Common Sense & Healthcare

We've been watching with a fair amount of alarm as Obamacare works its way through the House and Senate. The mantra from Democrats is that since something needs to be done we should get the government to do it.

To be fair, these guys have been campaigning on government run healthcare since 2006. So their rush to ram their socialized "public" insurance scheme down the public's collective throat is predictable if not understandable. Unfortunately, none of the Democrat's claims square with reality.

You don't even have to be an economist to understand that a government run program will be hugely expensive and fraught with waste and corruption. When has government done anything more cost-effectively than the private sector?

Government isn't subject to the harsh realities of the market place so it's insulated from the consequences of failure. To make matters worse, spending every last budgetary dime is encouraged. If governmental departments fail to spend their share of our tax loot, chances are they won't receive as much for next year. In other words, they are punished for their good behavior.

Supporters of the Public Option Insurance Co. love to claim that administrative costs for Medicare recipients are less than for the privately insured. They often quote the talking point that Medicare administrative costs are 2% of the total payout while private insurance administrative costs are in the 20% to 25% range.

Besides being absolutely counter-intuitive, the comparison is of the administrative costs as a percentage of the overall payout. Medicare's population is generally older and in poorer health than their privately insured counterparts. As a result, Medicare recipients generally cost (pay out) more per person than the privately insured.

Someone who's insured, healthy, and never sees a doctor has an administrative cost of 100% in the model used by supporters of Obamacare. In other words, all of the money paid out by the insurance company goes to administrative costs. If it costs $100 per person per year for an insurer to administer this person's health insurance, then the cost as a percentage of the amount paid out ($100) is 100%.

On the other hand, someone in the late stages of their life, who has multiple serious medical issues costs the insurer (in this case Medicare) thousands and thousands of dollars per patient making administrative costs seem low as a percentage of the total amount paid out for that patient. If in this case, the cost of administering the insurance is $100, but the amount paid out for medical care is $5,000, then the cost as a percentage of the amount paid out ($5,000) is 2%.

In reality, the cost for administering a privately insured person is about $453, while the administrative cost for a Medicare patient is about $509 (read it here). Medicare administrative costs are an average of 12% per person higher than private insurance. Now that makes sense.

A lot of folks complain about their health insurance. If you've ever had to make a claim due to some kind of illness, chances are you've run into a buzz saw of rules, regulations, and bureaucracy. Most of the time these experiences are pretty bad at a time when you're not exactly at your best. You might even develop a bit of animosity towards corporate America.

We think it's fair to say that many liberals (there's nothing progressive about self-labeled "progressives") both dislike and distrust corporations in general and health insurance companies in particular. However, it's nonsensical to believe that getting money for care out of the largest "corporation" in the world - the United States government - would be easier than getting care from one of the 1,000 plus private insurance companies.

When exposed to the market, bad insurance companies ultimately fail while a government insurance company has the closest thing to eternal life. Regardless of care, regardless of performance and in stark contrast to those it serves a "public option" government run and funded health care "option" would be almost impossible to challenge.

The 536 and a half board members of Public Option Insurance Co. not only run their insurance scheme, but have the ability to set the rules of engagement with their private sector competitors.

[Sidebar]
We say 536 and half because you have 435 members of the House of Representatives, 100 members of the U.S. Senate, President Obama, and Joe Biden. The Vice President only gets to vote when there's a tie in the Senate and if you've spent any time listening to Gaffster-in-Chief, you understand the half part. Perhaps they should consider keeping Biden in an undisclosed location? We're just sayin'...
[End Sidebar]

Common sense tells you that the referee shouldn't be a member of one of the competing teams. Although New Mexico's recent history seems replete with examples of competitors slipping the ref a few bucks for favorable calls... but we digress.

One of the issues that repeatedly pops up is - how are we going to pay for this intrusive and massive government program? Estimates put the various "public option" programs at anywhere from $1 TRILLION to $1.6 TRILLION of borrowed money. Democrats have numerous schemes designed to pay for the Public Insurance Co. that they claim will be "revenue neutral." However, none of them seem to be able to point to a TRILLION DOLLARS worth of savings anywhere and the dirty not so little, not so secret reality is that they will be raising taxes on big business and small business to pay for it.

Remember, when business costs rise (and taxation is a cost of doing business), they either charge more for their products and/or services or they stop providing their good and/or services. It's really pretty simple. Would you pay your employer to work for them?

If a business can absorb the new costs artificially imposed by government, they'll do it by charging more and lowering other expenses. That means they'll be trying to charge more and letting people go in order to protect their interests. Businesses cannot and will not pay you to provide their goods and/or services to you - which means you will pay their costs and taxes or they will close their doors.

The most vulnerable businesses are small businesses. Small businesses provide most of the jobs in this country. They also tend to fall into Obama's definition of "rich people" because they tend to be sole proprietorships, LLCs, or subchapter S corporations.

In Albuquerque, restaurants are a visible example of small businesses that cannot survive Obama's chopping block. They employ thousands of often relatively unskilled, somewhat itinerant workers and generally do not have the margins to allow their operators to provide healthcare.

If Obamacare with its "public option," penalties, and taxes, becomes the law of the land, many of these restaurants will not be able to keep their doors open. And it will be the local operators that will be affected first and worst. One local operator recently told us that should Obamacare pass, they will close all of their locations.

Obamacare will provide "public option insurance" to a bunch of people who because of Obamacare can't afford food or shelter. It doesn't take a genius to see that Obamacare will create an exponential downward spiral as small businesses shut down and government revenue drops across the board.

This doomsday scenario is not as far fetched as you think. The current economic crisis coupled with the borrowing and spending of Obamanomics has already stressed our economy to the breaking point. Common sense indicates that a massive spending program like Obamacare could easily send us over the edge into the economic abyss.

