It has almost been a year since I've been writing columns for the Middlesboro Daily News and posting them to my blogspot account. My first column was targeted at providing correct information about the economic bailout package presented by former President Bush (in late September). I never had a chance to write a column that focused on the attacks on September 11th, 2001.
This date will live in infamy, much in the same way the attacks on Pearl Harbor on December 7th, 1941 resonates with a previous generation. It is a date, and an event, that will forever shape the minds of today's generation.
Much like the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, or when Neil Armstrong took those historic steps on the moon, we will all remember where we were at, what we were doing, and our first reactions to the attacks that fateful day.
Eight years later, we are a nation that has been propelled in a dramatically different way because of these attacks. We can only conjecture what our lives and our nation would look like had we never been victimized by religious extremists organized by Usama bin Laden.
What if we had never declared war on terror? What if we had not actively sought out those who were responsible for the attacks that day? What if we had never taken preventative measures to thwart terrorist attacks? Would the liquid bombers have been successful (the reason why you can't take liquids on a plane in large quantity)? Would New York City have made it this long without a large terrorist attack (the numerous planned attacks aimed at the NYC subway system)? Would Afghanistan and Iraq be uncontested breeding grounds for terrorism?
I can only speculate. But what I do know is that there has been a lot of sacrifice and a lot of tears shed since that day. Those who were lost to those unscrupulous acts of evil should never be forgotten. The bravery of the New York Fire Department, the New York Police Department, and all those servicemen and women who worked to restore order to the chaos should never be forgotten. The bravery of the men and women on United Airlines Flight 93 should never be forgotten. The bravery of the men and women in our armed forces should never be forgotten. The compassion and patriotism that we as a nation demonstrated that day should never be forgotten.
What we should also not forget are the actions of Former President Bush. The nation stood behind him, united after these attacks, as he began his new campaign based on the promises he made to the American people. President Bush promised us that the individuals responsible for these attacks would come to justice and that he would take all necessary actions to prevent a subsequent attack.
And I think we forgot that somewhere along the line. Did President Bush act inappropriately while trying to defend our nation? I personally don't think it's that black and white, but more shades of gray. I personally think that President Bush took up his cause and fought to protect us from other terrorist attacks, even when his methods lost popularity. President Bush sacrificed approval ratings for our safety in much the same way that a parent sacrifices the admiration of their children for their safety. Bush would rather have been a good President than a cool one.
So despite what the media says, and despite what other people say about him, I will never forget the protection that President Bush provided for this country during his eight years in office.
Friday, September 11, 2009
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
Our Social Security Blanket
One of the long debated public policy issues since it's inception has been the Social Security Program. This program was conceived as a way to both provide income for individuals late in life (who are less able to earn income) as well as provide some incentive for people to eventually retire and open up jobs to a younger generation.
I don't have to go over how the whole program works. But I do think it's important for people to know that Social Security is an unfunded program. When I say unfunded program, it means that the money you and I pay into Social Security (not like we have a choice, it's deducted from our paychecks) is not being set aside just for us when we retire, but is going to pay the benefits of current retirees. If Social Security were a fully-funded program, I would be paying into my own retirement and you into your own.
When this program was first conceived, an unfunded program seemed to be the best way to provide Social Security benefits as soon as possible. What the program's creator, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, did not (and could not) foresee was what effect a sudden "baby boom" would have on the Social Security program.
Ten years after Social Security was signed into law, the Second World War had just ended and American Soldiers returned to America with a promising and bright economic future ahead of them. There was a flood of new births in the United States and from 1946 to 1964, there was a large growth in the American birth rate.
Now let's fast forward to today. The earliest age to retire and collect Social Security benefits is 62 (with 65 for full benefits and 67 for increased benefits). So the earliest Baby Boomers (1946) are currently 63 years old and the latest Baby Boomers (1964) will reach early retirement age in 2026. The big fear is that there will not be enough current workers to pay the benefits of the current retirees.
Our nation has not since had another baby boom to rival that of the Baby Boomers. Now my thinking would be that the Baby Boomers would create a "Second Wave" of Baby Boomers (when the Baby Boomers began having children), and then that Second Wave would produce a "Third Wave", but this has not been the case. Demographically speaking, the increase in the American birth rate when the Baby Boomers hit reproductive age has in no way compared to that of the original Baby Boom. This the result of a cultural shift; people are having less children now, and later in life, than they would have in the 1940's through 1960's; which has further compounded the Social Security problem.
Analysts have already warned Congress that when the Baby Boomers begin to retire that the current surplus in the Social Security Trust Fund will eventually dwindle and bankrupt Social Security sometime after the year 2020. There will be too much money paid out in benefits than is being paid in by the current workers.
I myself am part of the "Second Wave". My mother and father are both Baby Boomers and they will soon be ready to retire. I am currently in my mid 20's and enjoying my adult life as well as contemplating having children with my wife. Social Security means a lot to me (as I may never see a cent of it but have definitely paid into it) and is an issue that is very near to my heart.
So what options do we have to save Social Security? Traditionally, the main options have been to (1) raise taxes and increase revenue to the Social Security Fund, (2) raise the retirement age, and/or (3) cut benefits. I agree there needs to be a short-term solution considered now, but there is also a long-term solution to the problem.
The Cash for Clunkers program and the First Time Home Buyers Tax Credit were successful programs, at least by economic consumption standards. These cash incentive programs achieved their intended purpose: they made consumers purchase cars and houses. A long-term solution to Social Security would be if President Obama created the "Bucks for Babies" program that provided a cash incentive (in addition to tax breaks) for people to have children who eventually will work jobs and pay into Social Security. This would help to change the reproductive strategies in America in much the same way Cash for Clunkers and the Tax Credit incentivized and influenced the consumption patters of Americans.
Of course this can easily backfire without the right restrictions. The wrong people could begin having children that they can't afford to take care of. The Bucks for Babies program would make jobs more competitive when the new wave of children reaches working age, potentially increasing unemployment. The idea needs some work, but can be considered another option to reform Social Security.
And it would be a lot less expensive than the other solution I advocate for; making Social Security a fully-funded system. This would require spending a LOT of money to fund the current retirees' benefits while the current workers begin saving for their own retirement.
Clearly something needs to be done and there are options available. It would just be nice to see Congress actually heed some of the warnings they have been given and take action on the issue rather than being so short-sighted and focused on reelection.
