An American for Common Sense

The transformation from Radical Left-Leaning Student, to Union Leader to POLITICAL INFLUENCER: Andy Stern

2010-03-24T20:38:00.005-04:00

The merger of Unions and Political Leaders under President Obama is astonishing. The scariest of all is Andy Stern. He is openly for redistribution of wealth, has radical left ties and now holds a post in PresBO's White House.

Andy Stern has been so influential in the drafting of Health Care Reform Legislation he has was called "the chief architect of healthcare reform" in Modern Healthcare's ranking of the 100 Most Powerful People in Healthcare for 2009.

"We're going to build the strongest grassroots political voice in North America," Andy Stern said in 2004 to 3,000 SEIU members. In 2008, Mr. Stern helped steer $85 million dollars to the Democrat Party. $65 million to Mr. Obama, a large chunk of which directly funded "get out the vote" efforts.

Post election, he has been quoted as saying, "So all of a sudden we are witnessing the new American economic plan, led by the government" which has a "major opportunity to distribute wealth." Not surprisingly, he now holds a seat on President Obama's "National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform."

“We like to say: We use the power of persuasion first. If it doesn't work, we try the persuasion of power” - Andy Stern

He is not afraid to try directly influencing Senators: "There are a lot of terrorists in the Senate who think we're supposed to negotiate with them when they have their particular needs that they want met." - Andy Stern, President of the Service Employees International Union, said in an interview with Business Week in response to senators challenging CARDCHECK. Since SEIU contributes a LOT of money to the Democratic Party you can only imagine how that will guide the Senator's voting pattern.

Service Employees International Union represents 2.2 million people in the Health Care, Public Service (Government Employees), and Property Services (Janitors, etc.). It is the fastest growing and arguably most influential union in the USA and Canada.

I have no problem with unions, I have a problem with the teaming of union and government leaders while writing legislation that effects EVERYONE, union and non-union alike.

Government SHOULD NOT BE COMPASSIONATE, it should be fair. That includes COMPASSION for those who are legally paid a salary/benefits package deemed unworthy by any union. IF employer or employees do not want to be union and no labor laws are broken, neither should ever be forced. CARD CHECK allows thugs like Andy Stern to influence "elections" concerning unionization by killing the secret ballot; eliminating both employee and employer choice.

If an employee does not like their employment, find different employment.

If an individual wants to risk bankruptcy and death by not purchasing health insurance, so be it.

It is NOT THE GOVERNMENT's ROLE to be our BIG BROTHER or in any way DISTRIBUTE WEALTH in the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andy_Stern
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Service_Employees_International_Union
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=1830
http://www.newsrealblog.com/2010/03/05/marxist-andy-stern-calls-for-destruction-of-american-society-as-we-know-it//#pageTitle

The Health Care Mystery

2010-03-17T20:29:00.002-04:00

President Obama had a discussion with Bret Baier, Fox News, this afternoon. After reading the transcript I would like to pull out a few points and discuss:

President Obama: "What I'm saying is whatever they end up voting on — and I hope it's going to be sometime this week — that it is going to be a vote for or against my health care proposal. That's what matters. That's what ultimately people are going to judge this on."

He implies the vote they are taking will be on his health care proposals, when in fact it is two votes and neither are his proposal. The Reconciliation Bill, which follows many of his suggestions, was written by Nancy Pelosi and her fellow democrats. The more problematic for the bunch is the Senate bill - that proud piece of legislation that took bribes, kickbacks and special deals to get enough YES votes on Christmas Eve - will also be voted on, if N. Pelosi goes forward with the self-executing rule ("deem and pass"). That is a lie, Mr. President.

President Obama: "Now I have said that there are certain provisions, like this Nebraska one, that don't make sense. And they needed to be out. And we have removed those."

Except that is not exactly how this is going to work. By "deeming" the Senate bill passed lawmakers are voting on those provisions, too. The House has proposed a series of reconciliation rules that ax some of the special deals, however it is my understanding they have to be approved by the Senate as a separate bill. The Senate is gridlocked beyond belief on every issue under the sun. How confident are you the Senators that required a bribe or kickback to get their vote will suddenly change their tune? Even if they do, the Senate pared down the House's original bill and it still took bribery to get it passed. Do you really believe more Senators are going to be in favor of changing their positions after this monstrosity is passed?

