What Congress Should Do About the Mylan Epipen Price Gouge

Recently, it became known that a pair of life-saving Epipens from Mylan Labs now cost more than $600. Pricing them well out of reach for most of the 50 million families who depend on this drug to counter anaphylaxis (allergic reaction) and potential death; primarily in children.  While Mylan tried to squirm around this price gouge, the public outcry was totally justified, especially when its revealed   that each pen only uses a dollar's worth of epinephrine, and the delivery pen
 itself, only costs a few more dollars to make.  But, since Mylan is the only provider of the Epipen in the U.S., Mylan can charge whatever they want.  Even though the pens, themselves, have been off-patent for years, potential competitors have a costly and difficult time getting them approved through our Food and Drug Administrations.

Interestingly, Canadians have multiple choices; and they are only paying $225.42 in U.S. dollars for a 0.3 mg adult Epipen that they import from the United Kingdom.  So, why can't Congress mandate the importation of Epipens from the United Kingdom at the same price the Canadians are paying for them?  I realize that importing foreign-made drugs is a violation of our laws. It is also required that the Food and Drug Administration be able to inspect manufacturing facilities to insure efficacy and purity.  But, sometimes, it may be necessary to send a message to the drug manufacturers that price gouging won't be tolerated.  I hardly think that an Epipen device, sold both in the United Kingdom and Canada, would be too unsafe a product to sell in the U.S..

References:

EpiPens cost just several dollars to make. Customers pay more than $600 for them: http://www.cnbc.com/2016/08/25/epipens-cost-just-several-dollars-to-make-customers-pay-more-than-600-dollars-for-them.html

Canada Drugs: 0.3 Epipens: https://www.canadadrugs.com/products/epipen/0-3mg

Comey Hearing: Complete Bipartisan Partisanship

Yesterday, I listened to Congress grilling FBI Director Comey over his decision not to recommend any charges against Hillary Clinton, for her use of a personal email server.

What I basically heard is the Republicans focusing in on Hillary's lies that contradicted the FBI reported facts.  On the other hand, Democrats were dismissive of those lies and attempted to prove that no actions rose to a level that would warrant charges.  I actually  heard one Democrat slam the hearing as being purely political partisanship, as if the defense of Secretary Clinton wasn't, in itself, partisan.

In my opinion, this country will never achieve true bipartisan agreement on anything if the Democrats can't understand that lying to the American people, over-and-over again, is a violation of the public trust by a person who wants to lead this country.  I feel that is actually a bigger problem than whether or not Hillary was charged.

Clinton and Trump Seem To Forget Congress Controls the Purse Strings

Both Clinton and Trump have their tax plans. Hillary promises a $275 billion infrastructure spending program and higher taxes on the rich, along with debt-free college, universal pre-K, and paid family leave.

The only problem with these candidates' promises is that they seem to forget that Congress controls all budget issues.   If Hillary wins and the control of Congress remains with the Republicans, she won't get any of these things accomplished.  Similarly, Trump may also have difficulty dealing with a Republican Congress if his proposals are too radical, such as singling out Ford for moving a plant to Mexico.

The issue going forward is which of these two candidates can best work with Congress in order to truly get things done.   Personally, I don't think either would be successful unless, for some reason, Hillary is fortunate to have both Houses controlled by the Democrats. 

Reference:

How Congress Controls the Budget in Washington, DC: http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/how-congress-controls-the-budget-in-washington-dc.html

The Repeal of the 14th Amendment Is Not Needed To Solve the "Anchor Baby" Issue

Leave it to Donald Trump to start one firestorm after another regarding illegal immigration.  His latest is his promise to deport all illegals and their children; even if they were born in the U.S.

Of course, this has led to a chorus of denunciation because it would violate the 14th Amendment to the constitution which guarantees citizenship to anyone born on U.S. soil; and, you can't deport citizens even if their parents are here illegally.  Thus, the term "anchor babies" came to our lexicon because no one wants to separate parents from their children by deporting those parents.  The fact that "anchor babies" has become offensive is because the political left has made it so in an effort to promote amnesty and citizenship for illegals.

Others have commented that it would be a massive undertaking to override an amendment to the Constitution in order to address the problem.

Now, I have to admit that it has been decades since I read the 14th amendment, and like everybody else, I just remember that the first sentence does guarantee citizenship to any baby born here.  Here is the actual text of Section 1:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.

Yes, it says what it says.  But, as many defenders of Trump have pointed out, most people neglect to recall Section 5 which is a one sentence article and simply states:

The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

So, a new amendment is not needed.  Congress has the power to either let the first sentence stand as is, or limit it to exclude babies born to non-citizens.  Maybe the folks at the liberal-leaning Washington Post should actually read the whole law before they proclaim that "Donald Trump and Scott Walker want to repeal birthright citizenship. It's nearly impossible."

