Saturday, September 29, 2007

That SCHIP has Sailed

“The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help.” - Ronald Reagan

George Bush, as well as some members of Congress, is being portrayed as the mean overlord of the orphanage from the movie Oliver. Standing before them is the SCHIP program, holding out a bowl and asking “Please sir, may I have more…..” So the question begs to be asked, “What is SCHIP anyway?”

SCHIP (The State Children s Health Insurance Program) was orginally an entitlement program designed for families who earn too much money to qualify for Medicaid, yet cannot afford to buy private insurance. The program was originally created to address the perceived growing problem of children in the United States without health insurance. At its creation in 1997, SCHIP was the largest expansion of health insurance coverage for children in the United States since Medicaid began in the 1960s. SCHIP has since been expanded to allow certain adults to participate in the program as well, even if the family can afford private healthcare.

SCHIP is suppose to be a partnership between the Federal Government and State Government. What that means is that the Federal Government provides the funds (courtesy of the US tax payer), and with some oversight (very little however), the States decide how to administer the program within very flexible guidelines.

The trouble is that we take personal accountability out of the equation when we establish entitlement programs, such as SCHIP. Is it any wonder enrollment in all of these programs continue to grow inequality compare to the increase of the legal population of the United States?

Mind you President Bush is not opposed to funding the program, or for that matter reducing financial support. President Bush proposed an increase SCHIP funding by $5 billion, from $25 billion to $30 billion. But Democrats in the House passed a bill tripling spending to $75 billion. The Senate bill simply increased spending by more than 100 percent to $60 billion.

Not only have Democrats increased the funding request for a program that supposedly was to help poor children get health insurance, but it would also finance subsidies to families earning as much as $82,000 a year. Additionally, around 50 percent to 60 percent of the children newly covered under this expansion of SCHIP are already covered by private insurance today. So the massive SCHIP expansion mostly involves a takeover of private insurance coverage by government coverage.

Under this SCHIP expansion, the estimated cost of covering each new child not currently insured would be as much as 3.5 times the cost of private coverage. Proving once again that the private sector will always be more efficient than either the Federal or State government, and illustrates that we are merely throwing money at a problem hoping some of it gets to those truly in need of assistance.

People opposed to a $25 billion dollar increase to SCHIP are being unfairly characterized as “anti-child,” which couldn’t be further from the truth. There are two core problems related to the increase funding, or for that matter the program itself:

Fraud - The United States General Account Office Estimates that medical fraud and abuse equals $100 BILLION dollars! The lack of control over these funds, and the lesafair approach taken by States as to how the funds should be used is alarming.

Tax Increase – How exactly are we going to pay for this $25 billion dollar increase? Tobacco tax increases. The bill passed by the House would raise taxes on cigarettes by 61 cents a pack to $1 and raise it up to $3 on a cigar (this is just the federal tax, we have to remember that each State has their own tobacco tax). But this tax will affect the exact population it purports to be helping. What Congress is doing is playing Robin Hood; the only problem is they are stealing from the poor, to give to the poor (?)! Facts (according to the Census Bureau):

42% of the people below the poverty level smoke
36% of Medicare recipients smoke
31% of adults who did not graduate from high school smoke

The tax increase would raise the average pack of cigarettes from $4.65 to $5.65. But how does it affect those living within the income brackets that would benefit from SCHIP:


One pack of cigarettes a week: $5.65 X 52 weeks= $293.80 a year wasted
Two packs of cigarettes a week: $5.65 X 2= $11.30 X 52= $587.60 a year wasted
One pack of cigarette a day: $5.65 X 7= $39.55 X 52= $2056.60 a year wasted

If a 40-year old smoker quit smoking and invested that money in a 401(K) plan it is estimated that they would have $250,000.00 in the plan at age 70. Just think how else that money could be spent, yet the smoker chooses to throw that money away, just like Congress will be doing by enacting their funding recommendations.

But I digress. The United States is already facing an unmanageable crisis of runaway costs in the entitlements programs we already have. The Congressional Budget Office projects that without basic reforms Federal spending will soar over the next 35 years or so from 20 percent of GDP today, where it has generally been for over 50 years now, to close to 40 percent. That is primarily due to our major entitlement programs Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. Paying for all of this increased spending would require Federal taxes to double as a percent of GDP. How would that affect prosperity in America?

The reality is that it is not the lack of funds that are harming our children. It is the fraud, abuse, and personal choices made by some current recipients that have created many of the funding crisis’s in America. Throwing money at the problem is not the solution, there are too many undeserving beneficiaries standing in the way.

In the end the bill will pass, the President will veto it, and he will be demonized in the media and by the Democrats; in large part because they equate compassion with money. SCHIP, and many other entitlement programs, do nothing more than continue to keep another generation of the Great Society in bondage.