So what is really going to happen? President Obama is going to sign into law all the closed door, late night deals. Then they go on recess. When they return some other pressing issue will present itself as more important than finishing Health Care (I mean we passed SOMETHING right) and they will wait until the public's notoriously short memory fades. Then the reconciliation bill will slowly wither on the vine and blow away and all the crooked deals will remain law forever.

President Obama: "No, we will — by the time the vote has taken place, not only I will know what's in it, you'll know what's in it because it's going to be posted and everybody's going to be able to able to evaluate it on the merits."

Again, the reconciliation bill is NOT what you are SIGNING INTO LAW.

President Obama: "But here's the thing, Bret, I mean, the reason that I think this conversation ends up being a little frustrating is because the focus entirely is on Washington process. And yes, I have said that is an ugly process. It was ugly when Republicans were in charge, it was ugly when in Democrats were in charge."

Washington's processes are ugly. They are unproductive, inefficient, and often times, nasty. That hasn't changed in years. It has proven time and time and time again that it cannot manage money. Yet somehow President Obama, through the same nasty, mean, ugly process is going to produce something efficient, productive, and fiscally responsible? Doing the same thing and expecting a different result - there is a name for that, isn't there?

President Obama: "Bret, let me tell you something, the fact of the matter is that for the vast majority of people, their health care is not going to change because right now they're getting a better deal."

Besides the condescending tone - let ME TELL YOU something - lets see what is going to change:

Taxes will rise; at first on the wealthy only (if $250,000 is wealthy?) but eventually the middle class.

Involvement of Washington bureaucrats in our Health Care choices.

One person - Health and Human Services Secretary - going to be deciding what States, and their elected officials, can and cannot do in regard to providing care while simultaneously mandating they must do something. (Notice strategy: if the system is always in flux it is always in need of a moderator. Enter Federal government)

Major cuts to Medicare funded by weeding out the deficiencies Washington is famous for; no mention of the failure of past attempts and what a subsequent failure of the bill's proposal would do to our debt load.

Federal government assisting states in deciding how many students should be in the medical industry while simultaneously beating down their salaries to keep costs down. Nothing like a little centralized planning.

Finally, if the reconciliation bill passes the Federal government is now the sole provider of student loans. No mention of the current fixed 6.25% federal loan interest rate; often double the private market.

Last point.

President Obama [through website]: "Instead of paying hospitals to treat patients without health insurance, we should give people coverage so that they have insurance to begin with."

Two issues. First, he is not GIVING away health insurance. He is mandating that anyone without health insurance purchase it from the existing providers. Exchanges sound nice in theory but as indicated by the four years from revenue collection to implementation, he has no idea how to pull that off.

Second, it is a telling indication of the role he feels government should play in the average citizens life: that of PROVIDER. By GIVING health insurance to people he implies that people cannot take care of themselves and they need a compassionate - or ugly - provider.

I disagree.

Full Transcript:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,589589,00.html

Whitehouse.gov

http://www.whitehouse.gov/medicarefactsheetfinal/

Health Care Debunked

2010-03-16T11:06:00.004-04:00

Reading through the Health Care Reconciliation bill I feel inclined to present a few facts I've found:

1) Any additional revenue collected through this program is deposited into the GENERAL FUND and by MANDATE cannot be spent on any provision within this BILL. AKA: They can tax you whatever they like - if they overestimate you do not get the money back, nor does Medicare. Rather, they keep it and spend it on thrifty projects like BANK BAILOUTS.

2) State commissions shall be set up with one goal: to lobby the Fed government for GRANTS for local areas. These commissions must consist of 1 representative from each: 1) Health Care Employer (good) 2) Labor Union (not so good) 3) 4 year university (ok) 4) 2 year college (ok) 5) State Labor Union (NOT GOOD) 6) State education department (Questionable?) 7) K-12 representation (Questionable?), a philanthropic group (WHY?).

The purpose of these commissions is to present reasons (LOBBY) the Fed Government for grants of up to $150,000 per request (YOUR TAX DOLLARS) to determine CAREER PATHWAYS for STUDENTS as early as the HIGH SCHOOL LEVEL. They shall then have to prove these career pathways work, presumably by showing more students heading down these pathways.

Hey new parents: how comfortable are you with the Health and Human Services Secretary (currently, Kathleen Sebelius) determining career pathways for your child in Washington that is created and directed by labor unions and the state board of education? How many of you are comfortable having any decision about your child's future TAKEN from you and the child? You should be very upset about this --- once free choice is removed you never get it back!

