A vote for healthcare is a vote for you

You've heard about the government TAKEOVER of healthcare...er, I mean the new healthcare law? If there's one thing that irks me, it's the government sticking its nose where it doesn't belong and taking over private industries. If there are other things that irk me, it's lies about healthcare laws and insurance companies who take my money when I'm healthy and then refuse to give it back to me when I'm sick.

With elections nearing, I need to decide what irks me more. This is actually an easy decision since one of the things that bothers me didn't actually happen. Claiming the government took over healthcare is the like claiming that guns don't kill people...

But seriously, let's re-examine healthcare, a law that is by no means perfect. In fact just, last weekend a friend explained to me that his company would be scaling back his healthcare plan to avoid taxes. Flaw. The admirable thing about this? My friend still supported the law because it would help others. That's a real American right there, and only with that attitude -not the cult-of-me, credit card culture that too many of us are addicted to - will we move forward.

But what about all the GOOD things that the healthcare law does? If my friend is going to have his coverage scaled back, but he still supports the law, then it has to benefit someone somehow, right?

What does this government takeover offer us? How about the fact that insurance companies are no longer allowed to steal from people? And yes, stealing is what insurance companies have been allowed to do. Raise your hand if you want to pay an insurance company every month and then have them drop your coverage when you get sick. In what world is that right, fair, or moral? It's actually disgraceful that we made it all the way to 2010 with that being allowed. How about pre-existing conditions, especially for children? Have a baby born with an illness? Tough luck. Does that sound right? Not to me, but for years, insurance companies have been allowed to tell parents that. Not anymore.

Now, it's all well and good to argue morality, but there is something more to this argument...MONEY. Because I'm all for people with pre-existing conditions having insurance, but someone has to pay for it. In America, healthcare is a right. If you don't believe me, you can go to your local emergency room and read the sign on the wall that says no one can be denied care based on their ability to pay.

The problem of course, is that healthcare is expensive. If it's a right, we need a way to pay for it. Problematically, when individuals without health insurance receive healthcare. Even more problematically, most people without insurance delay or avoid going to the doctor until they absolutely have to, meaning that they don't get cheaper, preventative care, they get expensive emergency care. When this happens, Uncle Sam foots the bill. When Uncle Sam pays, we pay. So if healthcare is a right, then health insurance needs to be a right, or according to the new law, a mandate. We're giving away services. It's unaffordable. The new law addresses that problem, and in doing so, saves us all a lot of money.

If you don't think healthcare is a right, then you should be upset about the new law, but if you agree with the government and think that all people deserve healthcare, then this law is for you...and me...and all Americans, because it ensures that we will all have insurance and that we won't bankrupt the government by paying for it

So I know the pressure is on politicians when it comes to healthcare, but my question is for the people who voted against the new law, and that question is simple: why are you opposing a cost saving measure that helps America and Americans?

Climate Change?

Not according to Norman Dennison, a nobody who founded a local Tea Party branch in Indiana. "It's a flat-out lie," Dennison claimed, "I read my bible, He made this earth for us to utilize."

Fantastic, global warming isn't real because it's not in the bible. If you were on the fence about climate change, there's all the evidence you need. Of course, it doesn't matter why you don't believe in climate change, the fact that you don't means you're ignorant. That word is often synonymous with danger, as is certainly the case when discussing climate change.

It won't surprise you to find out that denying climate change is a pillar of faith for the Tea Party. The Tea Party has the ability to find itself on the wrong side of almost every argument, an impressive feat. However the anti-climate change demagoguery isn't limited to Tea Partiers, and the danger that line of thinking presents should scare all Americans.

As I've mentioned dozens of times, and as all intelligent people recognize, and as scientific evidence shows, the Earth is getting warmer. There are going to be severe consequences if we don't fix that problem. I don't expect the world to end tomorrow, but as populations and standards of living worldwide increase simultaneously, we're going to put more of a strain on our resources, and more of a strain on Mama Planet.

As a species, we'll find a way to fix the problem before we kill ourselves off - although we may significantly thin the planet's biodiversity before that happens - but America is going to find itself in a new and uncomfortable spot on the world stage if we don't accept climate change and embrace alternate and green energy technologies.