Alarmingly, the Gaffster-in-Chief and the Obama Administration as a whole don't seem to understand what they've done in a few short months and what could be the result of their actions.

“Now, people when I say that look at me and say, ‘What are you talking about, Joe? You’re telling me we have to go spend money to keep from going bankrupt?’” Biden said. “The answer is yes, that's what I’m telling you.”

- Vice President, Joe Biden (CNSNews.com)

The debate over healthcare has been astonishingly devoid of common sense. We currently have a system that isn't perfect but still manages to provide the best care and by far the greatest number of medical innovations in the world. Why we would throw the baby out with the bath water in order to insure a group of people who are already assured care is beyond belief.

Most tellingly, the very people (like Senator Jeff Bingaman) who are the most enamored with Obamacare want nothing to do with it when it comes to their personal healthcare. Every amendment that forces Congress to be the first enrollees of the Public Option Insurance Co. is faced with fierce opposition from the very people who would like the rest of us to end up on its rolls.

All of this leaves us with one very practical, common sense question... If it won't save money, we can't afford it, will end competition, and even the politicians who want this for us don't want it, why should we?

Caught in the TARP

President Obama has decided to cap the salaries of executives at companies receiving a federal bailout from the Troubled Asset Relief Program. His argument is that executives at companies that receive federal money shouldn't be rewarded for bad behavior.

"For top executives to award themselves these kinds of compensation packages in the midst of this economic crisis isn't just bad taste. It's bad strategy. And I will not tolerate it as president," he said.

-foxnews.com

The problem is these companies have already been rewarded for bad behavior by the Bush administration, and by Congress in the form of $750 BILLION. And if Obama has his way, the federal government will dump another $900 plus BILLION of borrowed money into spending programs that have very little to do with stimulating the economy.

No doubt that today's move will be popular with the American public. In fact, a Rasmussen poll indicates that some 88% of Americans say that executives that receive federal TARP money should not receive bonuses. But there is a down side to all of this.

[Sidebar]
Before some of you absolutely freak out... a lender has the right to set conditions on the use of the money being lent - that includes the government. The problem is that governments are driven by polls and politics that are arbitrary in the best of times. And governments have the power to impose restrictions and terms retroactively - regardless of how arbitrary or capricious those terms may be.
[End Sidebar]

If the value of your work and experience on the open market was $20 an hour and someone like Obama decided that since your company took a TARP injection you should only be paid $5 an hour, what would you do? We dare say most people would start looking to find a position that pays their market value at a TARP free company. The same thing can be said of corporate executives.

While allowing companies to pay corporate executives BILLIONS in salaries and bonuses is obscene when the very companies they lead are tanking, having government step in and mandate compensation is truly frightening and could handicap corporate recovery by making it impossible to attract top talent.

The yahoos that have run GM, Chrysler, and Wall Street into the ground can't and shouldn't be able to demand huge salaries on the open market. In fact, they shouldn't be able to demand a plugged nickel, but that's a question for each company's board of directors and their share holders. Compensation should be based on performance not mandated from Washington by politicians - many of whom are at least as responsible for the current financial situation as corporate executives.

In the long run, capping compensation for positions at any level restricts a company's ability to compete with their non-TARPed competitors. Companies should think long and hard about accepting bailout money from the federal government.

When a company gets caught in the TARP, they are no longer just answerable to their share holders but to 536 politicians in Washington that already have done too much damage to markets through ill-advised legislation and have too much power to do even more damage. Before TARP, the damage was done externally. Companies that take a TARP injection may find it to be a fatal poison that cannot be removed short of death.

The Experiment Continues

Today marks a historic day. You've probably heard that Tuesday, January 20th President-elect Barack Obama will be sworn in as the 44th President of the United States. By now you no doubt have seen every talking head, read every news report, and realize that Barack Obama will be the first African-American President.

While Obama will certainly usher in a new era in U.S. race relations, that's not today's most remarkable achievement. At noon Eastern Time, we will witness the peaceful transfer of power for the 44th time.

Many lesser countries, lesser peoples have succumbed to the egos and ambitions of those who would be tyrants. Since April 30th, 1789 - despite often tremendous egos and boundless ambition - each new president in succession has handed over the reins of power to their duly elected successor.

Becoming President is no easy task. It takes MILLIONS and MILLIONS of dollars, great political skills, and a whole lot of luck. Giving up the power, the privledge, and the ability to quite literally change the world is an act of selflessness that we as a people have been fortunate to witness repeatedly since President Washington first handed the presidential mantle to John Adams in 1797.

Today our great experiment in democracy continues. It's certainly a tribute to the two men and their administrations but more than that it's a tribute to the people of the United States who demand that their leaders give up power after serving. Today Obama begins his 1st term. In four or eight years he too will be required to follow in the steps of the 42 Presidents before him and cede power to the next man or woman who will be his replacement.

----- Correction -----
We originally implied erroneously that there were "43 Presidents before" the current President Barack Obama. We were kind of half right. There were 43 Presidents but only 42 men who have served as President of the United States before Obama. Grover Cleveland served as both the 22nd and 24th Presidents of the United States making Obama the 43rd man and the 44th President.

Dipping Into Obama's Well

President-elect Obama hasn't wasted any time drilling yet another well into taxpayer pockets. Before he's even placed his hand on Lincoln's bible the candidate for change is relieving all of us of more than our change - all in the name of stimulating the economy.

Before we get started, understand that government does not create wealth it moves it from one pocket to another. Whether it's President Bush or incoming President Obama, you can't spend yourself out of debt any more than you can drink yourself sober.

