that shortfall. They would have to raise premiums, pushing more people off private insurance and on to the public plan, until the public plan is all that’s left. Presto, single-payer healthcare without actually voting for single-payer healthcare.

Additionally, Obama continues to spout the dishonest assertion that if you are happy with your health insurance you can keep it. Our brave media, when given a press conference at which to question Obama on these details, instead chose to delve into Obama’s opinion on a local criminal investigation. This lie continues to go unchecked. The fact remains that the government will decide what minimum coverage you must have. If you have a low cost, high deductible policy that doesn’t include everything on the government’s wish list, you’ll be required to buy more coverage. If you oppose abortion, you still may be required to obtain a policy that covers the procedure. You no longer can decide for yourself what coverage is appropriate. And this is just the beginning of the government dictating policy to doctors and patients.

Obamacare will soon streak through the House like one of Barack’s proposed high speed rail trains. If you want to remain in control and make your own healthcare choices, Obamacare must fail. This doesn’t mean healthcare reform is dead, just the public option that threatens to damage more than it fixes.

Related articles by Zemanta

• “Someone’s premiums” bought my lunch on gold-rimmed china (masbury.wordpress.com)
• One Thing is Certain in the Health Care Debate: Change is Needed (myventurepad.com)

Or you’re with the terrorists. Remember those words? Remember the ceaseless criticism that those words brought from the Democratic Party?

Well, from the folks who felt that statement was radical and dealt in dangerous absolutes comes the following words of wisdom: ”It appears that the Republican Party leadership in the Congress has made a decision that they want to deny President Obama success, which means, in my mind, they are rooting against the country, as well.” It’s now the Democrats turn to deal in absolutes. That’s Rep. Henry Waxman making sure that you know that all of Obama’s policies are infallible and if any of his wishlist of agenda items fails to pass, this country will also fail.

This argument assumes that Obama makes no mistakes. Now we know that isn’t true. He got the stimulus vote he wanted and how’s that worked out? Is unemployment in check? Nope, 9.5 percent and rising. So, if Obama getting what he wants doesn’t equal success for this country, why automatically assume that his failure to get each and every agenda item he wants passed would automatically equal failure for this country?

Being the leader of a country does not mean that every idea you have will benefit the country. Just crack open an history book and you’ll find examples galore. Waxman needs to quit the rhetoric and realize that there is nothing more behind the growing opposition to Obama’s plans than the simple fact that Obama’s case for cap and trade and healthcare reform is weak and strains the truth at best. That’s why the Democrats are playing defense. Just let them keep talking.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Rahm Reassures Angry House Members that Obama Backs Public Plan, No Trigger (crooksandliars.com)
• The House’s Health-Care Plan: More Moderate Than Expected (time.com)
• Numbers Adding Up Against Obama’s “Cap and Trade” Bill in the Senate (usnews.com)
• ‘Reform is Coming’: Biden Announces $155B in Hospital Concessions (abcnews.go.com)
• Senate Dems propose broad health reform bill (cnn.com)
• Republicans in Congress Organize Against Pres. Obama’s Honduras Policy (themoderatevoice.com)

By Laura Adelmann

(photo Associated Press)

the more they stay the same. I think Arlen Specter has learned a valuable lesson. He learned that calling himself a Democrat hasn’t improved his ability to negotiate a compromise on the Employee Free Choice Act or Card Check. I just have to wonder how long it will be before Specter caves and just votes for the bill as is and solidifies the grip of the unions in this country? Card Check ends the right to a private ballot. This enables union organizers, who certainly have an interest in the outcome of any vote as they collect a percentage of employees’ income in dues, to more directly coerce or threaten employees. Union organizers can visit employees’ homes and could refuse to leave until a card is signed, not to mention the possibility of fraudulent signatures. Card Check also requires binding arbitration if the parties fail to agree on an initial union contract. Arbitration isn’t a discussion or a chance to reach a compromise. The decision of the arbitrator is final and imposes a contract on both parties for two years. This destroys the right of employees to bargain with their employer. It just slaps a contract in place and both parties have to live with the results.

The unions tout this bill as necessary to save the middle class. They claim that the corporations deny people the right to join unions, that they coerce and control their employees. Because unions are so much less coercive? Locally, Ohio’s AK Steel employees were out of work for a year. They couldn’t get other jobs if they wanted their AK jobs back through the union. People lost their homes because the union organizers stuck to their demands and AK Steel argued that it needed to cut positions and benefits to remain profitable in the current market. If a company starts losing profits due to union demands, does it really benefit the employees for the unions to keep pushing and push the company out of business altogether? How much fault do the unions bear for the problems America’s car industry is facing? The economy of this country is changing and union membership is declining. Card check is a thinly veiled attempt to swing the balance back in the union’s favor. Card check as it stands replaces the corporate bully that the unions claim controls the system, with the union bully.