3) The Federal Government will grant certain health care providers in your area advantages over other providers - in the form of tax breaks and funding - based on their non-profit status and, essentially, political connections. These organizations will now "compete" against other providers in the area, but with the significant advantages described above. First problem: it will drive for-profit health centers, which also happens to be your family doctor, out of the system.

Then the federal government will pick up the tab for services rendered - at 103% of current prices. So these non-profit health providers just made 3% relative to what they were going to make anyway - thats called profit, never mind that current health insurance companies only earn about 3-5% in profit annually. Thats not even the most disturbing part - each year they will be mandated to maintain the same, or add on, staff. Any non-profit HC provider that is Federally sanctioned but has to cut employees will, almost automatically, lose that Federal money. What this means: they will never be able to cut the bad employees for fear of being essentially dropped from their source of income. The incentive will be to meet the Feds program - not to provide you with the best quality service.

Each year beyond that their "payments" (your TAX DOLLARS ABOVE AND BEYOND your premiums!!) are tied to medical inflation. Since essentially there is no cost-cutting measures in this bill (some concepts, but nothing proven) this means the COST OF HEALTH CARE to YOU will be the SAME OR HIGHER while you will ALSO PAY FOR OTHER's CARE WITH YOUR TAXES. The Federal Government is giving non-profit health care providers ZERO INCENTIVE to be run more efficiently --- just maintain whatever the status quo is and they will receive more money than they could ever earn at YOUR EXPENSE!

Please call/write/fax/twitter/facebook/email/telegram/morse code your congressman/senators/president and tell them we are not prepared to be the piggy bank for their experiment in CENTRALIZED GOVERNMENT (also known as Socialism - which is working great for France, btw, with 25% unemployment for males aged 18-24). Please help us maintain our liberties and rights - by not handing them over the Federal Government. They never have used our money frugally and they never will....

Health Care Reform is necessary. This BILL IS NOT. We CAN and MUST DO BETTER.

The problem in America is a LACK of WORK ETHIC – NOT CAPITALISM.

2009-04-02T00:16:00.002-04:00

Yesterday I took a trip out to Munger, MI, to visit my Great Uncle. The man is amazing – in the late 1950s he scraped up enough cash to purchase a pick-up truck and tools and proceeded to canvas the local community fixing or building anything for a buck. An AMAZING WORK ETHIC coupled with his dream of self-employment and $MONEY$ was his only motivation.

I worked for him in the summer of 2006. I arrived at his shop, a 35 minute drive from my house, Monday through Friday at 7 AM. We would go to a job site and work all day pouring concrete or installing metal roofs. We would break only for lunch, and it was a rarity for me to make it home before 7 PM. The work was hard, challenging, and rewarding at the same time.

He had two other employees while I was there. Both were High School dropouts who, at age 26 and 30 approximately, finally figured out that drinking and partying cost more than just the case of beer. Both had multiple kids they couldn’t afford and lived at home with Mom and Dad. Yet with all that responsibility and the motivation to move out of their parent’s house how often do you think they showed up on time? The answer is rarely. I heard every excuse under the sun: the baby kept me up all the night, my alarm clock didn’t go off. In short, they had NO REAL WORK ETHIC, no sense of accountability.

There was such a stark contrast between my Baby Boomer Uncle and Gen X, or Y, or who cares, punk employees of his. Given all the benefits these workers had including advancements in technology and the rules and regulations that guaranteed over time and benefits they were a third the worker my Uncle was at half the age.

Today work is few and far between for my Uncle. The community that he helped fix/build throughout the years is dying because Michigan industry is either Farming or Auto manufacturing and neither are doing very well. What has my Uncle done? Did he line up outside Michigan’s Unemployment Office expecting his share? NO! Of course not, he works harder. He looks for and accepts ANY FORM OF WORK. His WORK ETHIC reflects an America where people didn’t ask for handouts. In the era he is from Americans went out and made something of their lives because the consequences were so dire – poverty, hunger, shame – if one choose to be incompetent.

On my ride home from my Uncle’s house that evening I stopped at a Wendy’s fast food restaurant.

Here’s my experience:

Pull up to the ordering screen and wait over 3 minutes with NO ONE ELSE IN LINE:

I expected to hear: “Hi, Welcome to Wendy’s, What can I make you today?”

But instead I heard a lazy and thoughtless: “What do you want?” (HONESTLY THIS IS WHAT I HEARD!!)