Obama has promised to spend over a TRILLION DOLLARS in a misguided attempt to better the Bush administration's $750 BILLION bailout boondoggle.

(Sidebar)
If the definition of insanity is doing the same thing and expecting a different result, what exactly is doing the same thing - only more - and expecting a better result?
(End Sidebar)

With all of that said, last Thursday the Almighty Alcalde met with the Anointed One's transition team in Washington D.C. in order to stick his bucket as deep into Obama's well as he possibly can.

The city is seeking about $2 billion for solar-power plants, a wind farm, a streetcar down Central Avenue and a Downtown events center, among other things. It might not be clear until February what projects will make the federal list.

-ABQ Journal (Subscription)

You'll note two of the items on Marty's wish list are the Trolley and the Downtown Arena - both of which require ongoing taxpayer subsidies and can never turn a profit. Of course, that's no surprise since - as you'll remember - government doesn't create wealth.

Our extended Eye Poll on the Downtown Arena couldn't have been clearer - 70% of the 717 participants in our Eye Poll said "No Way," while only 28% thought it was a good idea (view it here).

It's distressing enough that Obama wants to spend a TRILLION DOLLARS of our money on projects that can't sustain themselves, the Almighty Alcalde wants to blow a couple of BILLION on projects like the 19th Century Street Car and the Downtown Money Pit, uh... Arena when the city has more pressing - albeit less sexy - infrastructure needs. Things like sewers, water mains which seem to be bursting regularly these days, and rebuilding the I-25/Paseo interchange.

Meanwhile the council's Finance and Government Committee will meet Monday on extending the Transportation Infrastructure Tax to pay for Marty's toy trolley. Yep, that's the same tax that was shouted down by taxpayers two years ago and the same one that was supposed to sunset at the end of this year.

Look, an empty arena and a trolley that serves a miniscule portion of the city's population just don't make any sense. If we're to dip into Obama's well, at least let it be for projects that have long lasting benefits and don't create additional burdens on Albuquerque taxpayers.

Congratulations

We extend our congratulations to Senator, now President Elect Barack Obama. He is the result of years of hard work by countless Democrats and his unfailing eloquence. For once we truly hope that we are wrong and that Mr. Obama is more than he appears and deeper than his rhetoric.

Democrats will have the opportunity to lead with a House firmly in their control and Senate where they hold sway. The responsiblity for their governing for - good or ill - will be their own. Ultimately it's our responsiblity to hold them accountable and to remember their campaign, their promises, and this night.

For Republicans it's a time to rebuild, to re-engergize, to find their way. Unlike many pundits who keep claiming that Republicans lost because they were too conservative, we'd argue that Republicans lost because they lost their way. Republicans need to find the core values of limited government, lower taxes, lower spending, and liberty. They lost not because they were too conservative, but because they became too much like their opponents.

For now... congratulations President Elect Obama. Our grand experiment in democracy continues while we peacefully transfer power as we have for over 200 years.

Beware the Redeemer

History is replete with examples of men who have sold themselves as redeemers. People look to these leaders to restore their pride, save them from enemies, or assuage their guilt over a past sin. Desperation is the common thread. The more desperate or scared the public is, the more willing they are to look past clear indications of danger.

For the past eight years, Democrats have been beating the drums of fear and pointing the finger of blame. For 9/11 it was why didn't we connect the dots? Their demands resulted in the Patriot Act. Iraq was a heralded as a danger to the free world and developer of WMD's (which by the way they were - chemical weapons count) by both Republicans and Democrats. When we invaded, we were doomed to fail (Remember quagmire?). When we deposed Hussein (the dictator not the Senator) the drums beat failure because we hadn't captured the dictator that went to ground - quite literally.

Of course the saga continued with Democrats gleefully counting our honored dead and screaming for more troops. When we sent more troops as part of the surge, they screamed for their immediate departure. At every turn they were the purveyors of doom and fear preparing the way for an articulate man from Illinois to rise out of the fog of dirty Chicago politics - a redeemer to save us from war, a mortgage crisiss, and our past guilt.

Barack Obama was the perfect candidate to act as a redeemer. He undeniably has charm and charisma on a level never before seen in politics, and the ability to beguile an audience with a message of hope, while hiding a core of wealth redistribution, central government control, and associations with domestic terrorists.

Unfortunately, what began as politics as usual has effectively created a pervasive environment of fear - an environment that history shows can give rise to a despot in redeemers clothing. What concerns us is not Obama's skills, or even his terrifying belief in "economic justice," but the blind devotion he inspires in his followers.

In the 1930's another charismatic leader offered redemption to his people - redemption from an economy in shambles and a badly wounded national pride following a traumatic war. Like Obama this redeemer used the media to great effect even creating one of the most famous propaganda films of all time - Triumph des Willens.

Obama has sold himself as a redeemer in a time of economic trouble and eight years of negative propaganda from a party desperate to regain its political power. Now like the Germans of the 30's Obama's followers are ignoring what he has said and who he has associated with in favor of who they would like him to be.

We're not trying to say that Obama is the next great despot. He may be simply a misguided community organizer with uncommon communication skills propelled to national prominence through a series of dirty tricks and uncanny luck. However, Obama has positioned himself as a redeemer - a savior - which is incredibly dangerous when it inspires blind allegiance. Beware the Redeemer for he can bring damnation as quickly as salvation.

-----Update-----
We wrote the above post last night before we had seen what turns out to be a more complete analysis of what the Obama campaign and his handlers have been peddling. Like our post, Claude Benson makes comparisons to 1930's Germany.

