Friday morning, another travesty relating to 9/11 occurred.  President Obama and his loyal minion, Attorney General Eric Holder decided that the war criminals who were responsible for 9/11 would be tried as civilians in a Federal courtroom in lower Manhattan, a few blocks from their main and most deadly attack that day.  A few blocks from Hallowed Ground. 

I am angry.  As all of you know from this column, I try to be fair and balanced in my arguments.  I do not allow anger to rule the day.  But today, I am angry.  The Obama Administration has now decided that these war criminals should have the same rights and privileges as ordinary citizens. 

The ramifications of this are obvious.  It is just another example of the appeasement and weakness of the Obama Administration’s policies.  I want you all to remember the last time appeasement was used in the late 1930’s.  After that travesty fifty million people were dead including six million innocent Jews.  The last time we were weak was during the Carter Administration.  The result, Americans held hostage for more than a year. 

Having the trials of these war criminals in civilian courtrooms will allow these hate mongers to abuse and mock American citizens and families of those they have left tortured and depressed for eight years.  The trials will be subject to public scrutiny and will be a media circus like that of Michael Jackson and OJ Simpson.  National security measures will be made public and National Intelligence Techniques, not all of which are water boarding, will be made public.  Relevant evidence will not be admitted because of technical issues on the rule of evidence.  These war criminals may actually be let free. 

The Bush Administration, with all of its faults, kept us safe.  Just last week, another terrorist attack occurred at Ft. Hood on American soil that left 13 Americans dead and more than 25 wounded.  President Obama did not even call it a terrorist attack.  He was too concerned about the feelings of the terrorists to say what it really was.   And now we have this travesty. 

Ronald Reagan said it best, “peace through strength.”  Maybe Obama should listen and learn.  After all he claims to be a pragmatist.

For the past year I have been saying the current President is one of the biggest megalomaniacs in history.  And Tuesday night he proved it again.  While the state of New Jersey, which is one of the bluest, was falling and the State of Virginia was being swept by Republicans (which has not happened since Reconstruction), the President refused to acknowledge any of it mattered. I wonder if he was wearing his lucky tie. 

However, we all know who definitely was not:  Doug Hoffman.  This is the man who ran on the Conservative ticket in NY-23, a district in Upstate New York that has been Republican since the Civil War.  Well, in the immortal words of Jacques Clouseau, “Not Anymore!”  Doug Hoffman was defeated garnering only 46% of the vote.  The projected winner, the Democrat Bill Owens, garnered 49% and the liberal Republican who withdrew last week received 5%.  She proved to be the spoiler. 

I find this race in NY-23 to be very disturbing.  It is a race that garnered national attention when Sarah Palin, the Queen of the Far Right, decided to support the Conservative Candidate and not the Republican.  Before that, the race was hardly being looked at. NY-23 is a district which borders on Canada and Vermont.  It is more than 90% white and skews Republican by a margin of more than five percentage points.  The area has been Republican for as far as anyone can remember.  But, last night, it elected a Democrat.  Why? 

The Republican Party nominated Dede Scozzafava to run without a primary.  Ms. Scozzafava is one of the most liberal Republicans in the history of the Party.  She is not pro-life, supports same-sex marriage and has strong ties to Labor — positions which are opposed by the majority of the Party.  She does support the Bush tax cuts and is against Cap-and-Trade.  It was rumored during the election that she hinted she might caucus with the Democrats if elected. 

Obviously the nomination of Ms. Scozzafava was a big mistake.  By nominating her, the Party allowed a three way race to occur thereby guaranteeing a Democrat victory.  Of course, it did not help, that upon quitting the race five days ago, Ms. Scozzafava gave her support, not to the Conservative Hoffman, but to the Democrat Owens.  The Party should have run a primary before nominating Scozzafava or, at the least, seen the power of the conservative movement and nominated someone more in line with the mainstream Republican platform. 

But, that is not really what disturbs me about the race in NY-23.  What disturbs me is the ramification of what happened there to the rest of the country and to the 2010 election  The Republican Party seems to be splintering into two halves, the conservatives and the moderates.  The Conservatives are being supported by Ms. Palin and a large group of right-wing pundits.  They are represented by the Tea Party organizations and the States’ Rights Groups.  I am probably one of them. 

However, without the moderates; the center of the political spectrum, the Party will not regain control of the Federal Government.  There is simply not enough on the Far Right to support a majority anywhere in the country.  The moderates and independents win elections.  And, boy was that clear last night. 

All of the exit polling shows that McDonnell and Christie won because there was a major swing in the independent voter to the Republicans.  These swing voters stated they were against huge government spending, the failed stimulus package and were in fear for the future of their children.  The majority of these independents voted for Obama in the last election. 

We need them, these independents.  We must do whatever is necessary to maintain their support.  We cannot swing to the far right and expect to do anything in 2010.  If we do, there will be a lot of Democrats wearing their lucky ties.  If we continue to attract the moderates and independents as happened Tuesday, it will be a large group of Republicans wearing theirs.

