Month: October 2009

Polling: a ‘soft’ opening

I didn’t make a big deal out of this with last night’s post but yesterday I added a new feature to my site.

I’m going to start asking poll questions on a variety of topics, changing the question on a weekly basis (perhaps each Tuesday.) My plugin is pretty simple and shows percentage results, but I figure if everyone who reads this voted I’d have a fairly statistically significant sample each week.

The obvious reason I’m doing this is to bring more people to my site. Simply put, I’m not satisfied with my readership levels of late and figure perhaps I need to shake things up a bit. Unfortunately, I don’t have the time to constantly update this site with my opinion (as opposed to news and whatever can be copied off the internet) so I need a different draw to bring people back on a regular basis and maybe running a constant poll will help get people here for the real reason I do this: to spread a conservative, limited government message to readers. And if not, I just like to have a poll – seems like everyone else is doing it.

So participate. Lord knows I like to moderate good comments but if you don’t have the time for cogent thought you can still make your opinion known on a regular basis.

Thanks for reading!

Does Frank mean what he says?

I got an interesting e-mail today from the office of our plurality Congressman, talking about health care and the factors he was weighing before making a final voting decision. I’m not going to reprint the whole thing as one excerpt should suffice:

In order to get my vote, any health care reform bill must protect and expand patient choice, rein in skyrocketing costs for consumers and businesses, and break down the barriers that prevent millions of Americans from accessing coverage.  These are goals that cross party lines, and the debate over how to achieve these goals should focus not on partisan rhetoric but on a discussion of common-sense solutions that will improve health care and reduce costs for all Americans.

Last week, I led a group of my fellow Freshman Representatives in sending a letter to House Leadership urging them to take a step back and address a number of the concerns that our constituents have raised.  The letter highlights many of the common sense proposals we have heard in our town hall meetings:  fostering competition across state lines, reducing malpractice suits and defensive medicine, protecting small businesses, and ensuring that health care reform does not increase the deficit.  The letter is available on my website if you’d like to read more about the reforms for which I am fighting.

The message I have heard from my constituents is clear:  We need reform, but legitimate concerns remain about the current legislation.  In my view the current House bill does not do enough to accomplish the critical goals discussed above.  However, I am hopeful that we can develop a proposal that will cut costs, preserve consumer choice, protect small businesses, and increase competition.  We cannot afford to let obstructionists derail this debate, but nor should we be afraid to acknowledge that many of the concerns being raised are real and legitimate. (Emphasis mine.)

The way I read this Frank is a “no” vote on HR 3200, which is the bill we debated over the summer. However, that doesn’t mean he would vote against the Baucus bill that passed committee in the Senate today.

Let me make a few “obstructionist” points about what the Congressman said though.

The best way to “protect and expand patient choice” in my humble opinion would be to get the government and its tendency toward overregulation out of the way. Unfortunately, practically any bill put out by a Congress seemingly bent on expanding federal power would have the opposite effect. If anything, we should strive toward delinking employment and health insurance, creating a market based on choices tailored to each individual case. Auto insurance is a good comparison to the ideal solution because that market has hundreds of insurance companies who tailor policies toward drivers with specific financial situations – and they sell across state lines. Opening the market may help “rein in skyrocketing costs” in conjunction with true tort reform, such as “loser pays” and caps on punitive damages.

I’d like to know just what “barriers…prevent millions of Americans from accessing coverage.” If it’s the barrier of preexisting conditions, that can be solved by regulation at the state level. At that point, insurers can choose whether or not to compete in the state’s market. If it’s a barrier of cost, then states should repeal their regulations requiring coverage of particular conditions in all policies, making it possible to sell a simple catastrophic medical insurance policy that doesn’t cover, say, mental health issues.

If I could wave a magic wand, not only would we not be discussing ways to further bring government into our lives but also marveling at the vast amount of choices and awareness consumers have about their health benefits.

The problem with having government be such a large part of life isn’t just shown in the example of hapless Detroiters standing in line for “Obama money.” It’s the fact that we’re looking to Congress to solve a problem which, for most of us, doesn’t exist. Ideally, people would be free to select the method of paying for health care that fits them best, doctors would have the freedom to work with their patients to improve their health and not have to hire staff to deal with reams of paperwork, and those who were truly in need could be assisted either at the local or state level, or even through the benevolence of faith-based organizations. For a cause like that, people would likely be even more charitable than they already are if they didn’t have the IRS to lay their hand in the till. (I don’t have a study to back me up, but I contend that the larger part of charitable giving never leads to a tax deduction.)

