Gun advocates have long contended the anti-gun lobby is only using guns as a stepping stone to slowly remove other freedoms.  Like the saying, “They first came for the communists, but I wasn’t a communist.”  Indeed, this is truism that writers have told us for centuries: freedom is precious and must be protected.  As Hayek stated:

“If we wish to preserve a free society, it is essential that we recognize that the desirability of a particular object is not sufficient justification for the use of coercion.”

Well, not to be ones to go against a historical truth nor stop our descent into statism,  statists moved from guns, to smoking, to obesity.   We’ve seen smoking bans in most states, some so restrictive that it makes illegal smoking in tractor trailers as they are assumed to be a “place of business”, banning handguns in major cities,  to the banning of actual cooking ingredients such as transfats.

It never seems to dawn on any of the proponents, that each of these laws removes one additional freedom.  Nor do statists seem to understand that humans will find ways to behave exactly as they wish regardless.  This is especially true of economic regulations, but also of business regulations meant to influence individual behavior.

For instance, during the recent concentrated attacks on America’s obesity “problem”, many local and state governments have looked into legislating calorie counts and nutritional value be available on the menu itself.  Apparently, having to ask for the nutritional value which is already available was too difficult, hence the reason to further regulate.

It matters little that giving nutritional value by request or forcing it on the menu doesn’t to change behavior.  Than proposed bans on food advertising will have little effect:

George Mason University’s Todd Zywicki noted at a forum last summer that the average American child actually watches less TV than he did 15 years ago. What’s more, children face less exposure to food ads now than they did then, for a variety of reasons. The remote control has made ad-watching optional over the last 20 years, and more recent technology like TiVo may make traditional commercials completely obsolete…

Indeed, the reason also has little to do with good business, such as McDonald’s excelling by giving clients good tasting food at relatively cheap prices very quickly.  Research has shown:

…The economist Tomas Philipson and I have written about the economics of obesity. We have pointed out that the decline in the price of fatty foods, along with the rise in the opportunity cost of physical activity (work is more sedentary than it used to be, so one has to invest extra time to get exercise, and television and video games have increased the utility that people derive from sedentary leisure pursuits), explains the dramatic long-term increase in the percentage of Americans who are seriously overweight….

Same with gun control advocates.  They don’t seem to worry about inconvenient facts like banning handguns in very high crime areas does little to prevent crime, but does a lot in preventing citizens from exercising their freedom to self-defense.  In Chicago:

Far more of the guns seized at crime scenes in Illinois come from Illinois than any other state.

It doesn’t even matter that we can see the slippery slope happening right in front of us.  For instance,  if we can ban smoking in private business establishments, why not private vehicles?  Crazy you say?  It’s already happening in limited fashion as we speak for child custody cases.

No, proponents everywhere of using government force for your own good, don’t seem to be able to see any consequences other than their pet project.  All that seems to matter today, is that enough people think the action is bad and are willing to use government coercion as a means to an end.

For a country with a history of trying to prevent the exploitation of minority groups by the majority, and indeed a Constitution to enshrine that very ideal, we’re moving quickly into tyrannical rule by the majority.  Let’s all remember, that we are a Constitutional Republic, because true Democracy is nothing more than allowing 51% of the population to enslave 49% of the population by simple majority vote.

From Mother Jones:

Michael Moore is at it again. In Fahrenheit 9/11, he took on US foreign policy as brought to us by George W. Bush and Dick Cheney. In Sicko, he dissected the health insurance industry. And in his new documentary, Capitalism: A Love Story, he challenges the fundamental organizing principle of American society: private enterprise….

Yes, it’s yet another propaganda film  from Michael Moore (as if he’s capable of much else).  As with his previous films, it will probably be entertaining and no doubt some parts of society will use it as proof that capitalism is evil.  All the while, they will ignore the irony that the system the are despising is responsible for the very freedom they use to speak against it.  That capitalism has done more to raise people out of poverty than Hugo Chavez, Che, Trotsky, and all the other “revolutionaries” combined.  History has proven this to be true time and time again.

I know what they’ll say though, “All we need is the right leaders this time and all will be well.”  So they might as well use their idol to sum up the film:

…The film climaxes with never-before-seen footage Moore’s researchers uncovered of FDR telling the American public in 1944 on the radio that the nation needed a second Bill of Rights that would guarantee Americans the right to a job, to a home, to an education, and to medical care. “Unless there is security here at home, there cannot be lasting peace in the world,” Roosevelt says….