My company then proceeded to disavow any knowledge of my column and said that what I write is of my own doing and not the policy of the company.  This is true.  It is my own doing.  No one tells me what to write or censors my editorial content. 

I still believe IATSE is harming the burgeoning film industry in Michigan.  I believe that if IATSE was doing the right thing in Michigan, the state of Michigan would be putting all of the other tax-incentive states out of business.  Producers would be running there in droves. 

Unions are supposed to be the mechanism to level the playing field for the working man.  Their job is to protect the working man from “the man,” and to keep their members employed fairly.  Isn’t employment what unions are really all about:  Especially now when unemployment is so rampant all over the United States, particularly in Michigan and California.  You would think the unions would be bending over backwards to work with “the man” in a mutually beneficial situation.  Let us all do whatever is necessary to keep employment in the United States; not Eastern Europe or Asia. 

Unfortunately, this is not the case with IATSE in Michigan and with the Screen Actors Guild (SAG) anywhere.  SAG does their best to stop movies from being made instead of helping the independent producer hire their mass of unemployed. 

I will now give some examples of how SAG harms the independent producer. My first look deal is with Nu Image, Inc., one of, if not largest independent production companies in the business.  In the last 10 years, this company has produced more than 150 films ranging in size from one million dollars to sixty million dollars.  It has employed more than 1,000 actors; the majority of which are members of SAG. 

Does SAG do anything to make life easier for this company?  No.  SAG does everything in their power to stop this company from making movies.  In fact, over the past ten years, there have been many incidents where this company has had to threaten to shut a movie down and sue SAG in order to get any cooperation whatsoever. 

This is a company that employs, pay actors millions of dollars and pays residuals to actors on a regular basis.  Can you tell me one true independent that has been doing this since 1992?  Probably not. 

Just last week, Nu Image was about to shoot a thirty million-dollar film and was held hostage the day before principal photography was to start over a dispute regarding the SAG Bond which is a “guarantee” that actors will be paid.  SAG insisted on a bond in the approximate amount of $400,000 which was based upon erroneous SAG employment figures provided by the production staff on location.  SAG did not care.  They were going to call actors’ agents and shut the movie down the day before it was scheduled to start.  The matter was resolved at the twenty-fourth hour, but not before threats were made from both sides that almost put the picture in jeopardy.  At one point, a SAG employee told us, well if a production employee provided erroneous figures, you should fire him/her.  Is this the way a union represents workers? 

Another nightmare for the independent producer is the SAG security interest which is a lien on the film’s copyright for the life of the copyright.  The theory behind this is to protect the actors against unscrupulous producers failing to pay residuals.  Fine.  It makes sense for one-off producers or producers with a bad reputation.  But, is it necessary for a major independent production company with a history of paying residuals?  Why must SAG demand cash – which is desperately needed to fund the production – be removed from the budget to pay SAG deposits?  Why must the threats go back and forth every time any request is made? 

Then after all of the stress with SAG during production, the independent must beg for the return of the SAG Bond after it has paid the actors in full.  As you already know, this amount of cash can be substantial and for smaller companies is actually needed to complete the movie. Thank God, Nu Image has the capability to complete movies without this money. I have heard horror stories from other companies where the SAG bond has caused foreclosure on loans and investor liens because sometimes they will just not return it. Sometimes they unilaterally convert it to a residuals bond to guarantee the payment of residuals.  

Sometimes the reason given for its non-return is absolutely asinine.  For example, SAG has a document that must be completed on every film to show minority hiring.  You must show the number of females and people of color hired by the production.  This form is a survey and nothing more.  There are no quotas in the SAG system and a producer may hire whoever they choose.  However, if this form is not filed by the producer, the bond is not returned.  The same is true of every piece of paper that SAG employees have on their checklist. No one will think out of the box. No one will pull the trigger and give the money back until this checklist is complete. 

And, no one will give the money back with any interest that matters.  Back in the day when CD’s were paying 4-5%, SAG was paying 1.5% or less on the bond.  I’m sure now they are holding money in some cases for more than a year and paying 0% interest.  I wonder what they do with the money they earn? 

Lastly, the SAG arbitration system must be discussed.  Talk about an uneven playing field!  Prior to producing films, I was an entertainment attorney.  In all, I have been in the business for 25 years, give or take.  During that time, I have not seen one SAG arbitration ruled in favor of the producer.  In fact, some arbitrators on the SAG list have never ruled in favor of management.  I can think of a few names that are on my strike list just because of personal experiences. 

In one circumstance, a former SAG Board member, Seymour Cassel, was hired by a company that I was involved with.  Mr. Cassel, being on the SAG Board, forced the union to pursue a grievance on his behalf.  That matter was fairly simple.  He believed he had a two week guarantee of employment and the employer felt there was no guarantee and paid him for the one week he actually worked. 