If not then we'll continue to fall further and further behind China and even the stagnant and fading EU, which isn't really either of those things. The world's mightiest power and greatest country is allowing a handful of idiots backed by hundreds of millions of special interest dollars to handcuff us to to oil and coal.

And as long as we stay the course we'll sit idly by and watch the world get dirtier, and then proceed to get cleaner as people begin to buy their solar panels, wind turbines and bullet trains from China, Japan and Germany. We'll sit stubbornly in our SUVs and deny that there was ever a problem, and we'll wonder why the dynamic American economy can't keep pace with it's competitors. We're making all the wrong decisions today, and it's going to bite us on the butt tomorrow.

But fear not, Lisa Deaton, another Tea Party nut has some words of encouragement, "They're trying to use global warming against the people, it takes away our liberty." (Note to the reader, interpret that statement at your own risk).

Deaton continues, "Being a strong Christian, I cannot help but believe the Lord placed a lot of minerals in our country and it's not there to destroy us." (Note to the reader, THESE are the people against climate change!)

Don't worry, America, if God is for us, who can be against us...how about Mother Nature and the economies of China and the EU? Oh, and the Tea Party.

Out of control spending

The federal government is spending at an out of control level and I'm sick of it. I don't want to bankrupt future generations with spending today. I don't want to pay higher taxes to support egregious spending. And in a few weeks I'm going to the polls to make my voice heard.

And that's why I'll be voting for a Democrat.

Fact: There has been a huge uptick in federal spending in the last decade.

Fact: The vast majority of the budget deficit now staring Americans in the face was created by Republicans.

Fact: Republican plans to reduce the budget are A) virtually non-existant and B) woefully ineffective

A few key things you should know. Between 2000 and 2006 Republicans added far more to the federal deficit than Democrats have since then. The cost of healthcare and the stimulus doesn't come close to touching the damage done by tax cuts and two wars.

The 1.1 trillion dollar Medicare prescription drug plan passed by Republicans in 2003 (yes, more than the stimulus and more than healthcare) will add more to the deficit than healthcare, the stimulus and bailouts combined.

Republicans calls to permanently extend all Bush era tax cuts would cost the country nearly four trillion dollars over the next decade. Additionally, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office ranked that proposal as the 11th most effective way to encourage economic growth. There were 11 choices. It's costly and it's pointless (as anyone who understand "trickle down" economics could have told you).

Furthermore, the Republican plan will add 4 trillion dollars to the US deficit. Contrast that to the 3 trillion dollars that President Obama's plan will add. Both numbers are high, one is higher. Whose got the best plan for our future? Who has the ONLY plan for our future?

The fact of the matter is simple. In order to reduce the deficit we'd have to significantly cut a handful of programs that comprise nearly all federal spending. Those programs include Medicare, Social Security and military spending. All three are virtually off-limits unless we as Americans are willing to make some tough choices. In all probability, we won't. If we choose not to cut spending in those realms then we will need to reduce the deficit by spurring economic growth.

So when you go to the polls in two weeks, remember which party turned Bill Clinton's surplus into George Bush's deficit. Remember who started two wars while simultaneously eliminating the government's ability to fund either. Remember which party gave us a healthcare law that will SAVE the country 100 billion dollars.

And most importantly remember which party has a plan for our future. One party still advocates for the tried and untrue policy of trickle down economics. One party wants to invest in green energy. Do you know which is which? The Republican party is fresh on outdated rhetoric but fresh out of new ideas. Keep that in mind when you make your choice for America's future.

Sunshine on a cloudy day

Actually, I got wind power on a cloudy day, and it is cloudy...rainy actually, and windy. Just the kind of day that makes me want to celebrate a "350-mile underwater spine" (how cool does that sound!?) that would allow electricity generated by offshore wind farms to be transmitted up and down the eastern seaboard!

