...I will hand our health care system over to the government. 

 

This is the story of Congressman Jim Costo. He's a Democrat (big surprise there) from California (another big surprise).   Costo decided that it could help the government seize control of our health care system, but there was a price.  Some big bucks would have to be spent in his district.  So ... here come the big dollars in the form of $120 million dollars for a medical school ... and there goes his vote in favor of PelosiCare. 

 

Don't you love the way congress works?  There are probably dozens of stories just like this one. 

Slobbering Barney has let the cat out of the bag. Barney has gone on record saying that the Democrats are trying to do everything they can to increase the role of government in your lives. Now if you have been listening to me for a while or you have been a reader of Nealz Nuze, this is a real big "duh." Consider, though, that only a minority of Americans listen to talk radio, and there sure hasn't been anyone on their TV news or their newspapers telling them that the ultimate goal of the Democrat Party is to grow government while reducing the private sector. Actually ... they're too busy watching Entertainment Tonight and talking about this coming weekend's football games. Growing the role of government in our lives has been the Democrat goal for decades. After all, this is a party that believes America's greatness comes from government. The surprise is that they're finally saying it out loud! Maybe they think they've come to the point where the people share that goal. Have you ever heard such venom aimed at the private sector? The word "corporation" is now used as an epithet. People worry more about what businessmen earn than the corruption of their elected officials. The Democrats see this as their time ... get on the government growth road and go as fast as you can before the voters throw up a roadblock.

Keeping this quote in mind from Barney Frank, what is he currently doing with his position of authority in Washington? He is the guy in charge of solving this problem of "too big to fail." Yep. Slobbering Barney is the one who will figure out how to "give the federal government more powers to wind down major financial firms." How do ya like that? Barney Frank admits that he wants to increase the role of government while working on a piece of legislation to give the federal government unprecedented (and Constitutionally questionable) authority over private businesses.

Barney even got a little clever, comparing his plan to the Republicans "death panels." He says, "We're going to have death panels. But they're going to have death panels that are going to put to death these institutions before they can cause us problems, not old people."

I want you to remember something. Ever heard of someone named Herb Moses? Probably not. Moses was Barney's boyfriend for a number of years. OK ... so no problem with Barney and Moses having a relationship, right? But did you know that Moses was an executive with Fannie Mae while he and Barney were boxing tonsils? Yup; 'tis true! In fact; Herb Moses was one of the Fannie Mae executives pushing the very Fannie Mae loan guarantee programs that led to our housing and mortgage crisis ... all this while his boyfriend was serving on the House Banking Committee (now the House Financial Services Committee) for the entire 10 years of their relationship. During and since that time Barney Frank could be counted on to defend Fannie Mae and to make sure that nobody looked to closely at what was actually going on. Since 1989 Frank has received tens of thousands of campaign contributions from the now-defunct Fannie Mae. Why bring this up? Well ... considering the type of people we have running the show, aren't you looking forward to all that government moving into your personal life? And remember ---- it's the corporations, not government, that are evil.

There is yet another battle brewing in Washington over the scope of federal powers. Along with healthcare and climate change, financial reform is another item on the Democrat "to do" list. This week the House Financial Services Committee is set to mark up legislation that would create a new federal Consumer Financial Protection Agency. This would be an agency in charge of regulating products; anything from credit cards to home loans.

The big question on everyone's mind is: how much power should be given to this new agency? To be even more specific: should the new federal agency have the authority to preempt state and local authorities?

As of right now, the legislation sets a minimum federal standard and would allow state officials to pursue stricter regulations. However, lobbyists are advocating allowing federal officials to preempt state laws.

By the way ... what do you call a system of government where the financial sector and the means of production are privately owned, but controlled by government? Look it up. Do your research. If I remember .. and you don't already know ... the answer tomorrow.

When it comes to jobs in the United States, take a look at this alarming statistic:

The number of private-sector jobs is now slightly below the level of August 1999 -- meaning that a decade has passed without any net creation of non-government jobs, even in a span during which the population grew substantially.

When the government absorbs so much of our economic power - how can you be surprised?

Gotta admit, this guy can flat-out deliver a speech. At the Hannity Freedom Concert on Saturday night Cain reminded the audience that our Declaration of Independence states that when government becomes abusive towards liberty it is not only the right but the DUTY of the people to alter or abolish it. Cain then said that "we have some altering to do, and we have some abolishing to do." Never was he more right.

