We here at this website are fully aware that this concern is shared by Mr. Obama and his advisors and do not think that he needs us to tell him this. Nonetheless, we can make suggestions or recommend steps that we feel are elementary for the President-Elect to take and consider. If we forget his record as United States Senator where he was a ‘junior’ member in a club of one-hundred, now we will judge him by his managerial style and decision making abilities. We were also told by the liberal media and his campaign staff that we should not judge him by his previous associations (Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Bill Ayers, Father Pfleger, Tony Rezko, ACORN etc.) nor his experiences as a community organizer and since his college work and records were intentionally secreted away by Obama, we really did not have much to go on and were restricted to what he was saying during speeches and debates. As a result of this, he is pretty much a blank page and we have to wait now to see what he does.

            The first indication might come when we see whom he will choose to fill his cabinet and other major positions in the White House. If he is truly realistic and has a good grasp of what is going on in the World and America right now, he will surround himself with the most capable, proven and experienced individuals in order to have a strong and effective beginning of his Presidency. Contrarily, the worst thing Mr. Obama could do at this time is to think of re-election in 2012 and other self-gratifying future events. He is right now in the toughest position anybody could be in: To become the President of the United States of America and therewith the leader of the free world! This is the most powerful job on this planet in a time of financial and economic crisis together with the winds of war still blowing strongly as well as other regional conflicts and it requires concentrated focus on his part and we hope he will show us this in these coming days and weeks by his building his administration by way of selecting the best qualified persons for these undoubtedly challenging jobs.

            He should also delay delivery on his campaign promises such as Universal Health Care, tax cuts for 95 percent of all people and so on, after all, he has four years to do so and it would be better if he concentrated on righting the economic ship and settling the financial crisis. People feel uncertain about the future and words like ‘Hope’ and ‘Change we need’ do not change those feelings. When one has to worry about losing a job, promises by politicians do not allay such fears on an individual basis because no one can reasonable assume that Mr. Obama would step in and tell the respective employer: “Do not fire my friend!” We think, nobody would be presumptive (or should we call it stupid?). Only a stabilization of the economy can bring any kind of peace of mind to millions people and he should realize this and act accordingly and the sooner he can show results, the better this country and for that matter the world will be of and we can only hope that he will be able to do this.

            Consider Common Sense will not comment on every individual appointment by the President-Elect but will visit his actions in summary format in early January. We believe and hope that the transition into the White House for the Obama Administration will be swift and with the full cooperation and support of the Bush administration at every level. We wish Mr. Obama the best of luck in these coming weeks and in his decisions and the choices he will make.

From Rhetoric to Reality is a post from: Common Sense University

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Here is what’s at stake and we quote from the editorial ”Single mothers who work as part of a welfare-to-work-program may chose the person who is paid by the state to keep their kids while they work. Many moms choose a relative – grandparent, aunt, or sibling – who needn’t be licensed. About 700,000 families are in this subsidized childcare program, which costs taxpayers more than $3 billion a year.”

It is logical for these moms to – since given a choice – select a relative, a person that they can trust and have no cultural or language barrier problems. These ‘babysitters’ are also not required to be licensed by the State of California. Now then, is that the concern of the Legislature since this is a government-subsidized program? Are they proposing to license the grandmas and others who watch the kids while the moms are at work? You would think so. But that is not the case. The Democrats have other priorities: They want the babysitters to be unionized! State Senator Gil Cedillo, D-Los Angeles introduced the bill and it already has passed the State Assembly and is now being considered in the State Senate. The bill allows the Service Employees International Union – SEIU – and the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees to try and organize unlicensed childcare providers into a “provider organization”.

We cannot help to be cynical at this point. The union’s purpose is to negotiate pay and working conditions of the new members and according to the editorial, topping the list of the union priorities are higher pay, health insurance and pensions! It is bewildering to us at Common Sense Authors that this is even an issue at a time when California finds itself in a major budget crunch, if not outright crises. There are currently budget cuts proposed for education programs in excess of $4 billion dollars for the 2008/2009 fiscal year.

We have to seriously wonder if there are any budget-conscious Democrats in the State of California in Sacramento. Is there nobody in that bunch of politicians who thinks in somewhat realistic and responsible terms who would stand up and say to his fellow Democrats: “Hold it, let’s not get sidetracked with new programs when we are struggling to find ways to pay for the ones we have on the books.” From our perspective we can only establish very strongly that the Democrat lawmakers at the state level in California are totally void of any degree of common sense. There is not even a smidgen of evidence to the contrary.

