What the 2009 election tells us about 2010

Let me quote the lyrics of a 1980s Dead or Alive song – "You spin me right round, baby right round like a record." The Democratic Party is trying so hard to spin the results of the 2009 election that it’s enough to make you dizzy.

The losses of two governorships are big, especially New Jersey, the bluest of blue states. In VA, there was a 26 point swing in favor of the GOP candidate over Obama’s win by 8 points (the GOP candidate won by 18). In New Jersey, there was a 19point swing over Obama’s win by 15 points (the GOP candidate won by 4).

Here are some numbers that should make Obama and the Democratic Party worry. In Virginia, Governor-elect Bob McDonnell carried the affluent and immigrant heavy Fairfax County by 21 percent (a county carried by Obama in 2008). Mr. McDonnell also carried nine out of Virginia’s eleven congressional districts, including three districts that went democrat in 2008 with votes of 62 percent, 61 percent, and 55 percent respectively. Exit polls showed that 46 percent of voters in Virginia said the economy was the main concern while only 25 percent said it was health care.

Over in New Jersey, Governor-elect Chris Christie, who was out spent by his opponent, managed to cut outgoing Governor Corzine’s margin in heavily democratic Bergen Country from 16 percent (which Corzine carried in 2005) down to 1 percent in 2009. He also took 7 counties that voted for Obama in 2008 turned them red in 2009.

Obama won’t be able to focus solely on one state in the 2010 elections as he’ll be criss-crossing the country trying to save blue politicians in red states. Blue politicians in red states must now think twice before voting for cap-and-trade and healthcare. In the House alone, there are 84 democrats that come from districts won by either President Bush in 2004 or John McCain in 2008. Election year 2008 was a snippet in time, a one-shot deal never to be repeated.

What the White House can’t overlook is the growing discontent that Americans have for they way they have governed. Americans have begun to pay attention to a government that doesn’t care about trillion dollar deficits, combined 50 percent tax rates in most states, sky rocketing unemployment which is now at 10.2 percent or a radical agenda that if passed will kill jobs.

If anything, the election of a Republican governor in NJ has given hope to Republicans in other blue states like Massachusetts, New York, or New Hampshire whose governors are up for re-election. Last Tuesday’s win lets the Republican Party live to conquer another day. It was just last year the pundits wrote off the GOP for the next election cycle, maybe even the next generation.

The president needs to face the realization that his left of center agenda doesn’t sit will with a right of center nation. By allowing the left coasts of the U.S. to write important legislation, he is exciting the left, enraging the right, and frightening the center. Come 2010, Obama may be the “right” answer to the GOP’s problems.

The White House will tell you that the election was not a referendum on the president and democratic loses had nothing to do with Obama. It now appears that the voters in at least these two states want nothing to do with him.

Promises made, Promises broken

In August of 2008 at a town hall meeting in Chester, VA, presidential candidate Barack Obama said the following on health care reform - "I'm going to have all the negotiations around a big table. We'll have doctors and nurses and hospital administrators. Insurance companies, drug companies — they'll get a seat at the table… We'll have the negotiations televised on C-SPAN, so that people can see who is making arguments on behalf of their constituents, and who are making arguments on behalf of the drug companies or the insurance companies."

Fast forward to October of 2009 and in a small room in Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s office, behind closed doors, a final Senate bill is being written. The only people around the so-called "big table" are Senator Reid, Senator Chris Dodd, Senator Chuck Schumer, Senator Max Baucus, White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, and Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebeilus plus a few aides all looking to replace our current health care system, which makes up one-sixth of the economy. If they have their way, we will end up with something so destructive and that will raise premiums, create new taxes, ration medical care, and eventually put private insurance out of business. What happened to the doctors, nurses, insurance and drug companies, and most importantly, the bipartisanship the president campaigned on? Oh, I know he’s president know and doesn't have to follow through with his campaign promise.

For a president who campaigned on the issue of transparency, this is just another campaign promise broken. The American voter is becoming skeptical if he can keep any campaign promise. He promised to post bills for five (5) days on the web before signing. It’s a promise he keeps breaking bill after bill. So far 11 bills have been signed into law and not one of them has made it to the World Wide Web.

In regards to health care, the president made several promises. He said "we have to enlist the American people in this process" but when we tried to voice our opinion at town hall meetings we were called names. He said "I would welcome input" but hasn't invited the GOP to the White House since April. He said "if you have better ideas please present them" but every amendment proposed by the Republicans has been turned down or is stuck in committee. He said "the public will be part of the conversation" but then let his Sr. Advisor and leaders in Congress insult those who disagree with them. He said the Clinton's made one huge mistake and that was they took "all their experts into one room and then they closed the door. They tried to design the plan in isolation from the American people." Sound familiar?

Representatives Brian Baird (D-WA) and Greg Walden (R-OR) have been trying to get a petition signed by lawmakers that would "force a vote" on an amendment that would require a 72 hour viewing process. So far, nearly every Republican had signed the petition but the democratic leadership is discouraging its members doing the same.