The matter went to arbitration and Mr. Cassel won.  He was given the second week. It seems like it should have been a swearing contest and the arbitrator just chose to believe the representatives of Mr. Cassel.  Sorry, nope. 

It was much more complicated than that.  Mr. Cassel had actually signed both a SAG deal memo and a long form agreement, neither of which mentioned anything about a two-week guarantee.  In fact, they specifically stated there was no guarantee.  But, there was an interoffice memo from Mr. Cassel’s agent that said the deal was for a two week guarantee.  This document was not signed by anybody.  In legal parlance, it not only was pure hearsay, but it violated the merger rule.  It should not even have been entered into evidence. 

This did not matter to the arbitrator. He ruled for Mr. Cassel based upon the interoffice memo. 

By the way, Mr. Cassel was just thrown off the SAG Board last week for “conduct unbecoming a member,” and his membership was suspended. Variety stated that Mr. Cassel was considering filing for “financial core” status which would permit him to work on union and non-union films during the course of his suspension. 

“Financial Core” is a really interesting animal.  It is based upon a Supreme Court decision (Communications Workers of America v. Beck, 487 U.S. 735 (1988)) in which a union member sued the union because he did not want to be associated with the Union’s political lobbying activities.  The Supreme Court found for the union member and stated that no one could be obligated to pay for the political positions of the union.  They only had to be obligated to pay union dues for the “financial core” of the union. 

Based on this Supreme Court ruling, any member of any union in the country can go “Financial Core.” All it requires is that they write a one sentence letter to their union stating that they have elected Financial Core membership.  A “Financial Core” member of any union is still covered by all union benefits such as pension, health and welfare.  They can then work on all union and non-union movies without being subject to any penalty from the union at all.  The only things a “Financial Core” member of a union cannot do is vote in union elections or hold elected positions within the union. 

Personally I am amazed that droves of actors, directors, writers and crew members have not chosen Financial Core membership.  Maybe it’s because the unions all try to keep it a total secret and will do almost anything to avoid their members becoming aware of its benefits.  Imagine – union members being able to decide for themselves who they will work for and under what conditions.  It would mean they have to be treated as adults – not obedient children by their unions. It would certainly make life easier for independent producers and allow them to spend their hard won cash on making movies not paying for union bureaucracies.

 Maybe Seymour Cassel will start a trend – who knows. It may even help the employment situation for actors and all member of the entertainment industry.  After all, isn’t that what we need to end this recession; more employment.

According to the most recent reports, the unemployment rate in California has reached 12.2%.  The rate in Los Angeles County is at 12.7%.  Some cities within the county such as Compton and Commerce are over 20%.  These are all far worse than the national rate of 9.8%. 

What makes these numbers even scarier is that they have not hit rock bottom according to economic estimates at both the state and federal level.  In fact, the State Government estimate of a maximum unemployment rate of 12.8% seems like it is going to be topped shortly, probably by early winter.  Is it possible that California’s unemployment rate will top the number in 1940 of 14.7% which is the highest recorded on record? 

All of these numbers really do not mean anything unless you compare them to other numbers in the country to get a real picture of just how bad things are here right now.  The California rate is currently the fourth worst in the country.  The only one significantly worse is Michigan at 15.2%.  Notice any similarities between the two by the way?  Not much except maybe extremely powerful unions in both! 

And, on top of all this, the economy is primed to get much worse.  When I drive down the streets in Los Angeles, I see nothing but empty storefronts on all major boulevards.  Portions of Laurel Canyon Blvd have four to five empty storefronts on each block.  Ventura Blvd., Wilshire Blvd., and Sunset Blvd are not fairing much better.  And, I am told it is worse in other parts of the state. 

According to some reports, the only real estate changing hands here are foreclosures and estate sales.  Banks are not even evicting foreclosed owners in some parts of the Inland Empire because they want the house to be saleable when the economy finally does turn around.  I mean, who wants to purchase a foreclosed house that has been destroyed by vandals.  I know of one particular situation where a family has made no mortgage payments since May, 2007 and is still living in the house free of rent or tax payments. 

Are there any solutions to this problem?  Is there any quick fix?  Or, must we just wait it out in hope that this Great State will make a comeback?  I really do not believe any of the Federal Stimulus money will help the California job market.  It has done nothing so far except allow some families to survive with the extension of unemployment benefits.  It is definitely not helping the ailing real estate or worsening job market.  If anything, the excessive federal spending is hurting the economy. 

And, what have our representatives in Congress done to help us?  Nancy Pelosi does nothing accept cost the US and California jobs with her constant big government, regulatory, liberal agenda.  Her support of “Cap and Trade” and HR 3200 will not only effect the US Economy on the whole, but will have a double impact on the state of California.  Outsourcing is already a problem here, but it will get much worse if either of these bills become law.  In fact, it seems that there is already evidence that California employers are not hiring until the result of both “Cap and Trade” and health care reform are known. 