Running the numbers from the article, the granny-babysitters make on average between $4,500 and $5,000 per year paid for by the state. It used to be and we know for sure it still is in certain sectors of society where grandparents just love to watch their grandchildren while the parents are at work. That’s the way it has been for hundreds of years and should remain that way too. But one can always count on Democrats to come up with proposals that are simply mind- boggling and so far out of the realm of normalcy, we have to wonder about the mindset of people who keep voting for them, the Democrats, and therefore giving them opportunities to come up with these outrageous programs and then seriously fight for them to become law. By providing them “Union status” for protection, these grandmas can also go on strike if they think they are underpaid or do not get enough pensions in the future. Who will look after the kids then, should it come to that? This is so extremely ludicrous, it deserves no further comment!

Back to the editorial, the article is pleading with Governor Schwarzenegger to veto this bill and we have to ask – Why? Is there a chance that the governor would even consider signing this ridiculous bill? Apparently there is or the newspaper would not have written the article. We like to believe that a person – short of having had a lobotomy – who called just a few years ago the Democrats in California ‘girly men’ cannot possibly change to the point where he would sign such legislation, even if it would be part of a legislative trade-off as was suggested in the article. We will keep you posted as to what California’s ‘Governator’ will do, stay tuned!
 
This article and others on Common Sense Authors are designed to provoke further thought and investigation.   It is not the intent for the articles to be politically biased. Sources are referenced in each article to encourage readers to delve into the supporting material.  We welcome all readers to participate with their point of view either in support or contrary with additional information sources.

Unionizing babysitting grandmas? is a post from: Common Sense University

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

What we have a problem with is the pandering by the Democrat candidates who now promise to bring Universal Health Care to America, framing it in such a way that it is a right to have health care coverage. And the people just eat it up and love it, apparently. But that is really not true. By promising Universal Heath care for all people in this country, the candidates are plain and simply pandering to the masses and they call it ‘Change’. To be even more convincing, the candidates present some dollar amounts, ranging from 80 to 150 billion dollars annually for this entitlement program, and justify the expense by comparing it with the costs of the war in Iraq which is currently much higher.

According to them, the Presidential wanna-bees, not only is Universal Heath Care a necessity, it is a Right, if not a birthright for all people to have! After all, we have to take care of the sick, the poor, the needy and so on, and who better to take on this task than the government. What is shameful about all of this is the liberal mainstream media who do not dare question its legitimacy; instead they praise the presidential panderers for their courage to find solutions to one of America’s major crises. They proclaim this is the change America needs. And if they agree with it, write about it in the print media and talk about it on television on a constant basis, the average person will believe it after a while and accept it as fact.

Both Senators Clinton and Obama agree on this right to health care for all and their programs differ only minutely as to the details. Clinton wants to make coverage mandatory for all even for those individuals who do not want health insurance and she will have an enforcement mechanism for compliance that could even involve garnishing wages. In comparison, Barack Obama does not want to go that far and gets promptly criticized by Hillary Clinton that his plan leaves about 15 million people uninsured. This could be compared to two ‘Snake-oil’ salesmen who promise that their tonics would heal all people of all their ailments. Each Salesperson believes that his or her product is superior to the other’s but they both agree that it will conquer all illnesses and is also a right to have!

Now then, if anybody thinks that Universal Health care is the solution to one of Americas major problems, we disagree and here is our reason why we believe that: Notwithstanding the current numbers being floated around by the two candidates as to the costs, there should be absolutely no doubt in anybody’s mind that these numbers are just tools to make the program more palatable for us all at this time. By the time Congress gets through with this, if it ever will do so, the bill, let’s call it The Comprehensive Universal Health Care Act, sent to whoever is President for his or her signature will be several times larger than the numbers that we hear now from the candidates. And these numbers will grow annually as every other entitlement program does that we have on the books now, it will be included in this law by Congress, no question about it.

To us here, this entire matter is being presented in totally absurd terms: What should be addressed first and foremost is the existing problem of rising health care costs. Now, either this issue is too hard to tackle by Congress in that it would mean making some very tough decisions and choices that could hurt re-election chances by punishing potential future campaign donors or it is the desire of our elected officials in Washington D.C. to put more power under their jurisdictions by providing universal health care/insurance. Anybody who knows even just a little about economics is aware that competition brings cost down, not monopolizing the program. We all know this to be the truth and unquestionably factual. How many times have we all experienced that when a new product comes on the market, it costs a lot but within a short time when competition enters the market, the costs go down significantly!