Ah, the fabled FDR… fabled that is so long as you ignore history; like the fact he made the Great Depression 7 years longer through his “New Deal” policies:

Two UCLA economists say they have figured out why the Great Depression dragged on for almost 15 years, and they blame a suspect previously thought to be beyond reproach: President Franklin D. Roosevelt….

…”Why the Great Depression lasted so long has always been a great mystery, and because we never really knew the reason, we have always worried whether we would have another 10- to 15-year economic slump,” said Ohanian, vice chair of UCLA’s Department of Economics. “We found that a relapse isn’t likely unless lawmakers gum up a recovery with ill-conceived stimulus policies.”…

Or the fact he tried to use court stacking tactics to bypass that pesky, out of date, worthless document formerly known as the US Constitution, basically making the point that “If it’s unConstitutional, find new judges”:

…Since the U.S. Constitution does not limit the size of the Supreme Court, Roosevelt, having won an expanded electoral mandate in his reelection, sought to counter this entrenched opposition to his political agenda by expanding the number of justices to create a pro-New Deal majority on the bench.  Opponents viewed the legislation as an attempt to stack the court leading to the name “Court-packing Plan”….

Or the fact he ran for his fourth term when he was too ill to govern.  Yes, let’s ignore the fact he was so self-absorbed and arrogant, that he demonstrated through his actions, he was willing to stay President of the US, with all its power, even though it was obvious he was no longer up to the task (here):

…Roosevelt, who turned 62 in 1944, had been in declining health since at least 1940. The strain of his paralysis and the physical exertion needed to compensate for it for over 20 years had taken their toll, as had many years of stress and a lifetime of chain-smoking. By this time, Roosevelt had numerous ailments including chronic high blood pressure, emphysema, systemic atherosclerosis, coronary artery disease with angina pectoris, and myopathic hypertensive heart disease with congestive heart failure. Dr. Emanuel Libman, then an assistant pathologist at Mount Sinai Hospital in New York City, reacting to Roosevelt’s appearance in newsreels, remarked in 1944 that “It doesn’t matter whether Roosevelt is re-elected or not, he’ll die of a cerebral hemorrhage within 6 months” (which he did, five months later)….

Yes, after all those reasons to re-think the glory that is the Presidency of FDR, we know have, thanks to Michael Moore, proof that FDR was a true socialist.  Like many socialists, he was more than willing to spend your money in furtherance of his goals, even though it’s failed ever single time it was tried…

But when defeating evil, the goal is righteous:

…”Capitalism is an evil,” Moore narrates, as the film concludes, “and you cannot regulate an evil. You have to eliminate it.” …

It’s an odd position to take that allowing people the freedom to enter into contracts for work or to barter or for any other economic reason they choose is evil, but he knows what’s best and that’s just the way it is.  After all, if you disagree, you’re probably “evil”.

Irregardless of Michael Moore’s lack of understanding as it relates to gun rights, health care, 9/11, and now… his complete lack of critical thought on capitalism, there is a silver lining:

…After a screening in Washington on Tuesday night, Moore told the audience that if people don’t rise up and take action after watching this film, that’s it—he’s done making movies. I can do other things, he remarked….

One can hope those other things include spending his own money to provide health care and housing for the poor, instead of using the government as his weapon to force everyone else to do what he thinks is right.

Some weeks ago, Judge Richard Posner wrote two policy analysis pieces on Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance and Financial Regulations (part 1 & part 2).  They addressed a government report discussing the financial crisis along with legislative solutions.

One of his main points, was that due to the recency of the events,  we likely don’t know all the mechanisms which helped put is into the current mess (from part 1):

The Report is premature in two respects. The first is that it advocates a specific course of treatment for a disease the cause or causes of which have not been determined. Now it is not always necessary to understand the cause of something you don’t like in order to be able to eliminate the effect. If you have typical allergy symptoms you may get complete relief by taking an antihistamine; it is not necessary to find out what you’re allergic to. But generally, and in the case of the current economic crisis, unless the causes of a problem are understood, it will be impossible to come up with a good solution. The causes of the crisis have not been studied systematically, and are not obvious though they are treated as such in the Report. (Remember, the Great Depression of the 1930s ended 68 years ago and economists are still debating its causes.) We need some counterpart to the 9/11 Commission’s investigation of an earlier unforeseen disaster.  The Report asserts without evidence or references that the near collapse of the banking industry last September was due to a combination of folly—a kind of collective madness—on the part of bankers (in part reflected in their compensation practices), of credit-rating agencies, and of consumers (duped into taking on debt, particularly mortgage debt, that they could not afford), and to defects in the regulatory structure. This leaves out many potential causes that other students of the crisis have emphasized….