Link: The Random Blog Post Generator Service

Related articles by Zemanta

• Employee Free Choice Act (dummidumbwit.wordpress.com)
• 5 Things to Know About the Employee Free Choice Act (usnews.com)
• Sen. Arlen Specter: Party Change Renews Hopes For Employee Free Choice Act (usnews.com)
• 5 Things to Know About the Employee Free Choice Act (usnews.com)

In fumbling through what he thought would be a slam dunk ad for his healthcare proposals, Barack Obama has presented us with a golden opportunity. He had, as Ed Morrissey on Hotair.com labeled it, a “Dukakis Moment.” He has given us his true opinion of his own healthcare plan. Dr. Orrin Devinsky, a neurologist and researcher, notes that politicians often propose cost cutting measures that limit tests and treatments that are available to the general public, knowing that those same limitations won’t really apply to them. He asked if Obama would subject his wife and daughters to the same limitations the public will face and not seek services not available to you or me. Obama wouldn’t make that promise. That speaks volumes. Obamacare is good enough for you and me, but not for his family. The mask slipped for a moment and we must leap at the opportunity. Don’t let him sweep this moment of honesty under the rug. Keep this in the news. Keep it in people’s minds. It’s okay to limit your coverage, but not Sasha’s, Malia’s or Michelle’s.

Related articles by Zemanta

• The Obamacare horror story you won’t hear (michellemalkin.com)
• Obama, Dukakis: Really? (themoderatevoice.com)
• Gov. Dean: ‘Why Would You Put A Trillion Dollars Into Something That Hasn’t Worked?’ (crooksandliars.com)

By: Laura Adelmann

Our friends at ACORN have decided to change their name to the much less memorable name of Community Organizations International. It seems that ACORN feels that it has somehow acquired a bad reputation. I can’t imagine how that has happened. It couldn’t possibly be the 14 states where voter registration fraud has been investigated? It couldn’t be financial mismanagement or embezzlement? How about the lawsuits against whistleblowers and those shining the light on ACORN’s fraud? ACORN is trying to make people forget their actions so they can turn around and do it all again. Don’t let them slip between the cracks. Remember the name and remind others that Community Organizations International=ACORN every chance you get or we’ll be repeating this same game in 2012.

Related articles by Zemanta

• DUCK AND COVER: ACORN drops tarnished name and moves to silence critics. Association of Communit… (pajamasmedia.com)
• Head of CA GOP Voter Registration Firm Pleads Guilty to Voter Registration Fraud (bradblog.com)
• Acorn Sued for Voter Fraud (barbarany_9.blogspot.com)
• Two Issues That Will Destroy Obama (dequalss.com)
• Mike’s Blog Round Up (crooksandliars.com)
• “ACORN is a criminal enterprise” (michellemalkin.com)

By: Laura Adelmann

Obama has certainly made his position clear on the issue of taxing the rich. A modern day Robin Hood, he sees it as fair to redistribute wealth. You tax the rich as much as you can and give that to the poor and magic happens and we are all equal, socialism abounds and peace reigns. Right.

What I fail to grasp about the revival of socialism v.2.0 is why this dead philosophy keeps being resurrected. How can something fail repeatedly and still be considered viable? The poor don’t get richer. The rich just get poorer as they are taxed more and more to sustain the burden of carrying numerous social programs that, in the end, don’t elevate the poor. The poor continue to stagnate, dependent on the social programs that the government doles out. They are also dependent on the government and will continue to vote themselves more and more benefits, thinking that maybe more will be better, more will bring wealth. I believe we will reach the tipping point soon, when those who don’t pay taxes outnumber those who do. When you have that majority, how do you convince people to give up the dole? How do conservatives ever get a foothold again when liberals are passing out all the goodies?