Also understand that the only reason the 14th Amendment exists is to insure that babies born to slaves and American Indians were citizens and to combat state laws that were attempting to deny citizenship to these individuals with things like "Black Codes".   So, the concept of "anchor babies" was never the original intent.  For this reason, I think that, if it was ever adjudicated by the Supreme Court, the intent of the law would override the extension to include "anchor babies".

References:

14th Amendment of the Constitution: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

Trump's Critics Are Wrong about the Fourteenth Amendment: http://www.nationalreview.com/birthright-citizenship-not-mandated-by-constitution

No, The 14th Amendment Doesn't Guarantee Birthright Citizenship: http://dailycaller.com/2015/08/19/no-the-14th-amendment-doesnt-guarantee-birthright-citizenship/

Levin: Cruz, Trump, Sessions 'Are Right,' 14th Amendment Doesn't Mandate Birthright Citizenship: http://www.breitbart.com/video/2015/08/19/levin-cruz-trump-sessions-are-right-14th-amendment-doesnt-mandate-birthright-citizenship/

Donald Trump and Scott Walker want to repeal birthright citizenship. It's nearly impossible: http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/08/18/donald-trump-and-scott-walker-want-to-repeal-birthright-citizenship-its-nearly-impossible/

A Republican Senate Will Put Congress At War With Obama

Since taking office in 2009, President Barack Obama has only had to use his veto power twice.  The reasons for this are quite simple.

In his first two years in office, he had a fully Democrat-controlled Congress.  So, only "friendly" Senate and House bills were sent to the President for his signature.  Thus, they never put the President in the politically awkward position of having to veto a bill.  Then, since 2010, when the House of Representatives went to Republican control, Harry Reid managed to shield the Obama from using his veto power by simply sitting on more than 350 bills that the Republican House had sent over to the Democrat Senate.  Some are being tied up in Democrat-led committees; while the rest are just withering away because Harry Reid won't bring them to the floor for a vote.

If the Senate turns Republican, Reid will lose his majority leadership and all the Senate committees will become controlled by Republicans.  As a result, many of those idled bills will start being passed and sent to the President for his signature.  Now, most of those bills are not going to be to Obama's  political and ideological liking.  Especially the ones that would kill or delay ObamaCare. So, expect a flurry of vetoes that have never been seen in this country before.  Then Obama will be seen as the obstructionist.  Not Congress.

But, another interesting thing might happen with the vetoing of so many bills.  The President's approval rating may drop significantly.  That drop may force some Democrat Senators who are up for, and at risk of losing reelection in 2016, to distance themselves from him by joining the Republicans in overriding those vetoes.  Of course, that will force Obama to use even more executive orders in order to counter any those bills where his veto was overridden.

Lastly, when Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid successfully implemented the so-called nuclear option in the Senate, he literally blew up the minority party's ability to use a filibuster to block the passage of certain bills and, the requirement of a minimum of 60 yea votes to approve the President's  nominees to the judicial bench or to any positions in his Administration.  As a consequence, the Senate Republicans lost the ability to do anything to block bills or block presidential nominees.  Many seem to think that, if the Senate goes Republican, the majority leader will reverse the nuclear option. I don't think so. By once again, requiring a 60-vote override of the filibuster, many of those 350 bills in the Senate won't reach cloture and won't even be sent to the Senate floor for a vote because they will just remain tied up in a filibuster by the Democrats.  Thus, if the Senate does go to the Republicans, the minority party Democrats will deservedly find themselves hoisted up on their own petard because they foolishly and selfishly implemented the nuclear option.

Ah yes.  the President's last two years in office could be quite interesting as both he and Congress battle it out in what could only be envisioned as an all out war.


References:

Veto Counts by President: http://www.senate.gov/reference/Legislation/Vetoes/vetoCounts.htm

Stack of 350 Bills Stuck in the Senate: http://www.texasgopvote.com/issues/grow-economy/stack-350-bills-stuck-senate-006985

Democrats Say Investigating Benghazi A Waste of Time. Remember The Bush Years?

For months, the Democrats were willing to play along with the Republicans on the Benghazi hearings since there was no smoking gun connection to the White House.  But, as soon as a very damaging email was unearthed -- one that may finally connect the dots on the Benghazi false narrative and point to the President's own staff -- the Democrats now claim that it would be a waste of time to investigate any further.  Really?