The same goes for Barbara Boxer and Diane Feinstein.  Neither of them are doing anything to support the economy in the state.  They are just following the same liberal agenda regardless of how it affects the people of California. 

One prime example is that there is not one Congressman representing Californians doing anything to overturn the Federal Order which stopped irrigation in the Sacramento area after it was ruled the necessary irrigation had caused the Delta Smelt, a small fish, to become endangered.  This has caused the farming industry in the Sacramento and Fresno area to pretty much come to a standstill and bring the unemployment rate in the area to approximately 17%.  In fact, the city of Mendota has an unemployment rate of 41%, the highest in the country.  (That’s right 41%.  It’s not a typo.) 

Comedian Paul Rodriguez, a former Democrat and Obama supporter, whose family are farmers in the area, has left his liberal roots as a result of this fiasco.  He has now appeared on Sean Hannity’s show stating that the entire area is in extreme danger.  Farms are being lost, unemployment is rampant and people are starving:  All to protect a little two inch fish. 

And what do our Senators and Representatives in California do about this; again, absolutely nothing.  It seems it is more important to protect the Delta Smelt than to protect the people of the Central Valley.  Let the people starve and the fish thrive.  Who cares if 80,000 people in the area are unemployed?  If they can not afford bread, let them eat cake. 

That is the whole problem with the current Administration and Congress in Washington and the State Legislature in Sacramento, including the aforementioned Ms. Pelosi, Ms. Boxer, and Ms. Feinstein, as well as, Mr. Waxman, Ms. Waters, Ms. Watson and the favorite of this column, Mr. Dan Lungren.  They simply do not care about the people, economy or problems of the State.  They care only about the special interest groups that finance and support them. 

I’m reminded of “Legally Blonde 2” in which Elle’s boss, the Congresswomen, stabbed Elle in the back because a strong campaign financier was against the proposed animal rights bill.  It is true whether it be fact or fiction. 

In the end, the free market will bring this State back to its former glory provided that the regulators and liberals currently in control, including the Obama Administration and his cabinet, do not destroy it completely.  The people of California must rise up against their current so called Representatives and do whatever is necessary to take our government back so that it is a government of the people and for the people, not for the governors!

A few weeks later, Representative Alay Grayson of Florida, who also happens to be a Democrat, says while debating health hare reform on the House Floor:

“If you get sick, America, the Republican health care plan is this: Die quickly. That’s right. The Republicans want you to die quickly if you get sick.” 

And, what happens to Grayson:  Nothing!  The Democrat Congress does nothing.  Speaker Pelosi says she will not force him to apologize or withdraw his statement.  A resolution along the lines of the one rebuking Wilson is introduced in the House by the Republicans and fails.  This is just another example of the Democrat double standard that exists in Congress.

But, the deeper question is this:  has the debate over health care gotten to the point where the Democrats say that Republicans want Americans to die and Sarah Palin throws remarks out like “Death Squads.”  Has it all come down to fear mongering and hatred on both sides?  What happened to the intellectual form of debate, not only in Congress, but in the media as well?

A few weeks ago, I wrote “Why We Can’t Sign onto the Democrats Health Care Reform?”  In that article I attempted to give a carefully thought out argument relating to conservative issues in the current Democrat proposal.  I am not in Congress.  Why can’t our elected leaders do the same?  Why must they resort to fear and hatred?  Is it because they have no faith in the American public to understand policy decisions?  If that is the case, they are deadly wrong.  We do understand and that is why President Obama and the Democratic Congress cannot get HR 3200 passed in its current form despite their overwhelming majority.

Senator Baucus of Montana, Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee is fighting to get his proposed bill through the Committee.  The bill has been in the mark-up phase for about two weeks.  Numerous amendments have been added to it such that it has been reported to be now over 1,000 pages long.  Here they go again.

And, now, Congress is debating whether this bill or HR 3200 will be available online for 72 hours before any vote on them.  Why are they even debating this?  Wasn’t that one of President Obama’s main campaign promises?  Did he not promise more transparency in government?  Didn’t he want to stimulate fair and open debate?

The very liberal “Saturday Night Live” ran a skit last week in which President Obama was parodied.  The main point of the skit was not that the President is too liberal, but that the left should be just as mad as the right because after nine months in office, the President has done absolutely nothing.  And, one of those “nothings” is more transparency.

Both the Congress and the President do not want America to see either proposal before they are passed.  They do not want any more debate.  They know that if intellectual debate continues, the current form of Health Care Reform will fail.  At first Senator Baucus’ bill looked like it would work.  It was just a bad enough proposal to get both sides a little angry.  It smelled like an old fashioned form of bipartisan compromise.

However, to the dismay of the Democrat Leadership, it did not contain the required public option.  The Democrats from the far left have sworn that a bill without the public option will not happen.  The Republicans will not vote for any bill with a public option.  The middle of the road Democrats, the Blue Dogs, are the key.  So, maybe the plan is to just sneak the public option in at the last minute, create a sense of urgency and convince the Blue Dogs to vote for it.  This is not transparency.  This amounts to lies and deceit.  Hey, maybe Wilson was right?