Appalled, I ordered a chicken sandwich. Instead of asking, “Would I like a fry with that”, the lazy twenty-something told me the dollar amount of my bill with a crisp, discernible attitude behind it that screamed: get out of my line! I don’t CARE! No attempt at an up sell. No attempt at customer service.

This Wendy’s employee was not concerned with my satisfaction. In his mind the job was a chore he did to afford a 12 pack of Milwaukee’s Best and get his parent’s off his back. His attitude reflected his lack of work ethic.

Normally I would shrug it off as just another loser but the next day I see the hundreds, if not thousands, of potential Wendy’s employees protesting at the G20. (G20 is a leadership summit for the 20 most influential industrial nations on the Planet. It rarely accomplishes anything, just FYI) The punk protesters, with their spray paint and face masks, are screaming things like: “Abolish Money!” and “Class Warfare!” They are protesting against Capitalism because in their skewed version of the world it is Capitalism, which in 100 years has brought more prosperity and better living conditions to nearly all human beings relative to last 1,000, that is the root cause of their Wendy’s employment. No Capitalism – No Wendy’s.

The G20 protesters are a prime example of my point: they lack the WORK ETHIC to go out and utilize their God-given talents/skills to earn the money and respect that comes with a solid days work. They expect MY UNCLE to work 12 hour days to pay the Messiah Obama taxes so they can afford bandannas, poster board and the day off from Wendy’s to protest.

America IS THE GREATEST COUNTRY ON EARTH. Do you know why? Because if you have a dream and WORK ETHIC you can accomplish anything here! The ability to go from rags to riches IS AMERICA, it’s the dream that brought our ancestors here through Ellis Island, and it’s the same dream that brings Mexican immigrants here today. But the feasibility and availability of the American dream is being eroded EVERY SINGLE DAY. Our President, Congress, and the Wendy’s employees of America are working diligently to remove the incentive to make the American dream a reality by TAXING away all the rewards. It is a guarantee that my generation will pay more in taxes throughout our lifetime than the previous generation.

My question then is:

What benefits will the younger generation of Americans that still possess a GREAT WORK ETHIC receive from the government as the result of higher taxes?

The answer:

Jack Diddly Squat.

The worst part: The Wendy’s employees will be stuck at Wendy’s FOREVER because they can’t make enough to save up for their dreams. They will be dependent on the Government, living in substandard conditions because, lets face it, the rich in America just simply do not make enough to bring everyone up into the middle class. In turn the growing DEPENDENCY CLASS, or Wendy’s employees, will complain that my Uncle, who worked his whole life without asking for one single handout, should pay MORE so they are responsible for LESS

So I beg you: Forget welfare. Forget Bailouts. Forget Stimulus. Forget Government. Think of your biggest dream, strap on your work boots and make it happen. You will prove to yourself and the world that you have GREAT WORK ETHIC and you can be PROUD as you ACCOMPLISH THE AMERICAN DREAM.

** No offense to the honest, hard working Wendy’s employees. It is not you I am referring to, however the employee at the Wendy’s in Essexville, MI, is giving YOU ALL a bad name!

War in Afghanistan – The Obama Double Standard!

2009-03-27T09:43:00.004-04:00

Today both Fox and CNN are running an article on their websites describing the surge in troops to Afghanistan. It seems like just yesterday the “Failed policies” of George W. Bush were pounded into the public’s head as the nearly two year long campaign pivoted on who could blame Bush more for the war policy. However, here we are, President Obama is sending 17,000 more Marine and Army personnel to fight in the “empire killing” mountains of Afghanistan.

Fine, if it’s necessary to put our Marines and Soldiers, undoubtedly the world’s finest, in harms way in order to secure lasting peace for America then I’m for it. After all, it is impossible to win a war without sending troops. My question is: where is the public explanation of WHY we are sending more troops there? I’ve heard it on the 24 hour news – top Obama officials have announced to the world we are losing in Afghanistan. (Way to offer moral support!) But if George W. Bush, arguably a more honorable man than Obama will ever be, sent 17,000 more troops into Afghanistan without an explanation the left wing would be up in arms – protests by Cindy Sheehan would blanket MSNBC, CNBC, CBS, and the Huffington Post. GWB would then hold a conference where he would explain, albeit with about 15-20 mispronounced words, to the American people why he felt this was necessary and what he hoped to gain from it.

Where is that common courtesy from our current Commander in Chief? To this day has he even visited the troops outside the US? Has he given them his thanks in any way besides cheap plugs during 60-minute interviews? I don’t think so.

