Health Care "Overhaul"

[Gawain 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

>What gives you the RIGHT to DEMAND the labor of another person?

A little-known document, prefaced by:

"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish Justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this constitution for the United States of America."

It's out of fashion, I know, but some of us are enamored of it.

You do realize those are two different words right?

Yep. Promote has a broader definition, an can encompass provide.

I disagree with that statement.

...and you are right to disagree...

pro⋅mote
  /prəˈmoʊt/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [pruh-moht] Show IPA
–verb (used with object), -mot⋅ed, -mot⋅ing.
1. to help or encourage to exist or flourish; further: to promote world peace.


pro⋅vide
  /prəˈvaɪd/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [pruh-vahyd] Show IPA verb, -vid⋅ed, -vid⋅ing.
–verb (used with object)
1. to make available; furnish: to provide employees with various benefits.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[rushmc 23]

It really was only a matter of time.
And the more time we have to learn about this abomination, the less the chance of passage.

http://www.newsmax.com/headlines/health_care_obama/2009/07/19/237484.html

Quote

Obama Health Plan to Cover 12 Million Illegals

Sunday, July 19, 2009 6:32 PM

By: David A. Patten Article Font Size






On Friday, Democrats moved one step closer to giving free health insurance to the nation’s estimated 12 million illegal aliens when they successfully defeated a Republican-backed amendment, offered by Rep. Dean Heller, R-Nev., that would have prevented illegal aliens from receiving government-subsidized health care under the proposed plan backed by House Democrats and President Barack Obama.

The House Ways and Means Committee nixed the Heller amendment by a 26-to-15 vote along straight party lines, and followed this action by passing the 1,018-page bill early Friday morning by a 23-to-18 margin, with three Democrats voting against the plan.

The Democratic plan will embrace Obama’s vision of bringing free government medical care to more than 45 million uninsured people in America – a significant portion of whom are illegal aliens.

According to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, costs under the Obama plan being proposed by the House will saddle citizens with $1.04 trillion in new federal outlays over the next decade.

Congressional Democrats and Obama have argued that their health plan is necessary to contain rising health care costs.

But, last Thursday, CBO Director Douglas Elmendorf testified before the Senate Budget Committee and warned lawmakers that the proposed “legislation significantly expands the federal responsibility for health care costs."

A key factor increasing costs is that Democratic plan provides for blanket coverage to as much as 15 percent of the U.S. population not currently insured, including illegals.

Democrats had insisted throughout the health-care reform debate that illegals would be ineligible for the so-called public option plan that is to be subsidized by taxpayers.

"We're not going to cover undocumented aliens, undocumented workers," Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, told reporters in May. "That's too politically explosive."

Republicans, however, point out that the Democrats, by refusing to accept the Heller amendment, would deny health agencies from conducting simple database checks to verify citizenship. Many states give illegals driver licenses, which will be sufficient to get free health care under the plan.

Critics also contend that millions of illegals who already have counterfeit Social Security cards or other fraudulent documents. There is no enforcement mechanism in the legislation, experts say, to prevent illegals who use fake IDs to obtain jobs from also obtaining taxpayer-subsidized health insurance.

GOP representatives introduced the amendment to provide a way to weed out non-citizens from the program.

A description of the amendment on Heller's Web site state it would "better screen applicants for subsidized health care to ensure they are actually citizens or otherwise entitled to it."

The Web post added, "The underlying bill is insufficient for the purpose of preventing illegal aliens from accessing the bill’s proposed benefits, as it does not provide mechanisms allowing those administering the program to ensure illegal aliens cannot access taxpayer-funded subsidies and benefits."

The Heller amendment would have required that individuals applying for the public health care option would be subject to two systems used to verify immigration status already in use by the government: The Income and Eligibility Verification System (IEVS) and the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) program.


The two systems cross-reference Social Security numbers and employment information to establish whether an individual is a U.S. citizen.


Critics: Free Health Care Means More Illegals


A recent Rasmussen Reports poll found that an overwhelming 80 percent of Americans oppose covering illegals in any public health care bill.

Anti-immigration activists say the availability of low-cost benefits, including health insurance and in-state tuition, will only lure more immigrants to come to the United States.