Goebbels made famous the utility of the Big Lie. If a lie was big enough and told often enough, people would more easily accept it and themselves make it stick. Axelrod has made Obama’s entire history a Big Lie. Much of Obama’s biography, record, goals and intentions has been staged and structured to fit our wishes rather than our scrutiny. Axelrod has kept much of his history from his birth certificate, his true background, the funding possibly from the likes of an advisor to Saudi Prince Awaleed bin Tal for his Columbia and Harvard education, what he wrote at Harvard and elsewhere to his deep relationships with radical revolutionary Saul Alinsky, ACORN, Raila Odinga’s campaign, and others hidden from true independent clarification.

-FamilySecurityMatters.org

It's a great read and details how the public can be manipulated when the conditions are right and when a charismatic leader emerges. We'd urge you to read the complete post (here).

Some of the comments we have received tried to compare Regan to Obama. Regan was no doubt charismatic, but the major difference was that Regan ran a campaign based on reason that created hope for the future. Obama peddles undefined "change" and "hope" without reason. His followers believe what they want to believe despite his past and regardless of what he says.

Something to Think About

This little presentation was sent to us... you might want to think about it before you vote.

Don't believe for a second that it couldn't happen here. Liberty once lost, can only be restored through great sacrifice and loss of life.

Special O-ccommodations

Looks like Bernalillo County Clerk Maggie Toulouse-Oliver is getting ready to make some special accommodations for the Anointed One's Saturday rally. Our Eyes tell us that the clerk plans to increase the size of the early voting site from 25 booths to 70 booths to allow for the Obama acolytes to cast their votes. In addition, the clerk plans to expand the hours from the 10am to 6pm specified by state law to 9am to 8am - coincidentally overlapping the start of the Obama rally.

Long lines have been a problem this year at a number of early voting sites including the UNM site.

The University of New Mexico and the Northeast Heights locations — especially Integrity Plaza on Wyoming and Market Center on Lomas — have been the busiest. The South Valley and Downtown locations have been the lightest.

-Albuquerque Journal (Subscription)

Understand we want everyone to have an opportunity to vote... ONCE. What we're concerned about is what appears to be the special accommodations being made for one candidate for office over another. To date the County Clerk has made no attempt to expand voting sites around the city to handle this year's heavy turnout. However, when an Obama rally comes to UNM's Johnson Field presumably drawing with it a large crowd of The One Named O's supporters - the clerk expands the size and hours of operation at the last minute of a polling site that's next door to the rally.

From our understanding of the law, Toulouse-Oliver has the discretion to increase the size of a polling place as long as it is not moved. However, state law explicitly determines the times of operation.

NMSA 1-6-5.7(A) Early voting may be done at an alternate location from 12:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m., Tuesday through Friday, and 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Saturday through the Saturday immediately prior to the election.

By law, Toulouse-Oliver cannot extend the hours - or for that matter change them in any way.

The peaceful transition of power from one elected official to another - from one party to another - requires the public's faith in the accuracy of the tabulation and their ability to cast a vote and have it counted. To that end, even the appearance of partiality poisons the public's faith that the outcome of an election is based on the collective will of the people.

There's no way that an objective person can look at the last minute changes being made by the clerk to one polling site and believe that these changes are not politically motivated. Consistency breeds confidence and Toulouse-Oliver's actions are anything but.

We suspect that there has been pressure brought to bear on Toulouse-Oliver to make these special accommodations. After all, she's a Democrat whose husband works for the Governor who just so happens to have endorsed Obama. However, voters expect a clerk to act in a consistently and without regard to their party affiliation.

In short... The Bernalillo County Clerk should not be making changes to the times, place, or size of polling places based on the appearance schedules of either one of the candidates for President or their campaign schedule. Making O-commodations undermines the integrity of the election process by poisoning the faith that voters have in the process - a faith that has taken nearly 250 years to build.

----- Update -----
Our Eyes tell us that the Republican Party of New Mexico has agreed to the extension of hours and the expansion in the UNM polling site as long as all of the early voting sites have similarly expanded hours.

First and most importantly, the RPNM does not have the authority to allow the county clerk to violate the law. And while they may be patting themselves on the back for cutting a good deal, most voters won't know about the expanded voting hours and therefore their "good deal" will be worth very little to them.

Folks, we have laws for a reason. It's unconscionable that the clerk and the RPNM are colluding to violate the law for what they both see as a benefit - real or not.

Principle

From time to time our vocation gets in the way of our avocation. In fact, we haven't even had the opportunity to watch this week's Presidential Debate. Don't worry, we have it tucked away on TIVO and will be reviewing both candidates performances for ourself.

Apparently, John McCain brought up the idea of adjusting principle amounts for "toxic" loans purchased by the government under the bailout bill. We've been challenged by our readers over the issue and rightly so. Most of the comments went something like this one:

Eye are you planning on ever addressing the fact that McCain directly proposed adjusting mortgage principals to match current market values during the second debate? Do you actually care about this issue or are you just casting about for things to attack Obama/Biden on?

It must make you feel pretty dumb when you go out on a limb to write an attack piece in support of your candidate and then your candidate comes out in favor of and even more extreme version of what you attacked his opponents for, doesn't it?

It's a fair criticism... sort of. The fact is we don't care which candidate or party supports readjusting the principle value of a loan whether that loan is "toxic" or not. Wealth redistribution is wealth redistribution regardless of the party proposing it and regardless of the reasoning behind the move. It's immoral and it's wrong.

(Sidebar)
You'll note that we haven't been blaming either party for the current mortgage debacle. The fact is they both had a hand in Fannie and Freddy's irresponsible trade in "affordable housing" loans - loans that were made to people who could never repay them.