Instead on February 17, 2009, President Obama, behind closed doors, decided to send 17,000 more troops to arguably the worst place on earth. If it weren’t for the “Drive By Media”, as Rush would call them, neither you nor I would have ever known this. Then, on March 9, 2009, Obama announced to the world that we are, in fact, losing in Afghanistan and he is considering negotiating with the Taliban. Move forward to this morning and he has decided to send another 4,000 troops BUT DON’T WORRY he’s going to explain himself this time – 38 days later.

(He mentions the surge in troops during Press Conferences but only as a prelude to how awesome his policies are, not an explanation for why the American people should support them)

Remember, the “Failed Policies of George W. Bush” have resulted in a crude victory in Iraq – something our armed forces have not enjoyed BECAUSE OF POLITICAL REASONS since WWII. The Iraqi’s, standing on their own two feet, have asked us to leave. We should respect that, however a little over a year ago that would have been impossible without handing Al-Qaeda the keys to the country.

GWB would never consider negotiating with the same group, the Taliban, that is responsible for giving Osama Bin Laden free reign to train his terrorist organization. He never said to the world: We are LOSING. (He did say we are struggling, but that’s different) He never sent troops overseas in the dark of night because he didn’t have what it took under his boxer shorts to explain it to the American people.

I am not in the armed forces but I have the utmost respect for anyone who is. I wish I could say the same about our President.

Final point: GWB was crucified for giving money to Pakistan. (Google search: "Angry with Bush over Pakistan Aid" 64,300 results) Not only were we "purchasing" our ally it was common knowledge the money was misspent, rarely benefiting either the Pakistan troops or people. In 2006, GWB gave Pakistan $299 million in military assistance – arguably at the height of the “War on Terror”. (http://qesdb.usaid.gov/cgi-bin/broker.exe) However, listen to Obama’s press conference on Afghanistan, if he has what it takes to actually hold it publicly, and you will find out we are sending an ADDITIONAL $1.5 Billion, with a B, to Pakistan. At the same time we learn Pakistan’s intelligence agency is FUNDING the Taliban. So guess what, just like in Palestine where Senator Hillary Clinton authorized $300 million of YOUR TAXPAYER DOLLARS to help Hamas re-arm (oh, sorry, economic development) President Obama is handing 5 TIMES that amount to help the Taliban fight our soldiers. Makes me sick!

President Obama, 67 days in – 67 headaches later.

--One American for Common Sense—

More links:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/03/26/us.afghanistan.troops/index.html?iref=newssearch

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25247374-2703,00.html (Pakistan intelligence agency funding Taliban)

http://www.cnsnews.com/Public/Content/article.aspx?RsrcID=44291 (Clinton's aid to Gaza, Hamas)

Thank you for the dog and pony show, Mr. President.

2009-03-26T16:52:00.000-04:00

Today, I, along with thousands of Americans who lack anything better to do at 11:30 in the morning, watched our President hold his first online town hall meeting. What? You didn’t know there was an online town hall meeting? Well, neither did I until yesterday at 6:30 pm and only because I found a small article about it hidden on CNN’s political page. At first I was thrilled – for those of you that know me, very little the President does thrills me – because I thought this was a great opportunity for someone who seems so arrogant and full of himself to come down to earth and answer the “little man’s” question. Before the town hall I even attempted to prepare this blog entry with a short praise for President Obama, but after watching it I must say all the wind is gone from those sails.

92,933 people created accounts at whitehouse.gov and submitted 104,080 questions. You answered 7. Wait, let me rephrase, you were asked seven questions from the online participants and you answered zero. You sure did talk a lot, though.

(He took questions from the 100+ audience members in the East Wing of the White House, but the point of this “experiment”, as President Obama called it, was to bring in questions from people NOT in Washington)

7 questions and it took you nearly an hour to respond to them. Yet with all that time and all those words I never heard one, single, definitive answer. Not one. When you left the meeting, Mr. President, were you proud of what you said? Or did you leave thinking, "wow, I just fed them a whole lot of BS." I hope it was the latter, just so I can believe you are honest with yourself.