Obviously, that email is like blood in the water and Republicans can sense that they are finally getting close to finding out the depth, breadth and real intent of those Benghazi talking points.  Their sense is that they were all politically motivated and should be exposed as such.  This is very similar to the Democrats spending so much "wasted time"  going after the Bush Administration regarding the outing of Valerie Plame, or over the supposed politically motivated dismissal of the 26 Department of Justice attorneys.  In fact, in 2006, Democrat Representatives Robert Wexler and Dennis Kucinich put all their ongoing investigations into one big failed effort to impeach Bush with a bill that had a sum total of 35 articles of impeachment.  35 articles...35 ongoing hearings.

What Goes Around Comes Around! 

References:

Democrats dismiss new Benghazi committee as ‘a waste of time’: http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/democratic-rep-benghazi-committee-colossal-waste

Efforts to impeach George W. Bush: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efforts_to_impeach_George_W._Bush

A Mexican Standoff On The Tax Cuts For The Rich Could Cause All The Bush Cuts To Expire

In the old West, when you had three bandidos confronting each other in anticipation of a gunfight, it typically resulted in nothing happening because each of those men knew that, if they drew first to kill one of the gunslingers, the other would kill them.  That failure to fight is commonly referred to as a Mexican Standoff.

In a strange way, a similar thing might just happen with regard to the expiration of the Bush tax cuts on January 1st.  Our three bandidos, in this case, are the House of Representatives, the U.S. Senate, and President Obama.  But, instead of thinking about who will draw first, in this scenario, we're talking about who will "cave first" on their particular stand on extending the Bush tax cuts for the rich.

The House of Representatives is majority controlled by Republicans and is in favor of either extending all the Bush tax cuts -- including those for the rich -- or, even making them permanent.  Over in the Senate, the Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid, is all for Obama's push to extend the them for everyone but the rich.  In fact, following the reelection of Obama, Harry believes he now has a mandate from the people to raise taxes on the rich.  Further, Patty Murray, also part of the Democratic leadership in the Senate, has gone on record and threatened that, if the Republicans continue to push for keeping the tax cuts for the rich, her party is prepared to let them all expire; increasing heavy tax burdens on all Americans.  Then, too, the President -- a clear advocate for increasing the taxes on the rich -- says he will veto any bill that comes to his desk and doesn't include raising taxes on individuals making in excess of $200,000 and families with incomes above $250,000.

So, there's our standoff.

Unless the Republicans cave, it just might be possible that the Democrats of the Senate will allow all the Bush tax cuts to expire by not voting on any extension of any of the cuts; leaving Obama out of the "apparent" loop on this because there will be no bill for him to either veto or sign into law.  In fact, Obama might just secretly favor this inaction; thinking he could use it as a mid-term, 2014 election issue by blaming the Republicans for the increases.  At the same time, increasing all the tax rates would help him out of the deficit hole he's created.  Of course, raising taxes at this time would also send this country spiraling into recession.

I personally think that there are enough Democrats in the Senate who probably believe that raising taxes on the rich, during this weak economy, is a bad idea and they will force Obama, Murray, and Reid to accept a year's extension of the Bush tax cuts in their entirety.  But, we'll just have to see.

--- New York Times: Senator Murray Says Democrats Will Let Tax Cuts Expire: http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/07/16/senator-murray-says-democrats-will-let-tax-cuts-expire/

The Perplexing General Petraeus Resignation

I can't remember the last time when such a well-known public figure outed himself as a two-timer on his wife but, General Petraeus, the head of the CIA, did just that.  And, it was done in the midst of an increasing controversy over the Benghazi consulate attack and the killing of four Americans.  Certainly, Petraeus' CIA was highly involved in this incident since the CIA dominated our presence in Benghazi.  The "annex" that is always being talked about -- just a mile away from the consulate --  was a  CIA installation.  Two of the four dead, Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty, were former Navy Seals under contract by the CIA and stationed at the annex.

Normally, an affair becomes public and the offender -- after the fact -- has to respond with some public affirmation, humility, and an apology.  But, because Petraeus came forward before any public knowledge of his affair, it almost seems like he was being blackmailed in some way; and, he decided to thwart the blackmailing by going public on his own.

This, then, leads to other speculation.  Was the threat of a public exposure of his infidelity being used to force him into "modifying" his upcoming Benghazi testimony before Congress?  Perhaps, take the fall for the Obama Administration? Certainly, the timing of Petraeus' disclosure and resignation would suggest something like that.  If so, was this an extension of the currently suspected coverup over Benghazi?  And, at what levels within the Obama Administration was this "blackmailing" effort being conducted?  Was President Obama involved?

On Sequestration, Obama Is Three Times A Liar

In Monday's debate, Obama responded to Romney's comments that "sequestration" will slash a half trillion dollars from the military budget by saying that "sequestration" was Congress' idea; not his. Then, he went on to declare that it just won't happen.