Instead, we are simply arguing whether the government should be both heavily in our affairs and regulating the you-know-what out of the health insurance industry or just cutting out the middleman and allowing Uncle Sam to run our lives. Either way, we lose in the end.

Working from within

Often I hear and see political observers make the comment, “there isn’t a dime’s worth of difference between the two parties.” Alas, many is the time they are correct – as an example the federal government has grown under administrations from both parties at an ever-increasing pace, to the detriment of freedom-loving Americans.

Some Americans have awoken from their political slumber to demand changes to the system. To use the old metaphor, these frogs found the heat in the cooking pot being turned up too quickly. Whether it’s because their economic situations rapidly deteriorated, they were alarmed at the unprecedented intrusion of government into the private sector, or they became more informed citizens by broadening their spectrum of news and information, that simmering cauldron became too hot for them to bear and they decided not to suffer in silence anymore. Hence you have the TEA Party movement.

There has always been a “throw the bums out” mentality among Americans but the cycle waxes and wanes on a regular basis depending on the national mood and economy. 2010 promises to be a peak in the cycle if you believe the conventional wisdom. But throwing the bums out means defeating the entrenched special interests who would like nothing better to see the opposition splintered and working at cross purposes.

Democrats win because they promise their core constituency something for nothing – it’s as simple as that. My purpose is to reiterate that nothing worthy in life comes for free, and there is a cost in what the Democrats promise. TEA Partiers have become well aware of that cost, which is not simply measured in dollars and cents, and that’s why they are speaking out.

If you took my core beliefs (political and otherwise) and distilled them into a political philosophy, you’d likely find that I fall on the shadowy line between libertarian and conservative. My biggest problem with libertarianism is that followers tend to be pro-abortion and against the projection of American military power where necessary, while my biggest problem with conservatism tends to come when some adherents demand legislating morality. (Perhaps that seems to be a contradiction, but I can explain further through later comments.)

Yet I proudly bear the label of the Republican Party. For all of its faults (and they are numerous) they at least have a relatively decent chance of winning in 90-95% of American precincts. The problem I have with third parties – despite the fact I like having multiple choices on my ballot on Election Day – is that they rarely win. Sure, my Libertarian friends will tell me that there are a number of state and local office holders sporting the Libertarian Party label but it pales in comparison to the number representing the two major parties.

That’s not to say I give the GOP carte blanche. Unfortunately the Beltway insiders who run the national party have the Bob Michel “go along to get along” strategy and when it’s left up to them they more often than not put their backing behind the most moderate – or even liberal – candidate they can find. Case in point: a special election in New York’s 23rd Congressional District where, according to Erick Erickson at Red State, the GOP candidate could easily be to the left of our former beloved (or reviled) Wayne Gilchrest (h/t Blue Ridge Forum.) Tell me again: how many Republican principles is Dede Scozzafava following with that record? Note that it wasn’t the GOP voters in that district who had the say but the party bosses.

However, imagine the millions of TEA Partiers becoming active in their local Republican party apparatus. Admittedly, the outcome could be likened to that of herding cats but eventually the party stops picking Dede Scozzofavas and starts selecting more principled limited-government candidates to back.

But their job doesn’t stop there. As it should be, the Maryland GOP has a policy of not endorsing candidates before the primary (at least publicly). Thus, if there is a contested primary between a conservative Republican and a RINO it would be up to the local party faithful to educate their fellow Republicans about the merits of the conservative candidates on their own. The better informed voters nearly always make the right choice, and, once united, they can train their guns on the REAL enemy: the entrenched special interests in Washington and the 50 state capitals who feed on the cancer that is big government.

Those in power don’t normally give it up willingly or easily, though, so we also have to be prepared for a long siege-like fight with numerous ups and downs. There is a reason for the saying “united we stand” and by taking over the banner of the Republican Party – with a large apparatus already in place and available for use – the pro-freedom side can more effectively spread its message and marshal its resources in this long-term pitched battle.

No one else to blame, President Obama

This was held out for an extra-long time by LFS, but my tenth article originally posted October 1st.

Since his election last November, even before taking office in January, Barack Obama has reshaped the office of the Presidency into the image he envisioned when beginning his quest for the Oval Office.

But since his swearing in on January 20 Barack Obama has continued to blame his predecessor for “inherited” problems, and the President may indeed have had a few legitimate complaints. Yet he’s been unwilling to change many Bush-era policies, particularly in the realm of national security. Obama has also chosen to ramp up the war in Afghanistan while continuing the withdrawal from Iraq begun in the latter stages of President Bush’s term. As Commander-in-Chief President Obama has the perfect right to halt these military endeavors but chosen against complete withdrawal, frustrating his support base on the antiwar Left to no end.