WAIT - HOLD THE PRESSES - you did answer one question. You DO NOT believe marijuana reforms are a good way to boost our fledgling economy. Good to know. Funny how the only answer I heard was said in 16 words. How about the other questions:

From Richard, who is obviously from California: "Why can we not have a universal health care system, like many European countries, where people are treated based on needs rather than financial resources?" President Obama used 961 words to say this: Medicare/Medicaid is the largest contributor to our debt, so don't worry about Stimulus/Omnibus/Budget because that’s small in comparison, and I hope to sign legislation as early as this year that will force universal healthcare on America. See, Mr. President, 39 words and the same BS outcome.

Oh yeah, before I move on, Hey Richard from 40-billion-dollar-annual deficit California with the highest tax rate in the nation - you are in a state that has tried just about every social policy the democrats fed you and look where it's got you. If not for the Stimulus package, conveniently crafted by Nancy Pelosi, your state would have shut down or went bankrupt. Please, offer some more advice!!

From Boston, MA: "The Founding Fathers believe that there is no difference between a free society and an educated society. Our educational system, however, is woefully inadequate. How do you plan to restore education as a right and core cultural value in America?"

President Obama used 699 words to say this: Our tenured, union teachers need more money. Money will not fix our school system, so I’m going to give it more money.

22 words, Mr. President, and I could have left the answer just as confused as yours without the headache from listening to you talk.

You get the point. It was another opportunity to pour kool-aid down the throats of your disciples. It was another opportunity for you to put your face on TV without adding anything to the actual debate. On Fox News Facebook page a comment was made: " [Hugo] Chavez and [Fidel] Castro both give daily or weekly TV addresses to the masses." Well, Mr. President, I'm starting to agree: Leno, 60 minutes, Press Conference, and online town hall all within a week and I still know nothing more about your true intentions!

(You better believe Chavez and Castro hide their true intentions from the masses, too. Hard to sell tyranny and dictatorships – easy to sell “hope and change”)

One last thing. In your opening remarks you made this statement concerning the recovery of the US economy:It's a recovery that will be measured by whether families and entrepreneurs can get the loans they need. (Add 57 more words of BS after this) Next paragraph:

And in the end, it's a recovery that will be measured by whether it lasts, whether it endures; by whether we build our economy on a solid foundation instead of an overheated housing market or maxed-out credit cards.

Make sure the bank loans me LOTS OF MONEY (my taxpayer dollars, too, by the way) but don't max out my credit card.

Mr. Obama, read the transcript of this town hall meeting and analyze your own words. The two lines I put up there were 57 words apart and yet contradict. You used 699 words to answer Richard the flaming-European-socialist's question: how many times did you contradict yourself there?

Would you like some solid advice? Fire your speech writers, turn the teleprompter off and speak from the heart - you won't have as much time to fill in the cracks with worn-out rhetorical BS.

Response to President Obama's Press Conference

2009-03-25T15:56:00.001-04:00

A Real American's response to President Barack Obama's Press Conference - 3/25/2009

**I must admit I did not watch the press conference in prime time. I was at the gym and only caught a few excerpts from the endless channels of prime time coverage. The few lines I did catch infuriated me and I decided to enjoy my workout and not ruin it. When I returned home that evening I watched the conference on C-SPAN. It is a 56 minute conference - at minute 17 I was so angry I turned it off. As promised, I did finish it this morning but decided to read the transcript rather than watch it because I cannot watch someone lie to my face without losing my infamous temper. That said, here is my response:

To quote our President, I am going to respond to this conference in "a few phases." All quoted excerpts are from the Washington Post transcript available here:

http://tinyurl.com/dh6ml7

President Obama: "The first step we took was to pass a recovery plan to jump-start job creation and put money in people's pockets. This plan's already saved the jobs of teachers and police officers. It's creating construction jobs to rebuild roads and bridges."

Well, Mr. President, that may be correct, however I spent the last 5 years in college to obtain a BBA to avoid returning to manual labor construction positions. So I watched you drop $780 billion to protect the Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse conveniently in Nancy Pelosi's district ($30 Million), Mustache insurance ($7 million), and more money for the failed Detroit Public School System ($530 million), all the while pushing college education FOR EVERYONE but funding NONE. So I find it hard to support, but hey it's passed so I'm over it.

President Obama: "And this plan will provide a tax cut to 95 percent of all working families that will appear in people's paychecks by April 1st."