First of all, the idea for sequestration came from the White House.  According to Bob Woodward's latest book, 'The Price of Politics', Jack Lew, Obama's-then Office of Budget Director, pitched the idea to Harry Reid who, in turn, pitched it to Nancy Pelosi; and, those two negotiated the terms of sequestration with their GOP counterparts.  Further, for this President not to have known what Lew was proposing is highly unlikely since sequestration was the key negotiation point to breaking the deadlock that would have ultimately shut the government down.

Secondly, Obama signed the sequestration bill into law; thus further certifying his agreement with it.

Third, with regard to his "it won't happen" comment, the sequestration bill is the law of the land.  It will automatically happen unless Congress acts or our Federal courts nullify it. Its not up to the President to stop it or even declare that it won't happen.  He gave up that right when he signed it into law.

--- Bob Woodward: The Examiner: FACT: Obama’s White House proposed defense sequestration: http://washingtonexaminer.com/fact-obamas-white-house-proposed-defense-sequestration/article/2511489#.UIcT84ZEbf0

The Truth About Our "Obstructionist Congress"

 I heard it twice again this morning.  Two democrats, in two separate interviews, blaming the "obstructionist Congress" for President Obama not being able to get the things done that would get the economy going again.  Obama, himself, makes that very same claim at every opportunity on the campaign trail.  But, this "blame the obstructionist Congress" just ignores the reality of how we got to an "obstructionist Congress".

In the first two years of the Obama presidency, the Democrats had complete control.  Or, to put it another way, Obama pretty much had full unobstructed power to do anything he wanted and, he used that unobstructed power to pass a near-trillion dollar stimulus that only increased unemployment.  He spent billions more of the people's money so that GM and Chrysler wouldn't go through a conventional bankruptcy; thus, protecting the unions while screwing the creditors and stockholders.  Then, there was the passage of the highly unpopular ObamaCare. 

Well, in 2010, the American voters had decided that they had had enough of Obama's unfettered control of Congress and, they voted in as many Republicans as they could.   Pelosi lost control of the House and the Democrats lost their filibuster-proof majority in the Senate.  So, Obama, Democrats, stop whining.  We have an obstructionist Congress because the people wanted it that way.  It's a bed you made, yourselves.

Obama's Latest Ruse: Oil Riggers/Spectulators

Throughout his presidency, Obama has blamed one straw man after another in an attempt to deflect blame for his own shortcomings. Now, in what can only be called the biggest ruse of his presidency, he is trying to make you and I think that the only reason oil prices are high is because of oil price rigging and speculation.  Even for Obama, this is a new low.

In his Rose Garden campaign photo-op of yesterday, he called on Congress to pass new legislation that would strengthen the government's ability to prosecute them. But, think about this.  If oil rigging and fraudulent oil speculation is such a rampant problem, why is it that the President's own Securities and Exchange Commission, or his Department of Justice, or his Federal Trade Commission haven't prosecuted a single case of it in the last three years.  Why is it that his year-old Oil Speculation Task Force hasn't exposed such illegal activity. The reason is simple. There isn't any.

So, Obama is calling for stricter regulation, increased oversight, and higher fines for something that his own people have "never" proven to exist. All he's really trying to do is prove to the dumbest of voters that he's doing something to lower oil costs when, in fact, he is more responsible for high oil and gasoline prices than anyone else due to his excessive spending and his blocking of new oil exploration on federally-controlled lands and offshore locations.  But, more than that, Obama expects to use this as another one of his anti-Republican campaign messages.  Clearly, if his call for new regulation is ignored by Congress, he will, again, say that it's because the Republicans are putting the rich speculators and big oil companies ahead of what is really good for this nation.

By the Way. oil prices went up yesterday with oil traders obviously laughing off Obama's grandstanding on increased regulation.

Rick Perry: Cut Their Pay...Send Them Home

Lately, Governor Rick Perry has be running this TV ad:



While threatening to "cut Congress' pay" and "send them home" might sound like a good, tough-guy kind of strategy to woo voters, in reality, it shows that Perry lacks a basic understanding of one of the primary tenants of our Constitution: The Separation of Powers. Apparently, Perry doesn't seem to know that only Congress can cut Congress' pay and only Congress can decide when and how often they meet. The only power that a President has over them is veto power. And, even that can be overridden. In fact, when it comes to pay, it's Congress who decides how much the President is paid.

Also, when it comes to the passage of a "Balanced Budget Amendment", Perry seems not to understand how utterly impossible it would be to achieve that goal. First of all, most Democrats are vehemently opposed to a forced balancing of spending against revenues. Generally, they argue that such a Constitutional mandate would hamstring Congress' need to spend more money at times of a national emergency; such as wartime. Secondly and because of the lack of Democratic support, the chances of getting a two-thirds vote in both houses is almost impossible.