The Report is premature in a second sense, one illustrated by the proposals (discussed in greater detail in the second part of this two-part article) for limiting the provision of credit to high-risk borrowers. In an economic boom, thrift (restraint in consumption) reduces the amplitude of the business cycle by reducing consumption and increasing savings, savings that can be reallocated to consumption at the bottom of the cycle. Thus thrift makes the peak of the cycle lower and the trough higher. But in the trough of the cycle, thrift, by reducing consumption, retards economic recovery, because the less that people spend on consumption goods the less production there is and therefore the higher the unemployment rate, which by reducing incomes further depresses spending, which further depresses production, and so on. To tighten credit at the bottom of the cycle is therefore bad timing. And while the Report creates the impression that high-risk borrowers are feckless consumers unable to curb their greed for material goods, many high-risk borrowers are small businesses dependent on credit-card debt to finance their business….

Additionally, there should be little fear that businesses and investors are going to make the same set of mistakes before the recovery has even begun in full force (in part 2):

…For a time at least, the world’s central bankers, and the financial industry itself, will be hyper?alert for another housing or credit bubble. The wisdom of delay is confirmed, in my eyes at least, by the proposals in the Report….

What Mr. Posner failed to see (as did I) is that the government would, in less than a microsecond,  decide to continue the same policies which helped cause the current mess.  Reported by WSJ:

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration is close to committing as much as $35 billion to help beleaguered state and local housing agencies continue to provide mortgages to low- and moderate-income families, according to administration officials.

The move would further cement the government’s role in propping up the housing market even as some lawmakers push to curb spending at a time of rising debt.

The effort, which could be announced as early as this week, is aimed at relieving pressure on government-operated housing finance agencies, which have been struggling to find funding amid the downturn….

For those playing the home game, this means we are taking a problem caused by excessive credit and government incentives and trying to fix it by:

1. Preventing the normal contraction that needs to happen by artificially propping up failed business and bad home purchasing decisions.
2. Keep money cheap by keeping interest rates very low.
3. Then, repeat the same process that got you to the recession in the first place by incentivizing the market to buy a commodity (housing) which is still overvalued in some places.

As Einstein was once quoted saying, “The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results.”  With all due respect to Mr. Einstein, I’m beginning to think that “insanity” is too nice of a moniker as the word connotes misunderstanding due to ignorance or failure to be able to understand.

In this case, I’m not sure what word or phrase will have encompass the idiocy of our government, but I’m thinking this is willful stupidity combined with a big helping of arrogance.

Of course if voters refuse to punish those people responsible, we’ll continue to have the same government.

Unless you were lucky enough to be traveling or otherwise unavailable on Sunday, you were likely deluged with Mr. Obama’s media storm to sell not only health care, but apparently many other items as well.

First, it should be noted that this WH is above all, extremely insecure.  The President could be seen on 5 Sunday news shows: NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN and Univision.   But he didn’t have time for Fox, the number one rated Sunday news show…

Regardless of the WH being extremely petty and worrying more about perceived injustices than an honest discussion with those who might disagree, what he actually said is far more serious.

When asked if a health care mandate was a tax increase on ABC’s this week, the President responded:

…”I absolutely reject that notion,” the president said….

“What it’s saying is, is that we’re not going to have other people carrying your burdens for you anymore,” said Obama. “Right now everybody in America, just about, has to get auto insurance . Nobody considers that a tax increase.”…

Using flawed logic is nothing new for Presidents, but this one isn’t even close.  Hhe’s analogizing the privilege of driving with the “privilege” of being a citizen.

The difference of course as that by my very birth, I have a “right” to be a citizen, whereas driving has always remained a privilege with constraints.  You see, I can forgo auto insurance, so long as I don’t drive.  There are many ways around without a car in this day and age, but if I “choose” to drive, then constraints can be placed on me.

Health care on the other hand would be required simply because I existed and no other reason.  & If the government says, “You have to buy this” – it is a tax increase as not paying it can land you in very serious legal troubles.

On CBS’s Face the Nation, with an omnipotent sense of when health care, our fearless leader goes further:

…Obama put his support behind the idea of taxing employers that offer high-cost insurance plans.