Way to sell a dream, Mr. President. The median income in this country is roughly $40,000. The employees who earn this, and the 50% below, clearly fall into your 95% of Americans and yet they will receive approximately $13.00 per week. $13.00 dollars...one more time $13.00 dollars. In turn you raised federal cigarette taxes by $.62 per pack, without even announcing it. Average smoker inhales a pack and a half a day and are disproportionately represented in the lower median of Americans. This results in a $6.50 per week increase in taxes - or over 50% of your "tax break." Even for the non smokers - the Fed's decision to destroy our currency, with your support I must add, by increasing the money supply over and over again is raising fuel prices which are primarily pegged to dollars, raising food prices which are again pegged to dollars, and the soon-to-come inflation we WILL experience results in a tax increase, even after factoring in your $13.00 per week. I call this distorting the truth, also known as LYING.

President Obama: "The second step we took was to launch a plan to stabilize the housing market and help responsible homeowners stay in their homes. This plan's one reason that mortgage interest rates are now at near historic lows."

Well, Mr. President, this goes against the "fairness" that was a cornerstone of your campaign. I do not own a home but I know many, many people who do and who pay their mortgages on time - during booms and busts. How is it "fair" for you to ask them to help shoulder the burden of someone else's mortgage - someone who more than likely used their home as their personal piggy bank during the good times and now have more debt than they can shoulder when times are tough? Now a professor of mine once said: "Fair, whats fair, a place where you sell pigs." (county fairs, if you missed the analogy) and I must agree with him. Life is not fair. However, democrats use this word as if we are all entitled to a "fair" share of America's prosperity. American's who pay their bills on time should not be required to pay their neighbor's as well. Plain and simple...

Second, historically low mortgage rates are partially responsible for this mess we are in. Banks and mortgage companies fueled by an act of Congress in 1995 (Community Reinvestment Act - http://www.fdic.gov/regulations/laws/rules/2000-6500.html) ran with the low interest rates set by the Fed and basically offered loans to anyone with a pulse. No income verification, no assets for collateral, no down payments were the norm (don't believe me, ask WAMU). So although I believe lower interest rates are helping homeowners NOW, the consequences of artificially low interest rates have had dire consequences on our economy and your pledge to avoid, "another crisis like this 10 or 20 years from now," has me more than skeptical.

President Obama: "We [will] invest in reform that will bring down the cost of health care for families, businesses and our government."

Mr. President, this sounds great. If I was one of your kool-aid drinking, misinformed disciples I would praise you for this. However, I decided to do my own investigation into this claim and I found it to be another distortion of the truth (cough, cough, LIE, cough, cough). Let me pull some "facts" from whitehouse.gov:

Require insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions so all Americans regardless of their health status or history can get comprehensive benefits at fair and stable premiums.

Insurance companies make money off premiums. If it was cost effective to cover pre-existing conditions than they, as free market capitalists, would have covered these individuals since the inception of insurance. Now I'm not opposed to figuring out a solution to this issue. Everyone SHOULD have health insurance, however the choice to "be insured or not" should be up to the individual, not you. Essentially this requirement of your administration will RAISE costs to consumers. The only way to avoid that simple truth is for the federal government to pay the difference, which will only exasperate the budget further. (Don't worry, I will get to the budget momentarily as it is my favorite part).

Create a new Small Business Health Tax Credit to help small businesses provide affordable health insurance to their employees.

Mr. President, tax credits cost money. I feel you rely too heavily on taxes to fund your outrageous budget but throwing out promises for tax credits is not a way to cut costs, rather its a way to transfer the high costs placed on consumers to the federal budget.

Lower costs for businesses by covering a portion of the catastrophic health costs they pay in return for lower premiums for employees.

Again, this is not a cost cutting measure, it is a cost-transferring measure - from consumer to federal budget, or in other words from individual consumers to taxpayers at large.

Prevent insurers from overcharging doctors for their malpractice insurance and invest in proven strategies to reduce preventable medical errors.

Could you please be a little more vague, the details are overwhelming.

Make employer contributions more fair by requiring large employers that do not offer coverage or make a meaningful contribution to the cost of quality health coverage for their employees to contribute a percentage of payroll toward the costs of their employees' health care.

Mandating coverage by the private sector is the same as universal health care, just you can take the high ground when this plan falls apart.

Establish a National Health Insurance Exchange with a range of private insurance options as well as a new public plan based on benefits available to members of Congress that will allow individuals and small businesses to buy affordable health coverage.

Who's paying for it?

Ensure everyone who needs it will receive a tax credit for their premiums.

[copy n paste] Mr. President, tax credits cost money. I feel you rely too heavily on taxes to fund your outrageous budget but throwing out promises for tax credits is not a way to cut costs, rather its a way to transfer the high costs placed on consumers to the federal budget.