I have another question regarding this issue.  Why will this miraculous form of Health Care Reform being proposed by the Democrat Leadership not take effect until 2013?  Maybe, because the President and Congress both know what a disaster it will truly be and they want the President safely into his second term before the disaster strikes.  Again, this seems deceitful.  Hey, maybe Wilson was right?

President Obama says he wants the bill to be revenue neutral and will sign it in no other form.  Yet, neither the President nor Congress has any plan on how to pay for it and keep it that way.  Other than higher taxes that is.  Oh, I’m sorry; the President and Congress are not calling them taxes.  Remember, Obama promised that no one making less than $250,000 per year would have higher taxes.  So, how is this bill being paid for:  penalties.  Sounds to me like taxes, after all if it smells like a duck . . . Again, maybe Wilson was right?

But, I digress.  The point of this article is supposed to be about civilized debate.  That is what we need.  We need health care reform.  We all agree on that.  Maybe Congress should stop trying to bite off more than it can chew and debate the real issues on health care reform.  Only, after real civilized debate will we be able to come up with a plan that actually works and makes both sides a little mad and both sides a little happy.

As I have stated before, the Republicans want the following issues addressed and debated.  If the President wants this bill to be bipartisan and wants some Republican support, we need the following to be debated:

1. Coverage for Pre-existing Conditions;
2. Tort Reform;
3. Insurance availability across state borders;
4. No coverage for illegal aliens;
5. No coverage for elective abortions;
6. A means to pay for it that makes sense across the board and that will somewhat revenue neutral. (Anyone that thinks this is not going to cost some money is dreaming).

The Republican Party does not and has not ever wanted people to “die quickly.”  It does not want people to die at all.  But, it does want a carefully thought out plan that protects the people, the sovereignty of the states, and is fiscally sound.  Representative Alan Grayson is definitely wrong and should apologize to the American people for his outlandish and hate filled statement.

The other day I was playing on Facebook and saw a number of posts from my liberal friends regarding health care.  The comments posted were all similar.  No one should go without health care in this country and no one should go broke because they got sick.  Why only liberals would post this amazes me, because there are not too many people in the world that disagree.  However, it is just not that simple. 

In response, I posted a few comments.  The majority of them were along the line of “Yes, I agree too, but who is going to pay for it and how is it going to work?”  Almost universally, the liberal responses were either “The Rich,” or “Bring the Troops Back from Iraq and Afghanistan.”  I then realized that most thinking from Liberals is not based upon logic.  In fact, from these responses, it appears liberal thinking is idealist and based upon emotion.  This has been argued in the past by both Ann Coulter and Dennis Prager among others.  I now agree. 

Whether you agree with the War on Terror is not the issue.  The troops are committed.  You cannot simply bring them back.  To think that bringing them back can be accomplished overnight is not to think realistically.  You must leave them there as long as necessary to accomplish your goals or to train the local military to do it themselves.  In Iraq because of the surge, this is quickly happening.  In Afghanistan, it is a different story. 

The Afghanistan situation is beginning to look like Vietnam.  Either we make the commitment to beat the Taliban or we will be involved in a war of attrition which cannot be won.  President Obama must take the steps necessary to accomplish the goal.  Anything short of that will give the Taliban and Al Qaeda the foothold they need to take over the Afghanistan government again and to possibly move on Pakistan to get control of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons.  This is unacceptable. 

The second response “The Rich” is also idealistic.  How much more taxation do you think the rich are going to take before they completely revolt?  The middle class and blue collar workers at the Tea Parties on Saturday show that they are fed up.  And, they are not paying nearly as much of their income as the rich.  If you add another 5% to the marginal tax rate as proposed in HR 3200, most of The Rich will be paying almost 50% of their income in taxes before state income taxes are even considered.  In California and New York, that is more than 10%.  (This analysis includes sales taxes, property taxes, luxury taxes, etc., as well as income taxes and other income withholding).  And, you wonder why people are leaving California for Nevada, Arizona, Washington and other low tax states by the thousands.  People; rich, middle class or poor, will just not tolerate more. 

As shown by the previous examples, both responses given me last week by the liberals are just not realistic.  They are based upon emotion.  There is no logic behind them.  Hence we have the major difference.  Conservatives think logically and based upon the reality seen in facts and figures.  Liberals think emotionally and from idealistic goals and ambitions.  The two do not mix. 

Let us examine a few other examples: 

What about the current Administration’s outlook on foreign affairs?  President Obama, during his campaign, said that he would talk and negotiate with the radicals in Iran, Venezuela and North Korea.  Since he has become President, what has this policy gotten him; nothing.  Iran continues its nuclear ambitions unabated.  Venezuela continues poking its nose at the United States and its President.  And, North Korea does whatever it wants and will soon, not only have nuclear weapons, but will also have missiles capable of delivering them. 