Also heard Herman deliver a rather succinct explanation of the difference between liberals and conservatives: Liberals believe in bigger government, higher taxes and less freedom and personal responsibility. Conservatives believe in smaller government, lower taxes, more personal responsibility and more freedom.

Just about covers it.

Hot outside, isn't it? How many of you remember your community swimming pools from your childhood years. These were your oasis from the heat; a place together with your friends. I remember a city pool in Taylor, Texas. When Aunt Joyce or my grandparents would drive me over there for the afternoon I was literally beside myself with joy. They would sit there in the hot summer Texas sun while I splashed in the water. Now ... let me tell you, this swimming pool in Taylor wasn't pretty. There was broken and jagged concrete. Fixtures were rusted. It was the best this poor farming community could do .. and it was fine enough.

In case you didn't know it, there are many swimming pools that didn't open for the summer this year. There are at least five pools run by the Georgia Department of Natural Resources that are closed.

Here's what happened: About 18 months ago a 7-year-old girl was held underwater in an outdoor spa by the drain. These spas circulate a lot of water, and the drain can be strong. Unfortunately she died. Hate to say it, but kids die in swimming pools all the time, and have been doing so for generations. This particular little girl, however, was the granddaughter of a former Secretary of State. Uh oh. Time for the Imperial Federal Government to step in.

So now we have a nifty new federal law that requires fancy new drain covers, sump pumps at the bottom of some pools. We have covers on skimmers and mesh outlets in the sides of pools. All of these new fittings have that wonderful little stamp on them which says that they meet all sorts of federal standards. Trouble is, in some cases the renovations were just too expensive, and so the pools remain closed.

Where does this end? Look, life isn't safe. There are dangers everywhere. If you really want to make pools safe, fill them in with dirt. Do you know that in some communities you aren't allowed to so much as have one of those Wal-Mart plastic wading pools in your back yard unless you have a trained lifeguard on duty? Where is this going? Are we eventually going to get to the point that the federal government appoints a safety watchdog to every American household? We could pass a law requiring that each household set aside a place for a government monitor to live, and that person can then spend six days a week watching the family's every move to make sure they don't do anything that could involve even the most remote chance of danger. The watchdog would get one day off, and on that day the family would be forbidden from leaving the home. They wouldn't even be allowed to plug in or remove an electrical appliance.

I grew up plugging stuff in. Did I ever get shocked? You betcha. It taught me to be more careful the next time. Now when you buy an electrical appliance the first thing you do is get some scissors or a knife to cut all of the warning labels off the cord. And then there's those ugly stickers on your visor telling you about the dangers of airbags with children in the car. The wonderful federal government has mandated that these stickers be impossible to remove. Impossible hell. I know how to remove them, and I take them off of every car I drive ... even the rental cars. That ugly sticker hovering above my eyes is just a constant and revolting reminder of the nanny state we're becoming.

You have seen what's happening in our government schools, haven't you? Children aren't allowed to touch each other during recess --- if there even is a recess - because someone could get hurt. At some schools they won't even let the children outside if the grass is wet. That's why the children in Seattle are so sickly looking. In Florida they lock down schools if someone hears a clap of thunder, and they won't let the kids leave until 30 minutes after the last thunder is heard ... even if their parents are waiting for them in a car outside.

Can you see where this is going? We're raising a generation of wimpy, pasty-faced, candy-assed cowards that are afraid of their own shadows. Watch out! Don't get sucked into that swimming pool drain! No, you can't go outside, the grass is wet. Wait! Was that thunder I heard? Get inside? Tommy! Stop touching people. No, you can't play tag. Someone might get touched. Besides, someone has to be "it," and that hurts their self esteem.

I'd love to write a book on this ... but only if they allow me to title the book. Hold your ears now. Cover the eyes of your precious frightened little children. "The Pussification of America." There. Can't you just see that one flying off the shelves? Can't, though; Someone might get offended.

I wonder if the pool in Taylor is open. Sure is hot there.

Today is the day that Barack Obama unveils his plans for one of the most radical growths in government this country has ever seen. Obama's plan will give the government the power to seize companies that are considered "too big to fail" and could jeopardize the financial system. We aren't just talking about banks, folks. We are talking about ANY company.

OK ... I can't let this pass. Over a week ago, when Obama was first promoting his executive compensation limitations, I told you that it would be no time at all before Mr. Government Control was expanding his ideas to companies his administration deemed to be "too big to fail." Thus far Hugo Obama hasn't actually used the "too big to fail" language. Instead we are hearing things about companies who's failure, as the Lost Angeles Times puts it, "jeopardizes the financial system." As determined by who? As determined by Obama's henchmen, of course. Now ... here we are. Just how hard was that one to predict? Why, not hard at all, actually.