To me, the Perry ad makes it sound like he's already declared war on Congress. That, in itself, shows a complete lack of leadership.

Obama Versus The Congress

In recent days, it has become quite obvious that our President has decided to "run" against Congress and no longer against George Bush as a means of getting himself reelected in 2012. In speech after speech, he's chided the them for doing nothing to create jobs and get the economy going again. Of course, the logic here is that he has a much higher approval rating than Congress and, consequently, America will side with him instead of them on the issues. Then, in an attempt to further strengthen his image in contrast to the Congress, he keeps introducing plans of his own that he can implement with executive order and without any congressional approval.

But, the problem with this kind of tactic is that the Congress isn't just made up of a bunch of do-nothing Republicans. The Senate is still controlled by Democrats. Also, there are a lot of already-teetering Democrats who could wind up losing in 2012 -- thanks to this President's broad-brush tactic of lambasting Congress. In fact, recent polling already shows that top Democrats are notably less liked than their Republican counterparts (Click here to See Story).

Another problem is that, when it comes to senatorial and congressional races, all politics is truly local. While national polling for Congress, as a whole, shows a lowly approval of around 10%, the individual polling for each member, in their respective states and districts, is something entirely different; and, in most cases, at least 4 to 5 times higher than that horrible 10% rating. My guess is that individual Republicans, in localized battles over election/reelection, will do better in 2012 running against Obama's failed policies then the other way around.

Throughout Obama's presidency, he has literally played wedge politics by trying to stir up American anger towards the wealthy, the banks, the health care insurers and providers, the cops "who acted stupidly", and on and on. It's what he knows how to do well because, at one time, he was a full-fledged, rabble-rousing community organizer. Now, it appears he's even willing to direct American's anger towards those members of Congress who belong to his own political party. I feel that in the end, this tactic will fail to get him reelected. But, even if he does win reelection, he might have done so much damage to his own political party that he finds himself alone at the top with both Houses of Congress being controlled by Republicans. If so, he'll really find himself saddled with a do-nothing Congress because he's a man who is totally devoid of the skills to compromise or find common ground. Another little undesirable trait inherent to being a community organizer.

Obama Continues His "Free Trade Agreement" Lie

In his jobs speech of last night, Obama, once again, flat out lied about the free trade agreements with Columbia, South Korea and Panama. As he had, time and time, again, he "urged Congress to pass the free trade agreements"; as if it was Congress that was sitting on them.

The fact is that all those agreements were buttoned up and ready for a ratification vote at the end of the Bush Administration. But, it was Nancy Pelosi, speaking for the then-Democrat controlled Congress, who refused to even bring a ratification vote to the floor of the House (Click here to see a typical story regarding Pelosi's block tactics: Pelosi says House will change rules to stop Colombia trade vote). So, Bush was forced to hand over the trade agreements to the Obama Administration for ratification.

Since then, Obama has pursued a course of renegotiating each of the agreements so that the American labor unions are protected and compensated for any job losses that may result from the free trade activity. Further, Obama is demanding that, as part of the agreement, the foreign trading partner guarantee that its workers have U.S. style benefits and working conditions. Here's the actual text from the Office of U.S. Trade Representative website for the Columbia agreement (Click to link to U.S. government website) that explains the continuing process:

President Obama is committed to pursuing an ambitious trade agenda that will help grow our economy and support good jobs for U.S. workers by opening new markets. To achieve that objective, we seek to provide a level playing field that creates economic opportunities for U.S. workers, companies, farmers, and ranchers, and that ensures our trading partners have acceptable working conditions and respect fundamental labor rights. As part of this broader trade agenda, the Obama Administration has worked closely with the government of Colombia to address serious and immediate labor concerns. The result is an agreed “Action Plan Related to Labor Rights” that will lead to greatly enhanced labor rights in Colombia and clear the way for the U.S.-Colombia Trade Agreement to move forward to Congress.

More than anything, the last sentence that I have highlighted above in red, says it all. It clearly states that the agreement is in some kind of agreed upon "action plan" limbo and that, once resolved, it will "clear the way for the" agreement "to move forward to Congress." While the text above was extracted from the Columbia Trade Agreement website, the same text appears on the U.S. government trade agreement website for Panama. On, the South Korea agreement webpage, that agreement is on hold pending a resolution of "concerns that have been expressed regarding automotive trade."