Political analyst Dick Morris, in his recently released best-selling book “Catastrophe”, warns that giving illegal free health care will lead to a flood of new illegals who can take advantage of such a benefit not offered in their home countries.

William Gheen, president of Americans for Legal Immigration, agrees with that sentiment, writing, "Each state and federal elected official must know that illegal aliens should not be given licenses, in-state tuition, mortgages, bank accounts, welfare, or any other benefit short of emergency medical care and law enforcement accommodations before they are deported."

But a small fraction of illegals end up deported, as many make widespread use of fake IDs to easily gain access to government benefits programs.

"Experts suggest that approximately 75 percent of working-age illegal aliens use fraudulent Social Security cards to obtain employment," wrote Ronald W. Mortensen in a recent Center for Immigration Studies research paper. Mortensen says one of the big misconceptions about illegals is that they are undocumented.

James R. Edwards Jr., co-author of The Congressional Politics of Immigration Reform, recently wrote on National Review Online that "it's hard to envision how health reform can avoid tripping the immigration booby trap."

Edwards says none of the legislation under consideration actually requires any state, federal, or local agency to check the immigration status of those who apply for the program.

The assumption is that companies have vetted their employees to ensure they are eligibility for legal employment – a difficult task for employers given the active market in fraudulent documents. Thus Edwards maintains "some of the money distributed … inevitably would go to illegal aliens."

The estimates of illegal aliens in the United States without health insurance vary. The most commonly cited statistic, attributed to the Center for Immigration Statistics and the U.S. Census Bureau, holds that 15 percent to 22 percent of the nation's 46 million uninsured are illegal aliens. That would be between 6.9 million and 10.1 million people. During the 2008 presidential campaign, Obama claimed the nation United States has 12 million or more undocumented aliens.

John Sheils of the Lewin Group, a health care consulting firm owned by UnitedHealth Group, recently told National Public Radio that about 6.1 million illegals – about half of all illegals in the United States – lack documentation and therefore would not be legally eligible for benefits under the current health care reforms.

Sheils says the other half of the nation's illegals – 5 million to 6 million – use false documents to obtain on-the-books employment. Many of them are already insured under their employers' plans, he added.

"A lot of those people are getting employer health benefits as part of their compensation," Sheils told NPR.

Certainly, some contend that undocumented workers who are gainfully employed and receiving benefits such as health insurance are contributing to society. But the fact remains that, once equipped with a fake ID, a person in the United States illegally can obtain both a job and the benefits that go with it.

Estimates of the cost of providing illegals with medical care vary. Most uninsured illegals who need medical attention obtain it from hospital emergency rooms. And several states are already straining under the huge burden of paying for the health costs of illegal aliens.

According to the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), in 2004 California's estimated cost of unreimbursed medical care was $1.4 billion. Texas estimated its cost at $850 million annually, and Arizona at $400 million.

Non-border states shoulder heavy burdens as well. Virginia's annual cost of providing health care for undocumented workers is approximately $100 million per year, FAIR reports, while Florida's health care cost is about $300 million annually.

One of the ironies of the proposed legislation is that it would fine American citizens who opt not to purchase insurance coverage, but would exempt illegals from such fines. This is presumably due to the fact that they are not supposed to participate in the program anyway.

Even if no illegals were likely to benefit from health care reform, Democrats have made it clear that amnesty is the next item on their ambitious legislative agenda.

"I've got to do health care, I've got to do energy, and then I'm looking very closely at doing immigration," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., declared in June.

Reid explained the urgent need for amnesty in terms very similar to those that Democrats have used to press for health care reform. "We have an immigration system that's broken and needs repair," Reid said.

Immigration expert Edwards, for one, says health-care reform may itself need serious medical attention before it is healthy enough pass through Congress.

"The American people may soon realize how much health reform will benefit immigrants and cost the native-born," he writes. "When that happens, the volatile politics of immigration could derail universal health care."



© 2009 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 2,994]

>>Yep. Promote has a broader definition, an can encompass provide.

>I disagree with that statement.

In other words, if the US Constitution said "provide for the general welfare" you would agree they would have a greater duty than if the constitution said "promote the general welfare?"