This is what our country has come to. Our Founding Fathers are rolling over right now at the thought that our imperial federal government will soon have the power to seize virtually any company that it wants. All we have to do is get some government hack, like our tax-cheat Treasury Secretary, to say that the failure of this company would be bad news for our economy ... and that the government needs to take it over. And Obama gets upset when he hears people refer to him as a Socialist. How sad.

Think all of this over for a second. Medicare. Medicaid. Social Security. Welfare Housing. Veteran's Administration hospitals. TSA. Homeland Security. Look at all the enterprises our wonderful Imperial Federal Government operates? Do you really think that the government operates any of these entities more efficiently than the private sector could? And now we are going to sit back while Barack Obama sets up a system where he can seize pretty much any company he wants so long as he can make some argument that the failure of that company would be troublesome.

While we're at it, why not go ahead and create another government agency? You really can't have enough government, can you? Obama's new regulatory body will be called the Consumer Financial Protection Agency. An administration official says that the agency will "protect consumers of credit, savings, payment and other consumer financial products and services, and to regulate all providers of such products and services." It will have the authority to write and enforce rules for financial firms. This agency will enforce so-called "fair lending" laws. Yeah ... that will work. Can't wait until we find out what the government seems to think is "fair."

Douglas J. Elliott, an economics fellow at the Brookings Institution and a former investment banker says, "As far as I can tell, the administration doesn't think it's as important to get that structure right as to get the rules right and make sure people are focused on acting the right way."

Acting the right way. Now government will be the one to determine whether or not these businesses are "acting the right way."

Could you have imagined when this last presidential election cycle started that we were going to end up with an administration that would be hell-bent on placing private businesses under government ownership? There were some people around who were warning you about that. They're called talk show hosts.

Elections have consequences.

It may be a bit boring, but here's a story you should read if you want to understand the wonderful things that await us as government runs more and more of American business. If you think that our government has done a wonderful job with Social Security, the VA and Medicaid, just wait until they run a business near and dear to you.

On Monday it was General Motors. On Tuesday, the Senate advanced a bill giving the government some controls over the tobacco industry. Let's see what our imperial federal government can come up with today! Oh wait! Almost forgot. There's Citigroup too. And our health care industry. Are you keeping a list out there? Just how much of our economy is going to be under government control, if not ownership, by the end of Obama's first year. The question now is whether to call this guy a fascist or a socialist. He's certainly not a capitalist.

Well ... it's going to be OK, isn't it? After all, we all recognize that the government does a much better job of running businesses and enterprises than the private sector does. Right?

Let's use the insurance industry as an example here. How would things be different if the government were running our life insurance companies? As things stand the life insurance companies have to take premiums and invest them. The object is to obtain a decent return on those investments so that the company will not only be able to make money for its shareholders, but also have enough assets to pay death benefits as they come due. Now ... if the government was running a life insurance company it would set enough money aside in any given year to cover expected claims, and then spend the rest. There would be no investment accounts. An inability to sell new policies and collect new premiums to cover current claims would lead to failure. Sounds good, doesn't it?

I know you're tired of hearing this, but elections have consequences ... as does allowing ignoranuses to vote

Why have you never seen Mark Levin interviewed on any major television network? Levin, as you know, wrote an amazingly successful book entitled "Liberty and Tyranny." This beautifully written book was at the top of The New York Times Bestseller's list for many weeks. It's still way up there. There are over 1,246 reviews on Amazon.com ... with a 4+ star rating. But ... have you seen Levin interviewed on any of the broadcast network's (CBS, ABC, NBC) morning shows? Has the NYT published a meaningful review? The answer, of course, is a resounding "no." And why not? That would be because Levin's book is such a powerful statement for liberty and against government tyranny ... and that is not a message the mainstream media is eager to send right now .. not with a Marxist in the White House.

The federal government has decided that it wants to play a role in how you cope with the financial crisis. In fact, it is so concerned about your mental health that a website has been launched to warn people about sadness and crying over the economy.

This has been coming for a while, all they needed was an excuse. Remember, you've seen this in the government schools for a while now. Every time something a bit out of the ordinary and tragic happens your local government school has been running in government counselors to help your poor dears deal with their emotional response. The new standard seems to be if something happens that rocks your world, even a little bit, the government will provide you with some sort of mental health counseling. Right now its just a website for those of you struggling with the economy ... but perhaps your local economic mental health center will be opening soon.