Now then, why would anybody in their right mind even consider monopolizing the health care industry? Make it more competitive and the costs will go down! Now then, why is it that the two candidates on the Democrat side running to be our next President are going totally in the opposite direction? Even by presenting it under the devious assumption that it is a right for everybody to have health care in America does not make it right. It is deceptive and pandering at the most cynical and unscrupulous level. To ask for votes from people by making promises of this magnitude is diabolical in our opinion! It should be a disqualifier for them! They are not fit to be President of this great country of ours.

This article and others on Common Sense Authors are designed to provoke further thought and investigation.   It is not the intent for the articles to be politically biased. Sources are referenced in each article to encourage readers to delve into the supporting material.  We welcome all readers to participate with their point of view either in support or contrary with additional information sources.

Why is Universal Health Insurance a Right? is a post from: Common Sense University

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

President Bush has just been given another attribute: He is heartless! The list of previously stated unflattering descriptions of him is long but now he is heartless too. The reason for this is his recent veto of the newer version of the SCHIP (State’s Children’s Health Insurance Program). The original program became law ten years ago and was intended to help children in poor families with up to an annual income of $40,000. It worked, but the law came up for renewal this year and the Democrats in Congress decided to enlarge it by raising the ceiling for income in some states up to over $80,000. They were not satisfied with just adjusting the ceiling for inflation by, for example, increasing it to just $50,000. No, the Democrats apparently felt that they could pass this and force the President to sign it. After all, how could the President not sign legislation dealing with health insurance for children? So, they dared him and he did not bite. For the Democrats it is feel-good legislation while the President calls it a step towards socialized health insurance and that is why he vetoed the bill.

As of this time, the Democrats while having support from some Republicans in the House of Representatives do not have enough votes to override the President’s veto for which they need a 2/3 majority of all House members. They will now apply pressure on those Republicans who have voted against this new law to switch their votes and help them override the veto. This vote is now scheduled for October 18. It will be interesting to see how much vote-switching will take place on that day and it will be an indication of how much arm-twisting and pork barrel trading will go on.

We here at ‘Back to Common Sense’ like to look at this entire issue soberly and analyze it from our standpoint of neutrality based on common sense: The original law was well-intentioned in that it helped out those families or even single parents that were struggling above the acknowledged ‘poverty line’, i.e. about $20,000. It is hard for these people to provide health insurance for themselves and their children because their income is above the level where they would be eligible for Medicaid. So, the ceiling for this program was set at 200 percent of the poverty level and this is how it’s eligibility level was for approx. $40,000. It was a well-intentioned effort to help the folks in this income group and we consider it compassionate and proper!

Had the law simple remained the same in its coverage parameters, there would have been no dispute about the renewal with the appropriate funding required to service such provisions. But no, the Democrats could not leave it alone, they had to change it and raise the ceiling to twice the previous levels. And they were not questioned about it. Nobody in the media felt it apparently worthy to ask the questions we are now asking here:

·        Why do think you have to give this benefit to families with incomes over $80,000 a year?

·        What was wrong with the previous ceiling for coverage?

·        Why do you draw the line at artificial percentage levels, ergo 400 percent?

·        Do you truly believe that a family with an $80,000 annual income cannot afford to provide their own health insurance?

·        What do you have in mind for families with income up to $100,000/year? Will you cover them when the law has to be renewed in five years?

·        Why do you think it proper that a family at such an income level should take its children off their family health plans so they can join SCHIP?

·        Can you tell us when you plan to provide health insurance for ALL children in America?

We believe that the issue of money for the program was not a problem. This President has not shown in previous years that he cares more about the budget than anything else. To the contrary, he has been and is being accused of not showing fiscal responsibility. But his concern that this is a step towards socialized health insurance cannot be denied just because it only involves the children of America. The Democrat’s planned to pay for this expanded program with a tax increase on tobacco products by raising for instance the price of a pack of cigarettes by $0.61. Therefore, the smokers in America would have to pay for health insurance for children of families with higher incomes. Considering the fact that a great number of poor or should we say poorer people do smoke, should we believe it fair to make them pay for this benefit to higher income families?

In conclusion, we here find it sad that such issues always get politicized and emotionally charged between the Democrats and the Republicans without bringing the underlying reasons for or against such new programs out in the open. Unfortunately, the media that could play this roll for the benefit of the American people are not interested in doing this. Their own beliefs and views, being overwhelmingly liberal, are generally in sync with the Democrats and they simply go along with their proposals for bigger government.

This article and others on Back to Common Sense are designed to provoke further thought and investigation.   It is not the intent for the articles to be politically biased. Sources are referenced in each article to encourage readers to delve into the supporting material.  We welcome all readers to participate with their point of view either in support or contrary with additional information sources.

