Tag Archives: Conservative

I LIKE This Guy

I just finished a post about Minnesota Democrats being split on the health care bill.  Good for them.  Then I lamented the fact that they just be holding out for more “what’s in it for them.”  Shame on them.

Note to Minnesota Democrats; THIS is how ya git’er done!

WASHINGTON — North Carolina Rep. Mike McIntyre has announced that he will vote against a $1.2 trillion health-care bill in the House of Representatives, saying that reform needs to fiscally responsible and done in targeted steps.

Not only is McIntyre standing up for what is fiscally sound, but he is doing it at significant risk to his standing within the Democratic party:

President Barack Obama met with Democratic lawmakers in closed-door meetings Saturday to woo last-minute commitments.

I like the use of the word “woo.”

But even more than this, Rep. McIntyre actually articulates his reasons.  And these aren’t the normal crappy politician speak we normally hear from these folks:

  • The bill “costs way too much – more than $1 trillion dollars on top of a $12 trillion national debt.”
  • It doesn’t address long-term health costs.
  • It raises too many taxes and includes new requirements “that will harm the ability of too many small businesses to compete and create jobs.”
  • “It tries to do too much too soon, instead of targeted changes that can immediately help people.”

Republicans should grab this guy and thank him for the two gifts he has delivered:

  • Voting against this bill.
  • Publicizing the Conservative’s objections to this bill better than Conservatives.

Now all we have to do is work on Rep. Heath Shuler.

Infant Mortality Rate

The race is on.  Health Care reform’s time has come-or gone.  Whatever side you come down on, the debate is intense.  And so it has been with friends and colleagues of mine.  One one side you have those that claim the United States spends more money per year on health care and has one of the worst systems in the industrial world.  On the other side you have the opposite.  These people admit that while we may spend more than any other nation on health care this claim would be equally true of expenditures on blue jeans, pro sporting tickets, aquariums, X-boxes and lawn mowers.  Further, rather than being one of the worst providers of medical care, these folks would argue that the Unites States delivers the best care in the world.

Who is right?  Let’s go to the data.  I am going to focus on the infant mortality rate – IMR.  Those who champion universal health care claim that the United States ranks 30th in the world in IMR.  A quick check shows that indeed, we do:

IMR Ranking

Further, they claim that infant mortality rate is an indicator of health care services in a country.  For this to be true, three conditions must be met:

  1. All nations are reporting their numbers correctly/consistently.
  2. The infants that are dying are of the same type.
  3. Factors other than medical services are being accounted for.

Consistency in Reporting

We know for a fact that not all nations count the infant mortality rate the same.   In the United States, we use the WHO definition:

Live birth refers to the complete expulsion or extraction from its mother of a product of conception, irrespective of the duration of the pregnancy, which, after such separation, breathes or shows any other evidence of life – e.g. beating of the heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord or definite movement of voluntary muscles – whether or not the umbilical cord has been cut or the placenta is attached. Each product of such a birth is considered live born.

In Europe, for example, they use a different definition:  [see page 122]

The infant mortality rate is defined as the number of infant deaths (days 0-364) after live birth at or
after 22 completed weeks of gestation in a given year, expressed per 1000 live births in the same
year.

And yet, even this definition is not standard across the European Countries: [see page 122]

Almost all countries provided data on overall infant mortality rates. However, many fewer were able to provide data on infant mortality rates by gestational age or birth weight, since infant deaths are registered in separate systems and not linked to perinatal data. These data were available for gestational age only from Flanders and Brussels in Belgium, Denmark, Estonia, Latvia, Malta, Austria, Poland, Finland, Sweden, the UK, and Norway.

This means, of course, that for countries like Portugal, France, Belgium, Greece, Germany, Spain, Switzerland, Austria, Italy and the Netherlands the method for counting don’t abide to even the less restrictive definition that the rest of the EU uses.  And all of these countries rank higher than the United Sates in the ranking by the CDC.  Further, the United States actually OVER reports the live births and subsequent deaths.

