In the continuing redistribution of wealth, which President Obama approved of in the campaign, Congress has redistributed the responsibility for health benefit costs from some individuals to some corporations.  The following excerpts are from a Wall Street Journal article by M.P. McQueen, February 19, 2009.

Congress has just given a big assist to millions of jobless Americans facing a tough decision: Do they reach into their wallet to continue health insurance coverage with their old employer or not?

As part of the economic-stimulus package signed into law this week, the federal government will provide a nine-month subsidy covering 65% of the Cobra premium for people who qualify.

Employers may not be happy with the expansion of the Cobra program, as some fear it will raise administrative and other costs. "The new law will impose very large costs on employers," says John Goodman, president of the National Center for Policy Analysis, an independent think tank in Dallas. "It will make it more expensive for employers to provide health insurance. And, for those who do, it will make it more expensive to hire new workers."

The first question that comes to my mind is, why would any employer choose to provide medical insurance plans if the government continues to move along this path?  If an employee is involuntarily terminated, there was a reason for doing so which results in the lowering of overhead unless a replacement is hired at an equal or higher rate.  What if the employee was released for reasons that were adverse to the company?  Should the employer be saddled with the 65% costs?  I would think employers, especially the small businesses, may begin to consider eliminating the health benefits package and offer a cash subsidy for employees to purchase their own coverage.

The anti-business atmosphere will steadily add to the cost side of the ledger.  If this doesn't drive business from the market, it will definitely add to the price of goods and services to the consumers.  I don't know if the legislators really consider the unintended consequences for the actions they take.  They either don't know or don't care.  This is another case of hurting many to help a few.  Every regulation or law they enact that adds costs to a company's bottom line, increases the price consumers pay at the register.  This is only avoided when the government take the dramatic step of price controls.  When price controls begin, the profit margin for companies shrink as their costs are increased.  There comes a tipping point where it is no longer worth keeping open the doors of the establishment.

This is only the beginning.  If you are unconcerned because it doesn't affect you, be aware that your turn will come.  When the health care system is completely controlled by the federal government, the companies will be required to pay into the system if they are not providing coverage on their own.  Again, these cost increases will be passed onto the consumers.  We are all affected by these kind of actions.  Even the folks on welfare will have less to spend when the prices are raised.  Don't get too excited about the $13 per week in less withholding tax.  When prices go up that money will be eaten up quickly.

Whether it be the so called Fairness Doctrine or Localism, when the government employs censorship, it is setting itself up to control information.  Does the TASS News Agency ring a bell?  Or how about Al Jazeera?  President Obama has said that he opposes reenacting the Fairness Doctrine, but in this age of double speak, he does not outright tell his party or fellow leftists to leave the issue alone.  If Congress leaves it alone, there is still the FCC which can implement the policy.  If not them, local boards could be established to review broadcast content to make sure locals are heard rather than nationally syndicated shows.  In any case, the government controlling the political opinion being broadcast is one step in contolling the population.  Many of President Obama's FCC appointees are in favor of the Fairness Doctrine as is the Congressional leadership.

But why would the Government want to control what the people hear?  The reason the recent rash of spending bills have been pushed through quickly, always a crisis that needs immediate attention, is that the longer the wait for the vote, the more the people learn, the more they get upset, the more they speak up, the more they contact their legislators.  As each day passes, the public opinion drops and the vote is made more difficult.  As the ruling party tries to push through its agenda, they do not want to be questioned or defied.

Funny, one of the ten pillars of communism is:
6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state.

Remain alert to what happens over the coming year in this matter.  Will the same people that complained about President Bush and his policies and civil rights voice their objections to those of President Obama?  If they do, will the media do any reporting on it?

Consider NBC who is widely reported to be in the tank for President Obama, especially MSNBC during the campaign and election.  NBC is owned by GE, whose CEO is Jeffrey R. Immelt since September 7, 2001.  According to his bio at GE.com, Mr. Immelt is on the board of the New York Federal Reserve Bank.  He was also named a member of President Obama's Economic Recovery Advisory Board.  Get the picture?  And what of the $140 billion dollar bailout loan from the government?  Who owns whom?