Remember .. you need government to cope. Government is all. Government is everything. You cannot exist without massive government. Government is your friend. All hail the Imperial Federal Government of the United States.

Our Treasury Secretary, tax cheat Tim Geithner wants to make sure that you know that government is going to be the answer to our financial problems. Not the market. Not tax cuts or small business development. Not Wall Street. None of it. Government is the answer.

On ABC's "This Week," Giethner was trying to defend his approach to fixing our economic problems. He said, "The market will not solve this. And the great risk for us is we do too little, not that we do too much." Yup ... forget the market, put hour reliance and faith in government. The same government, by the way, that brought us Social Security.

On "Meet the Press" he also said that people, as a result of the recession, will be "living within their means more, which is helpful." And that when this crisis is over, "people are going to care less about what they make, more about what they do. What they achieve is what they make. And that will help make this country stronger." Oh, I see. We're supposed to be happy with a sense of achievement. Our achievements don't necessarily have to be rewarded by the marketplace. Someone please straighten me out .. but this sounds just a wee bit Marxist to me. What am I missing here? There's a lot of "from each according to their ability" here ....

Back to the Tax Cheat in Chief. Timothy Geithner laid out his plans yesterday for more government control over financial institutions. And Barney Frank says that while the industry is likely to have their boxers in a bunch over these regulations .. there is nothing they can do about it. He says, "The ability of the financial community to block any of this legislation is diminished completely."

As usual, Jamie Dupree has the full text of the plan.

If the taxpayers of this country assume greater control in Citigroup or General Motors, it might "trigger" their removal from the Dow Jones Index. Sounds reasonable to me. Government-operated one-private businesses should be de-listed. The DOW should be for privately operated companies.

I touched on this a little bit yesterday on the air .. the Bureau of Labor Statistic reported that most job losses of late have been in the private sector. But guess what sector is growing? The government!

And this will only continue to grow thanks to Barack Obama and the Democrats.

In February, private sector construction, manufacturing, and business services all lost more than 100,000, and the service-providing sector lost more than 375,000 jobs. But government on the other hand added 9,000 last month, and the education and health service fields added 26,000 positions. In January, the government sector added 31,000 jobs, while education and health services added 43,000. Overall in 2008, the private sector lost 3.65 million jobs, while the government grew by nearly 150,000 in the same period.

Shame on you if you're surprised. Of course government employment is going to grow with the party of government in power .. in power and led by someone who thinks that America's greatness is derived from government. Here's something else you may have thought of. Those government employees? They'll likely be union members. The only area where we can find growth in unionization is in the government sector. This, also, makes perfect sense. Pulling down the most pay possible for the least amount of work necessary is a hallmark of the union worker ... and why don't you share with us your anecdotes about the last hard-working rank and file government employee you ran across. Perhaps it was at the post office.

Is this all the Democrat's dream scenario? A part of me fears that it is. What a wonderful world it will be for the Democrats and Obamabots when every business is government-run and every employee is government-paid. Just think how great America will be then!

This is truly pathetic. According to a recent Rasmussen poll, 34% of Americans believe that they can't earn a living without government help. Among Democrat and Republican voters there were no surprises. More than half of the Democrats polled agreed that they couldn't earn a living without being empowered by the government. Republicans disagreed by a 3-1 margin.

Here's a very simple question for you to cogitate over: Would you rather live in a country where:

(a) People can make a living and live their lives in a self-sufficient manner without "empowerment" by the government; or,

(b) A person cannot make a living in this country without government support and self-sufficiency is virtually impossible.

The sad thing here is that for a good percentage of these people they are absolutely right. They were educated in government schools never realizing that these schools were designed to produce people who would amount to little more than good employees and good government subjects.

Yeah .. I watched it. There was no doubt that President Barack Obama was going to do a great job of delivering a speech. That's his forte. So, how do you judge a great speech? By the delivery or by the content? On delivery President Smooth Talker gets an A.

On content? Well, if you're a believer in big government; if you big on wealth envy; if you think that government does everything well and private businesses do everything poorly; if you think that banks are the focus of all that is evil in the modern world; if you don't believe that Islamic terrorism is a true threat to our safety .. in short, if you believe that America is great because of government, then the speech gets an A as well. If, on the other hand, you believe that America is great because of the dynamic created by free people working under the rule of law in a system based on economic liberty ... then the speech a D --- D for demagogue.