I don't have to go over how the whole program works. But I do think it's important for people to know that Social Security is an unfunded program. When I say unfunded program, it means that the money you and I pay into Social Security (not like we have a choice, it's deducted from our paychecks) is not being set aside just for us when we retire, but is going to pay the benefits of current retirees. If Social Security were a fully-funded program, I would be paying into my own retirement and you into your own.
When this program was first conceived, an unfunded program seemed to be the best way to provide Social Security benefits as soon as possible. What the program's creator, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, did not (and could not) foresee was what effect a sudden "baby boom" would have on the Social Security program.
Ten years after Social Security was signed into law, the Second World War had just ended and American Soldiers returned to America with a promising and bright economic future ahead of them. There was a flood of new births in the United States and from 1946 to 1964, there was a large growth in the American birth rate.
Now let's fast forward to today. The earliest age to retire and collect Social Security benefits is 62 (with 65 for full benefits and 67 for increased benefits). So the earliest Baby Boomers (1946) are currently 63 years old and the latest Baby Boomers (1964) will reach early retirement age in 2026. The big fear is that there will not be enough current workers to pay the benefits of the current retirees.
Our nation has not since had another baby boom to rival that of the Baby Boomers. Now my thinking would be that the Baby Boomers would create a "Second Wave" of Baby Boomers (when the Baby Boomers began having children), and then that Second Wave would produce a "Third Wave", but this has not been the case. Demographically speaking, the increase in the American birth rate when the Baby Boomers hit reproductive age has in no way compared to that of the original Baby Boom. This the result of a cultural shift; people are having less children now, and later in life, than they would have in the 1940's through 1960's; which has further compounded the Social Security problem.
Analysts have already warned Congress that when the Baby Boomers begin to retire that the current surplus in the Social Security Trust Fund will eventually dwindle and bankrupt Social Security sometime after the year 2020. There will be too much money paid out in benefits than is being paid in by the current workers.
I myself am part of the "Second Wave". My mother and father are both Baby Boomers and they will soon be ready to retire. I am currently in my mid 20's and enjoying my adult life as well as contemplating having children with my wife. Social Security means a lot to me (as I may never see a cent of it but have definitely paid into it) and is an issue that is very near to my heart.
So what options do we have to save Social Security? Traditionally, the main options have been to (1) raise taxes and increase revenue to the Social Security Fund, (2) raise the retirement age, and/or (3) cut benefits. I agree there needs to be a short-term solution considered now, but there is also a long-term solution to the problem.
The Cash for Clunkers program and the First Time Home Buyers Tax Credit were successful programs, at least by economic consumption standards. These cash incentive programs achieved their intended purpose: they made consumers purchase cars and houses. A long-term solution to Social Security would be if President Obama created the "Bucks for Babies" program that provided a cash incentive (in addition to tax breaks) for people to have children who eventually will work jobs and pay into Social Security. This would help to change the reproductive strategies in America in much the same way Cash for Clunkers and the Tax Credit incentivized and influenced the consumption patters of Americans.
Of course this can easily backfire without the right restrictions. The wrong people could begin having children that they can't afford to take care of. The Bucks for Babies program would make jobs more competitive when the new wave of children reaches working age, potentially increasing unemployment. The idea needs some work, but can be considered another option to reform Social Security.
And it would be a lot less expensive than the other solution I advocate for; making Social Security a fully-funded system. This would require spending a LOT of money to fund the current retirees' benefits while the current workers begin saving for their own retirement.
Clearly something needs to be done and there are options available. It would just be nice to see Congress actually heed some of the warnings they have been given and take action on the issue rather than being so short-sighted and focused on reelection.
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
The Death Spiral of Health Care
I've been watching and waiting on what's going to happen with the health care legislation that is currently working it's way through congress. Along the way, here is what we've seen; town hall meetings gone awry, Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi calling protestors "un-American", right wing propganda, and left wingers firing back with a "tattle-tale" website.
The town hall dissidents have been entertaining, but at the same time shameful. The anti-Bush protests should have taught the Right one thing; if you are going to protest, do so with some respect. But then again, did the Bush protestors really think those years of nasty demonstrations wouldn't lead to the same type of demonstrations against President Obama? If anything, those protestors left such an impression on the Right, they began using the same tact and tactics against President Obama.
And really, Nancy Pelosi? Calling the protestors "un-American"? Did you forget how you were "energized" by the same unruly and disruptive protesting tactis used in 2006 to demonstrate against the Iraq War? But I have a name for you, Nancy. "Liar". How patriotic and American are you to accuse the CIA of lying to Congress about the use of waterboarding? Why should the American people believe a word you say now considering just two examples of you speaking out of both sides of you mouth? Don't call these people "un-American" for exercising their first amendment right. These people are yelling at the top of their lungs for their representatives in Congress to hear them and act on their demands! Isn't that the way the representative Congress is supposed to act anyways? Or do you believe you are above the demands of your constituents?
There is so much information floating around right now about the health care bill that the only way to get the actual information is to read the bill itself. I'm hesitant to trust the website President Obama created to dispell rumors about the health care bill, fearing that it contains the same propoganda the Right has been shelling out.
And really, President Obama? A tattle-tale website? I understand there is a lot of propoganda out there right now, but do you have to resort to 2nd grade tactics to make your point? How about a national address where you explain in detail what the health care bill is intended to do? Oh wait, you tried that already. How did that end, again? With a beer summit because you commented on a local matter you had no business commenting on? Fantastic.
So why is there so much drama surrounding the health care issue? Is it because no one wants people to have health coverage? I doubt that. This is a very complicated matter that will harm more people than it will help.
The economics behind this legislation are far reaching. Opponents feel that a public health option would be too competitive with private insurance companies and eventually run the private companies out. The "insurance exchange" as the Obama Administration puts it, provides "low-cost, high-quality" health insurance to families that cannot currently afford health insurance. But if this program is low-cost and high-quality, won't that result in some people switching from private or employer provided health-insurance to save some money? This is the classic death spiral taught in Economics 101 that leads to the destruction of insurance companies.
Let me explain. With a government option that costs less money than private or employer provided insurance, the healthiest individuals will switch to the government option to save money. This will decrease the "risk pool" the health insurance companies have (the non-sick subsidizing the health care costs of the sickly). When this happens, insurance premiums must go up since the healthiest have left the pool and there is less subsidized money available for the sickly in the insurance risk pool. When the premiums go up, more healthy people leave the risk pool to capitalize on the lower premiums from the government plan. This continues to happen until the insurance companies can no longer afford to provide insurance, resulting in everyone transferring to the government option; the end result being socialized medicine. Quite frankly I'm shocked the Obama administration missed this day in Economics 101 and to date has ignored this possibility.