It's just amazing to me that the main stream media of this country allows Obama to keep retelling this lie without ever contesting it. What's really sad is that Obama has placed the concerns of the U.S. labor unions ahead of all those non-union jobs that would have been created by these agreements. Subsequently, Americans have lost 2-1/2 years of jobs opportunities; just so Obama can get labor union support in his 2012 reelection bid. This from a President who hypocritically keeps demanding that Congress act "now" on his jobs plan!

The November Elections: When The Lemmings Die

It always amazes me how independent thought, of any kind. is almost totally absent in politics. On nearly every topic, each political party will choose sides opposite of the position taken by the other. It is almost as if, in spite, a political party is honor bound to take the opposing side on every issue; like two, immature, constantly fighting spouses.

The problem with this kind of "attitude" is that, more often than not, one party will find itself totally out of step with the nation as a whole. When this kind of counter-regimentation does occur, the party at odds with America will, like lemmings, commit mass political suicide.

Today, the Democrats have been lead to that point by unquestionably following the direction of an extreme, far-left leader; rather than their hearts, as true Americans independently deciding to do what was right for the country. In Obama's hands they truly are lemmings.

The polls show that only 11% of Americans have a favorable opinion of Congress. Obama, himself, has lost his pre-Oath of Office favorability rating faster than any other President before him and is getting ever closer to dipping below a 40 percent approval rating. The current economic downturn is already the longest running recession, excluding the Great Depression, since the post Civil War years; with no light at the end of tunnel in terms of any meaningful recovery. But, more than anything, the current polling shows that a majority of Americans -- as high as 62% in a recent U.S. News & World Report survey --- believe that the country is moving in the wrong direction.

Americans are angry. Americans are nervous and scared; and, Americans will punish the lemming-like Democrats in the Fall.

A GOP Majority Might Be A Bad Thing

A lot of people seem to think that, if the GOP can win both Houses of Congress, all will be "right" with the world. Nothing could be further from the truth.

First, a simple majority in both the Senate and the House of Representatives won't be enough to override an Obama Veto. The GOP will still need a 60 vote majority in the Senate to do that. At best, the Republicans might only gain a slim majority in the Senate. For that very reason, don't expect legislation such as killing the remainder of the Stimulus Package, the overturning of ObamaCare, Financial Re-Regulation or Cap and Trade to get past Obama's veto without some significant help from Democrats. I just don't see Democrats assisting that effort after having put their jobs on the line to pass all that legislation.

Secondly, unlike Clinton, when he lost both Houses of Congress, don't expect the President to resolve himself to work with a Republican lead Congress. Obama isn't the pragmatic animal that Clinton was. He's an ideologue who has already gone on record saying he doesn't mind being a one-term President.

Lastly, a majority control of Congress by the GOP might actually hurt them. That's because Obama will constantly campaign against the GOP's lack of legislative responsibility in blocking his agenda. He's already doing that to influence public opinion and the GOP doesn't even have a majority.

In my opinion, the best thing for the Republicans, is to win the House and weaken, but not completely win the Senate. This will nullify Obama and his radical agenda. Also, it will somewhat disarm his argument that the GOP are always blocking his legislation. Then, I think the focus should be to oust Obama and take a 60-vote majority in 2012.

Now, Breaking Up Won't Be Hard To Do

In another "power grab" by our anti-capitalist Congress and socialist President, the House just passed a bill, without much media fanfare, that could literally impose the heavy hand of Government on all aspects of future business. (Click to See Full Story: "Major makeover of Wall Street rules passes House"). Supposedly intended to prevent problems such as the current Wall Street and Banking mess, this new law would have no boundaries and could include everything from the oil industry to airlines.

At the heart of this law is a newly created Consumer Financial Protection Agency that would have the right to "break up" any company or industry of companies that they feel are detrimental to the nation. On the surface, that may seem a logical concept -- given what we just went through with this recession. But, in actuality, it gives our government the right to pick and choose what industries they may want to "punish". For example, if world oil prices go up and Exxon has to raise their prices at the pump, this new law could allow the government to break them up because high gasoline prices are "hurting" our economy. What about high food prices? Or, airline ticket prices? No aspect of American business would be spared if, in the estimation of our government, they are having a negative effect on the nation.

So, instead of creating a law or laws as a framework for how companies should now operate, Congress has left that up to the whim of this new Agency. When the anti-business Democrats are in charge, our nation's largest businesses will be cowering in fear of being dismantled because some bureaucrat in Washington might not like what they are doing. Once again, this Congress is hell bent on destroying capitalism and the business environment. With this kind of nonsense, we will never see jobs or a booming economy in this nation ever again. This is the kind of legislation that would make Marx, Stalin, Mao, Che, Castro, or Hugo Chavez proud!