I'm giddy. Seriously. The project, which will be funded mostly by Google and Good Energies, would be a serious leap forward for America in a realm in which we have a lot of work to do. Imagine the possibility of the entire east coast being powered by offshore wind farms. T. Boone Pickens must be beside himself with delight. I hope this opens the door even further for him. Imagine an America in which the east coast and the midwest are powered by wind! This is exciting. This is a step in the right direction. This is America doing what has made us the greatest country in the world, opening our arms, our hearts and our minds to new ideas. Being innovators who push the world forward. This project represents the America I believe in, an America that is going to be at the forefront of making the world the best place it can be.

Perhaps just as importantly for a country facing political gridlock, this project is finding advocates among the Democratic and Republican governors along the Atlantic coast. If only our national politicians could find a way to agree on projects to better our country like our state officials can.

While this project faces some bureaucratic and financial hurdles, the idea is too good, too awesome to pass up. Despite some hiccups recently, and a dim view of next month's elections, Americans are doing what we've always done, great things. The wind's at our backs and we're moving in the right direction. America got better today. Smile about it.

The No Party System

It's no secret that I think the Republican party is holding America back. Actually, think is a soft word. It's no secret that the Republican party IS holding America back.

But America has a bigger problem...the No Party System. Frankly, politics in Americas just isn't fun. There are a lot of parties on election night, but there aren't any afterwards. The two party system seems dead, it's officially been replaced by the no party system. No party system = no fun in America.

What happened to the days when politicians could cooperate? Did those days even actually exist? Was there a day when politicians placed people over poll results? If there was, it's long gone. The good of the American people is being sacrificed at the altar of politics; it's disturbing, it's bad for America, and it's just no fun.

Who deserves the blame? Even I refuse to put this squarely on the shoulders of Republicans; Democrats are just as much in the wrong. It seems that politicians from both parties wake up in the morning and read the daily polls rather than the daily papers. If they were reading the papers, they'd know that America need their help, not their posturing.

But if politicians are to blame for listening to the polls and not paying attention to the problems, don't the people who make the polls deserve much of the blame as well? For all the amazing things communications technology has given us, it has put an opinion in our living room 24/7. Regardless of whether one agrees with that opinion, it's always there...talking...talking...screaming...ranting...suggesting...provoking. Maybe it would be best if we turned the pundits off for a bit and thought about issues for ourselves. Perhaps the invasion of ideas coming through our television isn't making us smarter, it's making us less capable of thinking for ourselves. Maybe I'm partially responsible. I spend a lot of time bashing Republicans and not as much time offering solutions.

I'm going to offer one now. Turn of CNN, turn off Fox, turn off MSNBC, and turn on your brain. The more we think about our problems the more we'll see that they're going to take a lot of hard work to fix. We need to give our politicians time out of the spotlight to debate the merits of each point of view and come to a consensus. That's the whole point. Instead of giving these people time do their jobs, we're giving them a poll that tells them how much we disapprove of the job their not really doing. Why are they doing that job? Because they're too worried about the polls. It's a vicious cycle.

America is the world's greatest nation, but that doesn't exempt us from trying times. The current times are trying, and to find our way, we're going to need to give our elected officials time. We need to let them know that we expect them to legislate and lead, not posture and politic. No poll is going to make America better, but smart policies will.

What about the future?

Apparently, there is "a wave of anti-incumbency" sweeping across our nation. Every day Americans are upset with our elected officials. They've failed to deliver. The nation is in debt, we're nine years deep in a war that we may or may not be winning, unemployment is high, and Americans are frustrated.

The response has been to take that frustration out on the people currently in office. Some of those people have been in office for a very long time, others are relatively new. Doesn't seem to matter, they gotta go either way.

There is some logic to this. When people do one thing for too long they can easily become complacent. Perhaps they've forgotten what they're supposed to be doing and take it for granted that political longevity is the product of outstanding public service. Lately, many people have suggested term limits, which I happen to think is an excellent idea. It's good to get some new blood into the government occasionally. Even the Tea Party is right about this, the one thing they have in common with our founding fathers is a fear of the king.