And on top of that, is the Obama Administration anticipating a jump in the demand for the government run program? Republicans are correct to argue they didn't do such a great job with the "Cash for Clunkers" program and it's safe to assume they wouldn't with a government run health insurance program. A large increase in people joining the insurance exchange could further bog down the program and lead to long waiting times for benefit reimbursement. Government is inefficient enough as it is, let alone if program demand dramatically increases the benefit processing time.
Now I'm not saying that the Republican flow-chart detailing program benefits is necessarily correct, but I don't believe that the Democrats have taken all things into consideration. Am I saying that health care doesn't need reform? No. Health care desperately needs reform because it is entirely too expensive today. Do I think this particular plan is the best solution? Of course not. This alternative does more to harm health care today than it does to help it. Maybe with a little more work (and the Obama Administration backing off from deadlines to have the bill passed) Congress could come up with something that could minimize the death spiral of the insurance companies and at the same time provide health care to those who need it most and can't afford it.
The town hall dissidents have been entertaining, but at the same time shameful. The anti-Bush protests should have taught the Right one thing; if you are going to protest, do so with some respect. But then again, did the Bush protestors really think those years of nasty demonstrations wouldn't lead to the same type of demonstrations against President Obama? If anything, those protestors left such an impression on the Right, they began using the same tact and tactics against President Obama.
And really, Nancy Pelosi? Calling the protestors "un-American"? Did you forget how you were "energized" by the same unruly and disruptive protesting tactis used in 2006 to demonstrate against the Iraq War? But I have a name for you, Nancy. "Liar". How patriotic and American are you to accuse the CIA of lying to Congress about the use of waterboarding? Why should the American people believe a word you say now considering just two examples of you speaking out of both sides of you mouth? Don't call these people "un-American" for exercising their first amendment right. These people are yelling at the top of their lungs for their representatives in Congress to hear them and act on their demands! Isn't that the way the representative Congress is supposed to act anyways? Or do you believe you are above the demands of your constituents?
There is so much information floating around right now about the health care bill that the only way to get the actual information is to read the bill itself. I'm hesitant to trust the website President Obama created to dispell rumors about the health care bill, fearing that it contains the same propoganda the Right has been shelling out.
And really, President Obama? A tattle-tale website? I understand there is a lot of propoganda out there right now, but do you have to resort to 2nd grade tactics to make your point? How about a national address where you explain in detail what the health care bill is intended to do? Oh wait, you tried that already. How did that end, again? With a beer summit because you commented on a local matter you had no business commenting on? Fantastic.
So why is there so much drama surrounding the health care issue? Is it because no one wants people to have health coverage? I doubt that. This is a very complicated matter that will harm more people than it will help.
The economics behind this legislation are far reaching. Opponents feel that a public health option would be too competitive with private insurance companies and eventually run the private companies out. The "insurance exchange" as the Obama Administration puts it, provides "low-cost, high-quality" health insurance to families that cannot currently afford health insurance. But if this program is low-cost and high-quality, won't that result in some people switching from private or employer provided health-insurance to save some money? This is the classic death spiral taught in Economics 101 that leads to the destruction of insurance companies.
Let me explain. With a government option that costs less money than private or employer provided insurance, the healthiest individuals will switch to the government option to save money. This will decrease the "risk pool" the health insurance companies have (the non-sick subsidizing the health care costs of the sickly). When this happens, insurance premiums must go up since the healthiest have left the pool and there is less subsidized money available for the sickly in the insurance risk pool. When the premiums go up, more healthy people leave the risk pool to capitalize on the lower premiums from the government plan. This continues to happen until the insurance companies can no longer afford to provide insurance, resulting in everyone transferring to the government option; the end result being socialized medicine. Quite frankly I'm shocked the Obama administration missed this day in Economics 101 and to date has ignored this possibility.
And on top of that, is the Obama Administration anticipating a jump in the demand for the government run program? Republicans are correct to argue they didn't do such a great job with the "Cash for Clunkers" program and it's safe to assume they wouldn't with a government run health insurance program. A large increase in people joining the insurance exchange could further bog down the program and lead to long waiting times for benefit reimbursement. Government is inefficient enough as it is, let alone if program demand dramatically increases the benefit processing time.
Now I'm not saying that the Republican flow-chart detailing program benefits is necessarily correct, but I don't believe that the Democrats have taken all things into consideration. Am I saying that health care doesn't need reform? No. Health care desperately needs reform because it is entirely too expensive today. Do I think this particular plan is the best solution? Of course not. This alternative does more to harm health care today than it does to help it. Maybe with a little more work (and the Obama Administration backing off from deadlines to have the bill passed) Congress could come up with something that could minimize the death spiral of the insurance companies and at the same time provide health care to those who need it most and can't afford it.
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
The Only Thing Worse Than Beating A Dead Horse is Betting On One
Recently the Kentucky General Assembly voted not to allow slot machines and other gaming to accompany horse racing. This was a bad move in my opinion.
Kentucky has a proud heritage of horse breeding and horse racing. I can remember going to races at Keeneland Downs in Lexington, Kentucky and seeing the immaculate grounds at Church Hill Downs in Louisville, Kentucky. The Kentucky Derby is one of the most watched cultural-sporting events in the U.S.
However, the General Assembly's decision to not allow gaming at race tracks is hurting the purse winnings in Kentucky's horse racing and the overall talent that races in Kentucky. Our Kentucky tradition is under fire from neighboring states that allow facilities to offer horse racing as well as casinos.
Our neighboring states, most notably, Indiana and Pennsylvania, have what are called "racinos" (horse racing and casinos combined in one central location). These racinos divert winnings from their casinos to their horse races in order to offer better purses for the riders and horse owners. When horse owners, breeders, and experienced riders catch wind of these bigger purses, they leave Kentucky and follow the money. Kentucky horse racing officials have already began reporting losses from the migration of breeders and riders to other states.