For more information on the true cost of the proposed SCHIP funding read the following article: Heritage Foundation - Crowding Out of SCHIP



Tuesday, September 18, 2007

Tales from the Men’s Room


What is it with our fascination with bathroom stories? The worse part about these stories is that they make me question how stupid people (in this case, men) can be.

First up, big surprise, women are cleaner than men:

Poppie’s Syndrome

So a third of all men don’t wash their hands. I don’t even know what to make of that. It is not like it is time consuming. Soap, water, wipe…what does that take 10, 20 seconds? It reminds me of the Seinfeld episode “The Pie,” when Jerry witnesses Poppie go the bathroom, zip up his fly and declare – “Ah, Jerry! Tonight you in for a real treat. I'm personally going to prepare the dinner for you …….” then leaves without washing is hands. Mmm, sounds yummy!

Next we learn that there is nothing like a little scandal to make even an airport bathroom a tourist attraction:

The "Craig" Stall a Tourist Attraction

This speaks volumes for America’s fascination with the mundane. Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport should strike while the “iron is still hot.” They could offer guided tours that would feature a “re-creation” of the exchange between Sen. Craig and undercover officer. Each customer would have the opportunity to have their picture taken in the notorious stall. Additionally, each customer would receive a laminated, wallet-sized, quick reference guild to the proper “rendezvous signals” used by those seeking companionship.

Southern Hospitality, Craig List Style:


He's not a member of the Village People...He's a real COP!

This story brings a whole new meaning to the “power of the internet,” and has me wondering what category you would list this type of activity under on Craig’s List? It also speaks to carelessness, and frankly the lack of discipline displayed by these men. Our police could be doing better things, but because these “gentleman” chose to contaminate a public faculty, we have to divert valuable resources to deal with this issue.

There is a whole subculture that exists in public men’s room that I was total unaware of. To think that I use to believe that the guy in the next stall was just asking for a piece of toilet paper, so much for courtesy.

So, next time you are in a public restroom, watch your stance, don’t tap your feet or sing George Michael songs, and for goodness sake, wash your hands!

Monday, September 17, 2007

Duty, Honor, Country

General David Petraeus appeared before Congress to testify on the situation in Iraq. If you knew nothing about General Petraeus but what you read in the news last week you would think that Genghis Khan, supported by a propaganda machine that would rival the Nazis, was leading our troops in Iraq. It is truly a sad statement on America that a person of General Petraeus strong moral character would be dragged through the mud. What was even harder to fathom was that it was his fellow Americans doing the dragging.

First up was the Queen of Denial, the Duchess of Deceit, the (dis-) Honorable Senator from New York. Lady Hillary Clinton:



“The willing suspension of disbelief.” Translation for those who do not speak “politicalees” – “You are lying to us.” If anyone would know about the “suspension of disbelief” it would the former First Lady. How dare she in a public forum call a well-respected United States General a liar! And she wants to be the next Commander – In –Chief?

Next we had Senator Obama’s self-fluctuating rambling:



Each member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee had seven minutes to question General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker about the Iraq War. Obama used about six minutes of his time to lecture General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker. As Obama was wrapping up, he said, "That, of course, now leaves me very little time to ask questions, and that's unfortunate." Well, maybe you should have asked questions instead of making speeches you could post to your webpage!

General Petraeus never got to answer Obama's 266-word speech. Hurried at the end, Obama asked about benchmarks that had not been met. Ambassador Crocker stated, "Senator, I described for Senator Sununu a little bit ago some of the things that I think are going to be very important as we move ahead."
It was nice to see one Senator saying something of value. Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) followed Obama. He told Petraeus and Crocker, "As you have found, our hearings are more about listening to ourselves than listening to our witnesses."

Not all the attacks on General Petraeus were limited to the floor of Congress or on the campaign trail. Nope, MoveOn.org had there own opinion of General Petraeus:



Betray Us!!??!! This attack on General Petraeus was planned well in advance, before he even testified before Congress. If MoveOn.org had any integrity they would have waited until the report was presented, and then provide a rebuttal to the testimony. Instead they chose to attack General Petraeus before hearing the report. This is the same group that Senator’s Obama and Clinton are catering to. Yet neither of them has distanced themselves from this ad. Their need to appease their base and their contempt for the US Military was quite evident. Would it be any less if either were our next Commander – In – Chief?

A soldier serves at the luxury of his country and answers to one person (in accordance to the Constitution of the United States), the Commander – In – Chief, the President of the United States. There are those in Congress, and left-wing fascist groups such as MoveOn.org, that cannot accept that fact. They wish to regulate this war as a matter of political policy, which has failed in the past and doom to fail in the future.