This first eight months of Obama’s term have also been marked by the normal changing of the appointee guard one would expect during a shift in the party in power; needless to say the President placed his own stamp on domestic policy with his Cabinet selections and dozens of “czars” brought in without the benefit of Congressional oversight. In that respect his team is very much in place.

Aside from judicial appointees, though, the final vestige of the Bush era comes to an end when the calendar shifts from September to October and the new government fiscal year begins. No longer will Obama and Congress be forced to work under a budget prepared with the blessing of the prior administration – albeit with trillions in supplemental spending prepared for and approved by President Obama. Since it’s actually the Democratic-controlled Congress who creates the budget, the Bush budgetary framework has long since been warped with bailouts and stimulus spending well beyond anything he wished for, but George W. Bush was still in charge when the fiscal 2009 budget was approved last fall.

Even with a president and Congress hailing from the same party, the fiscal year 2010 budgetary process is again behind schedule and temporary stopgap measures necessary to prevent the federal government from shutting down. It’s highly likely, though, that a budget reasonably close to that proposed by Obama this spring will be approved. If so, it will be a budget with “trillion dollar deficits for as far as the eye can see” as House Republican leader John Boehner termed it then.

The so-called budget hawks on the left like to point out that the national debt surged under both Presidents Reagan and George W. Bush, blaming the tax cuts they enacted for the red ink. (Never mind federal revenue increased under both presidents due to a thriving economy.) Yet those two are pikers compared to the budgetary blueprint Obama and Democrats are creating. Even the Chinese, who fund a large part of our debt, fret about the massive spending proposed under the Obama plan because they’re worried about a coming wave of inflation.

Starting Thursday, that recipe for economic disaster will be placed squarely on the shoulders of Barack Obama and Congressional Democrats. With their poor track record of rising unemployment, misplaced stimulus spending, the prospect of higher energy costs, and stalled efforts at reforming health care, their favorite tactic of shifting blame to the previous president won’t play in Peoria anymore – or anywhere else for that matter.

President Truman famously remarked about his office that, “the buck stops here.” While blaming Republicans is a favorite sport among Democrats and their compliant friends in the media, the era of Bush-bashing needs to stop October 1st – it’s Barack’s baby now.

Michael Swartz is a Liberty Features Syndicated writer.

A Mobbie update

I know a couple people were following my quest for a Mobbie award for Maryland’s Outstanding Blogs (hence MOBbie), and as it turns out only one of my op-eds cleared this week so I needed a Saturday post anyway. I like to keep this thing going on a daily basis, you know.

I was entered in two categories – Politics and Misfits. There were 21 entries in the Politics category and 29 in the Misfits. Considering that I had lots of better-read competition among subscribers to the Baltimore Sun (who sponsored the contest, so naturally the entry list would be loaded with a Balticentric bias) I figured I would be among the bottom-feeders. Yes, it was essentially a popularity contest based on reader votes.

But I decided I wasn’t going down without some kind of fight, so I heavily promoted myself among my Facebook friends and occasionally when I remembered to do so on Twitter, along with the right-column link that was here until voting concluded yesterday.

What surprised me most isn’t that I started among the lowest group in both categories, somewhere around second or third from the bottom initially. The part I enjoyed was, as the voting wore on, I kept slowly moving up and where I ended up was about my peak for the entire two-week voting period. (I think I slipped one spot in Misfits at the end.) Obviously I had no great illusions of finishing first given my built-in disadvantages; however, the fact that I kept trending up was encouraging because I figure maybe I had a nice little support base.

Cue the drum roll. Since I wasn’t necessarily pushing the “Misfits” category, my 19th place out of 29 wasn’t bad considering. I’d have liked to be in the top 15, but whatever. I’m more pleased that I cracked the top 10 in the Politics category, finishing 9th. Here’s the order of finish so you can see who I was up against. 

  1. Tales of Two Cities
  2. Annapolis Capital Punishment
  3. Eye on Annapolis
  4. Red Maryland
  5. Darkness Rising: Joe Steffen’s Rants and Raves 
  6. Nailing Jello To The Wall
  7. Baltimore Politics Examiner
  8. O’Malley Watch
  9. monoblogue
  10. Free State Politics
  11. The Law On Campus
  12. Brian Griffiths
  13. Maryland Politics Watch
  14. Oliver Willis
  15. Legum’s New Line
  16. Baltimore Skyline
  17. Baltimore Innerspace
  18. Greater Greater Washington
  19. Baltimore Red Line Underground
  20. Maryland Politics Today
  21. The Conservative Refuge

Obviously some of these are more well read, and some may have promoted themselves to more or less of an extent. I know Jeff Quinton of Inside Charm City (which finished second in the News category) was promoting his site on Facebook too.