As I was watching the speech I opened a Word document. I just sat there typing when the mood hit. Here - unedited - are the notes I made as President Smooth Talker was doin' his thang. Remember ... this is real time ... and I had a little Bailey's on the rocks sitting there next to me.

It seemed that the focus of Obama speech last night was to convey the message that all of the economic problems faced by this country were created by evil banks and criminal CEOs "disappearing on private jets." This was classic leftist populism. Us vs. them. The ordinary people engaged in mortal combat with the monsters of capitalism --- and government is here to save you.

This was an "America is great because of government" speech ... and the message was that more government we have the greater America will be. Obama has his finger on the pulse of the people. People want more government. They want the government to provide them with the basic necessities of life. The age of self-reliance is waning - the age of government dependency is on the rise.

When this country first began to flourish historians and social scientists took note. They traveled from Europe to the United States to witness this miracle first hand. They studied what was working and what was not .. and they put their thoughts on paper. Its really too bad some of those writings aren't explored in today's government schools - but I can understand why that is so. There seemed to be one universal warning that was sounded by many of these scholars: Once the American people figure out they can use the ballot box to reach into someone else's pocket .. we're screwed. Well, the American people have figured that out ... and Obama is their champion. The question now is how do you manage to take a population that is dependent on their ability to use the government as an instrument of plunder to want to once again stand on their own two feet?

The Democrats are just doing what we all knew they would do if they ever regained control in Washington. We knew what Democrats were about:

• Wealth confiscation and redistribution
• Centralized power in Washington
• Combating individualism
• Promoting the collective
• Strengthening labor unions
• Weakening business management
• Demonizing CEOs
• Condemnation of capitalism and economic liberty.
• Ending self-reliance
• Promoting government dependence

We knew all of this, and yet we did the unthinkable and put them in our nation's driver's seat. We're now getting what we asked for. There will be more. Little goodies like imputed income and ETIs (Economically Targeted Investments) are quite probably on the way.

But ... the Republicans. We knew what Democrats are, and they have only reinforced our thoughts since they took power. Our real problem here is that we didn't know what the Republicans were. We actually put these people in office thinking that they were going to cut the size and the cost of government. We thought we could rely on them to be defenders of economic liberty and limited government. We couldn't have been more wrong. They promised to get rid of the useless Department of Education. They didn't. Instead, they doubled federal spending on education. They were going to get rid of the Commerce Department. They didn't. When it came to pork spending and big government the Republicans proved themselves to be the equal of Democrats. They even managed to create a grand new welfare entitlement program that will speed our course to bankruptcy; the prescription drug program.

The point here is that it is somewhat useless to slam Democrats for being Democrats. We knew the Democrats were snakes when we picked them up. Someone should have warned us about the Democrats. Oh, wait! Someone did! Well, you should have been listening. Democrats didn't con us. Democrats didn't fool us. They may have fooled the ignoranus voters who bought this "Change You Can Believe In" crap .. but not us. It was the Republicans who conned us. We didn't think they would turn out to be Democrats with nicer suits ... but that became our reality.

Well .. it really never was an economic stimulus plan. It is now and always has been a government growth and Democrat job insurance plan. But now the Democrats have come up with a new name. Democrats love coming up with new names. Welfare checks are now "handouts." Government spending is now "investing." And that brings us to the new name for this government growth project. The bill is now the "Recovery and Reinvestment Plan."

Just so you know. You do want to keep up with Democrat newspeak, don't you?

Barney was on a roll yesterday. Someone must have slipped something into his Metamucil .. but Barney really went after the financial CEOs for complaining about government restrictions. And then we get this line: they will be out of the "driver's seat" when the economy turns around.

Now there's incentive to work hard to turn your companies around!

He goes on to say, "They have to convince people that they've learned enough from the mistakes they've made so that we can work together going forward with them not in the driver's seat, but inevitably playing a role so we can fix things."

Isn't that so nice of the government to allow these companies to "play a role" in the economic recovery of this nation? And if the company executives aren't in the driver's seat .. who is? Why GOVERNMENT, of course!

If you don't believe me when I say that government spending isn't going to stimulate the economy, you must believe the Heritage Foundation. Now this report is a bit long, but let me bring you some of the highlights .. this information is available to your Congressmen and Senators. Too bad they busy working on their re-election campaigns, rather than working to stimulate the economy.