A Word About Taxes

Before the word tax became associated with government economics, it was a word that had the following synonyms:

charge, cumber, drain, encumber, enervate, exhaust, lade, load, make demands on, oppress, overburden, overtax, overuse, overwork, press hard on, pressure, prey on, push, put pressure on, saddle, sap, strain, stress, stretch, task, tire, try, weaken, wear out, weary, weigh, weigh down, weigh heavily on, weight

When I hear politicians say that taxes won't cripple business, I can only think that they don't understand the origins of that word. Taxes are what the word implies. They are a burden and they do cripple the economy.

In the upcoming year, the Bush tax cuts are due to expire. With the current stimulus plan working so poorly, an immediate extension of those tax cuts by this Congress would go a long way in sending a signal to business that they can expand and hire people without worrying about the added burden of increased taxes for next year.

At the same time, while Congress is toying with the possibility of a second stimulus, this economy could get a big kick start if they would consider tax cuts for the average citizen; rather than another boondoggle expense package that solely gives union workers some extra part time work in filling pot holes and building running tracks.

When Democracy Gets It Wrong

I'm pretty sure that it was Thomas Jefferson who once said something to the effect that a democracy can be very unjust in that as little as 51% of the population can impose laws that are against the will of the remaining 49%.

But, to Jefferson, I would say that he was being quite Utopian in that belief.

In reality, there are times when a representative form of democracy, like our republic, is even more unjust than in what that simple majority-rule viewpoint would suggest. In fact, there are times when the will of the many are clearly being outweighed by the wishes of a few. I believe that our current government is a true example of this.

America has been, for years, a center-right country; and, all indications are that is still true. Yet, we now have a government, in complete control, that believes they have been given a mandate to govern from the left or even from the far left. Therein blows the purity of Jefferson's majority-rule hypothesis. In many ways, we now have a legislature in power with a philosophy that represents 38% or less of the population; and, that is a problem. A problem that can only lead to political unrest.

Earlier this week, an opinion writer for the New York Times, Thomas Friedman, wrote about the current political unrest in our country. He likened it to the time in Israel when Yitzhak Rabin was assassinated (Click to See Full Story: "Where Did ‘We’ Go?"). He expressed this concern by saying: "extreme right-wing settlers and politicians were doing all they could to delegitimize Rabin...And in so doing they created a poisonous political environment that was interpreted by one right-wing Jewish nationalist as a license to kill Rabin...".

Then, he went on to lament that the 'We' -- the supposed majority of this country -- are being poisoned by the right's attempt to similarly delegitimize Barack Obama. Of course, the only logical conclusion to that belief is that Obama will suffer the same fate as Rabin.

But, where this left-wing writer is getting it all wrong is in the false belief that the 'We' -- as in the concept of "We, the people" -- that he sees, is somehow the true majority. In reality, the 'We' he seems to see as the political middle is really his 'We' or the political left. And, when you look to the center of this country from a far left perspective, anything in the middle looks to be right-wing. To say that the far-right political fringe has somehow hijacked the political middle is complete nonsense.

First and foremost, the "voice" of the right and the far right is only a small voice in the grand scheme of things. Sure, the right dominates talk radio and, of course, they have that hated Fox News channel on cable. But, at best, this is a "voice" that reaches no more than 3 or 4% of the entire adult population of the country. More often than not, talk radio and Fox News are simply news and opinion outlets that are preaching to the choir and not necessarily making any inroads into changing the majority of national public opinion. Certainly, not enough to poison all the 'We' of this country.

The left, on the other hand, has much more power in getting their own message out. Besides the fact that they now have the power of the 'Bully Pulpit', they control almost all the print media. They have both PBS and NPR in their back pockets. The national broadcast news operations, along with CNN and MSNBC, are all left to left of center in their reporting. They even have a majority of party loyalists in the entertainment industry and shows like Letterman, Leno, and Jon Stewart tend to promote their political agenda in a more disingenuous and backdoor fashion. And, of course, our educational system in America is almost completely dominated by left-leaning union teachers and professors; which means our kids are getting less than a centrist viewpoint with their education.

What Mr. Friedman should do is look at the opinion polls and then he might understand why the 'We' isn't standing with Obama and this Congress. The 'We' is absent because the people who are running the "show" are more 'Us' politically oriented and less interested in governing from either the center or, even, left of center.

This is the true reason why Mr. Friedman -- like a lot of those on the far left -- can't seem to understand all that angst towards this Congress and this President. He, like most people on the left, seem to see the current political unrest as being some kind of "new" political experience for the country; completely forgetting the vile hatred of Bush by the left over the eight years of his Presidency.