“I do think that giving a disincentive to insurance companies to offer Cadillac plans that don’t make people healthier is part of the way that we’re going to bring down health care costs for everybody over the long term,” Obama said on NBC’s “Meet the Press.”…

Even ignoring the fact that this goes against his basic premise that more people need more health care, one wonders if there is anything our President doesn’t know.  So far, he’s taken over banks, car companies, told car companies with whom to merge, who to hire, who to fire, what to build… and now we find out he knows how much health care is too much.

But let’s not stop there.  Not only is our community organizer one of the smartest men in America when it comes to economics and health care, he’s also a brilliant strategist with respects to Afghanistan:

…”What I’m not also gonna do, though, is put the resource question before the strategy question,” Obama told NBC’s David Gregory on “Meet the Press.” “Until I’m satisfied that we’ve got the right strategy I’m not gonna be sending some young man or woman over there- beyond what we already have.”…

I’m not sure exactly what happens to man to think he has the answers to every single last question. Maybe it’s just arrogance and ignorance, as Hayek stated:

If most people are not willing to see the difficulty, this is mainly because, consciously or unconsciously, they assume that it will be they who will settle these questions for the others, and because they are convinced of their own capacity to do this.

Whatever the reason he believes so strongly in his ability to decide what’s best for our own good, history shows us without question where this inevitably leads.  Hayek again:

To act on the belief that we possess the knowledge and the power which enable us to shape the processes of society entirely to our liking, knowledge which in fact we do not possess, is likely to make us do much harm.

Let’s hope we begin to understand the value of humility before we do too much damage.

Unintended consequences.  An often used phrase for almost every piece of legislation pushed our politicians.  Whether it’s McCain-Feingold’s chilling effect on free political speech or whether bailing out banks which are “too big to fail” has actually decreased our long term viability instead of supporting it; the term seems to connote any consequence which wasn’t expressly mentioned by proponents of the bill.

Technically, that’s correct.  The definition of unintended consequences does not require the consequences to be unforeseen, though in common language we generally use the base meaning of “intention”.   Therefore the phrase has come to mean those consequences which were neither  intended nor unforeseen.

I submit however, that we should start changing our language and call known consequences intended consequences, because like the citizens in the face of the law our politicians should be held to the same standard: ignorance is not a defense.

Regardless of the human failing that pushes people to believe they, or their elected leaders, can ultimately control behavior which is already constrained by the marketplace, acting as if the results weren’t readily understood is disingenuous.

Looking more closely @ McCain-Feingold effects, we see the chilling of free-speech (here), where citizens can’t create a documentary on their beliefs about Hillary Clinton without it being subject to regulation:

…The case before the court, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, originated over whether a 2008 feature-length movie critical of then-presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton could be classified as an “electioneering communication” subject to regulation.

The FEC contended it was, and that its sponsor, a conservative advocacy group called Citizens United, was barred from promoting the film. While nonprofits can be exempt from campaign-finance regulations if they limit their fund-raising to donations from individuals, Citizens United fell under McCain-Feingold because it accepts business contributions….

Now.  I haven’t seen the movie nor do I care to, but when individuals get together to use their own money, their own resources, to produce their own political speech, the government has absolutely no right to be involved.  In the marketplace of political ideas, that whole “congress shall make no law” thingy, seemed pretty straight forward.

Regardless of your reading of the 1st Amendment, some will contend this is an unintended consequence.  I contend it was a known consequence and therefore must have been intended.

I will even go further and say this was like a consequence well enough known by politicians who voted for the bill, that they had incentive to pass restrictions on others as this would help them secure the current balance of power.

Using banks too big to fail (here):

…Increased concentration is vexing for regulators. Because systemically important firms can borrow more cheaply thanks to implicit state backing, small and medium-sized banks struggle to compete. A recent Fed study put big banks’ funding advantage at more than 30 basis points. That leads to another possible problem: indiscipline. Private firms with a low cost of funds and the taxpayer behind them are prone to recklessness: just look at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. America’s leading banks were too big to fail before the crisis. Now they are bigger still….

This was not only easy to foresee, but libertarians, conservatives, small business groups, think tanks, economists, literally, tens of thousands of people wrote and discussed that this is exactly what would happen.

Once you’ve effectively told the market that they will not be responsible for their failures, you’ve written them a blank check to become much more reckless than they would have otherwise.