Most government spending has historically reduced productivity and long-term economic growth due to:

1. Taxes. Most government spending is financed by taxes, and high tax rates reduce incentives to work, save, and invest--resulting in a less motivated workforce as well as less business investment in new capital and technology. Few government expenditures raise productivity enough to offset the productivity lost due to taxes;
2. Incentives. Social spending often reduces in­centives for productivity by subsidizing leisure and unemployment. Combined with taxes, it is clear that taxing Peter to subsidize Paul reduces both of their incentives to be productive, since productivity no longer determines one's income;
3. Displacement. Every dollar spent by politicians means one dollar less to be allocated based on market forces within the more productive pri­vate sector. For example, rather than allowing the market to allocate investments, politicians seize that money and earmark it for favored organizations with little regard for improve­ments to economic efficiency; and
4. Inefficiencies. Government provision of housing, education, and postal operations are often much less efficient than the private sector. Government also distorts existing health care and education markets by promoting third-party payers, resulting in over-consumption and insensitivity to prices and outcomes. Another example of inefficiency is when politicians earmark highway money for wasteful pork projects rather than expanding highway capacity where it is most needed.

And then, you might want to take a look at some of these:

Mountains of academic studies show how government expansions reduce economic growth:

• Public Finance Review reported that "higher total government expenditure, no matter how financed, is associated with a lower growth rate of real per capita gross state product."
• The Quarterly Journal of Economics reported that "the ratio of real government consumption expenditure to real GDP had a negative associa­tion with growth and investment," and "growth is inversely related to the share of government consumption in GDP, but insignificantly related to the share of public investment."
• A Journal of Macroeconomics study discovered that "the coefficient of the additive terms of the government-size variable indicates that a 1% increase in government size decreases the rate of economic growth by 0.143%."
• Public Choice reported that "a one percent in­crease in government spending as a percent of GDP (from, say, 30 to 31%) would raise the un­employment rate by approximately .36 of one percent (from, say, 8 to 8.36 percent)."

Lordy, all this talk about the economic stimulus bill is dull. Sorry about that. Discussions about prostate or breast cancer can be dull as well, but sometimes you just need to listen a bit in hopes that you'll learn something that just might save your life.

It's taking a long time for this thing to sink in to a lot of Americans, but this Obama spending bill is not a stimulus bill. It's nothing more than good old-fashioned Democrat big-government spending on steroids.

If Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid had delivered their instructions to the Democrat members of Congress I suspect the memo would have read something like this:

You're not going to read the bill. They know this. None of them will read the entire bill either. They'll read long enough to see that their own spending proposals are included ... but no further. This monstrosity is over 400 pages long, and just stuffed with pork spending.

• Swimming Pools
• Arts funding
• Contraception programs
• Sports stadiums
• Parking garages

If any special interest group favored by Democrat supporters has a spending wish, that wish is probably included in this so-called "stimulus" plan. Jamie Dupree has a more complete list of spending in his blog.

It's a fraud, folks. You need to understand that.

The quickest way to stimulate our economy right now would be to allow the people who earn the money to keep it and spend it on what they want, not what politicians want. That means tax cuts.

Democrats want nothing but spending ... no tax cuts. Pelosi says she'll judge ideas by ability to create jobs. Horsesqueeze. She'll judge the ideas base on their ability to grow government

Let's take the birth control bit. There's about hundreds of millions in the "stimulus bill" for birth control funding. The aging hollow-eyed hippie has an explanation. We are supposed to stop having children in order to reduce costs. Stopping women from having children will "help states meet their financial needs." Yeah .. they have all those expenses from health care and education. New human beings are bad for the economy.

Wake up, my friends.

I was on the air when the speech was delivered. I'm good at multi-tasking, but not that good. I've digested the speech since then and found good and bad.

Let's try this excerpt:

"The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works, whether it helps families find jobs at a decent wage, care they can afford, a retirement that is dignified."

You can imagine that I wasn't impressed with this. I'm sorry, but the size of government is important. Size equates to cost. Government costs us enough. Government is force. The bigger the government, the more the threat of force. Besides .. just where is it written that it is the role of government to help families find jobs at a decent wage. Since when is it government's role to provide us with a dignified retirement?

Much more on the speech, including your thoughts, on the show.

Maybe there is hope for Obama after all. I mean, the guy is in love with government just like most Americans; particularly those educated in government schools. But in his inauguration speech today we're led to believe that Obama may stress the importance of self reliance and responsibility. I'll really believe it when he slashes funding for our welfare system and allows the people to keep more of their money in the form of tax cuts .. rather than relying on the government to stimulate the economy.

