The Bull in a China Shop

Everyone knows the cliche. The implication is that a person goes in carelessly, or I guess maybe intentionally, to a situation and destroys the place. This is my impression of President Obama's LESS THAN 100 days in office. It is almost impossible to even keep up with all the changes he is making to our country but I will not comment on all of them for lack of time and space. This is more than my complaining about differences in ideology. This is becoming fear for what we as a country can and/or will become under his policies. Let me explain.

The most recent mud slinging at the Bush administration over the interrogation tactics is appauling. How in the world can anyone say that the tactic of water boarding on key terrorists was not helpful? For the record, which the media fails to reveal, water boarding was used on three people. One would never know that based upon the media's and the left wing extremists' reports. Other reports say these tactics revealed important information that helped protect the citizens of this great country. Ironically, the people who performed these interrogations did the jobs we have entrusted them to do. Or, do the people of our country so quickly forget the attacks on 9/11 where over 3,000 Americans died?! This is outrageous. The other forms of interrogation that is under investigation is almost comical: one terrorist had a neck brace put on to prevent injury when he was getting pushed around; another, who had a fear of stinging insects, had a caterpillar put on him and was told it stung. Seriously, even if these tactics were harsher, we are in a war and these men are trying to kill us. Would any one of you out there act differently if you thought your family was potentially the next target? If these interrogations failed, they might have been.

Second, this is a threat to our national security! As one general put it, by making this information public you are allowing the next terrorists to train and prepare themselves in the case of capture. These terrorists do in fact train to go through these interrogations so as not to give up information. Not only this, but by softening our position we can only be emboldening our enemies as we go after our own people who did what they thought right to protect our country. Our enemies do not play by the rules. They don't care about our rules. If we were not at war and we were not constantly a target, I agree, these tactics would be a excessive but we are not. American lives are continually in jeopardy and it is the President who is responsible to make sure that safety is ensured.

Third, come to find out, new reports are surfacing that many of these Democrats accusing the Bush administration were in fact informed of what was happening yet had no objections at the time. If this is true then this is obviously more a political move than it is a matter of virtue (which I believe it is). The leadership in this country, whether Republican or Democrat, needs to start acting like leaders and stop basing decisions upon poles and "popular opinion." It is also way too easy to look at something far removed from the freshness of 9/11 and judge whether these tactics were extreme or not. Frankly, that is unfair and hypocritical. It is also interesting that Obama has flip-flopped on whether or not to prosecute these lawyers and aids over their interpretation of the law. Especially after the U.N. (which is useless in and of itself) publicly condemned this as well as other left wing extremists.

Fourth is the matter if Obama can distinguish between friend and enemy. Prior to April 15's tea parties, the Obama administration publicized a new threat to our homeland security. Interestingly enough, myself and people with similar convictions earily resembled this new threat. The threat is of "Right Wing Extremists." There is some language in there that is quite troubling, in fact very troubling. Also worth mentioning is the fact every tea party was a peaceful demonstration, not a cause for conern despite what CNN would like to portray (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QOrPzVECSjo; not family viewing? It was a peaceful demonstration!).

The document begins by saying, "The DHS/Office of Intelligence and Analysis (I&A) has no specific information that domestic rightwing* terrorists are currently planning acts of violence, but rightwing extremists may be gaining new recruits by playing on their fears about several emergent issues. The economic downturn and the election of the first African American president present unique drivers for rightwing radicalization and recruitment."

First, they admit there is no evidence any harm is going to be done. No evidence. Second, they are turning opposition to Obama into a race issue. This is ridiculous. If my opposing President Obama's policies, which by the way he has even admitted to wanting to change the foundation of our country , makes me a racist then I'm a racist. BUT, I am not a racist if you mean I oppose him because of his skin color. Ethnicity, race, and/or color is not the issue here. I believe President Obama to be more extreme every day in his ideologies. He is hypocritical for criticizing the Bush administration for excessive spending then he goes and quadrupals it in his first year. His ideologies reflect more of a Communist than they do a Capitalist. Maybe this is why he condemns "right wingers" and shakes hands with people who hate our country.