[justinb138 0]

Quote

>>Yep. Promote has a broader definition, an can encompass provide.

>I disagree with that statement.

In other words, if the US Constitution said "provide for the general welfare" you would agree they would have a greater duty than if the constitution said "promote the general welfare?"

I know where you're going with this, and no.

[gjhdiver 0]

Quote

Quote

You're going to get it anyway, so stop whining.

Nice respect for others opinions.

Seems more like an arrogant bully saying "YOU HAD BETTER GIVE ME YOUR MONEY, AND GET USED TO IT."

For eight years under the chimp, I had to listen to smug conservatives grinning at me and telling me to "get used to it". They don't like it when the shoe is on the other foot, and suddenly I have to care about their poor little hurt opinions.

For eight years, they had full control of the legislative, executive and judicial branch. Did they care about my opinions ? Did they fuck.

Well, the left is in control now. You've had your turn. For the next four years, and probably even the next eight, sit back and enjoy the ride. This socialist sure is. You're going to get health care in one form or another, so you might as well get your money's worth.

As for the NHS shortage of dentists. Buggered if I know skippy. I've lived in the USA for the last 20 odd years. I've been a voting citizen here since 2001.

[kbordson 8]

Quote

Quote

Quote

You're going to get it anyway, so stop whining.

Nice respect for others opinions.

Seems more like an arrogant bully saying "YOU HAD BETTER GIVE ME YOUR MONEY, AND GET USED TO IT."

For eight years under the chimp, I had to listen to smug conservatives grinning at me and telling me to "get used to it". They don't like it when the shoe is on the other foot, and suddenly I have to care about their poor little hurt opinions.

For eight years, they had full control of the legislative, executive and judicial branch. Did they care about my opinions ? Did they fuck.

Well, the left is in control now. You've had your turn. For the next four years, and probably even the next eight, sit back and enjoy the ride. This socialist sure is. You're going to get health care in one form or another, so you might as well get your money's worth.

As for the NHS shortage of dentists. Buggered if I know skippy. I've lived in the USA for the last 20 odd years. I've been a voting citizen here since 2001.

Ya know... whether it's "them" or "you".... being an arrogant bully isn't right EITHER WAY. And the argument "but they did it too" didn't work in kindergarten and shouldn't work now.

[1969912 0]

Quote

For eight years under the chimp.......

More like seven months.

"Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ."
-NickDG

[warpedskydiver 0]

Hey don't get in the way of a stupid argument....

He was on a roll...

Kinda like when I was reading that congress was supposedly controlled by the republicans for 40 years.

That was really funny, I bet the person who wrote it thinks they are extremely smart.

Too bad they don't know shit. (or wait they do know SHIT!)

[TomAiello 26]

Quote

...under the chimp...

Just curious--if the other guys called your guy a "chimp" would you have a problem with that?

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[TomAiello 26]

Quote

Ya know... whether it's "them" or "you".... being an arrogant bully isn't right EITHER WAY. And the argument "but they did it too" didn't work in kindergarten and shouldn't work now.

Thank you for posting that.

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[warpedskydiver 0]

But Obama is a chimp


Here we go again Tom...


If GHWB was a chimp, so is Obama.


Same species, so if one is a chimp, so is the other.


I can hear it now...

Das so Racist Yo!

[AdamLanes 1]

Quote

>What gives you the RIGHT to DEMAND the labor of another person?

A little-known document, prefaced by:

"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish Justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this constitution for the United States of America."

I highlighted the important part for you Bill. Liberty is the antithesis of forced labor. The general welfare is promoted by maintaining liberty!

[TomAiello 26]

Quote

Liberty is the antithesis of forced labor. The general welfare is promoted by maintaining liberty!

Obviously you don't understand.

If you force a minority of people to labor, without compensation, for the majority, then it's promoting the general welfare. Who cares about the welfare of the laborers?

They don't know how to look after themselves anyway. They need their masters to keep them from slipping into indolence and sinfulness.

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[TankBuster 0]

Quote

This socialist sure is. You're going to get health care in one form or another, so you might as well get your money's worth.

I'll assume you socialists understand basic economics, and you know that you are demanding your share of someone else's labor. That makes you a thief, a looter. Worse, actually, because you don't have the guts to walk into my home with a gun. You want someone else to do it for you.