What happens when adjustments are made for these differences?

Norway boasts one of the lowest infant mortality rates in the world. But when the main determinant of mortality — weight at birth — is factored in, Norway has no better survival rates than the United States.

Which Infants Are Dying

The reason for the death is important in measuring IMR as well.  If, for example, there is an indicator that results in a much larger IMR than another, and that indicator is present in one population but not another, that would explain a difference in the two IMR rankings.  One of the first things that we should look at in determining if these IMR rankings are accurate is to identify if such in indicator exists.  And it does:

In 2004, the U.S. infant mortality rate (excluding births at less than 22 weeks of gestation) was 5.8, nearly twice the rate of 3.0 for Sweden, one of the two European countries with the lowest infant mortality rate (along with Norway).

Using direct standardization (10), we applied the U.S. gestational-age specific infant mortality rates to Sweden’s distribution of births by gestational age. If the United States had Sweden’s distribution of births by gestational age, the U.S. infant mortality rate (excluding births at less than 22 weeks of gestation) would go from 5.8 to 3.9 infant deaths per 1,000 live births—a decline of 33%.

US adjusted

In fact, if we use the numbers above, and just the numbers above, the US moves from its current ranking of 30th to a ranking of 12; tied with Germany.  And this does not even include the adjustments that certainly would move many of those countries 1-11 even lower.

And how does the US rank in Preterm Birth Percentage?

Preterm Rate

We rank among the highest in the world.  The ranking that WHO and the CDC and the CIA report are now, perhaps, showing a different story.  They may not be showing a picture of the medical delivery service in America for infants, rather, they may be showing that America delivers far more Preterm babies than the rest of the world.  Or, or, that we REPORT more preterm live births than the rest of the world.  If even one of these two statistics were reported, the US would jump either near the very top or would move up 18 spots on the list.

Non-medical Factors

Lastly, when looking at the IMR as an indicator on the medical delivery, or health care, system, it is equally important to look into factors that contribute to IMR that have nothing to do with that system.  And again, we see that there are such factors:

IMR by Race

It jumps out of the page; black babies dies at a higher rate than any other followed by Hawaiian and Native American.  And why the discrepancy in black women?

the largest difference in rates between the two groups was for preterm birth/low birthweight infants— infants born to Black women had an infant death rate due to preterm birth/low birthweight four times higher than those born to White women.

LBW by race
And why are we seeing black women delivering babies with such low birthrates?  Two possible reasons:

One reason African-American mothers have babies who weigh less at birth is that they are at greater risk for such conditions as high blood pressure and preeclampsia.

And the other:

Also, minority women are subject to stress caused by perceived racial discrimination, the researchers said.

David and Collins spoke with black women who had babies with normal weights at birth, comparing them with black women whose babies’ birth weight was very low — under three pounds.

They asked the mothers if they had ever been treated unfairly because of their race when looking for a job, in an educational setting or in other situations.

Those who felt discriminated against had a twofold increase in low birth weights. And for those who experienced discrimination in three “domains,” the increase was nearly threefold.

In David and Collins’ study of black women who gave birth in two Chicago hospitals, 16 percent said their partner was in jail during the pregnancy.

“We interpreted this finding as another indicator of stress, but one caused by institutional rather than interpersonal racial discrimination,” David said.

Net/net, the United States has work to do.  We have whole groups of people who need to be served.  There are improvements that can be made.  But the raw statistic showing that the United States has such a low IMR is simply not accurate.  And where it is accurate, it can be explained in large part, to conditions that may have nothing to do with medical service delivery.

In fact, the US has reason to shout out to our medical system:

Since 2000, 42 of the world’s 52 surviving babies weighing less than 400g (0.9 lbs.) were born in the United States.

This is Where We are Wrong

The situation playing out in Seattle frustrates me.  Frustrates me on two levels:

  1. What I consider basic human rights are being denied to a group of people.
  2. Conservatives are continually alienating whole demographics who would otherwise embrace us.