At a volunteer event yesterday, Obama said, "Government can only do so much ... And if we're just waiting around for somebody else to do it for us, if we're waiting around for somebody else to clean up the vacant lot or waiting for somebody else to get involved in tutoring a child, if we're waiting for somebody else to do something, it never gets done."

Good for him. That's a good start.

Now I assume that he said this in the context of volunteerism .. why can't he take more of an approach like this to our economy? Remember, it was just last week when Obama said that "only government" can get us out of this economic crisis.

Are you starting to see what is happening here? Yesterday Obama gave a big speech about his economic stimulus plan .. he is calling it an American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan. Well there's a nice focus group title. "Reinvestment," by the way, means "spending." We could call this the "American Government Growth and Spending Plan." Anyways ... so we have this speech yesterday and the clouds are starting to break. I am starting to see the light .. and it ain't pretty. This economic recovery plan is nothing but a camouflaged way of enacting the promised spending programs of Obama's candidacy.

Someone 'splain something to me: How on God's green Earth is investment in education supposed to stimulate the economy? Even if you wait a generation for that education to pay off .. these people will have been educated in government schools. So that doesn't seem too promising. But part of Obama's stimulus speech was that he wants to "equip tens of thousands of schools, community colleges, and public universities with 21st century classrooms, labs, and libraries." He also wants new computers and new training for teachers. And just how does THAT stimulate our economy? Answer: It doesn't. It stimulates teachers and their unions. Stimulation you pay for under the guise of economic stimulation.

Another one of Obama's plans to stimulate the economy is to double the production of alternative energy. He wants to improve energy efficiency. He wants you to go out there and build solar panels and wind turbines. Oh and by the way, Obama says that these will be jobs "that pay well and can't be outsourced." That's a pretty ballsy thing to promise. How can he guarantee that? He can't .. unless he uses the force of government to do so. Goodbye whatever is left of the free market. Again, this is Obama deciding where your money should be spent, not you. If you want to spend money improving energy efficiency they you can do so. This is nothing less than Obama using economic scare tactics to enact green campaign promises.

Then there's healthcare. Again, can someone please explain to me how switching all of America's medical records to computers is going to provide an immediate stimulus to our economy? Anyone? I didn't think so. It isn't going to. But this was one of Obama's great promises on the campaign trail. Which allows me to reinforce my point .. PEBO is going to capitalize on America's economic crisis in order to enact his agenda. Pretty clever, huh? Anything that Obama proposes will, from here on out, be part of his efforts to "stimulate the economy."

Do you now see how much this man loves government? PEBO said, "At this particular moment, only government can provide the short-term boost necessary to lift us from a recession this deep and severe." That's right. Only government. Not your personal self reliance or perseverance. Not your commitment to your community. Not your employer's paycheck or benefits. Not more money in your pocket. No more economic activity from the private sector. Only government.

Yeah ... every where we turn we're hearing about some local government that is in budget trouble. Usually the discussion turns to tax increases. Here's a concept for you: Before any local government raises taxes on already-overburdened taxpayers that local government should eliminate all or most of its funding of "the arts." If a particular artist or artistic endeavor is worthy of support - then let the private sector step up. Any so-called "artist" who cannot produce a work of art that is marketable in the free marketplace should not be allowed to turn to government. In effect, these "artists" are forcing the people to buy works of art that nobody would voluntarily purchase. Have you ever noticed that most pieces of hideously ugly sculpture turn up in laws in front of government buildings? Point made.

Just to give you a little idea of where Obama's New Deal plan stands .. this is where Obama flexes his "government-can-solve-all" muscles by using your tax dollars to pay people to rake leaves in the forest ... Obama's plan might reach $1 trillion over two years. And since it is government, that number is just the beginning, folks. Why don't you hand this tab to your kids on Christmas morning.

By the way ... since this comment can be construed as slightly anti-Obama, you must know that it was racist.

Argentina is battling its own auto crisis. So here is the government's solution. Are you ready?

Automakers in Argentina will sell basic models of their cars AT COST. Meanwhile, they will receive government subsidized loans in order to keep their companies afloat and keep people in their jobs. Each automaker is required to offer two of its most basic models for this plan. They can choose from one of three financing packages. These packages will be financed .. are you ready for this .. by the social security system.