Whether it was President Bush and his "culture of ownership" or Jimmy Carter's affirmative action for loans - government policies directly harmed the financial markets and all of those who were given those "toxic" mortgages.
(End Sidebar)

If the government purchases a "toxic" loan at full value and then lowers the principle, tax payers are giving the mortgage holder not only the difference in principle but the difference in the interest that would have been collected over the life of the loan. To the taxpayer it's an immediate loss followed by a long-term earnings loss - all with the stroke of a politician's pen.

This is the type of "maverick" crap that drives us crazy. McCain is consistently inconsistent and a good portion of the time he betrays his own party in the process. Democrats and Independents have always loved him for it - while conservatives are busy pulling the knife(s) from their backs.

This isn't the first time that we've been on the sharp end of one of McCain's knifes and we're quite sure that it won't be the last. However, McCain's failings don't make Obama fit to be President. Wealth redistribution through government spending and regulation are at the core of Obama's philosophy (or at least at the core of whoever it is that's pulling his strings).

We're going to have to drag Senator McCain over the finish line, and then deal with what he does in the Oval Office. We have to save the country from Obama, and then save it (and the Republican Party) from whoever McCain puts in his cabinet. We're going to have to do it one step at a time. Do not throw in the towel.

- Rush Limbaugh

If you want "maverick" - McCain is your choice. If you want limited government, restrained spending, and personal freedom - McCain is your only choice despite his propensity to betray each of those principles from time to time.

Our principles on the other hand, will not change. Biden was wrong when proposed resetting principle values. McCain was wrong when he proposed doing the same.

For now it's more important that we save the country and ourselves from a man who would make the biggest corporation in the world, larger, more wasteful, and more intrusive - while taking our money, our liberty, and endangering our lives. Without doubt that man is Barack Hussein Obama - an anathema to liberty and prosperity.

Obamination: Theft As A Policy

The policies of wealth redistribution and market control are and have been the foundation of Democratic economic thought since FDR and The Great Depression. Progressive taxation is one of the vehicles for transferring money from producers to non-producers.

One of our readers pointed out a comment by Senator Biden in last week's Vice Presidential debate that called for extending the authority of government to not only buy up toxic assets but to reset the value of the principle owed. This isn't the first time we've recently heard Democratic leaders talking about changing principle values. It's predictable really and just an extension of the core philosophy of Progressive thought.

The reasoning behind the move is to adjust principle values for properties that were bought at higher market values to current market conditions in order to protect those who are "upside down" in their homes. In other words, these property owners are in a situation where they owe more than the property is worth.

(Sidebar)
Over the past few weeks the concept of a free market has taken somewhat of a beating. The fact is that we are the market. Our freedom to negotiate the exchange of goods or services is a foundational part of our individual liberty. When we lose the freedom of exchange we lose the freedom to be rewarded for our achievements.
(End Sidebar)

It's the type of policy that warms the cockles of most Progressive's hearts. But it's also the type of dangerous policy that - despite the $700 BILLION Bailout and Pork-fest passed by Congress - would ultimately make money harder for home buyers to get.

Say for example, you and your neighbor engage in a voluntary transaction where you loan your lawn mower and your weed whacker to them. The neighbor agrees not only to repay (return) your lawn mower and weed whacker but to refill their gas tanks and provide you with an additional gallon of gas.

The lawn mower and weed whacker are the principle, the gas is the interest. Along comes Barrack Hussein O'Biden who decide that the extra gas is really asking for too much. In addition, your neighbor who can't afford to maintain their lawn really needs your weed whacker to help them. So the O'Biden boys change the terms of your agreement forgiving them the additional gallon of gas and allowing your neighbor to keep your weed whacker.

What do you think will happen the next time your neighbor shows up on your doorstep to borrow something? That's right... you're not gonna' give him the time of day fearing the O'Biden boys will show up and make you pay for it.

Government intervention in a private transaction never benefits either party. The lender loses money and stops lending. The borrower ultimately ends up unable to borrow what they need. The only "winner" is the politician who convinces the borrower that they're getting something for free and that their benefactor is the intervening politician.

In addition, Obama and Biden are hawking a "progressive" tax scheme that they claim only raises taxes on those rich people who make over $250,000 a year. Like the O'Biden idea of allowing the government to reset principle amounts, this Robin Hood tax policy is appealing until you take a look at who actually pays.

Who are these evil "rich people" that should be required to pay more of their earnings? As you drive around town take a look at all of those local businesses that line the major streets. They're hardware stores, lock smiths, beauty salons, pet groomeries, and restaurants. These are your friends and neighbors that have invested their money, time, sweat, and tears in a business that they believe in. These are the people that make Albuquerque unique - not the big boxes, department stores, and chain restaurants that can be found in any city anywhere in the country. And these are the very people that O'Biden propose to increase taxes on.

When faced with increased taxes small businesses look at the increase as an increase in the cost of doing business. Their only choices are to absorb the increased cost of doing business, increase prices to their customers, or go out of business. So you see, the middle class - those who Obama and crew claim to be protecting - really face higher prices or the loss of goods or services.

If that sounds familiar that's because it's no different that the lender who makes a contract with a borrower to lend a specific amount of money for a set amount of profit who has both the profit and the amount to be repaid arbitrarily set by some politician.

You'll hear The Anointed One and his chief acolyte Biden talking about fairness. What is fair about forcing someone whose hard work earns them an amount of wealth that is in excess of some arbitrary line? What is fair about changing the terms of a freely and legally negotiated contract?

What Obama proposes is no different than the local hoodlum stealing your wallet at knifepoint. Make no mistake, if Obama becomes President he will work to take from those who have earned in order to give to those who haven't. The middle class will pay for that redistribution through higher prices for goods and services, and shortages caused by small businesses that are unable to absorb Obama's small business hold-up.

Democratic leaders have long advocated this type of theft as a policy - stealing from one group to give to another in exchange for political power. In this way (as in many others) Obama isn't change - he's the logical result of class warfare politics, the stock and trade of the Democratic Party since the '30's.