The forecast is mostly sunny with occasional beer.

[TomAiello 26]

Quote

Worse, actually, because you don't have the guts to walk into my home with a gun. You want someone else to do it for you.

The correct term for someone who wants to take from others, but is afraid to do it without a big group of their friends to back them up is "bully."

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[TankBuster 0]

Quote

Quote

Worse, actually, because you don't have the guts to walk into my home with a gun. You want someone else to do it for you.

The correct term for someone who wants to take from others, but is afraid to do it without a big group of their friends to back them up is "bully."

I disagree. A bully pushes you around. A thief steals from you. A cowardly thief has someone else steal from you.

The forecast is mostly sunny with occasional beer.

[Bolas 5]

Quote

Quote

...under the chimp...

Just curious--if the other guys called your guy a "chimp" would you have a problem with that?

You racist.

I can't believe you'd have the audacity to say your guy implying that they own him.

Go put on a white sheet....

Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

[kbordson 8]

New York Times
Monday, July 20, 2009
Compiled 2 AM E.T.

Quote

Governors Fear Medicaid Costs in Health Plan

BILOXI, Miss. — The nation’s governors, Democrats as well as Republicans, voiced deep concern Sunday about the shape of the health care plan emerging from Congress, fearing that Washington was about to hand them expensive new Medicaid obligations without money to pay for them.

The role of the states in a restructured health care system dominated the summer meeting of the National Governors Association here this weekend — with bipartisan animosity voiced against the plan during a closed-door luncheon on Saturday and in a private meeting on Sunday with the health and human services secretary, Kathleen Sebelius.

“I think the governors would all agree that what we don’t want from the federal government is unfunded mandates,” said Gov. Jim Douglas of Vermont, a Republican, the group’s incoming chairman. “We can’t have the Congress impose requirements that we are forced to absorb beyond our capacity to do so.”

The governors’ backlash creates yet another health care headache for the Obama administration, which has tried to recruit state leaders to pressure members of Congress to wrap up their fitful negotiations. Both Ms. Sebelius, who was Kansas’ governor before she joined the cabinet in April, and the federal Medicaid chief, Cindy Mann, made appearances at the meeting on Sunday. Meanwhile, other administration officials spent the day pushing President Obama’s proposal on television talk shows.

Mr. Obama also plans to address questions about his health plan at a news conference on Wednesday evening.

Ms. Sebelius emerged from her hour-long meeting with the governors saying that “there’s a recognition that states don’t have cash right now” and that “it’s difficult to send states the bill if they don’t have the money.”

Although many governors said significant change in how the nation handles health care was needed, they said their deep-seated fiscal troubles made it a terrible time to shift costs to the states. With the recession draining states of tax revenues even as their Medicaid rolls are surging, the National Governors Association projects that states will face aggregate deficits of $200 billion over the next three years.

Each of several health care bills coursing through Congress relies on a large increase in eligibility for Medicaid, the state and federal insurance program for the poor, as one means of moving toward universal coverage.

Because the states and the federal government share the cost, any increase in eligibility levels, benefits or payments to doctors would impose new burdens on the states unless Washington absorbs them. In at least one of several bills circulating in Congress, the states would eventually pick up a share of the new costs, and the governors fear they cannot count on provisions in other bills that they will not bear costs.

It was unclear whether the governors would draft a statement expressing their dismay, at least partly because half of them did not attend. Many, including the group’s chairman, Gov. Edward G. Rendell of Pennsylvania, a Democrat, stayed home to deal with budget crises.

Some of the group’s most notable names — Arnold Schwarzenegger of California, Sarah Palin of Alaska, Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota and Bobby Jindal of Louisiana — were not here.

But the sentiment among those who were could not have been more consistent, regardless of political party. The governors said in interviews and public sessions that the bills being drafted in Congress would not do enough to curb the growth in health spending. And they said they were convinced that a major expansion of Medicaid would leave them with heavy costs.

They are already anticipating large gaps in Medicaid financing after 2010, when stimulus money dries up. And they pointed out that Medicaid already suffered from low payment rates to health care providers, discouraging some doctors and hospitals from accepting beneficiaries. If Medicaid is expanded, states will almost surely have to increase payments to doctors to encourage more of them to participate.