The Argentinean Industry Secretary says, "We have agreed with the plants that these cars will be offered without a profit margin and the dealerships will also reduce their profit margin."

Don't you love this "we have agreed" stuff? That means "We have instructed the automakers ...."

So first Argentina moves to seize private pension plans and blend them into their social security system. They suddenly they're talking about their social security system financing the automakers. Argentina is headed for disaster. Let's hope they crash in time for us to lean some lessons.

Barack Obama wants Congress to approve $50 billion for the auto industry. He also wants to appoint a czar or board to "oversee the companies." This would be the person or committee in charge of restructuring the auto industry.

I can't make this any more clear: it is not the government's job to restructure the auto industry. The auto industry got itself into this mess, and it doesn't need government or the tax payers to get it out of this mess. And besides, what makes the auto makers believe that government could do a better job of restructuring their industry? Politicians aren't in the industry ... let the companies that once enjoyed such great success build on the ingenuity that made them great. The only guarantee you will have from government is mediocrity.

With Obama and Democrats it's all about government. What is he going to do, set up a Department of Automobiles? Who will he name to be the Secretary of Cars? Will there be an Undersecretary of Trucks? What's next? How about a homebuilding czar? Is it too late to appoint a steel czar? Come on my friends, get in the game here! Every industry is going to have its own czar in Washington to oversee operations! My God! Could this guy possibly love government any more?

Do you remember the words of one of Obama's transition czars? Obama will be ready to "take power and rule from day one." Rule? I guess we're beginning to see what this person meant.

If you'll notice, the Democrats are suddenly so focused and so worried about this auto industry bailout. That can be explained by two words: unions and votes. If they are the heroes of the auto industry, they can guarantee a win in Michigan, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois for years to come. The line will be "we saved your job at a time when the Republicans wanted to let your employers fail."

I brought this up several months ago ... a slogan for this election. "I want my mommy." The phrase really says it all. This is not an election where the American voters were looking for someone to protect their freedoms. Instead, it was an election where people were looking for someone to take care of them. Self-sufficiency seems a bit old-fashioned right now. Why work so hard to be self-sufficient when candidates are falling all over themselves to provide the American people with womb-to-tomb or, if you will, cradle-to-grave paternalism. The voters who put Barack Obama into office bear little resemblance to the people who fought for independence 224 years ago. Colonists fighting for our independence actually left their bloody footprints along the icy roads of New York and Pennsylvania while marching to engage the British troops. Today we can't even drum of a decent plurality of voters who will vote for liberty, let alone fight for it.

This has been a "what's in it for me" vote. Are you going to give me health care? Are you going to make sure my job is guaranteed? Are you going to cover my child care costs? You aren't going to make me pay taxes, are you? How about all those evil rich people? Aren't you going to take some of their money away from them and give it to me? After all ... I work for my money, they cheated and stole for theirs. Make them pay their fair share of taxes. Me? I'm tired of paying any share.

The big question for me today is whether or not freedom, economic liberty and self-sufficiency can make a comeback in America. Right now it seems that a dismaying number of Americans think that they are owed a living; that it is the government's job to guarantee their economic security. Can we ever turn that around and return to a time when people accept the responsibility for their own lives and eschew the idea of using government as a tool of legalized plunder?

Several times in the last few day's I've mentioned the concept of "The Tipping Point." I'm using that term in the context of voting and taxpaying. Right now we are at the point where about 43% of American income earners pay absolutely NO income tax. I've been saying for years that if the Democrats ever gain absolute control in Washington we're going to see that percentage climb ... climb to over 50%. That's the tipping point. Imagine a political campaign where the majority of voters do not pay income taxes. Imagine a campaign where the majority of voters actually get a check from the government instead of writing a check to the government. Can you hear the Democrat campaign themes then? "Vote for the Republicans and they're going to make you pay income taxes."

In fact ... I've already developed the Democrat campaign themes for the next several presidential elections:

2012: "Vote for the Republicans and they're going to make you pay income taxes."

2016: "Vote for the Republicans and they're going to make you pay your own Social Security and Medicare taxes."

2020: "Vote for the Republicans and they're going to make you pay for your own health care."

2024: "Vote for the Republicans and they're going to make you pay for your own place to live."

Here we are my friends. We're at the point where virtually every voter out there understands that they can use their ballot as an instrument of plunder. For those of you who went to government schools, that means they can use their vote to take money away from other citizens. That would be the difference between a Democracy (rule of man) and a Republic (rule of law).