Our ‘heartless’ President is a post from: Common Sense University

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

A recent report released by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities states that over 47 million Americans have no health insurance, a whopping 15.9 percent of the current population in the United States. This is naturally alarming and reason for some Presidential candidate panderers to take up the issue and come up with Universal Health Insurance proposals for all Americans. They state that it is shameful that this country, the leader of the free world has so many people in their midst without this vital living component. Consequentially, they all promise to fix this dire situation and take care of these ‘uninsured victims’.

We here at ‘Back to Common Sense’ have to agree that this number as a whole could be alarmingly high but we do not subscribe to the argument that anything mandatory is the answer. Before any corrective measures are being taken, there should be much greater scrutiny into how this huge number of uninsured has been calculated. We assume that it was not just a computer modeling exercise but a serious effort looking deep into America’s demographics. But unfortunately, this detail is not being shared with us all, we got just the summaries in total, in percentages of population and in comparison with previous years.

This should concern everybody who has some common sense in that it is incomplete and unverifiable data. From the report it can be seen that they had detailed data that allowed them to compare the several population groups, Whites versus Blacks and Hispanics but nothing in terms of age groups or if they included the approximately 12 million illegal aliens in America in their report.

For lack of more detailed information, we have done a limited search into the age demographics of America by using the U.S. Census Bureau results of 2000. The total population was presented as being 281,421,906 and that allows us to assume that our population has grown by about 20 million since then. Using this increase of 7.1 percent we can now approximate the numbers in each age group. Now then, if we can assume that most young people are no longer covered by their parents health insurance policies, ‘they have flown the coop’ so to speak. They either continue their education or get jobs and are on their own.

The age group of 18 to 24 year olds totals about 29 million and the next age group of 25 to 34 year olds totals approximately 42.7 million individuals, together they are not quite 72 million young people. Does anybody want to guess how many of them feel strongly about having health insurance that they will set aside enough money for premiums? We have to recognize that their salaries are not among the highest and their paychecks are generally barely enough to make ends meet. Do not get us wrong here, we are not demeaning these young Americans by stating that they are irresponsible when it comes to taking care of their health by taking out health insurance.

On the other hand, paying for living accommodations and expenses, their transportation and making payments on their credit cards are definitely a priority since lack of those payments could have detrimental effects on their lives. Besides, young people for the most part enjoy greater health than other age groups and are therefore more inclined to consider it a lesser priority.  This brings us to the next question: How many of these young people do not have health insurance? Without going overboard, we think that it is not excessive that probably about a third of them are without health insurance and that equates to 24 million. This is about half of the total number of uninsured. Since this is their choice and they are adults, let us therefore not make ‘victims’ out of them.

This would leave 23 million without health coverage. The report states that the number of uninsured children is over 8 million, considering that they live with at least one parent, this would mean at least 17 million people are without health coverage leaving about 6 million in older age groups. This still leaves open our earlier question as to whether or not the 12 million illegal aliens are included in this report.

We fully understand that these numbers are ‘guestimates’ (a mix between guesses and estimates) but we believe that it is necessary to have this information available before we, as a population jump on the bandwagon of the Presidential candidates in the Democrat party by endorsing their conclusions that only Universal Health Insurance programs in America, passed by Congress and signed into law by the next President are the answers to solving this problem. All candidates should be questioned on this instead of giving them a pass. Senator Hillary Clinton worked on just such a Universal Health Plan when she was First Lady in 1993/1994. Her proposal then did not even come out of committee in a Democrat Congress.

Her competitor, former Senator and Vice Presidential candidate, John Edwards has already made his plan public to solve this ‘grave’ problem with a program that will only cost $120 billion a year and mandates annual check-ups and doctor visits for all as part of health prevention. Now how will this be administered? What if someone does not go to the doctor, will he or she be kicked out of the plan or fined? On the one hand, these young people are mature enough to vote, possibly not smart enough to take out health insurance and that is why the government has to step in to take care of them. We can expect in the coming months competing plans from the other candidates as well, likely from both sides of the political spectrum.

We will stay tuned and report on this as events warrant. And you will agree that it will have to be paid for. In the meantime we here are taking sides with P.J. O’Rourke, a Civil Libertarian and the H.L. Mencken Research Fellow of the Cato Institute and correspondent of the Atlantic Monthly and the Weekly Standard magazines, who stated when it comes to health insurance:

“If you think health care is expensive now, wait until you see what it costs when it is free!”

This article and others on Back to Common Sense are designed to provoke further thought and investigation.   It is not the intent for the articles to be politically biased. Sources are referenced in each article to encourage readers to delve into the supporting material.  We welcome all readers to participate with their point of view either in support or contrary with additional information sources.

The Universal Health Insurance Scam is a post from: Common Sense University

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.