President Obama: "At the end of the day, the best way to bring our deficit down in the long run is not with a budget that continues the very same policies that have led us to a narrow prosperity and massive debt. It's with a budget that leads to broad economic growth by moving from an era of borrow and spend to one where we save and invest."

In theory this sounds great but your actions/policies are not inline with your rhetoric. You have borrowed, borrowed, borrowed to pay for stimulus, AIG bailouts, Omnibus bills, and more. Your budget requires borrowing nearly 2 Trillion dollars this year and subsequent years are still in the trillions. I see very little savings. Your rhetoric tells me the savings are found in health care, but as I just pointed out those are hollow promises at best, straight up LIES at worst.

Ok, finally, here is my analysis of your comments last night concerning the budget. For those of you who did not read the transcript or watch the conference I am going to copy and paste a couple portions here:

Chip Reid, CBS: "Thank you, Mr. President. At both of your town hall meetings in California last week, you said, quote, 'I didn't run for president to pass on our problems to the next generation.'
But under your budget, the debt will increase $7 trillion over the next 10 years. The Congressional Budget Office says $9.3 trillion. And today on Capitol Hill, some Republicans called your budget, with all the spending on health care, education and environment, the most irresponsible budget in American history."
President Obama: "Yes."
Chip Reid, CBS: "Isn't that kind of debt exactly what you were talking about when you said 'passing on our problems to the next generation'?"
President Obama: "Where the dispute comes in is what happens in a whole bunch of out-years. And the main difference between the budget that we presented and the budget that came out of the Congressional Budget Office is assumptions about growth.

They're assuming a growth rate of 2.2 percent; we're assuming a growth rate of 2.6 percent. Those small differences end up adding up to a lot of money. Our assumptions are perfectly consistent with what Blue Chip forecasters out there are saying.

Now, none of us know exactly what's going to happen 6 or 8 or 10 years from now. Here's what I do know: If we don't tackle energy, if we don't improve our education system, if we don't drive down the costs of health care, if we're not making serious investments in science and technology and our infrastructure, then we won't grow 2.6 percent, we won't grow 2.2 percent. We won't grow."

Ok, let me stop here and comment. Mr. President, you ran on a promise of tackling large issues and so far the only TRUE thing I've heard is your claim of cutting the deficit in half by year 4. However, as Mr. Reid points out later in the conference, what reductions you do realize after year 4 is lost and then some from year 5-10. (Don't believe me, look here: http://tinyurl.com/c54fqo) Not just lost, but doubled with deficits almost back to 2009 levels and we will not have a stimulus package. So again, Mr. President, I think you summed this up in your campaign with the "lipstick on a pig" comment. I was so furious last night because you can keep a straight face while feeding these blatant lies to the American people. Worse yet, people actually believe you!

The point of not, "passing our problems to the next generation", is the same as not handing the next president a debt level so out-of-control that we cannot possibly pay it off. As my analysis of your health care reforms points out, there is little cost reduction and LOTS of cost transfer. That is not sustainable and does not paint an optomistic future for me and my children.
President Obama: "And once we get out of this current economic crisis, then it's going to be absolutely important for us to take another look and say, are we growing as fast as we need to grow? Are there further cuts that we need to make? What other adjustments are -- is it going to take for us to have a sustainable budget level?"

Mr. President, you DO NOT determine the growth rate of our nation's GDP, regardless of how powerful or influential you think you are. The CBO has already released a report stating your stimulus will actually REDUCE GDP by .03 TO .05% in the same period as your exponentially growing deficits. Do you not see a trend? Your policies, in the long term or the same period you claim to be concerned about, are hurting our nation. You are destroying the potential for the next generation to be more successful than the current generation.

Your investments are another way for you to destroy this country. The only way for you to "make" green energy affordable is to subsidize it at taxpayers expense. The only way for you to make health care more affordable is to transfer the costs to the federal government, aka the taxpayer. Investments imply returns - the only returns I am forecasting is substantial DEBT!

Finally, Mr. President, I must admit I voted republican last election HOWEVER I do not believe John McCain would be doing anything different than you. I'm sorry the party I voted for lacks ideas which is directly related to how come you are running rampant with yours. For the sake of the nation, tho, please slow down and think. Your job is hard, hardest in the country, but don't use that as an excuse to enact dumb policies with long lasting negative consequences.

-- A single American for Common Sense!!