So now I know I’m not the most popular political blog in Maryland. But if I got a little more readership across the bay because of the exposure being nominated isn’t such a bad thing. Insofar as I know mine was the only Eastern Shore blog involved and this would be an interesting contest to do locally. Maybe it’s a good poll question to have and if I can find a good polling program to work with WordPress I may try my own. Obviously there’s not as much to work with here but it would make for interesting reading.

In the meantime I’ll be pleased I met at least one of my goals and go on from there. I have a lot of plans for this site and hope to bring readership back to where it once was in the early days. There’s a lot more competition out there, as you can see, but I like to think well-written stuff still has an audience and luckily for me this isn’t my sole outlet anymore. But it’s the one most easily accessible to me and I plan on continuing to practice my craft here to whoever will read and learn from it.

Friday night videos episode 9

Back to the political since I didn’t record any concerts this week. I know you’re crushed.

I’ll start with something I neglected to put in two weeks ago. Perhaps you remember that American Solutions was looking for public comment on offshore drilling. Well, they got plenty – over 90,000 to be exact – and this was their delivery to the Minerals Management Service.

And just think…if we did get back to drilling in more areas, we might have more American jobs. Hey, ask a Democrat where the stimulus jobs are and they will answer…

…oh wait, maybe not.

But there are STILL TEA Partiers out there demanding change. My blogging friend Bob McCarty covered last Friday’s effort near his Missouri home in St. Charles.

I’m bummed that I didn’t see any of my relatives there (several live in the St. Charles area) but it’s likely they were there in spirit, anyway. Nor did I see them there the next day as McCarty covered a streetside rally both for and against Obamacare. A busy guy, that Bob McCarty.

Speaking of Obamacare, my friends across the Mason-Dixon Line may want to reflect on the fact this is your Senator. It’s a different source than YouTube so I wasn’t able to revise the size of the viewing box.

Yeah, trust your Congressman or Senator for all. Well, let me amend that because I’d trust this one farther than I could throw her and that’s not true of many in Washington. Must be why the left just loves her so.

So ends edition number 9. We’ll just have to see what pops up next time on FNV.

The Maryland GOP follies

Folks, the Maryland Republican Party has had its share of ink over the last several months and not a lot of it has been good publicity. (Of course, any bad news out of Free State Republicans merits ink by the barrel for the state’s newspapers, with television, radio, and the internet following suit.)

Needless to say, the resignation of party chairman Dr. Jim Pelura and need to select his successor makes for an interesting upcoming convention. But more controversy is emerging over the voting system used, with some large counties wishing to use a specialized method which favors them while smaller counties, which have felt marginalized with the voting system previously used and threatened to boycott future conventions without reforms being put in place, wishing to return to a “one man, one vote” system.

If that weren’t enough, Blue Ridge Forum posted on the existence of two letters from state Republicans supporting the selection of (now) former Maryland Department of Labor, Licensing, and Regulation head (and onetime state AG candidate) Thomas Perez as the Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights at the Department of Justice. It was an odd juxtaposition compared with the numerous letters of support Perez received from left-of-center people and groups like Janet Reno, Jamie Gorelick, the National Council of La Raza, and People for the American Way.

One letter came from House Minority Leader Delegate Anthony O’Donnell, who lauded Perez and noted he was “impressed by his willingness to reach across the aisle.” I’m hoping my reigning Legislator of the Year will carefully watch the newly appointed AAG and see how much he addresses Republican concerns about enforcement of immigration and civil rights law. I suspect he’ll be disappointed.

The other letter comes, ironically enough, from Pelura’s predecessor as state party chair, John Kane, and has similar platitudes about bipartisanship and working with Perez in Montgomery County. That one doesn’t surprise me in the least.

While perhaps this was part of a ploy to get Perez out of Maryland, I don’t think the state GOP is quite that clever, or in this case too clever by half. Moreover, the question of a bipartisan approach to law doesn’t address the intent of law itself. Unless Perez is aggressive in enforcement of law and the Constitution in areas where he was questioned the most (specifically immigration and civil rights) the GOP support of Perez in the name of bipartisanship may be an olive branch used to beat Republicans later on.