Plain and simple, Indiana racinos attract business from Kentucky and Ohio is theatening to take some more business from us too if they open up their own racinos. These are dollars that help our state economy. The General Assembly is allowing these funds, the funds that Kentucky needs right now during the economic collapse, to go to our neighboring states. Instead of these dollars being reinvested in Kentucky, they travel across the Ohio river and are reinvested in Indiana or in whichever state these dollars are spent. Could you imagine if these dollars stayed here in Kentucky? How many jobs would they create? How much tax revenue would they generate to the state of Kentucky?
By allowing racinos in the state, Kentucky can better compete with Indiana and Ohio. Indiana is already beginning to fear the actions that neighboring states will take regarding gaming as their state revenue depends heavily on their government-sanctioned casinos. Indiana has long said that the state's loss of gaming revenue from state competition is not a matter of "if it will happen" but "when it will happen". Their prophecy is coming true as both Kentucky and Ohio have considered allowing racino legislation.
Most people who are opposed to allowing expanded gaming at horse racing facilities argue that gambling is regressive (disproportionately affects the poor) and that including gaming at such harrowed places like Keeneland and Church Hill Downs will compromise the beauty of these places.
In regards to the first argument, I personally don't feel that government should take a paternalistic approach to making laws. That is to say that government should not act like a parent and decide what is best for it's citizens. I have always appreciated the tenets of Social Darwinism (not to be confused with Darwinism); only the most resourceful survive in this world. In my opinion, if you are foolish enough to go out and gamble away all of your paycheck or wager and lose your house on a game of roulette or black jack, that is your decision and you should have to pay the consequences, not myself or anyone else for that matter.
I know that opens a Pandora's box of responses, especially if the actions of said addicted gambler also affect members his or her family. In this situation, I do not think those family members should be punished equally for the actions of the addicted gambler, otherwise warranting some form of assistance.
If people are concerned about the beauty of these historic racing sites, there are ways to provide gaming and horse racing at one location, but still not compromise these buildings. Establishing casinos on site (but not attached to) of these historic places will provide casinos near the horse racing action and at the same time leave the racing facilities fully intact and without alteration. And besides, at least gambling will save these historic horse racing sites by drawing back those breeders, owners, and riders that left in the first place.
I take pride in my Kentucky heritage, especially around Derby time. When people think "Kentucky", they think bourbon, basketball, and thorough-bred horses. Bourbon has remained unchanged since it was first created in Bourbon County, Kentucky in the 18th Century. With the addition of Coach John Calipari to the Kentucky basketball program, Kentucky basketball is back on track to being the dynasty it once was. With the addition of gambling at horse racing sites, Kentucky can work to preserve it's proud heritage of horse racing and take back what our neighboring states have stolen from us; our thorough-breds, our breeders, our riders, and our money. This is not an issue of gambling, this is an issue of Kentucky Pride.
Kentucky has a proud heritage of horse breeding and horse racing. I can remember going to races at Keeneland Downs in Lexington, Kentucky and seeing the immaculate grounds at Church Hill Downs in Louisville, Kentucky. The Kentucky Derby is one of the most watched cultural-sporting events in the U.S.
However, the General Assembly's decision to not allow gaming at race tracks is hurting the purse winnings in Kentucky's horse racing and the overall talent that races in Kentucky. Our Kentucky tradition is under fire from neighboring states that allow facilities to offer horse racing as well as casinos.
Our neighboring states, most notably, Indiana and Pennsylvania, have what are called "racinos" (horse racing and casinos combined in one central location). These racinos divert winnings from their casinos to their horse races in order to offer better purses for the riders and horse owners. When horse owners, breeders, and experienced riders catch wind of these bigger purses, they leave Kentucky and follow the money. Kentucky horse racing officials have already began reporting losses from the migration of breeders and riders to other states.
Plain and simple, Indiana racinos attract business from Kentucky and Ohio is theatening to take some more business from us too if they open up their own racinos. These are dollars that help our state economy. The General Assembly is allowing these funds, the funds that Kentucky needs right now during the economic collapse, to go to our neighboring states. Instead of these dollars being reinvested in Kentucky, they travel across the Ohio river and are reinvested in Indiana or in whichever state these dollars are spent. Could you imagine if these dollars stayed here in Kentucky? How many jobs would they create? How much tax revenue would they generate to the state of Kentucky?
By allowing racinos in the state, Kentucky can better compete with Indiana and Ohio. Indiana is already beginning to fear the actions that neighboring states will take regarding gaming as their state revenue depends heavily on their government-sanctioned casinos. Indiana has long said that the state's loss of gaming revenue from state competition is not a matter of "if it will happen" but "when it will happen". Their prophecy is coming true as both Kentucky and Ohio have considered allowing racino legislation.
Most people who are opposed to allowing expanded gaming at horse racing facilities argue that gambling is regressive (disproportionately affects the poor) and that including gaming at such harrowed places like Keeneland and Church Hill Downs will compromise the beauty of these places.
In regards to the first argument, I personally don't feel that government should take a paternalistic approach to making laws. That is to say that government should not act like a parent and decide what is best for it's citizens. I have always appreciated the tenets of Social Darwinism (not to be confused with Darwinism); only the most resourceful survive in this world. In my opinion, if you are foolish enough to go out and gamble away all of your paycheck or wager and lose your house on a game of roulette or black jack, that is your decision and you should have to pay the consequences, not myself or anyone else for that matter.
I know that opens a Pandora's box of responses, especially if the actions of said addicted gambler also affect members his or her family. In this situation, I do not think those family members should be punished equally for the actions of the addicted gambler, otherwise warranting some form of assistance.
If people are concerned about the beauty of these historic racing sites, there are ways to provide gaming and horse racing at one location, but still not compromise these buildings. Establishing casinos on site (but not attached to) of these historic places will provide casinos near the horse racing action and at the same time leave the racing facilities fully intact and without alteration. And besides, at least gambling will save these historic horse racing sites by drawing back those breeders, owners, and riders that left in the first place.
I take pride in my Kentucky heritage, especially around Derby time. When people think "Kentucky", they think bourbon, basketball, and thorough-bred horses. Bourbon has remained unchanged since it was first created in Bourbon County, Kentucky in the 18th Century. With the addition of Coach John Calipari to the Kentucky basketball program, Kentucky basketball is back on track to being the dynasty it once was. With the addition of gambling at horse racing sites, Kentucky can work to preserve it's proud heritage of horse racing and take back what our neighboring states have stolen from us; our thorough-breds, our breeders, our riders, and our money. This is not an issue of gambling, this is an issue of Kentucky Pride.