Supporters of gay rights were buoyed by first-day returns that showed Referendum 71 leading by a narrow margin Tuesday evening.

The results were disappointing to religious conservatives, whose aggressive efforts to get the expanded partnership law thrown out had gained momentum in recent months.

I. Simply. Don’t. Get. It.

As conservatives, we hold that individual Liberty is the cornerstone to our version of government.  Liberty extended to all living people.  And personal responsibility from those same people.  In that vein, extending civil liberties, civil rights should be the our rallying call.  This issue is NOT a Liberal issue, it is a Conservative issue.  We have the opportunity to take this away from the Democrats, make it our own and pull millions of people to our side.

But we don’t.  And we continue to blow it.

Media Bias: Brad and Britt Have It Wrong

This morning on the Brad and Britt show the conversation was concerning the continued attack on Fox News from the White House.  I only was able to catch a small part of the show, but the general gist was that, in fact, Fox News as an organization is slanted to the Right.  I got this impression from the conversation between Brad and Britt regarding the Fox Radio reporters that the show dealt with for the first 3 years of the station’s existence.

Britt commented:

During this time he and Brad often spoke to those reporters and during those conversations, where it was just one on one, the reporters would often come across as genuine and fair, as if they were liberated from the corporate expectations of Fox.

I waited for the comparison to ABC Radio and its reporters.  I would expect that if Fox had certain expectations than ABC must also.  And if the Fox reporters felt liberated in one on one conversations with peers, it would hold that ABC reporters would feel the same way.  I was rewarded with no such point.  So I was left with the feeling that:

  1. Yes.  Fox News does expect a Conservative slant.
  2. Yes.  That expectation is wrong.

So I started to wonder.  Many folks say that America is a “Center Right” nation.  So maybe Fox is just right on the money when they report as a “Center Right” network.  Which in turn got me to thinking, how far “right” is Fox?

So I checked.  And this is what I found:  A report titled:  A Report on Media Bias

It turns out that two researchers conducted a study.  And a rather clever study at that.  The researchers

count the times that a media outlet cites various think tanks and other policy groups.  We compare this with the times that members of Congress cite the same think tanks in their speeches on the floor of the House and Senate.  By comparing the citation patterns we can construct an ADA score for each media outlet.

Then, by ranking these ADA scores, the report was able to rank not only how liberal or conservative a news outlet is, but also how far from “Center” it is.

The results?  Surprising only in the fact that SO many sources are liberal, by how far and even how traditional conservative sources are really liberal:

Media source and ADA Score

Media source and ADA Score

Sources are listed in the order of the distance they are from center.  The lower the number, the more conservative; the higher the more liberal.  Average is 50.06.   So, where does Fox news sit?  5th.  They are the fifth closest to center with a 39.7 ranking.  Every other source from 6th through 20 is further from center than Fox and all of them save 1 has a liberal bias.

The report is informative in 2 other aspects:

  1. Aaron Brown doesn’t host on CNN any longer.  That honor goes to the decidedly more liberal Anderson Cooper.
  2. MSNBC isn’t even on the list.  Yowza.

So I ask you gentle reader; who is really in the tank for who?

We Have A Lot of Work to Do

I don’t know what makes some people tick.  Some folks don’t like ham and cheese sandwiches.  Others don’t like pepperoni pizza.  And other still don’t like vanilla ice cream topped with chocolate syrup and spanish peanuts.  I just don’t get it.  Some people just don’t get it.

But one thing I have always taken heart in is that each succeeding generation will be more racially tolerant than the preceding.   I want to not react by color.  I expect my kids not too.

With that said, this is SO disheartening:

NEW ORLEANS – A Louisiana justice of the peace said he refused to issue a marriage license to an interracial couple out of concern for any children the couple might have. Keith Bardwell, justice of the peace in Tangipahoa Parish, says it is his experience that most interracial marriages do not last long.