In trying to rationalize all this 'new' unrest, people like Friedman have labeled the Town Hall goers and the Tea Party attendees as angry white and right-wing mobs. Then, too, they have rationalized the 'unrest' by saying that it all has to do with race and racism over the President's skin color. Now, Friedman has even added an element into the mix by saying that the far right has created "...a different kind of American political scene that makes me wonder whether we can seriously discuss serious issues any longer and make decisions on the basis of the national interest.."

The problem with Friedman's lament of seeing a "different kind of political scene" is the fact that this Congress and this President are proceeding with their agenda and refusing to "discuss" the "serious issues" at hand and are attempting to pass laws that are completely contrary to the true "national interest" of the country. In poll after poll, the American people keep saying that it is the deficit and spending, the economy, two wars and rogue countries seeking nuclear weapons that are things that they are most concerned about. Yet, the President and Congress are more interested in health care reform; saving the planet with Cap and Trade; closing Guantanamo bay; and, even promoting the 2016 Olympics in Chicago. It's as if Nero has been reborn and the country, as did Rome, is figuratively burning while the President is busy fiddling with everything but our real national problems.

The anger that Friedman seems to see is one that is actually being created by his very own, President. If this President is being delegitimized, it is because he has done that to himself. The right had nothing to do with it. They are just the messengers. Instead, Obama has created a condition of 'lost' public trust by breaking almost every promise he has made. Sometimes only days after making one! Obama and Friedman should understand that it is public trust that goes a long, long way in making people think that any President is legitimate.

Mr. Friedman would better serve his concerns about President Obama if he would look at 'why' there is 'unrest' and not focus in on the hypothetical "what could happen" -- should it continue. I can assure Mr. Friedman that the unrest would just go away when the true 'We' are restored to their proper place in the political scheme of things. Until then, the unrest will continue and we will see the impact of that unrest in the upcoming gubernatorial elections and Congressional elections next year.

As far as his concerns about any assassination attempt, there are always going to be a few people out there who would do harm to any President; and, this President is no different and not necessarily in any greater danger than those Presidents who have come before him. In fact, just a year ago, a Maine resident was arrested for making threats to both Bush and Obama. Certainly, this person was hardly being driven by some right wing extremism.

The true reason for Friedman's article is that he wants the unrest to just stop without addressing the underlying reasons for it. He doesn't want to hear about or acknowledge the cure for it; which would be to legislate from the middle of the country. Instead, he wants the 'We' to just roll over and accept everything that this liberal President and this Democrat-controlled Congress wants to do. He can't accept the fact that the unrest is a direct result of not having any true 'democracy' in our democracy. That's why, in this case, Jefferson's original comment was true but, not true enough. At this particular time, it appears that our form of democracy has really got it wrong!

On Health Care Reform: Seeking The Archimedean Point

In lore, the Archimedean point is a fabled location where all can be seen. It is a place where all sides of an issue are clearly evident so that a decision could be made.

The problem with health care reform is that no one seems to be able to give a clear idea as to what this reform is truly all about. Certainly, Obama isn't able to; and, unlike the fabled Archimedean Point, there is no single place where one can stand that allows you to see all the aspects of the proposed bill without obscuring any underlying problems. That's because health care reform is being made in a sausage-like fashion by a bunch of individual groups that are spread out all over Congress. This is why Obama seems to be constantly getting caught in his all-too-common misrepresentations.

The latest revelation on health care reform shows that the Senate Finance Health Care Reform Bill (aka the Baucus Bill) will cut Medicare Advantage benefits. Once again, this is contrary to a recent promise that Obama had made.

There is a way of somewhat achieving the Archimedean Point. The way to it is by having a Presidential Commission that is totally non-partisan and that is first dedicated to identifying and quantifying the good and bad of our current health care system. Upon completion of that task, the results would be presented to the President, the Congress, and to the American people. This, then, becomes the basis of health care reform.

From there, the same Commission would develop recommended changes. Not just one but multiple options with the upside and downsides being disclosed/discussed. Again, it would quantify all the costs and risks associated with each and any reform option. Those resulting findings would be again presented to the President, to the Congress, and to the American people.

Using the Commissions findings, the Congress would, then -- and only then -- formulate the final legislation; based on the best option.

This is what is missing in this whole process. Currently, it almost feels like the Three Stooges are trying to cobble a bill together with some big game clock hanging over the heads of Congress. Obama is completely AWOL as a true leader in this process. In effect, with speech after speech, he has become a press secretary for health care reform.

A commission would restore order to the process and get the American people on board with it. I am sure that the major objection by the Democrats will be that something like a Commission could add months to the process. But, I don't think the most Americans would mind if it appeared that we were finally moving towards a real, comprehensive, and cohesive solution. After all, much of what the current health care reform is about wouldn't go into effect until 2013 anyway.

And, that's just my opinion.