Agree or disagree with the war, we do our country little good when we malign honorable people such as General Petraeus. There are people in this country that would like to believe that those serving in the military are devoid of intellect and integrity, and are nothing more that puppets of a "corrupt political machine." They couldn’t be any further the truth. Duty, Honor, Country are the words our US Military live by. Each soldier takes an oath to defend the Constitution, and they live by that oath everyday. How many people at MoveOn.org have taken that oath? To paraphrase from “A Few Good Men:”

"We use words like honor, code, loyalty. We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punch-line. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide, and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather you just said thank you, and went on your way, Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon, and stand a post."

Although I disagree with many parts of that movie, there is a real truth in that speech. If you have never taken the oath as a soldier, you could never imagine the strength of the words “to defend and uphold the Constitution of the United States.” The Soldiers Oath brings into clarity the overwhelming responsibility a member of the US Armed Forces has committed to this country. This is the same oath that General Petraeus took, and look how some Americans have chosen to repay him?

Time and time again General Petraeus, and millions of others soldiers, have stood to defend our country and have asked very little in return. You have to ask yourself whether you willing to stand with them and defend their reputation against attacks by those who have no concept of the words “Duty, Honor, and Country,” or are you going to continue to let their sacrifice to this country be molested?

Wednesday, September 12, 2007

Character is Important



“Is the moral character of a political candidate important?”

As another United States Representative is marred in controversy, and America is left shaking its head in disbelief. Party affiliation has very little to do with my antipathy for Senator Craig’s situation. I am disappointed that yet another public official had to come before the American people and explain his lack of judgment. The public trust is eroded each time one our representatives, teachers, police officers, doctors, clergy or any numerous public positions is caught in a scandal. The act of one, rightly or wrongly, cast doubt on that entire profession.

It is important for me to state that I am in fact a sinner, as are we all. We are no better or worse that Sen. Craig, Rep. Frank, Sen. Kennedy, Sen. Vitter, President Clinton, Mayor Villaraigosa, and the numerous other public officials that have been exposed (pun intended). Some would say that it is none of our business what each of theses men do in their private lives. I strongly disagree. Each one of these men has failed themselves, their families and their constituents. We have every right to hold our representatives to the highest moral standards; in fact it is imperative. If a public official is incapable of being honest and true to his wife and family, what chance in hell do we constituents have?

Don’t get me wrong. This is not to excuse the actions of each of us in our own lives as well. As citizens, employers, employees, and parents we also have to set a moral example. The truth is that it is far easier to go astray when we apply our own morality to life, choosing to see “gray areas,” instead of accepting the black and white of life. The rules for an ethical life are simple, and were provided for us a long time ago. They are called the Ten Commandants, and they hold the key for our moral existence. In Matthew 22 (The New Testament), the 10 Commandments were summed up when Jesus was confronted by the religious experts of the day:

"Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?" Jesus replied: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments" (Matthew 22:36-40).


A reflective reading of Christ's teaching tells us that the first four commandments given to the children of Israel are contained in the statement: "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind." It continues that the last six commandments are enclosed in the statement: "Love your neighbor as yourself."

What Jesus was saying was that all of Commandments are important. The problem begins when we “pick and choose” which Commandments we will follow, and which Commandments can be ignored. Contrary to many people’s opinions, morality is not subjective. There is a wrong and right, and very little “gray area.” Stealing is wrong, lying is wrong, cheating (taxes, homework, etc.) is wrong, and being unfaithful to your spouse is wrong. The only thing we have that keeps us together as a community and a family is our trust in one another. Those that violate our trust in a criminal manner are punished. Those that violate our personal trust are either rejected or treated with a great deal of suspicion. If our representatives are not honest in their “private world,” are we truly to believe that they will be more honest in their public dealing?

Trust is the very basis of a successful and functional society. When we can believe in one another, have faith in our neighbors and our government, then we can work together to accomplish anything we want as a community. If we choose to lie, steal, and cheat then we become a dysfunctional family. We withdraw, always holding our neighborhood in contempt, choosing mistrust and malice as our community foundation. A house built on a foundation of suspicion and apathy will cave in on its own weight.

In the end we can see that the character of one person speaks for all of those he/she represents. If we choose to ignore the moral character of our leaders, should we not be surprise when they fail. The difference between a person who chooses a moral life and stumbles, and a person whose chooses an immoral life, but occasionally commits and “act of random kindness,” is vast. Yet both are worthy of forgiveness as long as they truly confess their indiscretion and (here’s the catch!) honestly seek redemption.

I end this article with a slight variation of the question I used to open the commentary – “Is the moral character of a person important?” Well…..Is it?