But there's another side to this story. As Americans, we're accustomed to success. We're a nation founded on success, and our history, with perhaps a few blips here and there has been one success after another. But do we take this success for granted and do we expect it too quickly? Take for example, America's current predicament. We're mired in a mess eight years in the making. Though President Bush wasn't quite as awful as he may have seemed when he was actually running the show, he left us in a bad spot. During his eight years, Bush led us into two wars, both of which lasted longer than his term. He took the unprecedented step of cutting taxes during a war, let alone two wars. And he did next to nothing to put America on a path towards a sustainable economy. All those mishaps took Bush eight years. But we want results from Obama in the Democrats in two? We've given the man three months of fix-it time for every year of disaster we gave the last guy. Buy Obama now, he's selling for 25 cents on the dollar.

Perhaps, when we're thinking about term limits, we should also think about term length. Our impatience is going to catch up to us. Because we're so accustomed to success, we expect it quickly, more quickly than is realistic. The end result is that we may end up undoing all the good that Obama HAS done in his two years. If we decide that Democrats have failed to deliver (an unrealistic assumption given the massive problems they inherited and the short amount of time they've had), we'll re-elect Republicans and in doing so, we'll mortgage our future. There isn't a magic bullet to solve our problems. Real problems take time to fix. Our nations faces real problems. We gave Republicans eight years to create those problems. Let's give Democrats at least four to fix them.

And in general, let's be more patient. John F. Kennedy once said, "we do this not because it is easy, but because it is hard." It's time we took a long, hard look in the mirror and realized that those words reflect America's greatness. JFK set us on the path for a long, hard trip to the moon. A trip well worth it. It's now time for America's long, hard trip out of recession, out of debt, and out of war.

Let's make America better today by being patient and having the foresight to think about America's greatness in the next decade, not just the current one. Let's give solutions time to work, and let's remember that fresh faces in our government are a good thing, but not so often that the old ones haven't had time to become that old.

Revisiting TARP

TARP, a simple four letter acronym with not important implications politically and economically. Most Americans hate the word, it reminds us of how a bunch of rich guys got even richer by taking advantage of us, and then when they took it too far, they took even more of our money to keep themselves from going under.

Did the people who got us into this mess - most notably the bankers - deserve our charity? Absolutely not, although it remains to be seen if the new financial regulatory law will make any real changes (count me as a skeptic). But the sad truth is that even though the bankers didn't deserve our help, we had to help them, because if we hadn't things would be so much worse for the rest of us.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. Both Presidents Bush and Obama deserve credit for their respective bailouts of the financial and auto industries. The $700 billion they spent saving those industries is an unpopular figure that is responsible for a lot of the red ink people are so frustrated about...except that notion needs revisiting. According to the most recent reports, TARP is going to cost taxpayers about $50 billion, and may even MAKE money.

Hold up. TARP could MAKE money? I need to hear it again, TARP could make money.

I'm struggling to believe it, but it might happen. But even if it doesn't perhaps we should take a moment to reflect on what $50 billion bought us. For $50 billion, we stopped the country from falling into a 2nd Great Depression. Actually, we probably prevented the world from slipping into a 2nd Great Depression.

Q: When the economy is shrinking, what do we need to do to reverse course?

A: Create jobs

Q: Where does much of the money for job creation come from?

A: Banks

Q: What do you do when big banks fail?

A: ...

TARP was an unfortunate necessity. $50 billion isn't chump change, but it's a small price to pay to avoid a worldwide financial meltdown. It's possible, if not probable that had Bush and Obama not spent that money, we'd be lambasting them for not doing enough.

The larger point here is this. It's been vogue lately to trash the government. It's too big; the elected officials compromise an elite that is out of touch with the rest of us; etc. I spend my fair share of time trashing the government too, albeit, usually for different reasons.

But the recent news on TARP should make us pause. Big government may not be the answer to all the nation's problems, but $700 billion, excuse me $50 billion worth of big government went a long way towards saving our country from an awful depression. It took two years, but two years isn't that long of a time. In fact, two years isn't a long time at all.

I wonder, what our government could do if they had a little bit of time and we were a little bit more patient. If America's leaders can prevent a worldwide economic depression for $50 billion, I bet there's a lot more they can do if we let them try.