Most recently, the tape from Osama Bin Laden is just another example of the failure of President’s Obama’s policy.  After his speech in Egypt, everyone on the left believed the Radical Moslems would change their attitude towards the United States.  All one has to do is listen to Bin Laden’s tape released in the last two days to realize that the emotional based thinking of the left is a far cry from the realism of the situation. 

In the Palestinian/Israeli conflict, the President says that Israel should cease building settlements.  The Prime Minister of Israel agrees in principle provided that the Palestinians agree to recognize Israel’s right to exist.  The Palestinians say ‘no’ and Israel continues its expansion into the West Bank.  Another failure of idealism on the Administration’s part 

Those that truly understand foreign affairs could have predicted these outcomes.  Learning from the past and the use of logic as done by conservatives, works.  The emotion and idealism of the left does not.  The Left’s desire for everything to be right and for everything to be fair controls their policy.  Unfortunately, this is not reality.  And, hopefully, President Obama is beginning to get it now too.  All evidence however is to the contrary. 

The same is true with “Cap and Trade” and “Health Care Reform.”  Both liberal positions are based upon idealism and emotion.  Everyone would like to lower carbon emissions and make the environment a better place.  Everyone would love universal health care.  But, the fact of the matter is that “Cap and Trade” will cause many businesses in this country to fail and for those that do not fail, there will be many lost jobs.  The realism behind Health Care Reform or any of the plans under consideration by Congress now would bankrupt the country.  There is no plan that is revenue neutral at this point. 

In all of these situations, the liberal agenda is fueled by idealism and emotion.  Maybe, if liberals started thinking logically and based upon the realities of the world, there would be less partisanship in Congress and more could be accomplished.  Emotion is no way to govern this or any other country.

Yesterday, the Los Angeles Times ran an article entitled, “Obama is Fast Losing White Voters’ Support.”  In that article, the Times states that, “strategists in both parties blame Obama’s decline on growing discontent with his policy agenda, particularly after a month of often-rowdy debate over his proposed healthcare overhaul, in which some conservatives accused him of socialism.”  What else can this plan be called?  I have torn apart HR 3200 in many ways.  And, above all else, when the plan is carefully reviewed it is socialist. 

In his speech, Obama will make a plea to the people of America that the plan is necessary and should be supported by all.  It should not be a Republican and/or Democratic issue.  It is an American problem that needs to be addressed.  As I have said before, we all agree on that.  However, we cannot agree to the President and Congress’ current plan. 

In the last few days, a couple of new proposals have been introduced.  One is that the President is willing to take the public option off of the table.  This is a good start.   But, to have some sort of trigger in the bill which would initiate a public option if some level of events happen or do not happen is ridiculous.  Who is going to judge whether the trigger has occurred?  Which Presidential Czar will be in charge of that?  (I am just assuming there will be another Czar since that seems to be Obama’s answer to everything despite recent problems.) 

Another option being put on the table is to tax so called “Cadillac” plans which are the crème of the crop in medical plans.  These are usually plans held by top executives at major corporations.  Taxing these may make a lot of sense if we must tax something to pay for this onslaught on taxpayer money.  However, will that include taxing Congress’ plan as well?  I do not know how else to describe Congress’ plan other than to say it is a true Cadillac plan.  If Congress agrees to such a tax, I am sure top executives would agree as well.  Are not the Democrats the ones wanting to make the playing field level all the time? 

The Senate Finance Committee is working on what would be the first true bipartisan plan right now.  As reported by Fox.com, the plan would include penalties for those who do not get insurance depending on income level and family size.  It would also be the first mandatory plan in the same vein that Auto Insurance is mandatory in many states.  However, it would not include a public option at all.  In its place, the plan would include non-profit cooperatives (whatever the hell they are).

If this plan addresses all of the issues I addressed in my prior article I can see it being something that that Republican Party can get behind.  Let’s just hope so. 

Van Jones!  Now, there’s a name I am sure President Obama would like to soon forget.  Talk about a major screw up on the Administration’s part.  Here is a man that is a self-avowed Communist; signed a petition which alleged that that Bush Administration was behind 9/11; referred to Republican’s as “assholes” within the last six months; and stated that “Black Students would never do a Columbine.”  I wonder what vetting process the Obama Administration did on Mr. Jones.  It took all of about ten days for Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity to out this guy. 

The result of Beck and Hannity’s research was obvious.  Van Jones had to go.  But, he resigned and was not fired.  Why?  The Obama Administration is still standing behind him even though all the evidence showed this man should have never even been appointed.  His resignation letter cited a “vicious smear campaign against me” as his major reason for resigning.  Come on.  Who is he kidding? 

Did the Obama Administration vet him at all?  Did they know about his past?  Did they agree with his past?  Or, was it just extreme ineptitude on the Administration’s part?  All of these choices have scary consequences?  I guess admitting they screwed up was the least damaging. 