Of course the justice claims he’s not racist:

“I’m not a racist. I just don’t believe in mixing the races that way,” Bardwell told the Associated Press on Thursday. “I have piles and piles of black friends. They come to my home, I marry them, they use my bathroom. I treat them just like everyone else.”

Dumbass.

Poor Democrats: Responsibility

As we are beginning quarter 4, 2009, it is becoming clear that what we already knew was going to happen is, ahem, going to happen. That is, we are most certainly going to see the end of the recession between April and September of this year. Further, the unemployment rate is going to continue to rise and rise for quite some time.

As I mentioned, this is not surprising or new information.  What IS surprising, however, is that there is a group of people who find themselves in an uncomfortable position; the Democrats.

Job losses are expected to continue at least into the middle of next year, likely driving the unemployment rate above 10 percent from 9.8 percent last month. It could take three or four more years for it to fall to normal levels.

The longest and deepest downturn since the Great Depression has claimed 7.2 million jobs since it began in December 2007. Analysts figure 750,000 more jobs could disappear over the next six months.

And why is this?  It’s a perfect storm of sorts for the Democrats.  They are dealing with both long term and short term trends.  On the one hand, we are now paying the piper for the incentives given to banks, lenders and individuals to buy/sell houses to people who couldn’t afford them.  That’s the long term.  The short term?  The whole stimulus package including, to be fair, the Republican led TARP disaster.  And the medium term?  The rise of the minimum wage, which, by the way, is coinciding with a very bad labor market.  Right when we should be trying to incent people to hire other people, we instead are raising the cost of labor; even beyond what that labor is worth.

And what are the Democrats going to do to try to help us through this period of adjustment?  Why, a second stimulus perhaps?  Some are even considering raising that minimum wage even higher.  And the doubly whammy?  Cap and Trade along with Universal Health Care.

If you wanna implement policies that promise to rise the people up but in reality strip those same people of economic health and vibrancy?  Hire a Democrat; just remember that when their policies fail, it’ll get harder and harder to hire them in the next election.

WCPSS: Diversity

As my daughter started getting closer in age to going to school, I became interested in WCPSS.  I began to learn how kids are sent to school, ow they get there and why.  I also learned many many other things.  That Wake is the largest district in the State and one of the largest in the country.  That we are growing like crazy.  That we win awards for our schools and the job that we do.  And I learned that we use tests the rest of the country doesn’t use.

I come from an educator’s family; my dad taught for 33 years.  Heck, I went to school to be a teacher and spent a single year in the classroom before I realized this wasn’t for me.  An expert?  No, certainly not.  But an interested participant with not insignificant experience and training.

I also have a different take on education that most of my political flock.  I’m not pro-voucher, I’m pro public school with market solutions existing outside of that option.  See, I don’t so much see the taxes I pay going to MY children’s education as much as I see them going to a well educated public.  One of the reasons our nation is so prosperous is that we have an educated populace.  So, when I consider moving my kids into a private school, I don’t see the tax money I pay in something that I have claim to pull out.

With that said, the role of the public schools is to give an education.  They are not meant to be anything else.  And if there are tools that assist in that process, it is incumbent on the serious administrator to utilize those tools.  And I think that diverse schools are one of those tools.  I absolutely feel that parental involvement in the school contributes to the success of the students in those schools.  We volunteer and walk through the school.  I call the principle when I have concerns and am engaged with our teachers.  All of this is to say that someone other than no one is making sure that things are being done well in our school.  Further, our involvement affects other students in other ways.  When my wife and I are in the classroom, we are not only helping our child, but the other kids in class as well.  One more adult to pick up the slack and let the teacher teach just a titch more.

And so yes, when a school contains a mixture of economic diverse families, the involvement of the school’s parents exits at some level that keeps the school at least humming, if not over achieving.  Is it hard to pass a school near where you live?  Sure.  Should that be our concern when going about the business of educating a public?  Maybe, but not the top priority.  Is there more work to do?  Certainly.  Is more money the answer?  Almost certainly not.  There are many many things that can be done without adding more money; removing any represented workers for one and merit based pay for two.  But diversity works.