There are more examples to be had, but let's consider a famous quote from the 1940's.

First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out--
because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out--
because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out--
because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out--
because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me--
and there was no one left to speak out for me.

Pastor Martin Niemöller

Back in early May, 2008, then candidate Barack Obama said, "Iran, Cuba, Venezuela, these countries are tiny compared to the Soviet Union. They don't pose a serious threat to us the way the Soviet Union posed a threat to us.”

I understand it was campaign talk and the comparison to the Soviet Union was somewhat accurate, but it was naive to make the comparison since the Soviet Union had gone down and Iran was on its way to nuclear weapons.  I truly hope that President Obama's eyes have been opened by the daily briefings he receives.  I hope he is taking Iran much more seriously, and despite his desire to talk, he needs to see Iran as the same evil empire that President Reagan saw the Soviet Union to be.

Not only is Iran developing their own nukes, but they continue to feed the Middle East disruptors such as Hamas.  Now they are into space age technology despite international sanctions.  Read this interesting story from PRNewswire that speaks of Iran's capabilities. 

"Iran's historic first successful space launch on February 2nd, placing its domestically grown satellite 'OMID' into an elliptical orbit around the Earth which has reached heights of 224 miles and speeds of 4.6 miles a second, is currently being tracked by NORAD. OMID has made multiple overflights of the United States and will continue to do so."

"Iran, with its new knowledge and demonstrated performance capability of its SLV coupled with its already-existing industry base that has produced close to a 1,000 short- and medium-range ballistic missiles will scale up production over the next year to two years to produce ICBMs capable of striking any target around the world Iran deems necessary for its national security. Every major city in the United States and Europe could be targeted with a warhead and if Iran continues unabated to develop a nuclear weapon, that warhead would be a weapon of mass destruction."

So as we spend ourselves into bondage with trillions of dollars in debt, we hamper our ability to defend ourselves.  In the third debate with Senator McCain, Senator Obama said, "America cannot maintain a strong defense without a strong economy".  I hope his deficit spending doesn't destroy the dollar, or we will be out of luck as both the economy and defense will suffer.  I also expect to see the defense budget cut 10% as is the case most often with Democrat administrations.  Is this the time to do that with troops in the field?

Did you know that we were in a crisis?  If not, President Obama will sure let you know.  Really, is there anyone that isn't aware of the financial and housing meltdowns?  It would seem that good leadership would lead.  Where is it?  President Obama used the word crisis a total of twenty four times in one speech this past Friday.  "I'm here today to talk about a crisis unlike any we've ever known", he began in a speech at Phoenix, Arizona, on the home mortgage crisis.  Mentioning it as the topic is fine, but beating the drum so hard will not encourage a single soul.  Where is the positive spin to encourage consumer confidence?  Politicians are widely known for spin, so where is it when we actually need a little.  In our sound-bite society, positive spin may encourage the so-called main street to loosen the purse strings a bit, the real key to ending a recession.  All that was heard in the campaign was "hope and change, "yes we can", and "eight years of failed Bush policy."  What we get is doom and gloom, only the government can, and more of the same.  The same Democrat controlled Congress that spent money, gave bail outs, and promoted the bad lending practices in the Community Reinvestment Act, is the same Congress that President Obama handed the reigns of leadership to so they could pass the biggest spending bill in history.  And we haven't seen the budget yet.  Where is the leadership in giving the farthest left politicians, Reed and Pelosi, the freedom to spend on every pet project they've been seeking to finance over the past years?

In the same speech, President Obama states, "Our housing crisis was born of eroding home values, but also of the erosion of our common values. It was brought about by big banks that traded in risky mortgages in return for profits that were literally too good to be true; by lenders who knowingly took advantage of homebuyers; by homebuyers who knowingly borrowed too much from lenders; by speculators who gambled on rising prices; and by leaders in our nation's capital who failed to act amidst a deepening crisis."  I guess Barney Frank and Chris Dodd had nothing to do with failure of oversight and promoting poor policies.  There were leaders who attempted to reign in the problems over the past couple years, including the Bush White House, but Barney Frank did well to block that failing to see a problem in regulation.  And President Obama, then Senator Obama, never lifted a finger to act against the rising problem.  He is not above it all as he was part of the majority party in Congress.  Where was the leadership then?  Where is the leadership now?