But, what about Obama’s other Czars?  Have they all been properly vetted?  Or, are there other potential problems lurking in the background to haunt the Administration?  Are the potential problems with John Holdrum and Cass Sunstein enough to have them resign as well?  Holdrum seems to advocate certain population control policies that would be opposed to a majority of the American populace.  And, Sunstein believes that animals should be permitted to sue humans.  (I admit this is a bit ridiculous, but do we want this guy that close to the President of the United States). 

This all brings to mind major problems with the whole process of appointing Presidential Advisors.  Should these advisors who obviously have the President’s ear be required to be approved by the Senate?  Thus far, the answer has been no as only Cabinet Posts and other higher government positions require the “advise and consent” of the Senate.  Maybe, that should be changed.  Maybe, all of the Czars should be approved by the Senate.  I am sure the Senate’s vetting process would have discovered the problems with Van Jones and possibly John Holdrum and Cass Sunstein as well.  The Senate process did put an end to a few of Obama’s earlier nominees, including those nominated for a few Cabinet posts. 

In closing, let us see how the President’s performance today is viewed by the American public.  Is this the D-Day for health care or just the beginning of what will be a long, hard debate?

The President has just announced that he will try a more formal sell to Congress on September 9th.  Will this work more than the last press conference in which he appeared to have no idea what he was trying to sell?  Will it be more successful than his appeal to religious leaders last week?  Or, will this be the final death knell in the partisan attempt at Health Care Reform?  Only time will tell. 

However, the tide has definitely turned against the Democrats.  More than 50% of the country on the whole and in some parts of the electorate, way more than 50% are against the current bill and its companion bills both in the House and Senate.  Why?  Because Republicans and even moderate Democrats cannot stomach what is contained in them. 

My last article was about the need for bipartisanship and debate in Congress.  I still feel that way but I do not see it happening.  In fact, both sides are digging their heels in and getting ready for the tug of war.  At this point, it is not about whose solution is better, it seems to be about which side will win. 

HR 3200 and its progeny are disasters.  It seems that everyone except the far left agrees on this.  In this article, I will analyze issues that I feel are wrong with those bills and why almost the entire populace is rallying against them. 

To begin with, the public option has to go.  All moderates and conservatives agree.  It is bad public policy and it is bad for America.  The minute you put the public option into play, all private insurance companies will be driven out of business and we will have socialized health care which is the goal of the far left anyway.  Once we have socialized health care, the parade of horribles begins.  This includes rationing of health care, lack of choice and skyrocketing taxes. 

However, if you regulate the current insurance industry, you will promote competition in the private sector and drive down prices.  This is the whole theory behind the anti-trust laws in the United States.  (By the way, regulation, however bad it is for the free market is better than the alternative).  The more competitive the private sector becomes, the lower the cost of health insurance will be.  Further, if you compel the entire population to become insured either through better tax credits for individuals and/or employers, regular market forces will naturally drive down the cost of insurance. 

Secondly, abortion must be specifically excluded from any proposed legislation.  The general public must not be forced to fund an elective procedure.  Say what you will about your stance on abortion, but it is an elective procedure unless the health of the mother is in jeopardy.  Then, it is a medical necessity and it is a whole different ball game. 

President Obama, during his appeal to the religious community last week, contacted Catholic Bishops and Leaders.  He impressed upon them the need for health care reform.  They unilaterally rejected his pleas.  Why?  Because, of the abortion issue.  The entire Catholic community believes that health care for everyone is a basic human right.  However, until the abortion issue is addressed, neither the Catholic Church, nor any other conservative religious organization is going to lobby their followers for ObamaCare. 

Just as an aside, Obama is beginning to show how much of an old fashioned politician he really is.  He ran on the basis of change.  During the campaign, he argued that America is no longer a Christian nation and that people cling to their religion when they are unhappy about their lives.  Now, that he needs religion to help his cause, he goes running to religion.  This is not change.  He is a hypocrite! 

The next issue is very controversial and, unfortunately, it is also a monetary one.  Public money in any way, shape or form, must not be used to fund medical care for illegal immigrants.  I know people from the far left are going to call me a racist and a heartless bastard.  Believe me, I am not.   But, if we are going to bankrupt this country with this level of major health care reform, it should only be for legal, taxpaying citizens and those holding valid visas. 

I am not saying that someone lying on the street bleeding to death should not receive emergency treatment because they are illegally here.  The law already states that everyone with a true emergency must be treated.  All I am saying is that basic health care that is not a true emergency should not be afforded to illegal aliens.  They are many people in this country that have come here properly.  They should be entitled to the benefits of citizens.  The rest should not. 

Fourth, a plan must be developed that is revenue neutral.  We cannot mortgage our children’s future any longer.  If no one can come up with a way to pay for this plan without destroying the economy in the process, then there should be no plan at all.  Some of the top minds in this country are in Washington right now trying to put a plan together.  Let them find a way to fund it without it increasing the debt by over one trillion dollars in the next ten years. 