Leave it alone.

Aha….Why Cost of Insurance is so High in Maine

Alright, so we have been discussing health care, health insurance and everything wrong with all of that.  As always, the Democrats cry out “We need this.  We just NEED this damn it!  And then they walk away to their voting place and vote for someone who wants to be in power, which is different than someone wanting to be a Senator, and presto, we have a voice in Washington that is going to legislate this health care for everyone thing.  On the other side, you have republicans, seriously going about the days business when they hear this nonsense and look up from their work and say “No”.  In much the same way a father says “no” to the 7th request for another cookie before bed.

And so, republicans are labeled as the party of “No”.  But this time around, the republicans have offered some solutions to bring the price of health care down.  Down for everyone.  Down to the point that every single person in the country can have insurance.  And one of the methods in doing that is to free insurance companies to sell policies to people outside of the state the reside in.  That is, as a citizen of North Carolina, I could purchase health insurance from a company in Washington state.  Or Arizona.  Or anywhere for that matter.  What THIS would do is free the consumer to choose and not be subject to the regulations placed upon the insurance providers in that state.  But even this causes Liberals to scream.

For example, a recent study found that Maine ranks 6th in the nation when it comes to expensive individual policies.  Sixth.  And folks around the lefty campfire are saying that the reason for the high prices is due to the monopoly that exists in Maine.  They claim that because Wellpoint has a 90%+ customer saturation base, they are able to charge whatever they want.  The problem is, those liberals are reporting only on the results, not the cause of the problem.

See, it turns out that in 1993 Maine passed laws requiring coverage to every citizen.

Blink.  Blink.

But that’s not bad enough.  Not only are they required to sell insurance to everyone that applies, they are also unable to distinguish based on gender, health status, claims experience or time with coverage.

Now, after that law passed, what do you supposed happened to the price?  Yeah, right through the roof.  And it drove out all but a few providers that specialized in mandatory care and THEY, in turn, bought up the remaining companies.  Net/net:  Noe one wants to do business in Maine and THAT’S why there is only one provider.

Damn.

Next thing these liberals are going to mandate is that all kids make the varsity.

The Chairman’s Weekly Radio Address: August 16, 2009

Remarks of President Barack Obama
Weekly Address
Saturday, August 15th, 2009

This week, I’ve been traveling across our country to discuss health insurance reform and to hear directly from folks like you – your questions, your concerns, and your stories.

Nah, nah ya haven’t.  You’ve been making fun of guys like me.  Calling me a teabagger and a right wing nut case.  What you ARE doing is travelling across the country talking to folks like you!

Now, I know there’s been a lot of attention paid to some of the town hall meetings that are going on around the country, especially those where tempers have flared. You know how TV loves a ruckus.

Ahhwww, you folksy guy you!  But really, ’cause organizing is your bag I’m just ‘spossed to not have my say?

But what you haven’t seen – because it’s not as exciting – are the many constructive meetings going on all over the country where Americans are airing their hopes and concerns about this very important issue.

I’ve been holding some of my own, and the stories I’ve heard have really underscored why I believe so strongly that health insurance reform is a challenge we can’t ignore.

They’re stories like Lori Hitchcock’s, who I met in New Hampshire this week. Lori’s got a pre-existing condition, so no insurance company will cover her. She’s self-employed, and in this economy, she can’t find a job that offers health care, so she’s been uninsured for two years.

See, now that’s strange.  And while I’m not callin’ ya a liar, I AM sayin’ I don’t believe you.  See, I went on line, just now- right this very minute- and found a quote for health insurance that covers me after a 5k deductible for about $130 a month.  Now, I don’t have a pr-existing condition, the plan WOULD cover me 12 months after I had been paying premiums.  So, ya see, you CAN get coverage.  If you are willing to, you know, work.