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
Playing Catch-Up
Since it's been so long since I've had the time to write, I thought I would briefly touch on some of the more important events that have taken place since my last column.
Sarah Palin is offering her services to any candidate who believes in the following; (1) limited government, (2) energy Independence, (3) strong national defense, and (4) budget restraint. School board elections may never be the same. Honestly, given her toxicity on the campaign trail, I honestly can't see her being hired by anyone in the near future. Don't get me wrong, she's a very noble woman, but I believe the overall sentiment is that she was a political experiment from the McCain campaign and would today hurt a campaign more than she would help it (depending on your constituency). I respect her and her achievements, but resigning from the state of Alaska (where the people love her) in order to play a national role for the GOP was just a bad strategy on her part. I doubt she will have any influence in helping the GOP win back some seats in Congress during the 2010 midterm election.
Speaking of GOP leaders, there are none. Dick Cheney, maybe, but since he has been characterized as such a mysterious and evil man in the media, I would hardly consider him a leader for the party. Besides that, with the exception of his occasional rants about something the Democrats are doing, he is largely surreptitious and has already publicly stated he is not interested in holding office again.
And if people think Rush Limbaugh is the leader of the GOP, then please, wake up. Smell the coffee. Pull your heard out of your hind-quarters. This man is so radical and impractical in his thoughts and speech, he stands as much chance of leading the GOP as he does leading a mule to water. Rush, if you're reading, I know you have to kill a lot of time on your talk show, but do you have to always make such incendiary remarks as to ignite the entire Democratic party and even parts of your own party against you?
And then there is South Carolina's Governor, Mark Sanford. He was one of the best prospects the GOP had for a real leadership position, if not a 2012 run against President Obama. And then we all got to read (or hear) his love letters to his Argentinian mistress he described as his "sole mate". (Note: Intentionally spelled "sole mate" because he told his staff he was going hiking in the Appalachian Mountains and then turned up in Argentina.) So much for the party of family values. However, kudos to Governor Sanford to admit the affair publicly (even though he was caught) but we didn't need all the details he provided us. Simply put, he should just know when to shut up so as to not bore everyone with details.
So GOP leadership is few and in-between. But there has been talk of at least one last current politician who is in the running for the leadership position. Governor Mitch Daniels of Indiana has a clean record when it comes to his personal life, has a state that has had a balanced budget (even this year during the economic collapse), won reelection this past November in a landslide victory during an election year when Democrats performed very well, and has demonstrated excellent executive budgeting. He was the director of the Office of Management and Budget under President Bush and was given the nickname "The Blade" due to his tendencies to slash budgets.
But there's just one problem. He too has stated he will not run for the Presidency. However, he has began taking more of a leadership role for the party by speaking out against policies and laws introduced by President Obama and implemented by the Democratic controlled Congress. At least someone is starting to take on a leadership role, and who knows, maybe he will rethink the whole Presidency thing in the next year or two.
And now onto different things. Judge Sotomayor is currently undergoing her confirmation hearings to replace Justice Ginsburg on the Supreme Court. These judges are required to act impartially when deciding on cases before the Court. There are no other courts to appeal to and the Supreme Court has been stereotyped as making law from the bench. Essentially, the rulings that are made on the court become precedent and subsequently law (at least until they are overturned later). This being the case, we should be trying to focus on appointing justices that are the definition of impartial, but President Obama stated he selected Sotomayor because she favors minorities, not because she is a minority herself (or a woman for that matter). This is further evidenced by her decision to uphold the New Haven, Connecticut case where promotions were denied to white firefighters because the promotion exam did not score enough promotions for minorities.
I know there are Justices on the court who decide cases based on their own political ideology (Justice Scalia, most notably). But if President Obama is the hope and change the nation needs, should he resort to the same practices previous Presidents have used? Shouldn't he be trying to place truly impartial judges on the highest court in the land? Had President Obama just said he selected Sotomayor to sit in Justice Ginsburg's spot in order to retain diversity on the Supreme court, I would have been 100% okay with that. Instead the whole comment about favoring minorities, in my mind, has discredited any impartiality Sotomayor might have previously had.
Lastly, President Obama is ready to veto his own defense spending bill. Why? He wants to stop additional acquisitions of the F-22 Raptor fighter planes. His reasoning behind the request; F-22's require 30 hours of maintenance for every hour of flight time. President Obama has finally begun using some fiscal prudence, except he's exercising it on our defense. Now, here's what's wrong with this logic; the F-16's are an aging fleet. They require about as much, if not more, maintenance and money for their flight time because they are 30+ years old. Also, the F-16's just do not have the capabilities the F-22's have. The F-22's are made to meet the war fighter needs of today, not during the Cold War. War fighting has changed quite a lot since then.
I understand President Obama has only asked that no additional planes be manufactured in his plan, but the F-22's just became operational in the mid 2000's. We don't yet have enough to sustain replacing the aged fleet of the F-16's. Essentially, the Department of Defense needs these planes. Cutting production on these planes will also cost Lockheed Martin and Boeing thousands of jobs as they have assembly plants that make F-22 parts in 40 of the 50 states. Granted, I know this will probably not pass Congress, but President Obama's logic is again flawed here. The last thing we should be doing is negatively impacting our military and cutting jobs.
Sarah Palin is offering her services to any candidate who believes in the following; (1) limited government, (2) energy Independence, (3) strong national defense, and (4) budget restraint. School board elections may never be the same. Honestly, given her toxicity on the campaign trail, I honestly can't see her being hired by anyone in the near future. Don't get me wrong, she's a very noble woman, but I believe the overall sentiment is that she was a political experiment from the McCain campaign and would today hurt a campaign more than she would help it (depending on your constituency). I respect her and her achievements, but resigning from the state of Alaska (where the people love her) in order to play a national role for the GOP was just a bad strategy on her part. I doubt she will have any influence in helping the GOP win back some seats in Congress during the 2010 midterm election.
Speaking of GOP leaders, there are none. Dick Cheney, maybe, but since he has been characterized as such a mysterious and evil man in the media, I would hardly consider him a leader for the party. Besides that, with the exception of his occasional rants about something the Democrats are doing, he is largely surreptitious and has already publicly stated he is not interested in holding office again.