Gov. Phil Bredesen of Tennessee, a Democrat, said he feared Congress was about to bestow “the mother of all unfunded mandates.”

“Medicaid is a poor vehicle for expanding coverage,” added Mr. Bredesen, a former health care executive. “It’s a 45-year-old system originally designed for poor women and their children. It’s not health care reform to dump more money into Medicaid.”

Mr. Bredesen was far from alone in his concern. “As a governor, my concern is that if we try to cost-shift to the states we’re not going to be in a position to pick up the tab,” said Gov. Christine Gregoire of Washington, also a Democrat.

“I’m personally very concerned about the cost issue, particularly the $1 trillion figures being batted around,” said Gov. Bill Richardson, the New Mexico Democrat who served in the Clinton cabinet and ran for president against Mr. Obama.

Asked about the concerns, Peter R. Orszag, director of the White House Office of Management and Budget, made two points. First, he said, one of Mr. Obama’s overriding goals was to reduce the rate of growth of health costs, and that would benefit states by relieving pressure on their budgets. In addition, he said, some versions of the legislation, including the House bill, could slightly reduce state spending on Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program over the next 10 years.

Many governors expressed frustration that the prolonged negotiations in Washington had made it difficult to gauge the potential impact on their budgets.

“There’s a concern about whether they have fully figured out a revenue stream that would cover the costs, and that if they don’t have all the dollars accounted for it will fall on the states,” said Gov. Bill Ritter Jr. of Colorado, a Democrat.

Under the health care proposals before Congress, Medicaid eligibility would be based solely on income, without regard to factors that have historically been used to decide who qualifies.

In the House bill, Medicaid would be expanded to cover all nonelderly people with incomes at or below 133 percent of the poverty level, or $29,300 for a family of four. The federal government would pay all the costs for those who were newly eligible. Medicaid would also cover newborns, for up to 60 days after birth, if they did not have insurance from other sources.

The Congressional Budget Office projects that 11 million more people would receive coverage through Medicaid under the House bill, and that it would increase federal Medicaid spending by $438 billion over 10 years. Medicaid thus accounts for about 40 percent of the cost and 30 percent of those who gain coverage.

In a draft of the bill in the Senate Finance Committee, the federal government would pick up the extra costs for perhaps five years, but states would eventually have to pay their normal share. On average, the federal government pays 57 percent.

One of the proposals being considered by the Finance Committee would encourage states to issue bonds to cover the costs of expanding Medicaid. Governors in both parties revolted, trumpeting their opposition in a conference call last week with Senator Max Baucus, the Montana Democrat who leads the committee.

“There is strong bipartisan opposition to the idea of the states’ issuing bonds to pay for operational expenses,” said Gov. Haley Barbour of Mississippi, chairman of the Republican Governors Association. “One governor said it would be like taking out a mortgage to pay the grocery bill.”

The money is not there.

Government does NOT want to pay.

THE PEOPLE either
1. Need to be self responsible
2. CHANGE THE DIRECTION OF THE GOVERNMENT

I can personally take care of 1. I don't think any one is bold enough to do 2.... not even the current President that ran on a platform of "change."

[billvon 2,994]

>I know where you're going with this, and no.

OK. So we can go with "provide for the general welfare."

[billvon 2,994]

> Liberty is the antithesis of forced labor.

Then you advocate abolition of the military, then?

[TomAiello 26]

Quote

> Liberty is the antithesis of forced labor.

Then you advocate abolition of the military, then?

You don't know Adam very well, do you?

Speaking just for me, I'd say we ought to abolish the vast majority of our professional military. I might be able to see a very small cadre of professional officers at the federal level who would act as a command and control nucleus in the event of war, coordinating the forces of the various states. Maybe.

Have you read any of the commentary from Jefferson and company on the idea of a permanent, standing army?