We don't believe that your everyday Democrat truly believes that it's right to steal. We believe that they're good people who want to see everyone succeed. The problem is success cannot be given, it has to be earned. And while there's little doubt that Republicans lost their way... It is certain that an Obama Presidency would be a gigantic leap toward more government, more taxes, and less liberty.

Biden Remorse?

After the thunderous entry of Sarah Palin into the Presidential race, Democrats may be feeling a sense of buyers, or at least Biden remorse. Obama's safe pick turned out to be a less than inspiring choice, particularly when compared to McCain's coup.

With one decision the Arizona Senator nearly wiped out Obama's convention bounce and put the wind in his campaign sails allowing him to close on the Democratic frontrunner and surpass him in some polls. Now we're hearing whispers that Obama and the Ds are considering a veep swap.

The rumor - which could be just that - goes that Biden will step down citing health problems. Obama will then choose his vanquished opponent Hillary Clinton to replace the ailing Biden. All of this is timed to happen after the October 2nd debate.

Remember these are just rumors but if true, Biden could become a rabid attack dog during the debate without risking a public backlash. We believe that Democrats have been looking with envy at the McCain pick and would be willing to do just about anything to get Hillary back on their ticket.

Firming Up

An interesting thing happened in last week's Eye Poll on the presidential race... nothing. Well, not exactly nothing. We originally ran an unscientific presidential poll the week of August 10th that poll resulted in an 18 point victory for McCain (view it here).

At the time McCain had begun to close on Obama but neither the Democrats nor the Republicans had had their respective conventions. Not to mention the fact that Hurricane Sarah hadn't been spotted making her way from Alaska.

We figured with all of the brouhaha generated by the Palin announcement McCain would have increased his lead over The One Named O by at least a point or two. Surprisingly that didn't happen. McCain came out victorious once again by the exact same margin that he had back in August - 18 points (view it here). That's not to say that there wasn't anything interesting or different about last week's poll.

Polls are most useful in identifying trends. In our little poll there were a couple of things that caught our Eye. First, the number of undecideds had dropped from 4% to 1%, which means to us that the undecided portion of our readership is making up their minds. Second, the number of readers voting for third and fourth party candidates dropped. Nader dropped 4 percentage points and independent candidate Bob Barr garnered only one vote.

Most importantly, the number of participants in our little poll went up significantly from 194 the first time around to 338 the second. Put it all together and you start to see that the presidential contest is starting to firm up. The coveted independents are making their choices and there are fewer and fewer undecided votes to be gotten by either campaign.

This is a very close race and we don't believe that McCain's 18 point lead in our unscientific poll represents a national or statewide trend. However, RealClearPolitics.com's average of daily tracking polls shows the Arizona Senator trending positively while his Democratic rival is falling from his post convention highs (view them here).

If our little poll is any indication, the election is firming up and the outcome will be determined by how many people from the respective camps show up to vote on Election Day.

This week the Eye Poll takes a look at the race for the 2nd Judicial District Attorney. Don't forget to vote!

Eye Poll: Palin

Last week's Eye Poll was one of the more interesting to watch. We started it just following the announcement that Sarah Palin as John McCain's running mate. Over the weekend and early last week, the press (and the Daily Kooks) were busy emptying Governor Palin's closet along with that of her 17 year old daughter. So it was no surprise that the Obama's safety net took an early double digit lead.

By the end of the week, following Ms. Palin's powerful speech the numbers in our unscientific Eye Poll changed and changed big. At the end of the day, Governor Palin was chosen as the best Vice Presidential pick with 55% of Eye readers selecting the Governor from Alaska, 41% selecting Senator Biden, 5% insisting that neither was a good choice (read it here).

Interestingly, there wasn't a single reader that didn't care which candidate was the better choice. Could the race be tightening up? Have Republicans finally found the excitement they've been lacking? It's certainly possible.

Before the Democratic and Republican conventions we ran an Eye Poll on the presidential election. We hoped to be able to see if either candidate picked up any momentum coming out of their convention. We're running the exact presidential poll again this week. Don't forget to vote!

No To a New County Palace - McCain

Last week we ran an unprecedented two Eye Polls at once. One poll was a Presidential Poll, the other dealt with the now approved purchase of the County's new Castle at 500 Marquette. Not surprisingly Eye readers disapproved of the county's purchase by over two to one. In our unscientific poll 67% said "No Way" to the County Commission's Castle, 29% said buy it while 4% didn't know (see the results here).

It's interesting that readers so overwhelmingly rejected the idea of a new county government building when 4 commissioners (Alan Armijo, Theresa (my kid really didn't get an "F" did he?) Cordova, Tim Cummins, and Dina Archuleta) all decided to blow over $42 MILLION of our tax dollars on short notice and without a second thought. We're beginning to believe that the County Commission doesn't get the scrutiny that it deserves. It certainly seems that they believe they can act without fear of future consequences.

Meanwhile over at our presidential Eye Poll McCain beat the Anointed One by 18 points. It's true that this was an unscientific poll and that our readers probably tend toward the conservative/libertarian side, but we were kind of surprised that Obama lost by a solid double digit margin. Of course Obama has had a pretty bad couple of weeks with the Russians reminding voters how unstable the world can be and John Edwards sucking up all of the media oxygen with his, uhh... indiscretions.

We plan on running the same poll after the Democratic Convention and again after the Republican Convention. It will be interesting to see if there are bounces or shifts as a result of the media focus on both candidates generated during their respective conventions. So far, the fawning media coverage of the Anointed One seems to have done him more damage than good, to wit Obama's European Vacation.