And if people think Rush Limbaugh is the leader of the GOP, then please, wake up. Smell the coffee. Pull your heard out of your hind-quarters. This man is so radical and impractical in his thoughts and speech, he stands as much chance of leading the GOP as he does leading a mule to water. Rush, if you're reading, I know you have to kill a lot of time on your talk show, but do you have to always make such incendiary remarks as to ignite the entire Democratic party and even parts of your own party against you?
And then there is South Carolina's Governor, Mark Sanford. He was one of the best prospects the GOP had for a real leadership position, if not a 2012 run against President Obama. And then we all got to read (or hear) his love letters to his Argentinian mistress he described as his "sole mate". (Note: Intentionally spelled "sole mate" because he told his staff he was going hiking in the Appalachian Mountains and then turned up in Argentina.) So much for the party of family values. However, kudos to Governor Sanford to admit the affair publicly (even though he was caught) but we didn't need all the details he provided us. Simply put, he should just know when to shut up so as to not bore everyone with details.
So GOP leadership is few and in-between. But there has been talk of at least one last current politician who is in the running for the leadership position. Governor Mitch Daniels of Indiana has a clean record when it comes to his personal life, has a state that has had a balanced budget (even this year during the economic collapse), won reelection this past November in a landslide victory during an election year when Democrats performed very well, and has demonstrated excellent executive budgeting. He was the director of the Office of Management and Budget under President Bush and was given the nickname "The Blade" due to his tendencies to slash budgets.
But there's just one problem. He too has stated he will not run for the Presidency. However, he has began taking more of a leadership role for the party by speaking out against policies and laws introduced by President Obama and implemented by the Democratic controlled Congress. At least someone is starting to take on a leadership role, and who knows, maybe he will rethink the whole Presidency thing in the next year or two.
And now onto different things. Judge Sotomayor is currently undergoing her confirmation hearings to replace Justice Ginsburg on the Supreme Court. These judges are required to act impartially when deciding on cases before the Court. There are no other courts to appeal to and the Supreme Court has been stereotyped as making law from the bench. Essentially, the rulings that are made on the court become precedent and subsequently law (at least until they are overturned later). This being the case, we should be trying to focus on appointing justices that are the definition of impartial, but President Obama stated he selected Sotomayor because she favors minorities, not because she is a minority herself (or a woman for that matter). This is further evidenced by her decision to uphold the New Haven, Connecticut case where promotions were denied to white firefighters because the promotion exam did not score enough promotions for minorities.
I know there are Justices on the court who decide cases based on their own political ideology (Justice Scalia, most notably). But if President Obama is the hope and change the nation needs, should he resort to the same practices previous Presidents have used? Shouldn't he be trying to place truly impartial judges on the highest court in the land? Had President Obama just said he selected Sotomayor to sit in Justice Ginsburg's spot in order to retain diversity on the Supreme court, I would have been 100% okay with that. Instead the whole comment about favoring minorities, in my mind, has discredited any impartiality Sotomayor might have previously had.
Lastly, President Obama is ready to veto his own defense spending bill. Why? He wants to stop additional acquisitions of the F-22 Raptor fighter planes. His reasoning behind the request; F-22's require 30 hours of maintenance for every hour of flight time. President Obama has finally begun using some fiscal prudence, except he's exercising it on our defense. Now, here's what's wrong with this logic; the F-16's are an aging fleet. They require about as much, if not more, maintenance and money for their flight time because they are 30+ years old. Also, the F-16's just do not have the capabilities the F-22's have. The F-22's are made to meet the war fighter needs of today, not during the Cold War. War fighting has changed quite a lot since then.
I understand President Obama has only asked that no additional planes be manufactured in his plan, but the F-22's just became operational in the mid 2000's. We don't yet have enough to sustain replacing the aged fleet of the F-16's. Essentially, the Department of Defense needs these planes. Cutting production on these planes will also cost Lockheed Martin and Boeing thousands of jobs as they have assembly plants that make F-22 parts in 40 of the 50 states. Granted, I know this will probably not pass Congress, but President Obama's logic is again flawed here. The last thing we should be doing is negatively impacting our military and cutting jobs.
Friday, June 19, 2009
Taxed Beyond Belief
President Obama announced plans this week to make national health care available to American families. He has worked with the House Democrats to begin crafting a bill that would finance the costs of his plan. The price tag on this plan is an estimated $1 Trillion to $1.6 Trillion dollars over 10 years.
How does he plan on financing his plan? Increases in taxes. During his campaign, he promised he would only increase taxes on the wealthiest families in the U.S.; but not even the proposed 2% income tax on individuals earning more than $200,000 and families earning more than $250,000 alone will pay for his plan. The House Democrats have been throwing around additional revenue sources including (1) collecting a 10 cent per can soft drink tax, (2) collecting a 3% new employer payroll tax on health care expenditures, (3) collecting taxes on employer-provided benefits above specified levels, (4) increasing payroll taxes for Medicare and Medicaid, and (5) implementing a 1.5% national sales tax.
Aren't we taxed beyond belief already? The proposed taxes will affect everyone. Let me say that again; everyone, not just the wealthy. This bill will take more money out of everyone's pocket before the money is ever deposited into your account (with an increase in the Medicare and Medicaid tax) and then will take more money out of your pocket if you have to pay an additional 1.5% on everything you buy.
My wife does like her diet sodas. Should I really have to pay an additional 10 cents for each can of Diet Coke that we buy? That's an additional $2.40 per case. But I wont pay all of the tax. The tax will have the intended consequence of decreasing the amount of soft drinks people consume. So according to economics, this tax will decrease demand for soft drinks, which will also decrease the retail price of soft drinks in order to maintain pre-tax demand. Essentially, the consumer and the producer (Coca-Cola for example) of the product will both "eat" part of the tax. It's just another way to hurt business in America.
I assume with Middlesboro having it's own Coca-Cola plant, this will definitely have a negative impact on the local economy. I mean, how many baseball teams has Coca-Cola sponsored for the youth of the area? Countless. How much money have they reinvested in the community? Tons. So now with this potential additional tax on Coca-Cola's primary product, what will happen with their philanthropy in the area? Will it just decrease their overall charitable giving or will Coca-Cola no longer be able to afford to continue their philanthropy? What impact will this have on schools that rely on vending contracts with soft-drink companies to supplement their operating budget? A negative one, I assure you.
The tax on employer provided benefits will have a similar effect. Implementing a tax on employer-provided benefits (something that has never been done) will help to increase the costs of employer provided health care. Employers will not eat this tax, but rather pass cost increases to employees through higher health care premiums. This is a tax on those who were able to find a good job that included fringe benefits.