There are other very disconcerting things about this document. It also states, "Rightwing extremism in the United States can be broadly divided into those groups, movements, and adherents that are primarily hate-oriented (based on hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups), and those that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or
rejecting government authority entirely. It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration."

Uumm, where do I start? First, let's deal with "hate." This term is used very broadly to describe those who oppose homosexual marriage, people's religious convictions (such as Christians believing there is one way to heaven), and even conservatives who oppose President Obama's policies; therefore, they must be racist. Also, the rejection of federal authority in favor of state or local is actually constitutional. The federal government is not a monarchy. The President of the Unite States is not Czar. Nor is he a Communist dictator. The Federal government has limited power over the states. Finally, the issues mentioned here that the "right wing extremists" would rally under are quite confusing. So if you strongly oppose abortion, or you would like the government to actually do its job concerning immigration (i.e., like secure the borders, like consider it a crime to illegally cross the borders, etc.) you are right wing extremists? Seriously?

The document gets into more than this. I didn't even get into what it says about the military. If you would like to read it, the link is hsa-rightwing-extremism-09-04-07.pdf or I'm sure you can search for it with Google.

As I have seen the actions this new adminstration has done, I feel like I'm in an alternate reality. Our President is befriending enemies and accusing conservatives who differ in ideology. He is reaching out to our enemies all the while apologizing for his country as he travels the world. If he is that ashamed of our country he should have never run for President. Personally, I think the President needs to stop focusing on his popularity and start running this country in a responsible way. Instead, he chooses to be a bull in the china shop and dismantle most everything.

Medical Tourism...Catch a Colonoscopy and a Show!

Never before has it been more apparent than now of our current healthcare crisis. With rising uninsured, to rising premiums, to decreased coverage, our nation is posed with a problem just as large as our current economic woes. The range of solutions go from regulation of insurance companies to socialized medicine. The later, of course, I vehemently oppose.

Looking through recent news publications I happened upon a renewed interest in "medical tourism". http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/03/27/india.medical.travel/index.html This is an increasing regularity among Americans, but has been going on throughout the rest of the world starting with the ancient Greeks. Many uninsured patients have found it exponentially cheaper to fly overseas to seek treatment. This may be a shock to some, but is gaining a lot of popularity.

You can search google and find many travel sites specialized in this type of tourism. Where one procedure in the US may cost upwards of 150k, the same procedure can be done in India for less than 15k including travel expenses. Some insurance companies are climbing aboard and offering policies that cover many of these procedures/trips. Most of the coordinating hospitals/countries offer teleconferences with the doctors to get necessary info and answer any questions. As well as offering state-of-the-art medical facilities that many here can't even get without going to a large city.

So this brings me to the question of how can we adequately take care of our own citizens without sending them into bankruptcy? Here are the stipulations that we must accept; 1. The level of care must not decrease, but continue to provide the most current of treatments, 2. Must provide for preventative medicines, and 3. Must be affordable (that in itself is probably the most difficult to address). Although our current Administration has an intense desire for this, I don't think that leaving it up to Congress and the likes of senators like Barney Frank to make it work is the answer. It needs to be worked out by an non-governmental committee of Physicians, Hospital Administrators, Insurance CEO's, and of course a representation of "patients". I think that it would be the only way to develop a plan that includes aggreements and compromises from all parties effected with less political agenda.

If I were on a committee to help develop a healthcare reform plan, here is what I would suggest.