What can people do if things keep going down this path? When states raise taxes, the rich can call “Two Men and a Truck” and move on to greener pastures with lower taxes. If they can’t outrun the taxes because it’s the fed that comes a calling, they may just go Galt. After the election there were numerous articles interviewing people who intended to reduce their incomes in protest of unfair taxation. If you cant soak the rich, they’ll have to move on to the middle class, which I think will open people’s eyes as to the unsustainable nature of entitlements. How happy will people be to pay 50% of their income to receive less competent medical care? When cancer survival rates start to match those of Europe, will it be enough comfort to know that we are all receiving the same reduced care? When will we realize that equal isn’t always an admirable goal, if equal means we all suffer.

Link: The Random Blog Post Generator Service

By: Laura Adelmann

Is there something about our culture that makes an ever growing number of Americans feel that they should be getting everything they want, with no real effort on their part? What happened to the values of working hard and saving, starter homes and delayed gratification? It seems they’ve disappeared from the landscape and it’s a trend that should concern us all.

Once upon a time, actions had consequences. If you didn’t have the money to buy a house, you didn’t buy a house. Then along came your friendly neighborhood government and made lenders give you money because everyone should be able to buy a house, no matter their financial situation. Fannie and Freddie loaned with abandon. People put no money down, took out variable rate mortgages and the loan defaults began. Everyone now has to pay for that pandering error in judgment with lower housing values and harder to get credit.

Social Security is another program that leads to government dependence. It was created at a time when the life expectancy was much shorter and it was a safety net, not a retirement plan. It has now become for many their only retirement plan. Why save for your golden years when you can spend now and the government will provide you a paycheck when the time comes.

And, don’t forget welfare or Temporary Assistance to Needy Families as it’s more politely called. People used to take care of each other in hard times. We relied on family and church if things were dire. Then along came welfare and people learned that the more children you had the more money you received. Clinton tried to end that downward spiral by reforming the system, but the truth of the matter is that many life-long welfare recipients moved to Social Security in the form of means tested Social Security Insurance benefits (SSI.) They are deemed disabled, and there is little monitoring of their continued eligibility. Others spend their time and energy trying to find new ways to stay on benefits rather than using the assistance as a step up to independence. Welfare creates very few success stories. The cost of this program continues to expand, with no end in sight and no new reforms in the wings.

Finally, since it seems we haven’t learned that entitlements drain the life out of both their recipients and the economy, we have our President eager to dabble in healthcare reform. Rather than consider the example of Medicare, a program that grows more and more expensive each year, the President appears to subscribe to the idea that a government run option will reduce healthcare spending. He has already expanded SCHIP, the health insurance program for children whose parents earn too much to qualify for Medicaid. He will likely offer a government insurance option. Soon, to cut costs, rationing would start and again those entitled to this “free” insurance would suffer. Soon, so would the rest of us in the form of higher taxes and fewer and fewer private options until we are all in the same boat, our lives subject to what the government tells our doctor is appropriate treatment.

Social Security, welfare, misguided housing reforms have all trained people to look to the government for what they should provide for themselves. As our country’s entitlement programs grow ever larger and Obama seeks to add yet another large bureaucratic monstrosity in the form of healthcare reform, we must remember that entitlements depend on taxpayers to fund them. But what Congress and the President fail to realize is that the more they hand out to people, the fewer people will be out there working and paying the taxes that fund their “voter outreach.” Entitlements will become unsustainable. It’s better to pull the plug now, while the patient still has a chance on his own.  

By: Laura Adelmann

What true sci-fi geek can resist a good Star Trek metaphor? Not this geek. I’ve got two. First, I was eavesdropping the other day at lunch and some folks were discussing the new Star Trek movie. This will include major sp

oilers, so beware! They commented that the movie’s alteration of the original Star Trek timeline, on which all the series have been based, may upset the traditional Star Trek fans. My thoughts turned to politics. How’s that for a one track mind? I thought that the new Star Trek movie represents more moderate Republicans. Traditional old school Star Trek is the hardcore right Republicans. Maybe the traditionalists will hate the new Trek for selling out or watering down the story line, just as some Republicans dislike the more inclusive moderate view that is moving through the Republican Party and wish to reject those who support it. But, new Star Trek seems to appeal to non-Trek fans just as a moderate focus for the Republican party would be more likely to attract Independents. Would traditional Trekkies rather have no new Star Trek movies because they want to stay true to the original series, or would they rather keep the story alive with a modern twist? Would traditional Republicans rather see the party lose national elections rather than welcome those who sit a little closer to the center than to the right?

The second metaphor is borrowed. I certainly think the comparison of Obama to Spock and Bush to Kirk as accurate. There’s a reason that Spock was always better

as a First Officer or Ambassador and when it came to a crisis, he turned things over to Kirk.