Not only this, but that action, more reckless businesses, will have it’s own well understood consequence.  The banks will continue to make stupid decisions due to a perceived lack of risk.  As long as people allow it, the government will continue to bail them out until it becomes just too expensive.  Then during that emergency, we will see much greater regulation and control of the financial industry which might include a government takeover.

As Hayek stated and history has shown:

‘Emergencies’ have always been the pretext on which the safeguards of individual liberty have been eroded.

Maybe it’s time to start holding our politicians & leaders accountable for the known consequences & not just the stated ones.

As we continue to watch the health care debate go around you might have noticed many politicians perplexed at the idea that the public might not want a public option.

I submit, that it has nothing to do with President Obama, the current Congress, the Current House, nor the prior President, Congress & House.

The reasoning is analogous to the Sorites Paradox.  The paradox states it’s impossible to know exactly how many grains of sand it takes to become a heap, or once a heap, how many grains of sand must be removed to become a non-heap.  I submit we have finally built a heap.

With the bailouts, stimulus packages, rampant spending of the prior President and continued fiscal irresponsibility of this administration, combined with fiscal irresponsibility at state & local levels, people are rightfully frustrated.

& thanks to Cato, within a week, they have two brilliant demonstrations as to why:

Federal Pay Continues Rapid Ascent:

…Figure 1 looks at average wages. In 2008, the average wage for 1.9 million federal civilian workers was $79,197, which compared to an average $49,935 for the nation’s 108 million private sector workers (measured in full-time equivalents). The figure shows that the federal pay advantage (the gap between the lines) is steadily increasing….

Figure 2 shows that the federal advantage is even more pronounced when worker benefits are included. In 2008, federal worker compensation averaged a remarkable $119,982, which was more than double the private sector average of $59,909….

& this, State and Local Government Employment Up Since Recession’s Start:

…With a prolonged recession now forcing state and local governments to actually cut or furlough some employees, it’s important to remember that they were adding government jobs at a time when it was clear to the rest of the country that the air was out of the economic bubble. ..

It seems the age old question about what business is truly recession proof finally has an answer.

A mere 10 days ago, we were told by our President, that his recovery act has diverted a disaster (here):

Good evening.  Before I take your questions, I want to talk for a few minutes about the progress we’re making on health insurance reform and where it fits into our broader economic strategy.

Six months ago, I took office amid the worst recession in half a century.  We were losing an average of 700,000 jobs per month and our financial system was on the verge of collapse.

As a result of the action we took in those first weeks, we have been able to pull our economy back from the brink. We took steps to stabilize our financial institutions and our housing market. And we….

…passed a Recovery Act that has already saved jobs and created new ones; delivered billions in tax relief to families and small businesses; and extended unemployment insurance and health insurance to those who have been laid off.

Of course, we still have a long way to go. And the Recovery Act will continue to save and create more jobs over the next two years – just like it was designed to do. I realize this is little comfort to those Americans who are currently out of work, and I’ll be honest with you – new hiring is always one of the last things to bounce back after a recession.

As I wrote previously, I’m not sure what a “saved” job is or how one goes about calculating a figure, but we do know the unemployment rate is 2% higher than predicted.  Additionally, when one is contemplating whether this or any other President is truthful, we should ask if any of their other projections were correct in the first place.

From Bloomberg:

July 31 (Bloomberg) — The first 12 months of the U.S. recession saw the economy shrink more than twice as much as previously estimated, reflecting even bigger declines in consumer spending and housing, revised figures showed.

& for comparison, something we also know.  When Senator Kerry, then Senator Obama, and many other people, liberals and independents all, were dismayed by President Bush’s tax cuts during a recession and a war:

The revisions showed that the 2001 recession was less severe than originally estimated, reflecting a smaller decline in business investment. The economy actually grew 0.1 percent from the fourth quarter of 2000 to the third quarter of 2001, erasing the 0.2 percent drop previously reported.

Of course Bush started us down our current road with the first stimulus bill, because something just had to be done… which I guess presupposes that allowing 300 million people to work to bring back the economy is “nothing”…

Either way – lastly, and most importantly, we know that this has been tried before.  It took several decades to move beyond the blindness people had due to FDR’s almost cult-like status to revise the books written at the time, but the New Deal did in fact lead to a longer Great Depression that was necessary (here):

The New Deal is widely perceived to have ended the Great Depression, and this has led many to support a “new” New Deal to address the current crisis. But the facts do not support the perception that FDR’s policies shortened the Depression, or that similar policies will pull our nation out of its current economic downturn.