Or they’re stories like Katie Gibson’s, who I met in Montana. When Katie tried to change insurance companies, she was sure to list her pre-existing conditions on the application and even called her new company to confirm she’d be covered. Two months later, she was dropped – after she’d already gone off her other insurance.

These are the stories that aren’t being told – stories of a health care system that works better for the insurance industry than it does for the American people. And that’s why we’re going to pass health insurance reform that finally holds the insurance companies accountable.

Do you know what that means?  To hold an insurance company accountable?  Cause I don’t.  See, I have insurance and I see doctors and my kids see doctors and the insurance company pays the bills.  I don’t fight with ’em or have to call ’em or anything.  So, what are they doin’ that you don’t like?

But now’s the hard part. Because the history is clear – every time we come close to passing health insurance reform, the special interests with a stake in the status quo use their influence and political allies to scare and mislead the American people.

Strange of you to speak so poorly about your Union brothers.

As an example, let’s look at one of the scarier-sounding and more ridiculous rumors out there – that so-called “death panels” would decide whether senior citizens get to live or die.

Before you get on with what I am sure is a well thought out response to this concept—-it’s TRUE.

Now, back to regularly scheduled programming.

That rumor began with the distortion of one idea in a Congressional bill that would allow Medicare to cover voluntary visits with your doctor to discuss your end-of-life care – if and only if you decide to have those visits. It had nothing to do with putting government in control of your decisions; in fact, it would give you all the information you need – if you want it – to put you in control of your decisions. When a conservative Republican Senator who has long-fought for even more far-reaching proposals found out how folks were twisting the idea, he called their misrepresentation, and I quote, “nuts.”

So when folks with a stake in the status quo keep inventing these boogeymen in an effort to scare people, it’s disappointing, but it’s not surprising. We’ve seen it before. When President Roosevelt was working to create Social Security, opponents warned it would open the door to “federal snooping” and force Americans to wear dog tags. When President Kennedy and President Johnson were working to create Medicare, opponents warned of “socialized medicine.” Sound familiar? Not only were those fears never realized, but more importantly, those programs have saved the lives of tens of millions of seniors, the disabled, and the disadvantaged.

Those who would stand in the way of reform will say almost anything to scare you about the cost of action. But they won’t say much about the cost of inaction.

You’ve been down this road before; remember the Stimulus package?  Yeah, how’d THAT work for ya Sparky?

If you’re worried about rationed care, higher costs, denied coverage, or bureaucrats getting between you and your doctor, then you should know that’s what’s happening right now.

We’re not worried about it; we get it.  It’s a concept that we are all familiar with.  It’s a concept that serves us well.  For example, when we ration on price we get healthy competition resulting in lower costs and higher quality.  Not that you would know about it however, so, just keep on pretending like you’ve ever had a job.

In the past three years, over 12 million Americans were discriminated against by insurance companies due to a preexisting condition, or saw their coverage denied or dropped just when they got sick and needed it most. Americans whose jobs and health care are secure today just don’t know if they’ll be next to join the 14,000 who lose their health insurance every single day. And if we don’t act, average family premiums will keep rising to more than $22,000 within a decade.

On the other hand, here’s what reform will mean for you.

First, no matter what you’ve heard, if you like your doctor or health care plan, you can keep it.

Right…..until ya need to change.  Then, then ya can’t keep it.  But just go right ahead and skip that part.

If you don’t have insurance, you’ll finally be able to afford insurance. And everyone will have the security and stability that’s missing today.

Who can’t afford insurance today?  Really?  Who?  And why not?  I swear to you…when you buy ANYTHING before you buy insurance, it means that you can buy insurance you simply choose not too.

Insurance companies will be prohibited from denying you coverage because of your medical history, dropping your coverage if you get sick, or watering down your coverage when it counts – because there’s no point in having health insurance if it’s not there when you need it.