There was no need to make Perez’s support bipartisan because Democrats would have enough votes to confirm him. If he turns out to be a bust we don’t want to share in the blame.

Business as usual

I received this release a couple days ago from U.S. Senate candidate Eric Wargotz. While he uses it to hammer his opponent, the longtime entrenched Democrat Senator Barbara Mikulski, there’s more to the Sun story by Paul West that Eric cites.

“The Baltimore Sun reported that Maryland’s senior U. S. senator won $10.5 million in federal pork barrel spending for three of her most generous campaign contributors.

“During a time of budgetary crisis in Washington, it is irresponsible for Senator Mikulski to use her powerful position on the Senate Appropriations Committee to enrich her campaign supporters. Further, I find it appalling that she would hide behind the troops to justify her actions.

“The Pentagon didn’t ask for any of the funding requests (totaling $42.1 million, including the $10.5 million already referenced) the senator received. If Senator Mikulski thinks she knows better than the military does, she owes it to her constituents to explain why.

“Senator Mikulski should eschew the politics of the past and devote her energies towards participating in the healthcare debate raging on Capitol Hill. Despite more than three decades of involvement in this issue, she has been oddly absent now that the debate is here.

“Maryland’s taxpayers deserve Senator Mikulski’s advocacy more than her campaign contributors do.”

In looking at the Sun story, it’s apparent that not just Mikulski shared in the Maryland goodie distribution, and it was as bipartisan as it could be considering our Congressional delegation has just one Republican.

I’ll admit it’s good that Dr. Wargotz pointed this out, particularly since these projects went to companies who invested heavily in Mikulski’s election, but then the question will arise as to whether he won’t be equally as guilty if elected. While earmarks truly aren’t a large part of the overall budget, they make for feel-good press when the incumbent comes back hat in hand for votes at election time.

Unfortunately, neither party has made much of an effort to combat the practice and it’s noteworthy that President Obama, who claimed to be opposed to earmarks throughout his Presidential campaign (as did John McCain, who is quoted in the Sun story) hasn’t vetoed any spending package laden with earmarks. So to me this is business as usual.

While a number of critics wish to pinch off the campaign finance end of the equation, my better idea is to reduce the incentive for companies to shop for candidates willing to shovel lucrative government contracts their way by cutting the size and scope of the federal government. Perhaps this won’t work quite as well in the defense sector as others, but the first step is turning around the runaway train called federal spending run amok.

Gingrich: Obama should veto Obamacare

Like this is going to happen. I admire Newt Gingrich and he makes great compare and contrast points but if that abomination passes Congress the die is cast. Anyway, here’s what Newt had to say:

With the Senate Finance Committee poised to pass health care legislation, the final contours of the bill that could come out of Congress are starting to come into focus. The bill will contain new taxes on the middle class. It will add to the deficit. And it will put government bureaucrats between Americans and their doctors, among other things.

So it’s not too early to ask the obvious question: Will President Obama veto health care reform?

It’s worth asking because so many of the costs to taxpayers the President has repeatedly promised won’t be in the legislation are, and so many of the benefits are not.

What follows is a list, in no particular order, of the contradictions between the President’s promises and the reality of Democratic health care reform. Add them up and it’s hard to see how President Obama doesn’t reject the bill Congress seems likely to send him.

Contradiction #1: From a Promise Not to Raise Taxes
on the Middle Class to $2 Billion in “Penalties”

As far back as the campaign, President Obama promised he wouldn’t raise taxes on Americans making less than $250,000.

But an analysis by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) found that at least 71 percent of the individual mandate penalties in Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus’s (D-MT) bill would be paid by Americans earning less than $250,000. In fact, the nonpartisan analysis found that, of the $2.8 billion in penalties the bill imposes on those who do not purchase health insurance, a full $2 billion will be paid by taxpayers earning less than $120,000 for a family of four.

The Senate Finance bill also levies $215 billion in new taxes on employers and health insurers for offering high-value insurance benefits, which will surely be passed onto all consumers.

Republicans tried to ensure that President Obama’s words would not ring hollow by offering an amendment that said: “This amendment provides that no tax, fee or penalty imposed by this legislation shall be applied to any individual earning less than $200,000 per year or any couple earning less than $250,000 per year.” Democrats defeated it.

Contradiction #2: From a Promise to Reject a Bill That “Adds One
Dime to the Deficit” to $239 Billion Added to the Deficit

In his speech to the Joint Session of Congress, the President was adamant: “I will not sign [a bill] if it adds one dime to the deficit, now or in the future, period.”