Quote

"There are instruments so dangerous to the rights of the nation and which place them so totally at the mercy of their governors that those governors, whether legislative or executive, should be restrained from keeping such instruments on foot but in well-defined cases. Such an instrument is a standing army." --Thomas Jefferson to David Humphreys, 1789. ME 7:323

"I do not like [in the new Federal Constitution] the omission of a Bill of Rights providing clearly and without the aid of sophisms for... protection against standing armies." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1787. ME 6:387

"Nor is it conceived needful or safe that a standing army should be kept up in time of peace for [defense against invasion]." --Thomas Jefferson: 1st Annual Message, 1801. ME 3:334

"Standing armies [are] inconsistent with [a people's] freedom and subversive of their quiet." --Thomas Jefferson: Reply to Lord North's Proposition, 1775. Papers 1:231

"The spirit of this country is totally adverse to a large military force." --Thomas Jefferson to Chandler Price, 1807. ME 11:160

"A distinction between the civil and military [is one] which it would be for the good of the whole to obliterate as soon as possible." --Thomas Jefferson: Answers to de Meusnier Questions, 1786. ME 17:90

"It is nonsense to talk of regulars. They are not to be had among a people so easy and happy at home as ours. We might as well rely on calling down an army of angels from heaven." --Thomas Jefferson to James Monroe, 1814. ME 14:207

"There shall be no standing army but in time of actual war." --Thomas Jefferson: Draft Virginia Constitution, 1776. Papers 1:363

"The Greeks and Romans had no standing armies, yet they defended themselves. The Greeks by their laws, and the Romans by the spirit of their people, took care to put into the hands of their rulers no such engine of oppression as a standing army. Their system was to make every man a soldier and oblige him to repair to the standard of his country whenever that was reared. This made them invincible; and the same remedy will make us so." --Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Cooper, 1814. ME 14:184

"Bonaparte... transferred the destinies of the republic from the civil to the military arm. Some will use this as a lesson against the practicability of republican government. I read it as a lesson against the danger of standing armies." --Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Adams, 1800. ME 10:154

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[gjhdiver 0]

Quote

I'll assume you socialists understand basic economics, and you know that you are demanding your share of someone else's labor. That makes you a thief, a looter. Worse, actually, because you don't have the guts to walk into my home with a gun. You want someone else to do it for you.

Yup.

Like I said, you're going to pay for it anyway, so you might as well enjoy it. (I'm enjoying it immensely it has to be said.) You also seem to conveniently forget that I'll be paying for it too, not just you. I'd rather my taxes went to health care than military adventurism.

As for calling Obama a chimp, as far as I'm concerned, you can call him a grilled cheese sandwich. It doesn't affect the outcome of the legislation, and I tend to throw my loyalties behind principles, not people anyway. Our job on the left is to keep up pressure on him the way the right did on the simpering moron that proceeded him.

Anyway, I shall allow you all to have the last word, as it's really not going to change anything.

[TomAiello 26]

Quote

I'd rather my taxes went to health care than military adventurism.

I'd prefer neither.

I'd prefer I got to keep the things I worked for.

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[TankBuster 0]

Quote

Yup.

Well, at least you have the honesty to admit what a socialist is. I respect that. Too bad the President, Speaker, etc won't be so honest. It would certainly herald defeat.

The forecast is mostly sunny with occasional beer.

[Bolas 5]

Quote

“There is strong bipartisan opposition to the idea of the states’ issuing bonds to pay for operational expenses,” said Gov. Haley Barbour of Mississippi, chairman of the Republican Governors Association. “One governor said it would be like taking out a mortgage to pay the grocery bill.”

Interesting choice of words:
http://www.latimes.com/news/columnists/la-me-cap20-2009jul20,0,4732395.column?page=2&track=rss

Quote

Cutting the car tax plunged the state deeper into debt just as Schwarzenegger was taking the wheel. To cover it -- at least temporarily -- the new governor went on a borrowing binge. It didn't take much to persuade the Legislature and voters to authorize $15 billion in "economic recovery bonds."

Passing those bonds and a companion spending "reform," the governor promised, would mean "no more deficit financing." They'd live within their means. Sacramento would "tear up the credit card and throw it away."

The only thing thrown away was all the bond money, spent long ago on daily expenses -- the equivalent of borrowing to buy groceries.

The state's annual tab on the debt currently is $1.2 billion.

The bonds are only half paid off and aren't scheduled to be fully retired until 2016.

California has already proved it doesn't work.

Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.