First of all, we need a type of nationalized basic insurance policy. By basic I mean preventative care, non-specialized physician office visits, generic prescription coverage, and ER visits. This should be made available to all people. It would would be paid out of pre-tax wages like any other insurance premium. Most people would be likely to accept insurance if it is this way because when you never see the money come to you, it doesn't affect your perception of paying for it in the same way. Upon employment each person would have the option to accept the coverage or not. It would not be mandatory and would be based off of a percentage of income not a fixed rate, up to a certain point. Children, up to working age, would have coverage regardless of a parents current coverage. It would also be non-discriminatory of pre-existing conditions and this national coverage would automatically qualify you for advance private coverage without any conditions being classified as pre-existing. Disabled and retired would still have Medicare (although a reformed and more beneficial form) would still be available.

Secondly, Health Insurance Companies need reform and some type of regulation (not government control). Focus needs to be on prevention of disease rather than treatment of it once it has developed. I understand that certain things cannot be caught and prevented, but I am speaking of diseases like Type 2 diabetes, heart disease, certain types of cancers, etc. These are diseases that can be prevented or screened for that a lot of insurance companies don't like to pay for until you need by-pass surgery or chemotherapy (much more expensive than prevention). A tax deduction for insurance premiums would encourage competition between companies and help bring down the cost. These companies should be working with the patients/doctors not against them.

Thirdly, malpractice needs reform. Our nation has become the most litigous bunch of sissies I have every heard of. This is a huge factor in the cost of healthcare today. Regulations need to be in place that limit the types of lawsuits to the ones that are ligitimate. Doctors are only human, and do make mistakes. If a patient comes into the hospital and dies, but would have died if they didn't come to the hospital the family shouldn't be allowed to sue unless the death was caused by negligence. If you have the wrong leg cut of in surgery, yes sue the hell out of them! If a patient dies on the operating table, without gross negligence, no. If people are complaining that doctors make too much, they need to turn to the lawyers who make twice that. Our judges need to grow backbones and tell these sleasy lawyers to get out of their courtroom!

I'm sure that there are other aspects of healthcare that need reform, such as electronic medical records, that I have mixed feelings about. To me, these are at the top of my list on things to fix. Socialized healthcare is not the answer, and I pray that it doesn't go in that direction. It hasn't been the best thing for Canada. Some patients have to wait months to get treatments, and many of them are going out of the country as well. Not to mention that in our society, we would lose many doctors, and the rate at which we get new ones would decrease. Not only due to income but to the cost of school.

What else can you think of that needs to be changed? Or if you think that my suggestions are wrong, please inform me of your alternatives. We're all hoping for "change", so here's to "hoping" for the positive.

Victim, Culprit, or both?

When it was announced that AIG executives received bonuses from tax payer money, the outrage shook the entire country. Now I am not one who thinks they should have done it, rather, they could have operated with much more discretion. Though I am not one who will allow those who permitted it (our wonderful Government) off the hook. Most of the members of the House and Senate and our President signed off on a bill that allowed them to release these bonuses. Now they have vehemently spit venom at these "horrible" executives. Some have called for their jobs, one Senator said they should follow the Japanese tradition and resign or commit suicide. Many of these executives have reported numerous death threats. All the while, there is and was another side of the story, one that I thought I would share and see what the members of Triskelos might say to his words posted in the NY Times as he resigned his position at AIG. Here is the letter:

DEAR Mr. Liddy,

It is with deep regret that I submit my notice of resignation from A.I.G. Financial Products. I hope you take the time to read this entire letter. Before describing the details of my decision, I want to offer some context:

I am proud of everything I have done for the commodity and equity divisions of A.I.G.-F.P. I was in no way involved in — or responsible for — the credit default swap transactions that have hamstrung A.I.G. Nor were more than a handful of the 400 current employees of A.I.G.-F.P. Most of those responsible have left the company and have conspicuously escaped the public outrage.

After 12 months of hard work dismantling the company — during which A.I.G. reassured us many times we would be rewarded in March 2009 — we in the financial products unit have been betrayed by A.I.G. and are being unfairly persecuted by elected officials. In response to this, I will now leave the company and donate my entire post-tax retention payment to those suffering from the global economic downturn. My intent is to keep none of the money myself.