My biggest complaint with this plan is that President Obama and the Democratic party are planning on overhauling the total health care system to ensure those individuals who fit in the gap (between those covered by Medicaid and Medicare and those with employer provided benefits) have health insurance coverage. This is a very noble idea, but I think the President can utilize currently existing health care options to fill this gap.
There has already been talk in the Senate Finance Committee of making federal subsidies available to help families who are up to 300% above the federal poverty level purchase health insurance (an attempt to garner Republican support).
In my opinion, a brilliant alternative would be to provide federal incentives for states to work in conjunction with the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services to expand Medicaid coverage to those who fall somewhere in the gap (even up to 300 or 400% of the federal poverty level). Some states have already taken this initiative and moved close to the 300% FPL benchmark. Providing incentives for states to take this route will allow states to provide additional coverage through preexisting programs and help minimize any administrative costs for a completely new federal program. Costs would further be minimized for a national health care program when you include the states that already offer an expanded Medicaid program.
And a quick note about the program; much like the way private or employer-provider insurance companies operate, any expanded Medicaid program is normally partially financed with user fees and copays that are determined on a sliding-scale (or income-based) basis. This would also target the users of an expanded health care program rather than forcing non-users to fund the program. Further, states normally fund their expanded Medicaid programs by diverting Tobacco Master Settlement Aggreement dollars and implementing increases in sin taxes. This further helps to target those most likely to use the health care system.
And much like President Obama has been advocating, providing coverage to those without health care will help reduce the health care system's overall costs (specifically unpaid trips to the emergency room for basic health care needs).
We can't teach people how to better manage their money and provide for essentials first, but at least with an option like this we can make it easier for those with limited income to obtain coverage, reduce the costs of health care, and at the same time minimize the total costs to the American tax payers.
How does he plan on financing his plan? Increases in taxes. During his campaign, he promised he would only increase taxes on the wealthiest families in the U.S.; but not even the proposed 2% income tax on individuals earning more than $200,000 and families earning more than $250,000 alone will pay for his plan. The House Democrats have been throwing around additional revenue sources including (1) collecting a 10 cent per can soft drink tax, (2) collecting a 3% new employer payroll tax on health care expenditures, (3) collecting taxes on employer-provided benefits above specified levels, (4) increasing payroll taxes for Medicare and Medicaid, and (5) implementing a 1.5% national sales tax.
Aren't we taxed beyond belief already? The proposed taxes will affect everyone. Let me say that again; everyone, not just the wealthy. This bill will take more money out of everyone's pocket before the money is ever deposited into your account (with an increase in the Medicare and Medicaid tax) and then will take more money out of your pocket if you have to pay an additional 1.5% on everything you buy.
My wife does like her diet sodas. Should I really have to pay an additional 10 cents for each can of Diet Coke that we buy? That's an additional $2.40 per case. But I wont pay all of the tax. The tax will have the intended consequence of decreasing the amount of soft drinks people consume. So according to economics, this tax will decrease demand for soft drinks, which will also decrease the retail price of soft drinks in order to maintain pre-tax demand. Essentially, the consumer and the producer (Coca-Cola for example) of the product will both "eat" part of the tax. It's just another way to hurt business in America.
I assume with Middlesboro having it's own Coca-Cola plant, this will definitely have a negative impact on the local economy. I mean, how many baseball teams has Coca-Cola sponsored for the youth of the area? Countless. How much money have they reinvested in the community? Tons. So now with this potential additional tax on Coca-Cola's primary product, what will happen with their philanthropy in the area? Will it just decrease their overall charitable giving or will Coca-Cola no longer be able to afford to continue their philanthropy? What impact will this have on schools that rely on vending contracts with soft-drink companies to supplement their operating budget? A negative one, I assure you.
The tax on employer provided benefits will have a similar effect. Implementing a tax on employer-provided benefits (something that has never been done) will help to increase the costs of employer provided health care. Employers will not eat this tax, but rather pass cost increases to employees through higher health care premiums. This is a tax on those who were able to find a good job that included fringe benefits.
My biggest complaint with this plan is that President Obama and the Democratic party are planning on overhauling the total health care system to ensure those individuals who fit in the gap (between those covered by Medicaid and Medicare and those with employer provided benefits) have health insurance coverage. This is a very noble idea, but I think the President can utilize currently existing health care options to fill this gap.
There has already been talk in the Senate Finance Committee of making federal subsidies available to help families who are up to 300% above the federal poverty level purchase health insurance (an attempt to garner Republican support).
In my opinion, a brilliant alternative would be to provide federal incentives for states to work in conjunction with the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services to expand Medicaid coverage to those who fall somewhere in the gap (even up to 300 or 400% of the federal poverty level). Some states have already taken this initiative and moved close to the 300% FPL benchmark. Providing incentives for states to take this route will allow states to provide additional coverage through preexisting programs and help minimize any administrative costs for a completely new federal program. Costs would further be minimized for a national health care program when you include the states that already offer an expanded Medicaid program.
And a quick note about the program; much like the way private or employer-provider insurance companies operate, any expanded Medicaid program is normally partially financed with user fees and copays that are determined on a sliding-scale (or income-based) basis. This would also target the users of an expanded health care program rather than forcing non-users to fund the program. Further, states normally fund their expanded Medicaid programs by diverting Tobacco Master Settlement Aggreement dollars and implementing increases in sin taxes. This further helps to target those most likely to use the health care system.
And much like President Obama has been advocating, providing coverage to those without health care will help reduce the health care system's overall costs (specifically unpaid trips to the emergency room for basic health care needs).
We can't teach people how to better manage their money and provide for essentials first, but at least with an option like this we can make it easier for those with limited income to obtain coverage, reduce the costs of health care, and at the same time minimize the total costs to the American tax payers.
Friday, June 12, 2009
Saving or Creating False Results
It was announced this week that President Obama would expedite stimulus spending to help our economy. However, the President has already began touting that his stimulus spending and actions have "saved or created" 150,000 US jobs.
This has become the President's catch phrase for what his stimulus is doing for America. In his most recent address this week, the President plans to expedite stimulus spending to "save or create" an additional 600,000 jobs in addition to the 150,000 mentioned above. That's 750,000 estimated jobs! President Obama's goal for the recovery plan is to "save or create three to four million jobs over the next two years". What an ambitious leader!