We honestly don't believe that intense media coverage is particularly good for either candidate particularly the slanted human interest type coverage that is more appropriate for say... the Olympics. This week we take a look at the race in CD1 - Don't forget to vote!

Obamination: Jackbooted Thugs

Apparently the next generation of jackbooted thugs will be doing the goose step wearing an O on their armbands. The junior Senator from Illinois seems to believe that we need a civilian force on the scale of our military in order to achieve "national security objectives." In Obama's world this civilian force would be just as well equipped and just as well funded as our Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines.

There are a couple of well-know organizations that come to mind when you talk about this type of civilian police organization... the Committee for State Security (KGB) and the Geheime Staatspolizie (Gestapo).

We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.

-Barack Obama, July 2nd, 2008 - Colorado Springs, CO.

It sure sounds to us like Obama has a SS-like Eco-Gestapo in mind, dedicated to enforcing national security. But, let's give the presumptive Democratic Presidential Nominee the benefit of the doubt. Since his July 2nd speech was about "service" perhaps he had something other than climate change thugs breaking down your door in the middle of the night to make sure your thermostat is set above 72 degrees in summer and below 68 degrees in winter.

Let's assume that he had some mystical force dedicated to "service" that had the same funding as our military. Obama seems to be describing some sort of domestic peace corps running around doing good in the name of helping their fellow man. It sounds an awful lot like government run philanthropy - which of course isn't philanthropy at all since all of us taxpayers will be forced to pay for their activities to the tune of around a half a TRILLION dollars.

We didn't think it possible but this concept is even more frightening than Obama clad Eco-Thugs goose stepping down our street. Obama is proposing a massive increase in entitlement programs - programs that already eat up 65% of our national budget.

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, 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.

-Preamble to the United States Constitution

We hardly believe that the founding fathers reference to "general welfare" had anything to do with paying people not to work. On the other hand, we are certain that the framers of the Constitution intended for the country it defined to have a military tasked with defending our country from foreign invaders.

To be clear, Obama either wants to create some sort of SS-style national security force or he wants to increase the already ridiculously high entitlement spending by HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS of dollars. It's either Jackbooted Thugs or complete economic collapse under the weight of an untenable uber-welfare state - that's certainly change.

Obamination: Unfit for Command

"Unfit for command" - a phrase used to describe John Kerry in the last presidential election. Four years ago it was used to describe Kerry's puffed up service record as exposed by the Swiftboat Veterans for Truth and his subsequent betrayal of his brothers in arms.

In this election cycle, many have compared Obama's relative lack of experience to John McCain's long service in the military and in the U.S. Senate. We don't believe there has been any President since George Washington that has been fully ready for what awaits them when they step into the Oval Office. It's true that from an experience standpoint Obama is probably more equipped to fight an insurgence from Wisconsin than a war against terror but our opinion was formed more by his ever shifting foreign policy statements than by his experience in government.

Yesterday, we watched The One Named O deliver what was billed as a "major foreign policy speech" (read the full text here). While peppered with focus group bullet points like "misled us into a misguided war," "fight a war that hasn't made us safer," and our favorite "redeploy our troops," Obama's Iraq new strategy sounds curiously familiar saying that he will "consult with commanders on the ground" regarding troop levels in Iraq. In fact, it sounds an awful lot like a strategy proposed and implemented over a year ago.

"Troop levels will be decided by our commanders on the ground, not by political figures in Washington, D.C."

- President Bush July 11th, 2007 (CNN)

Obama's new strategy for Iraq even embraces the surge and its tactics.

It has been 18 months since President Bush announced the surge. As I have said many times, our troops have performed brilliantly in lowering the level of violence. General Petraeus has used new tactics to protect the Iraqi population. We have talked directly to Sunni tribes that used to be hostile to America, and supported their fight against al-Qaida. Shiite militias have generally respected a cease-fire. Those are the facts, and all Americans welcome them.

- Barrack Hussein Obama, July 15th, 2008 (Guardian)

All of this has got to be driving the DailyKooks and the MoveOn.Ogres absolutely mad. Not only does Obama acknowledge the hated surge, he complements General Petraeus on his new tactics. If you'll remember, just last year the MoveOn.Ogres were branding the creator of the surge a traitor in a New York times full page ad (view it here).

Why the change? Well, interestingly enough Obama seems to have taken the advice of the same magazine that published his least favorite political "satire" - The New Yorker. In a July 7th article (read it here) the New Yorker's George Packer opined that Obama's 16 month withdrawal plan wouldn't fly in the face of the reality of today's Iraq and wondered whether he would "publicly change course" - Tuesday Obama did.

To make matters worse for the lunatic fringe, Obama proposes his own surge into Afghanistan and perhaps even Pakistan.

Look, we're not against a troop surge in Afghanistan if the "commanders on the ground" deem it necessary. It's important that the United States win any military conflict we are engaged in. The threat of military force must remain credible and overwhelming. Therefore, anything less than victory is unacceptable in Iraq or Afghanistan.

Obama seems to be advocating invading a sovereign nation (Pakistan) that is cooperating with us (at least on some levels) while relying on hot air alone to constrain the very real threat of a nuclear Iran that has a track record of non-cooperation and belligerence towards the west. We don't believe for a second that The One Named O would authorize a strike into Pakistan under just about any circumstances and we'd bet you that the rest of the world and especially terrorists like Bin Laden don't believe it either. By the way, someone should remind Obama that Pakistan already has nuclear weapons, Iran probably does not - at least for now.