Hope and change is really the same old, same old.  Liberal spending after campaigning against the evils of President Bush's deficit spending.  $785 billion dollars, borrowed dollars even before the budget cash to be spent, is definitely deficit spending.  And remember, the Democrats, President Obama's party, was in control of the purse strings, not President Bush.  My point isn't to defend President Bush.  My point is that we are seeing the same old spending.  Spending to fix a problem that was caused by spending.  Where is the change?  And about the hope, does it really exist when we are told that the government is the only party that can get us out of this recession?  The same people that want to spend us out of it are the people that made the policies that helped us get into the big downturn.  Good leadership would be attempting to pump up the nation's producers and labor force, encouraging people to produce goods and loosen the purse strings to help the economy.  With every speech President Obama makes, he causes people to wonder how much worse things will get and to hang onto whatever cash they have.  It is depressing for people to think our only hopes hang on the government solving the problem.

And how does it help those with money to invest to loosen their hold on the cash when President Obama talks about raising taxes on them?  The Washington Post reports that he plans to reduce the deficit by the end of his first term.
"Obama proposes to dramatically reduce those numbers, said White House budget director Peter Orszag: "We will cut the deficit in half by the end of the president's first term." The plan would keep the deficit hovering near $1 trillion in 2010 and 2011, but shows it dropping to $533 billion by 2013, he said -- still high but a more manageable 3 percent of the economy.

To get there, Obama proposes to cut spending and raise taxes. The savings would come primarily from "winding down the war" in Iraq, a senior administration official said. The budget assumes continued spending on "overseas military contingency operations" throughout Obama's presidency, the official said, but that number is lower than the nearly $190 billion budgeted for Iraq and Afghanistan last year."

He talks about raising taxes on the people that have the money while trying to work out of a recession.  I fail to see how this type of a message will make any entrepreneur feel comfortable about risking funds and then having more of the profits, if there are any, pilfered by the tax collector so the politicians can give it to those in society who didn't risk anything to earn the profits.  The entitlement attitude of today is being fed by the government.  Spread the wealth as he told Joe the plumber.

Hope and change, where for art thou?

For more encouragement, read the comments of Soros.  Maybe this is where President Obama gets his material.

Soros sees no bottom for world financial "collapse"

Could Barack Obama be the first President of the United States that is not a U.S. citizen?  The issue cropped up during the campaign.  I became aware of it after he was nominated by the Democratic Party.  I still wonder how this controversy is even possible.  Who is responsible for checking the qualifications of the presidential candidates?

In a story on World Net Daily, Supreme Court to take up eligibility question again, the story is laid out with some history and the concerns the question raises.  This would be a further shredding of the Constitution, or certainly the respect for it, if we learn after he is sworn in that he indeed is not a natural born citizen.  While many people write this off as conspiracy theory level hype, the question is real and to date is not sufficiently answered by Senator Obama.  He only needs to produce a genuine birth certificate to put the whole issue to rest.  Why didn't he do so during the campaign when the question was raised?

The next issue would be, should Senator Obama not be eligible, what to do next.  Is the second place finisher in the election the president?  If Obama is sworn in then found to be ineligible, would Senator Biden become President?  Would there be a new election with President Bush remaining in office until the new president is selected?  This leads back to my original query.  Who verifies the eligibility of the presidential candidates?  How can this one fall through the cracks?  With all the over-regulation and extensive policies and excessive hoops to jump through whenever dealing with the government, I find it hard to believe there is nobody or no office that is responsible for the verification of qualifications.  This issue should have been resolved at the time of the filing to run for office and not be remaining an issue on the day that electoral votes are being counted and about to be ratified by Congress.

Well, maybe not slavery, but slavery-lite.  At change.gov, the section America Serves has the following paragraph.