And yet House bill H.R. 3200 will increase the deficit by an amazing $239 billion over the next decade.

The Baucus bill pretends to be deficit neutral but it’s an accounting gimmick. “It pays for itself” by forcing a new $250-300 billion unfunded mandate on the states. And it doesn’t include nearly $300 billion that will be spent to adjust physician payments in Medicare.

Contradiction #3: From a Promise That “If You Like Your Current Plan
You Can Keep It” to Half of Medicare Advantage Benefits Being Cut

In his speech to the Joint Session of Congress last month and elsewhere, the President has reassured nervous Americans that if they like their current coverage, his reform will let them keep it.

Unless you happen to have Medicare Advantage, that is.

Or employer provided insurance.

The director of the nonpartisan CBO testified before the Senate that, under the Senate bill, the benefits of seniors under Medicare Advantage would be cut in half.

And an analysis of the House bill found that 88 million people will lose their current insurance under government health care.

What’s more, both bills would disrupt vision care for more than 100 million Americans.

Contradiction #4: From “If You Like Your Current Doctor
You Can Keep Your Doctor” to Squeezing Doctors and
Hospitals Until They Reduce Patient Access

Here’s what three doctors who are former chairmen of the American Medical Association (AMA) say about the cuts to Medicare in Democratic health reform bills:

“Now the government is saying that additional Medicare cuts are coming-thus forcing doctors to try and make up the difference in volume, by seeing more patients. If you ask patients about this, they understand that more volume means less time with the doctor. That’s something that all patients and doctors should oppose. In time, it will be difficult to find a physician.”

And here’s what the executive director of the Mayo Clinic said: “We will have to violate our values in order to stay in business and reduce our access to government patients.”

Contradiction #5: From a Promise that No Government Bureaucrat
Will Stand Between Patients and Doctors to a Medicare
Commission With the Power to Deny Treatment

Just this week, in a speech to doctors gathered in the White House Rose Garden, President Obama reiterated his pledge not to let a Washington bureaucrat get between a patient and their doctor.

But the Senate Baucus bill creates an “Independent Medicare Commission” with the ability to deny benefits to the elderly or the disabled based on a government calculation of the costs versus the benefits.

Contradiction #6: From a Promise to “Slow the Growth of Health
Care Costs For Our Families” to a New Tax on Hearing Aids,
Wheel Chairs and Breakthrough Drugs

In his speech to the Joint Session of Congress, the President pledged to “slow the growth of health care costs for our families, our businesses and our government.”

But the Senate bill contains a tax on medical technology companies and drug makers that will raise the cost to American families for thousands of drugs and devices, including pacemakers, eyeglasses, hearing aids and powered wheelchairs.

Contradiction #7: From a Promise that Health Care Reform Will
Fix the Economy to New Taxes on Small Businesses

One of President Obama’s main rationales for health care reform is that it is necessary for economic recovery.

Working against this promise is the provision in the Senate bill that will tax small businesses – the engine of American economic growth and job creation – that can’t afford to purchase health insurance for their employees. It’s hard to see how the economy recovers when small businesses are prevented from hiring new workers by a new government tax.

Contradiction #8: From Insuring All Americans to Leaving 25 Million Uninsured

One of President Obama’s three basic goals for health care reform is to provide insurance to those who don’t currently have it.

That’s the promise. The reality? The CBO has determined that the Senate bill will leave about 25 million nonelderly Americans uninsured.

I could go on, but I think the point is made. The differences between what Americans have been promised from health care reform and what they are getting go beyond the usual give and take of Washington.

A Congress controlled by the President’s party is producing health care legislation that blatantly contradicts his most basic, often repeated, promises.

What will the President do? Will President Obama veto health care reform?

Stay tuned.

Gee, only eight contradictions? Obama – he of the “unemployment won’t be over 8% if we pass the stimulus bill” line – usually contradicts himself about every other sentence.

It’s not about health care, it’s about control over everyone’s life and well being. Otherwise the government wouldn’t be stepping in and offering yet another one-size-fits-all solution. Newt’s piece just points out some of the obvious flaws; unfortunately Obama isn’t principled enough to do the right thing.

One-sixth of a loaf

When I went to the County Council meeting today, I was sort of expecting the County Council to approve having one meeting per month in the evening. Unfortunately, the body decided on a half-hearted compromise of just one evening meeting per quarter, a move which is bound to be more confusing than the original approach. Five of the six Council members voting on the amended resolution supported the compromise offered by Councilman William McCain, with Gail Bartkovich opposed because she preferred the monthly evening meetings. An earlier bid to table the resolution failed on a party-line vote, with the 3-3 tie broken by Council President John Cannon’s vote against tabling – all three Democrats wished to table and the four Republicans voted against it.