I take this action after 11 years of dedicated, honorable service to A.I.G. I can no longer effectively perform my duties in this dysfunctional environment, nor am I being paid to do so. Like you, I was asked to work for an annual salary of $1, and I agreed out of a sense of duty to the company and to the public officials who have come to its aid. Having now been let down by both, I can no longer justify spending 10, 12, 14 hours a day away from my family for the benefit of those who have let me down.

You and I have never met or spoken to each other, so I’d like to tell you about myself. I was raised by schoolteachers working multiple jobs in a world of closing steel mills. My hard work earned me acceptance to M.I.T., and the institute’s generous financial aid enabled me to attend. I had fulfilled my American dream.

I started at this company in 1998 as an equity trader, became the head of equity and commodity trading and, a couple of years before A.I.G.’s meltdown last September, was named the head of business development for commodities. Over this period the equity and commodity units were consistently profitable — in most years generating net profits of well over $100 million. Most recently, during the dismantling of A.I.G.-F.P., I was an integral player in the pending sale of its well-regarded commodity index business to UBS. As you know, business unit sales like this are crucial to A.I.G.’s effort to repay the American taxpayer.

The profitability of the businesses with which I was associated clearly supported my compensation. I never received any pay resulting from the credit default swaps that are now losing so much money. I did, however, like many others here, lose a significant portion of my life savings in the form of deferred compensation invested in the capital of A.I.G.-F.P. because of those losses. In this way I have personally suffered from this controversial activity — directly as well as indirectly with the rest of the taxpayers.

I have the utmost respect for the civic duty that you are now performing at A.I.G. You are as blameless for these credit default swap losses as I am. You answered your country’s call and you are taking a tremendous beating for it.

But you also are aware that most of the employees of your financial products unit had nothing to do with the large losses. And I am disappointed and frustrated over your lack of support for us. I and many others in the unit feel betrayed that you failed to stand up for us in the face of untrue and unfair accusations from certain members of Congress last Wednesday and from the press over our retention payments, and that you didn’t defend us against the baseless and reckless comments made by the attorneys general of New York and Connecticut.

My guess is that in October, when you learned of these retention contracts, you realized that the employees of the financial products unit needed some incentive to stay and that the contracts, being both ethical and useful, should be left to stand. That’s probably why A.I.G. management assured us on three occasions during that month that the company would “live up to its commitment” to honor the contract guarantees.

That may be why you decided to accelerate by three months more than a quarter of the amounts due under the contracts. That action signified to us your support, and was hardly something that one would do if he truly found the contracts “distasteful.”

That may also be why you authorized the balance of the payments on March 13.

At no time during the past six months that you have been leading A.I.G. did you ask us to revise, renegotiate or break these contracts — until several hours before your appearance last week before Congress.

I think your initial decision to honor the contracts was both ethical and financially astute, but it seems to have been politically unwise. It’s now apparent that you either misunderstood the agreements that you had made — tacit or otherwise — with the Federal Reserve, the Treasury, various members of Congress and Attorney General Andrew Cuomo of New York, or were not strong enough to withstand the shifting political winds.

You’ve now asked the current employees of A.I.G.-F.P. to repay these earnings. As you can imagine, there has been a tremendous amount of serious thought and heated discussion about how we should respond to this breach of trust.

As most of us have done nothing wrong, guilt is not a motivation to surrender our earnings. We have worked 12 long months under these contracts and now deserve to be paid as promised. None of us should be cheated of our payments any more than a plumber should be cheated after he has fixed the pipes but a careless electrician causes a fire that burns down the house.

Many of the employees have, in the past six months, turned down job offers from more stable employers, based on A.I.G.’s assurances that the contracts would be honored. They are now angry about having been misled by A.I.G.’s promises and are not inclined to return the money as a favor to you.