The goal of the New Deal was to get Americans back to work. But the New Deal didn’t restore employment. In fact, there was even less work on average during the New Deal than before FDR took office. Total hours worked per adult, including government employees, were 18% below their 1929 level between 1930-32, but were 23% lower on average during the New Deal (1933-39). Private hours worked were even lower after FDR took office, averaging 27% below their 1929 level, compared to 18% lower between in 1930-32…

No worries though – I’m sure the government is telling the complete truth about how much health care will cost, what it will do to the current system (good & bad), and all the rest of it.  We just have to believe!

…Some other articles on this as well here @ Reason.com, article on economist research @ UCLA here, & detailed research paper here @ Cato.org.

Mr. President, are you kidding?

I listened intently to your entire speech and for a gifted speaker, all I heard were disjointed platitudes, class warfare rhetoric, and a little political bashing just for good measure.

Let’s start at the top (all quotes are paraphrased, not direct quotes):

Obama:  As a result of the actions taken in the first weeks of  my administration, we stabilized the housing market, saved jobs – created new ones, and gave tax relief to millions.

Wow!  I wasn’t aware the government was this powerful.  Maybe unicorns really do exist?

Seriously though, first, the housing market is still declining.  It is not stabilized yet and in some parts of the country is still losing quite a bit of value.

Second, I’m not sure what a “saved” job is or how one would go about calculating it, but what we do know is that on net, jobs continue to be lost.  So growing jobs is absolutely incorrect and saving jobs is a feel good phrase that would be impossible to prove (or disprove).

But who cares about little things like facts when you’re trying to take credit.  By the way, who’s really to blame?

Obama: Through the last few decades of unprecedented growth, only a small minority of wealthy people actually saw their incomes grow, while the economy was not making good paying jobs or green jobs like it should’ve.

Oh, ok.  So it’s the rich’s fault?  They should have to pay!

Come on Mr. President, this is class warfare and theoretically beneath someone who promised to usher in “Hope & Change” and a new kind of politics.  Just to clarify for you Mr. President, class warfare has existed for centuries.  It’s not new and it’s not built on a foundation of “Hope & Change”.

But why do we need this Mr. President?

Obama:  Because middle class families have been struggling due to the constant rise in health care costs.  They have had wage increases, but due to increasing health care costs, the wage increases were offset.  This is also causing employers to not be able to afford health insurance anymore either.

So, the government medaling in health care through medicaid, medicare, FDA, and the myriad of laws that cover things such as, what qualifies a surgeon, what kind of needle can I use to draw blood, what drugs have to be based on prescription, and ever other intrustion they’ve made have pushed costs higher and  higher.

Additionally,

Obama:  I’m confident that when people look to see the costs of doing nothing at all, the people will support me.

Mr. President, if you’re not aware of the current level of intrusion into the current health care system, then it’s possible GWB might have a lead in the IQ race.

We’ve tried.  & time and time again, health care has become harder to deal with and more expensive.  Each time the government does something like this, it costs more than they thought it would, usually by multiples of at least 10, and the savings they say they’ll get never materialize.  But this time will be different.  Why?  Cause I’m Barak!

How will we do it?

Obama:  First, the government will not get in between you and your doctor.  What we will do is pass a bunch of laws that change the way insurance decisions are made, work towards decisions on “end-of-life” care, put limits on the amount of money a person will pay out of pocket, and many other laws.

But this is definitely NOT government interference.

Mr. President, congrats.  I have to applaud you as I couldn’t have said all that with a straight face.  You deserve an Oscar for logic twists needed for this.

What will it cost?

Obama:  Nothing of course.  We will save billions by fixing existing inefficencies and taxing the top 1% just a little bit.

So, we get everything we want and it costs hardly anything?  Someone once told me about things too good to be true, but I’m so enamored now by his speaking ability that I forgot.  But basically he seems to believe that to fix government intrusion into health care, more government intrusion is needed.

He seems to believe that while every time the government has gotten into health care or retirement funds or any other social spending they’ve always gotten the numbers wrong.  But this time is different.

What’s stopping you?

Obama:  I heard a Republican strategist state that it’s better to go for the kill against Obama than pass meaningful reform.  I heard a Republican Senator state, we want him to fail.

So… you have the executive branch, the House by a good majority and a filibuster proof majority in the Senate.  But the Republicans are causing problems?