With the resolution as passed, the County Council will meet in the evenings on the first Tuesday of January, April, July, and October. The remaining 20 meetings will maintain their typical morning time, and the impact of evening meetings cost-wise will be figured as well. Today’s big concern voiced by District 4 Councilman David MacLeod (an opponent of the resolution) was on how much it would cost the county to have evening meetings, with the predicted impact being just about $110 per meeting, excluding comp time required from county employees who stay overtime to testify at the meetings. I’ll grant that the County Council is relatively prudent fiscally but to me this was penny wise and pound foolish.

Since I have the forum, it’s worth pointing out that two other major pieces of business were accomplished today. One is a furlough plan for county employees which will save the county about $700,000 – now they only have to come up with another $6 million or so to balance the budget due to state cuts.

The second was denying a Board of Education request to transfer $180,000 between accounts and enable the WCBOE to hire a total of 13 full- and part-time employees as teacher assistants and clerical staff. In questioning the BOE staff, Councilman MacLeod noted the “disconnect” between passing a resolution cutting employee salaries through furloughs to save money yet the BOE coming in looking for new hires – particularly during a period where the board was in a self-proclaimed “hiring freeze.”

In listening to the testimony by the BOE, I was struck most by the amount of red tape placed upon it by both state and federal mandates and guidelines. It’s bad enough that the state puts the counties through hoops called “maintenance of effort” in order to grant them funding, but then add the onus of Fedzilla and it’s no wonder the BOE needs staff just to figure out the labyrinthine regulations. Do I hear a second on eliminating the federal Department of Education? Start there and then we can work on straightening out the mess in Annapolis.

I suppose one advantage of a morning meeting is that the public hearing on the Barren Creek Estates subdivision was only an hour as NIMBYs and environmentalists combined for a barrage of pleas against the new development. It’s probable their wishes will be granted because all the delays (including the delay of consideration put forth today, until mid-November) will place the project under tougher state regulations. Even if not, since the anti-development advocates will get free legal representation – at least that’s how I understood Michael Pretl’s remarks – they can fight this out until there’s actually a housing market to deny the landowners’ cashing in on again.

So there were some big decisions and small victories today. I didn’t stick around for the BOE work session but I’m betting they’ll get some hard questions about their lack of sacrifice in the budget and give the same mealy-mouth, blame-shifting answers they’ve given already. I just hope next year the BOE budget is better scrutinized because apparently by what I heard today they had some phantom positions built in – maybe that’s the first cut of FY2011.

McDermott hosts successful fundraiser

A passing shower Saturday afternoon didn’t deter a large crowd from coming to Snow Hill and kicking off the campaign for Mike McDermott’s District 38B House of Delegates campaign.

When we arrived about 1:30 it was a little wet but neither spirits nor the crowd seemed to be dampened.

Mike greeted each newcomer at the entrance, and as the afternoon went on he kept pretty busy doing that.

Mike McDermott, Pocomoke City mayor and District 38B Delegate candidate, greeted partygoers at the entrance for awhile before circulating and making remarks.

Once the rain went by and people were settled in, they enjoyed some good food and fellowship. Mike announced he had sold 300 tickets for the event and the pavilion at Sturgis Park was pretty crowded.

Looking at the Sturgis Park pavilion just before McDermott spoke, you can tell he had a pretty full house to work with.

It’s worth noting that a number of Worcester and Wicomico County officeholders were there including Louise Gulyas of the Worcester County Board of Commissioners, Ocean City Mayor Rick Meehan, and two members of the Wicomico County Council: Gail Bartkovich and Joe Holloway. Also there was another candidate, announced as “the next Senator from District 38”, Michael James.

Michael James (left), District 38 candidate for the Maryland General Assembly, speaks to a would-be voter at Mike McDermott's fundraiser.

The highlight of the afternoon was Mike going through a number of reasons he should be elected during an impassioned speech; most importantly to bring “Eastern Shore values” to Annapolis.

Given the affordable ticket price, there won’t be a huge amount raised from this fundraiser but it was an opportunity for families to come out and enjoy the company of like-minded conservatives coming together to support a candidate determined to cut into the Democrat advantage in Annapolis.

It turned out to be a nice Saturday afternoon in more ways than one, and certainly the message will be heard in certain corners of Annapolis.

Weekend of local rock volume 26

All right, the concert didn’t actually occur on a weekend, but who really likes working on Friday anyway?