Insurance companies will no longer be able to place some arbitrary cap on the amount of coverage you can receive in a given year or lifetime, and we will place a limit on how much you can be charged for out-of-pocket expenses – because no one in America should go broke just because they get sick.

Finally, we’ll require insurance companies to cover routine checkups and preventive care, like mammograms and colonoscopies – because there’s no reason we shouldn’t be saving lives and dollars by catching diseases like breast cancer and prostate cancer on the front end.

Pssst, over here.  You mentioned above that the normal tactics were being used to fight this, cough cough, reform bill of yours?  Well, far be it from you to go down that road.  Cause, ya know, insurance companies cover that today already.  But shhhh, better for you if no one calls ya on that!

That’s what reform means. For all the chatter and the noise out there, what every American needs to know is this: If you don’t have health insurance, you will finally have quality, affordable options once we pass reform. If you do have health insurance, we will make sure that no insurance company or government bureaucrat gets between you and the care that you need. And we will deliver this in a fiscally responsible way.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.  What kinda mooch do ya think I am?  No government bureaucrat, fiscally responsible.  Rich!

I know there’s plenty of real concern and skepticism out there.

Ya think?  Even you Democrats are eating your young on this one.

I know that in a time of economic upheaval, the idea of change can be unsettling, and I know that there are folks who believe that government should have no role at all in solving our problems. These are legitimate differences worthy of the real discussion that America deserves – one where we lower our voices, listen to one another, and talk about differences that really exist. Because while there may be disagreements over how to go about it, there is widespread agreement on the urgent need to reform a broken system and finally hold insurance companies accountable.

Nearly fifty years ago, in the midst of the noisy early battles to create what would become Medicare, President Kennedy said, “I refuse to see us live on the accomplishments of another generation. I refuse to see this country, and all of us, shrink from these struggles which are our responsibility in our time.” Now it falls to us to meet the challenges of our time. And if we can come together, and listen to one another; I believe, as I always have, that we will rise to this moment, we will build something better for our children, and we will secure America’s future in this new century.

Jeez!

Priorities and Scare Tactics

Look, it’s simple.  We all do it.  There are times in every good household when something unexpected comes up.  Or, in times of over spending, perhaps it shouldn’t be unexpected, but, you get the point.  You look in the checkbook and look at the bills and confirm that it isn’t going to add up.  You are going to have to reduce spending or get another job.  It happens to all of us.  Happens to me.  Will happen to me again.  And this is healthy; it forces us to keep what is important to us and shed what isn’t.

For example, as I monitor my “play money” fund and see that it’s going to be bankrupt in 3 months I am forced to review what I am paying for in terms of “play”.  I see that I have 3 magazine subscriptions and 5 on line subscriptions.  Further, I am spending 90 bucks a month on aikido and so on and so on.  Given that I have to shave off $50 a month, I go through what everybody goes through.  I itemize my “play money” expenditures, rank them in order of value and cut the ones that are of LEAST VALUE!  Notice I say value, not dollar expenditure.  See, I really appreciate my aikido and am willing to keep that program intact even though it has a higher dollar value than say, Forbes.  Sadly, Forbes is a redundant source and it gets wacked.

What I don’t do is this:

Democrats generally agree that tax increases are needed to avoid what they say would be devastating cuts to education and social services for children and the state’s poor.

See, to me, that’s disingenuous.  Who DOESN’T want to avoid cutting these programs?  There’s not a person in the world that wants to cut education and social services.  First.  It has to be at the top, or close to it, of every single politicians value list.  Or should be.  And that’s what makes me mad about Liberals.  They want and take the easy way out every time.

  • When forced to cut, they won’t.
  • When asked to prioritize, they won’t.
  • When required to do what all adults do-they balk.

Now, this doesn’t mean that Education won’t have to cut back some.  It doesn’t mean that schools have a green light to spend spend spend.  But what it does say is that there HAVE to be places where we can cut before we have to implement “devastating cuts to education and social services”.

Sheesh.