Lastly, there should be no tax penalty for employers who do not want to provide health insurance and individuals who do not want to be insured.  If a company provides health insurance, there should be tax benefits for providing it.  There should be no penalty for not doing so. If an individual does not want insurance, that is a personal choice.  There are many people under 30 who simply do not want to be covered.  Likewise, there are many rich people that would rather be self insured and pay the medical bills themselves. 

I keep hearing from many sources that the Republicans have no solutions and are just trying to kill health reform to put Obama to shame.  That is not true.  There are many Republican points on health care that are frankly, just being ignored by the Democrats.  Among them are Tort Reform to lower medical malpractice premiums and bring medical costs down; and better tax benefits for health insurance at both the employer and individual level. 

Let the Democrat Congress deal with the issues set forth herein and a bipartisan bill will be enacted.  If they do not and decide to continue going it alone, the effects of that will be felt by them in 2010.  Of course, that might not be all that bad.  The Republicans will get control of the House and Senate again!

In my opinion, it is just another example of a government program that did not work contrary to what I said in a prior column. To begin with, the government mistook the popularity of the program and only allocated one billion dollars of stimulus money to the bill. That money ran out in less than two weeks. Then, Congress immediately allocated another two billion dollars. That money is running out in less than four weeks. Another Big Government miscalculation! 

But the problem with “Cash for Clunkers” is even deeper than that. Automobile dealers started threatening this week to stop utilizing the program because they were not getting the government money. They were selling cars under the program and waiting for the checks to show up. Some dealers have not gotten any money at all yet. So, they threatened to stop using the program. Fearing another publicity debacle, a few days later, the President ended the program. Smells fishy right?  Maybe, the dealers will be waiting a long time for the money, and the government wants to stop the bleeding because it cannot handle the demand and does not want the situation to worsen. 

Further, I have been told that there are people in Southern California that are buying crappy cars for $500.00, taking them to a dealer and leaving with a new car. The only problem is that the new car is sometimes heading south of the border. No payments will ever be made. And no repossession because the cars are gone. Really smart, right? Another carefully thought out government plan! The taxpayers are now paying for cars that may not get paid for or kept in America. Big Government, Big Mistake! 

“Cash for Clunkers” is just another example of a long list of government failures. It seems that every time the government gets involved in anything domestic, it fails. The first example shall be Social Security. To most people this is the most successful of Roosevelt’s New Deal. Well, it is bankrupt and many people in my age group believe they will never see a dime from any money contributed to the program. 

From its conception, Social Security has been problem-filled. Congress has tried to save it countless times and it still goes broke every few years. I remember during the Reagan administration, we were promised that Social Security was fundamentally sound after another tax hike to keep it funded. How many times have we heard this same story since then? And, again Social Security is broke. Big Government, Big Mistake! 

Do we even need to talk about the great success of Lyndon Johnson’s “Great Society?” Or, should I just say that most of the programs are no longer in existence and those that are, well, they are broke. Let us start with Medicaid and Medicare. Both parts of the Johnson plan and both are broken and broke. 

The welfare programs of the Great Society have pretty much been eliminated. And, who eliminated or fixed them?  A Democratic President that admitted they needed fixing. But, did he do it with a Democratic Congress? No, he did it with a Republican Congress. In summary, the Great Society is just another example of: Big Government, Big Mistake!

How about a few words now about the biggest government failure ever: the United States Postal Service. If there was ever an entity that needed to be privatized, this is it. Take it away from the government and it will immediately become a profitable and lean organization, instead of the nearly bankrupt mess it is. Who can be proud of an organization that’s claim to fame in the last twenty years is coining the phrase, “Going Postal!” Big Government, Big Mistake! 

So, why do we insist on creating more programs? ObamaCare is the latest program on the table. I and my blogging partner Ira Schwartz have written ad nauseam about this pending social disaster. The people are openly rebelling against it. And yet, Congress does not get it. The Democratic Congress has stated that this bill is going to be rammed through even if it does not get one Republican vote; even if the Blue Dog Democrats oppose it; even if they must invoke Reconciliation in the Senate; and most of all, even if the majority of the country opposes it. 

Barney Frank told his constituents at a town hall meeting this week that he did not even care what he was being asked about the health care bill. ObamaCare was good for the country and it was going to happen. He did not even answer questions asked because he did not have respect for the people asking them. Nancy Pelosi does not care.  Barbara Boxer does not care.  Harry Reid does not care. President Obama does not care.  It is going to happen. And, when it does, what will be the result: Big Government, Big Mistake! 

Do everything to stop it for the reasons cited in prior columns and because it is bad for the country. Force the Democrats to come up with a bipartisan health care bill that the whole country can be happy with! We cannot afford one more, Big Government, Big Mistake!