Foreign policy is not based entirely upon the events in Iraq, Iran or Afghanistan. Obama brought up the U.S. dependence on foreign oil. He's right - our dependence on foreign sources of energy is a national security issue. However, you can't take anyone seriously when their solution to our foreign oil dependence doesn't include domestic drilling. Like it or not our country runs on oil and other carbon based fuels and no amount of money will change that fact over night. NIMBYs, environmental groups, and their allies in Congress are directly responsible for our country's foreign energy dependence though drilling and refining restrictions, and the costs and red tape associated with building nuclear power plants. Domestic oil production has to be part of the solution.

Worst of all, Obama cites as his most pressing national security threat "the long-term threat from climate change." It's hard to believe that a seemingly rational man would make changing the weather his top national security priority. Climate change may be a political reality, but its causal relationship to man's use of carbon based fuels is disputed at the very least. Moreover, it's science based on consensus not empirical evidence and can only be considered theory.

The fact is, there are people in this world who want to hurt Americans simply because we are the most successful nation in the world. You can't buy them off and you can't talk them to death. They have but one objective, the annihilation of innocent life in a free society - ours. That's not theory or a political reality, it's is and nearly always has been a proven fact of our existence.

We cannot afford another war fought in the fog of politics from the White House. We cannot afford a President whose foreign policy shifts with the winds of political expediency. And we simply can't afford a President whose top national security threat is a concept based on theoretical science and political coercion. In short, we cannot afford Barrack Hussein Obama II - he is unfit for command.

-----Post Script-----
Yeah, we know that this is site is called EyeOnAlbuquerque. We get it. However, we've got enough problems around here without having to deal with national debacles. So, until we're safe from national politics here in EyeLand, we'll be talking about national and state issues that affect us as well.

Obamination

As you know by now we spend most of our time watching our local government and elected officials. Just like everyone else we've been watching the Democratic primary with interest. If nothing else it's great entertainment for political junkies.

Barack Obama in particular has used his natural charisma to attract an almost fanatical following with his message of change and ability to inspire. Despite a few screw-ups and poor choices of association, Obama has been able to preach his message of change without really letting anyone know what he had in mind. In fact, our criticism was that he hadn't given any details on the "change" he was speaking of - kind of an empty suit.

Saturday Obama gave everyone a glimpse behind the charm and charisma curtain and what we saw is an abomination. Now we're wishing he was just an empty suit because the reality is truly terrifying.

"We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times ... and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK," Obama said.

- AFP

These are the words of one Barack Hussein Obama at a campaign rally in Oregon designed to celebrate his status as the presumptive Democratic Presidential nominee. If you've spent any time at all on this blog you know that we are always concerned about the effects of legislation on liberty. You can imagine our reaction to Obama's willingness to make the future of our country and its freedoms subject to world opinion.

This country was founded on the concept of freedom. We threw off the shackles of an oppressive English king whose taxes became too onerous. We created a constitution not to enumerate our freedoms but to prevent government from taking those freedoms away. It's a document crafted to empower we the people by restraining government. So, it's more than a little concerning that a candidate for President of the United States would so blithely give our liberty away.

Obama does not seem to understand the concept of freedom. His rhetoric implies that government not only has the right but the responsibility to steal our liberty simply because other countries demand it. We're quite sure that King George wasn't all that happy about the colonies decision to leave his little empire. Hitler probably didn't think that we should stick our noses into his affairs either. Both tyrants demanded our liberty - both were defeated.

Our point is that despite recent court rulings that inexplicably cite court decisions from other countries, the United States is a sovereign nation built on liberty and only answerable to its citizens and not to foreign powers - at least it has been for the last 200 plus years. Should we really place our liberty in the hands of a man who would give it away even before he takes office?

We don't know about you, but we're not going to allow government officials from any nation including our own to tell us what we can drive, how warm or cold our home should be, and especially how much we can eat. These are basic freedoms that are the result of our personal achievement and the rewards that come from our hard work. No one has a right to have them and no one has the right to them. To believe otherwise is an abomination or more precisely an Obamination.

Troubling Times

You’ve probably figured out by now that we really have never met a tax cut that we didn’t like. Over taxation doesn’t result in more efficient government with more services – it results in government attempting to do too many things for too many specific groups and generally making a mess of the whole damn thing.

That being said, we happened to catch one of Hillary’s new ads that just scared the bejeezus out of us. In this spot aimed at attacking The One named “O”, Hill proclaims her desire to save us all gas money by giving us all a tax holiday from federal gasoline taxes. So far it sounds pretty good to us even though it is a bit gimmicky and doesn’t solve the problem we have with high gas prices - which is primarily a supply problem.

What is terrifying is that the Hill ad goes on to explain that they’re going to pay for the tax holiday with the eeeeevil windfall profits of oil companies. We’re not in bed with big oil and the only connection we have with any oil company comes when we’re filling the Eyemobile with their product. We’re also not overly enthused about paying four dollars a gallon for gas. However, threatening to steal a business’ profits in order to get elected is morally and ethically reprehensible.

Hillary's not proposing a tax holiday where the government is burdened to help its citizens; it's a scheme where private companies will be shouldering the burden. Our taxes will be replaced by massive taxes on a few companies in one sector of the economy.

Like it or not oil companies are businesses. They remain in business not by giving away their product but by making a profit. Folks, profit is not a bad thing. In fact, without profit there's no product to supply. It's a simple fact that we all have responsibilities, obligations, and dreams that require compensation and that compensation comes from profit. Ask yourself would you work for free?

Ultimately, what schemes like Hill's do is make an already scarce resource even more scarce. People don't work for free and neither do companies. If anyone were to impose this kind of retroactive taxation the companies affected would leave - maybe not today but eventually.

What's most troubling is that this type of political posturing has gone relatively unremarked. At a time when our supply of energy is being taxed by increased global competition we ignore or miss a very real threat to our economy and our freedom that has more dangerous consequences than four dollar a gallon gas.