So that's the news we've been hearing from the media this past week. "Save and Create" has captured the hearts and minds of the American people and President Obama has emerged as the FDR of today's generation.
Except he hasn't. This standard, "save and create" is fiction. There is simply no way to measure how many jobs have been "saved" from stimulus spending. No one measures jobs saved; not the Labor Department, not the Treasury, not the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Greg Mankiw, a former Bush economic advisor, calls this term a "non-measurable metric". Here's why: You can measure job growth or losses between two points in time.
Tell me, how would you even begin to measure how many jobs have been saved? You can't. No one can. Not even the scholars know why the President has decided to use this term, well, all the scholars that are rooted in fact and metrics. Even the New York Times, one of the most blatantly liberal newspapers, has noted that Obama's claims are "...based on macroeconomic estimates, not an actual counting of jobs".
The political scientists of the world think it's an act of political genius. President Obama has managed to create a metric where he cannot be wrong. And the worst part is, the media has yet to question it. The reason why? They swoon on every comment he makes and take it as the Liberal Gospel. So much for acting as a watchdog on government, right?
Even members of his own party are disturbed by his metrics. During a March hearing of the Senate Finance Committee, Chairman Max Baucus (D-Montana) challenged Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner on the formula. He was quoted as saying, "If the economy loses two million jobs over the next few years, you can say... it would've lost 5.5 million jobs... You've given yourself complete leverage where you cannot be wrong, because you can take any scenario and make yourself look correct."
How does this work? Let me give you an example. Here is where we are at today. Since the passing of the stimulus, we have lost nearly 1.6 million jobs and unemployment hit 9.4% (but Obama told us that passing the stimulus would result in unemployment not exceeding 8%). So given how bad this period was, President Obama has instead spun the situation and claimed he has "saved or created" 150,000 jobs. Pretty good spin in my opinion. But I don't want to get too dizzy. That was just a small one. If we end up hitting 15% unemployment and lose 2.5 million jobs, will the President insist that had it not been for his actions, we would have surely lost 7 million jobs, thus saving 4.5 million American jobs? He can; using this measure at least.
Something is wrong when the President is using a formula that is pure fiction. It presents a double-standard because had former President Bush used the same measure, he would have surely been hounded by the media. Tony Fratto, a successful and well respected communication analyst who worked for the Bush administration has even stated, "You would think that any self-respecting White House press corps would show some of the same skepticism toward President Obama's jobs claims that they did toward President Bush's tax cuts", but this has not been the case.
I remember studying the liberal media in college and thinking to myself, 'Surely it's not that bad'. Well I was wrong. I thank my lucky stars that there are conservative media outlets available out there because the press is supposed to act as a government watchdog. When the liberal media is too busy swooning over the President, some things (the things that often matter) are left to slip through the cracks. Whether or not you dislike a particular media outlet (or all media outlets) that are slanted opposite of your political ideology, they serve as a vital component of our government. I would be a fool to think they are always righteous in their pursuits because sometimes they can also take things a little too far or not perform as they should.
This has become the President's catch phrase for what his stimulus is doing for America. In his most recent address this week, the President plans to expedite stimulus spending to "save or create" an additional 600,000 jobs in addition to the 150,000 mentioned above. That's 750,000 estimated jobs! President Obama's goal for the recovery plan is to "save or create three to four million jobs over the next two years". What an ambitious leader!
So that's the news we've been hearing from the media this past week. "Save and Create" has captured the hearts and minds of the American people and President Obama has emerged as the FDR of today's generation.
Except he hasn't. This standard, "save and create" is fiction. There is simply no way to measure how many jobs have been "saved" from stimulus spending. No one measures jobs saved; not the Labor Department, not the Treasury, not the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Greg Mankiw, a former Bush economic advisor, calls this term a "non-measurable metric". Here's why: You can measure job growth or losses between two points in time.
Tell me, how would you even begin to measure how many jobs have been saved? You can't. No one can. Not even the scholars know why the President has decided to use this term, well, all the scholars that are rooted in fact and metrics. Even the New York Times, one of the most blatantly liberal newspapers, has noted that Obama's claims are "...based on macroeconomic estimates, not an actual counting of jobs".
The political scientists of the world think it's an act of political genius. President Obama has managed to create a metric where he cannot be wrong. And the worst part is, the media has yet to question it. The reason why? They swoon on every comment he makes and take it as the Liberal Gospel. So much for acting as a watchdog on government, right?
Even members of his own party are disturbed by his metrics. During a March hearing of the Senate Finance Committee, Chairman Max Baucus (D-Montana) challenged Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner on the formula. He was quoted as saying, "If the economy loses two million jobs over the next few years, you can say... it would've lost 5.5 million jobs... You've given yourself complete leverage where you cannot be wrong, because you can take any scenario and make yourself look correct."
How does this work? Let me give you an example. Here is where we are at today. Since the passing of the stimulus, we have lost nearly 1.6 million jobs and unemployment hit 9.4% (but Obama told us that passing the stimulus would result in unemployment not exceeding 8%). So given how bad this period was, President Obama has instead spun the situation and claimed he has "saved or created" 150,000 jobs. Pretty good spin in my opinion. But I don't want to get too dizzy. That was just a small one. If we end up hitting 15% unemployment and lose 2.5 million jobs, will the President insist that had it not been for his actions, we would have surely lost 7 million jobs, thus saving 4.5 million American jobs? He can; using this measure at least.
Something is wrong when the President is using a formula that is pure fiction. It presents a double-standard because had former President Bush used the same measure, he would have surely been hounded by the media. Tony Fratto, a successful and well respected communication analyst who worked for the Bush administration has even stated, "You would think that any self-respecting White House press corps would show some of the same skepticism toward President Obama's jobs claims that they did toward President Bush's tax cuts", but this has not been the case.
I remember studying the liberal media in college and thinking to myself, 'Surely it's not that bad'. Well I was wrong. I thank my lucky stars that there are conservative media outlets available out there because the press is supposed to act as a government watchdog. When the liberal media is too busy swooning over the President, some things (the things that often matter) are left to slip through the cracks. Whether or not you dislike a particular media outlet (or all media outlets) that are slanted opposite of your political ideology, they serve as a vital component of our government. I would be a fool to think they are always righteous in their pursuits because sometimes they can also take things a little too far or not perform as they should.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