After the apparent demise of Cowboyz Saloon in Ocean City, the (Save the…) Breast Fest had to reschedule and find a new venue. On Thursday night the event was held at the Purple Moose Saloon in Ocean City. Certainly no one was more pleased than event organizer and breast cancer survivor Michele Hogsett of the band Semiblind.

The brainchild of event organizer and Semiblind singer Michele Hogsett, the event attracted seven bands whose participants signed this poster. I suggested that next year she should have a second one done and auction it off to raise more money.

The (Save the…) Breast Fest was set to benefit the Delaware Breast Cancer Coalition, and they were ready with a number of items for sale to benefit the cause.

If you're pretty in pink, these guys would have you looking good for a long, long time. But the money raised goes to a good cause.

They also had a craftsperson there creating bracelets and lapel pins made for the event were there for the buying too.

There were a lot of people who left the event with new accessories.

All told, the proceeds for the event totaled almost $600, which is pretty respectable for a first-time effort. Much of it was raised through the raffling of chances to win some nice items and a 50/50 drawing netted over $200.

Michele Hogsett pulls off the first of many prizes several lucky people won at the Breast Fest. I had my eye on a couple of those two-night packages but alas I didn't win for my sweetie.

Passers-by on the boardwalk got the luxury of seeing the band schedule and check back for their favorites.

They actually stuck reasonably close to schedule. One thing I noticed is that the crowd peaked about 11:00 - just in time for Semiblind. But when you create the show I guess you get to pick your slot too.

So you can now see in just what order the band pictures will occur. Mighty convenient, huh?

Actually, High Maintenance was solely represented by their lead singer and the guitarist she borrowed for the evening.

I've seen this singer before but never with her band. She sang a number of cover tunes, including selections from the Beatles and Tom Petty.

I didn’t take pictures of the DJs, but Skip Dixxon kept busy in more ways than filling in the time between bands. He’s also the drummer for Agent 99, the second band of the evening. Hint: you’ll see Skip and Kathy Denk, the guitarist stage right, again in this presentation.

Agent 99 put a harder edge on the show, playing selections from Guns 'n Roses, Billy Squier, and one of my favorite AC-DC tunes, 'Touch Too Much', among several others.

Most of the bands were female-fronted, which would be natural for such an event. The lone exception was Woodstok Nation. But Judith Carter did sing lead on the Stevie Ray Vaughn song “Pride and Joy”, which was one of the few covers they did – as opposed to the other bands, they mainly did their own stuff.

To answer the question about whether they were country or rock, lead singer Mark Stewart noted ' we're what you call country rock and roll.' Cleared that right up.

Witches Brew set out to “take us on a trip…but we promise to bring you back.” By launching into the Jefferson Airplane classic ‘White Rabbit’ they weren’t kidding.

Even with the psychedelic opening, Witches Brew played a lot of hard stuff like Nirvana and their closing song 'Diamonds and Rust' made famous by Judas Priest.

Michele was the hostess with the mostest, and Semiblind attracted a couple special guests on their songs.

Kathy of Agent 99 came out to help with vocals on one of the songs Michele sang. Not that Michele needed help singing Heart, but it's nice to know you have friends.

If there's a song in Semiblind's library that Skip Dixxon - who plays in a tribute band called Rock Bottom and owns the drum set used at the show - should know the drum part to, it would be 'Cold Gin' by KISS. And that's where he came in.

Here's a shot of just the four of them jamming out as always.

After Semiblind wrapped up, Petting Hendrix came out with a similar hard-rock sound, but done with a somewhat different selection of songs. They leaned on more pop music but threw in two covers of Jimi Hendrix songs, “Fire” and “Purple Haze.” It’s a bit jarring when combined with songs like Nena’s “99 Red Balloons” but they made it work.

Petting Hendrix bills themselves as a '80's and '90's cover band, and that's what they did for the most part with the exception of stuff by their half-namesake.

The final band of the evening was Chrome Donut, who wrapped up the show with a set based more out of the Top 40 from the 1970’s and early 1980’s. Some songs were done as three-part as the picture shows while a couple songs were just keyboard, drums, and vocals. It made for a more mellow wrapup to the festivities.

Chrome Donut finished the show, unfortunately to a dwindling audience. Hopefully these ladies and gentleman didn't take offense because they played a nice set.

Michele hopes to make this an annual event, and perhaps it will do better if they can find a venue to play on their original intended date leading into Delmarva Bike Week. Given the growing number of female-fronted bands gaining prominence this could be a much larger show for the second annual effort next year. I look forward to it!