The Obama Administration will call on Americans to serve in order to meet the nation’s challenges. President-Elect Obama will expand national service programs like AmeriCorps and Peace Corps and will create a new Classroom Corps to help teachers in underserved schools, as well as a new Health Corps, Clean Energy Corps, and Veterans Corps. Obama will call on citizens of all ages to serve America, by developing a plan to require 50 hours of community service in middle school and high school and 100 hours of community service in college every year. Obama will encourage retiring Americans to serve by improving programs available for individuals over age 55, while at the same time promoting youth programs such as Youth Build and Head Start.

Aside from the expansion of big government and the associated costs (translated tax dollars), this potential program seeks to mandate volunteerism.  If service is mandatory, it is no longer voluntary which makes it involuntary service.  Until such time as the Constitution is formally rewritten, it is still worth referring to every now and then.  Take for example the thirteenth amendment.

Amendment 13 - Slavery Abolished. Ratified 12/6/1865. History

1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

That's it, the whole amendment.  It is pretty straight forward and easy to understand.  Involuntary servitude is not constitutional.  the phrase, "developing a plan to require" is the key point.  If the service is required, it is involuntary.

The arguments will come that community service is a good thing, and it is.  That it is good for our kids to do community service for others, and it is.  But those are red herring arguments to divert attention from our Constitution which according to Senator Obama has a fatal flaw of not telling what the government can do to you or for you.  The rule of law is based on the Constitution, but time and again our elected officials choose to ignore it and the judiciary has allowed it to happen.

What will be the policies to enforce this policy?  No diploma for high school students.  No access to student loans or grants for college students?  Loss of benefits such as medicare to the seniors?  Note that I did not use a question mark after the high school cost of non-conformity.  That is because it is already a requirement for graduation in the school district in which I live.

Is this the change that was sought by those who voted for Senator Obama?  It's also interesting that the site is called:

CHANGE.GOV  OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT-ELECT

I didn't know we had that office.  This is a first as far as I know.  But to cut some slack, he is the President-Elect and it did come from his office at some point.

Congratulations on your election as President of the United States of America.  This is quite an achievement for any person and you ran the campaign that got you to the goal.  I will be interested to see how your followers react as you become engulfed in the realities of the office and the restraints that will be placed on you by forces beyond your control.  One advantage you will have is not having the hatred built against you through the media that President Bush has had to endure.  Although I oppose most of your positions on policy, I will not stoop to name calling and accusations that are contrary to the facts presented.  I noticed in your victory speech that the soft shoe backpedaling has begun as you said that we will get there, where ever there may be, but that it may not be in the first year or the first term.  I guess the campaign for 2012 has begun already.  I'll be watching with great anticipation to see how it all shakes out.  I'll also hope for the peace and security of our country and your success in repairing our economy.  Good luck.

Isn't it just a bit disingenuous for a Senator to look at the financial meltdown and say that Washington hasn't done enough?  A Senator who is part of the legislative body that writes the laws, makes the rules and basically has the control over whether something gets done or not?

In this age where any curious individual can research history, that being statements and records, why are so many things lied about and twisted out of context?  Are politicians so disconnected that they think they won't be found out?  It's like the combatants in a bitter divorce case that poison the children with lies and exaggerations about the former spouse.  Pretty soon either one is believed over the other without question or neither is listened to anymore.  Oh, the frustration.

Has it happened to you yet, it has to me, that your favorite party is hitting a rock solid point about the lies and exaggerations of the opponent, and next thing you know, here it comes right back.  In judgmental thought, I condemn the lies.  How could you!  How can I believe or trust you!  But then, here it comes back.  How could you!  How can I believe or trust you!  Now who to believe?  How do we even discuss the pros and cons of our candidates when they all take the low road?

I guess it finally goes to the record of each candidate for each issue of concern and watch the chips stack on whichever side of the issues we stand on.  And about that opening line, as everything gets blamed on President Bush, research who made the rules, who fought against them, who warned about this potential problem and who shot it down.  Of course, I suppose it depends on who we trust for the information we readily accept as truth.