The only real motivation that anyone at A.I.G.-F.P. now has is fear. Mr. Cuomo has threatened to “name and shame,” and his counterpart in Connecticut, Richard Blumenthal, has made similar threats — even though attorneys general are supposed to stand for due process, to conduct trials in courts and not the press.

So what am I to do? There’s no easy answer. I know that because of hard work I have benefited more than most during the economic boom and have saved enough that my family is unlikely to suffer devastating losses during the current bust. Some might argue that members of my profession have been overpaid, and I wouldn’t disagree.

That is why I have decided to donate 100 percent of the effective after-tax proceeds of my retention payment directly to organizations that are helping people who are suffering from the global downturn. This is not a tax-deduction gimmick; I simply believe that I at least deserve to dictate how my earnings are spent, and do not want to see them disappear back into the obscurity of A.I.G.’s or the federal government’s budget. Our earnings have caused such a distraction for so many from the more pressing issues our country faces, and I would like to see my share of it benefit those truly in need.

On March 16 I received a payment from A.I.G. amounting to $742,006.40, after taxes. In light of the uncertainty over the ultimate taxation and legal status of this payment, the actual amount I donate may be less — in fact, it may end up being far less if the recent House bill raising the tax on the retention payments to 90 percent stands. Once all the money is donated, you will immediately receive a list of all recipients.

This choice is right for me. I wish others at A.I.G.-F.P. luck finding peace with their difficult decision, and only hope their judgment is not clouded by fear.

Mr. Liddy, I wish you success in your commitment to return the money extended by the American government, and luck with the continued unwinding of the company’s diverse businesses — especially those remaining credit default swaps. I’ll continue over the short term to help make sure no balls are dropped, but after what’s happened this past week I can’t remain much longer — there is too much bad blood. I’m not sure how you will greet my resignation, but at least Attorney General Blumenthal should be relieved that I’ll leave under my own power and will not need to be “shoved out the door.”

Sincerely,

Jake DeSantis

Does this article change anyone's perspective on this particular issue?
Did the government act responsibly in their response to the AIG bonuses?
Is the government causing more harm than good by disincentivising profit making executives and giving them little alternative but to leave and protect their families?

The floor is yours Triskelos.

Article from: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/25/opinion/25desantis.html?_r=1&pagewanted=2

The Wrong Idea on Controlling the Budget

I will admit, I am tired of my own focus on political issues. But there is yet another issue that concerns me on where our country is going. This one is related to talks of wounded veterans losing government support. Sadly, this topic is not getting much attention. The recent outrage over the AIG bonuses has gained the headlines while this important topic is forced to the back seat.

For clarification, this is not a policy set in motion but is a proposed policy to help cut costs. This plan would make the wounded veterans pay for the care of injuries obtained through their service to our country. The government would no longer take care of these men and women, rather they would have to seek healthcare through the private sector.

This is outrageous! There is already a huge discussion over the rising price of healthcare. Imagine how hard it would be for many of these men and women to obtain healthcare with a pre-existing condition. Veterans are responsible for any health conditions unrelated to their military service, but the government has always taken care of its service men and women if they were wounded on the job.

“Veterans of all generations agree that this proposal is bad for the country and bad for veterans,” said Paul Rieckhoff, executive director of Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America. “If the president and the OMB [Office of Management and Budget] want to cut costs, they can start at AIG, not the VA.”

Thankfully, many in the House and Senate have opposed such a drastic approach with Democratic Sen. Patty Murray of Washington describing it as "Dead in the water." My question is, why is this even a discussion? If Obama wants to cut costs, he can stop spending like a teenager with his or her first credit card. He can stop signing expensive spending bills loaded with pork. He can shift gears and stop bailing out companies who would otherwise fail wasting more and more tax payer money (and I do blame Bush for starting it). If this is Obama's idea of controlling government spending, we are all in for an interesting four years.

http://www.buffalonews.com/180/story/610029.html