Rep. Baird warns of the democrats desire to hide bills from the public. He says "Democrats know politically it's difficult to defend not doing this… The public gets this. They say we entrust you with the profound responsibility of making decisions that affect our lives, and we expect you to exercise due diligence in carrying out that responsibility."

Senator Jim Bunning (R-KY) offered a similar amendment in regards to the health care bill. This amendment required the actual legislative text sent to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office for a cost estimate and for the bill to be posted on the Senate Finance committee website. The amendment was defeated along party lines with the exception of Senator, Blanche Lincoln (D-AR), who sided with the Republicans.

Americans have become skeptical of the "need" this White House and Congress have to pass bills quickly with little time for debate. Michael Franc, president of the conservative think tank The Heritage Foundation said “The American people are now suspicious of not only the lawmakers, but the process they hide behind to do their work."

This Congress has refused to give the proper legislation to the CBO so they can have the proper amount of time to analyze. They have rejected any and all measures that would save us from their president’s broken promises on health care. If common sense still existed, then Congress would start over allowing both sides to the bargaining table.

If health care reform doesn't constitute a need for transparency, then I don't know what does. This president promised to run the "most transparent White House in history." where’s the transparency, Mr. President?

What are they smoking in Oslo?

Perhaps the committee felt sorry for Obama after his "hometown" of Chicago lost its 2016 Olympic bid to Rio or perhaps they are happy that he is on course to destroying the United States of America? Whatever the reason, if you're like me when you heard the news that the President had won the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize, you asked yourself - for what?

The nomination process ended just 12 days after the president was inaugurated. The committee said they decided to issue the citation to the president "for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples. Only very rarely has a person to the same extent as Obama captured the world's attention and given its people hope for a better future." So???

The president is so determined to be liked around the world that he is forgetting that his real focus should be on his own country. Unemployment continues to rise, people continue to worry about losing their job, people aren't spending as much which hurts the private sector, nations around the world are thinking of replacing the US dollar as the international currency, he continues to want to spend money we don't have which will bankrupt us, and the list goes on and on. Let's just say if this road continues, he may very well not win the ultimate price from the citizens of the United States -reelection.

Awarding this prize to a man who had been in office for 12 days only makes the committee look even more ridiculous than before. Remember the Saturday Night Live skit where they made fun of the president for his record so far? Here's a recap - he's done NOTHING (except spend money)! He's fighting to wars and can't get a climate bill through Congress which is controlled by his own party.

The president should have turned down this award. Afterall, the Nobel Peace Prize should be awarded for what one has acomplished not what they promise. It appears that the committee chose to give the prize to Obama simply because he is not Bush. He could have said that while he is grateful for the award, he hasn't done the things he wants to accomplish and therefore can't accept the award. The award comes at an interesting time. The president is debating whether to follow through with General McCrystals' request for an additional 40,000 more troops for Afghanistan. The question is now that he is the winner and the committee is looking to him for "peace", will he send the troops needed to get the job done or will he make us retreat?

Reaction around the world is mixed but even the Times of London declared that the committee's choice makes a mockery out of the award. Lech Walesa, former Polish President who is also Nobel laureate, said the president hasn't made any contributions and that it was far to early to award such a prize.

I hope there is enough duct-tape to keep the president's head from growing any bigger.

America needs a stimulus bill that will create jobs

In 2008, Larry Summers, now chief economic advisor to President Obama, said that any fiscal stimulus bill should be "timely, targeted, and temporary." Mr. Summers wrote that to be timely a stimulus bill should be "based on changes in taxes and benefits that can be implemented almost immediately." The stimulus bill should be targeted to "those with low incomes and those whose incomes have recently fallen for whom spending is most urgent." Finally, the stimulus bill must be temporary and have no impact on the deficit after one year. Increased deficits, Mr. Summers wrote, will only lead to rises in interest rates and undermine long-term growth. However, since it was signed into law February 17, 2009, the economic stimulus bill hasn't been timely nor targeted and I doubt it will be temporary. Economist Milton Friedman once said "there is nothing so permanent as a temporary government program."

In the 224 days since the stimulus bill was signed into law, we have spent $98 billion or 12 percent of the $787 billion. At this rate, it will take the federal government around 1,800 days to spend the entire bill. Ironically, this will put us way past the 2012 presidential election.

President Obama told us that if we passed the stimulus bill we would not see unemployment go above 8 percent and that we would "save or create" 3 million jobs by putting "people back to work." However, since the bill was signed, the economy has lost an additional 2.2 million jobs and the unemployment rate is now at 9.8 percent.

America needs a real stimulus bill. A bill that doesn't pay back the unions and interest groups that helped President Obama get elected. The current stimulus bill simply increases the size and control of government by putting money into the hands of politicians, bureaucrats, and lobbyists at the expense of the private sector. We need a bill that will create long-term permanent jobs, not temporary "shovel-ready" projects and provide tax cuts for businesses.

So what would a successful stimulus bill look like? First, tax cuts must be at the heart of any new bill. Americans believe that tax cuts spur economic growth and create jobs. With a $12 trillion economy, any tax cut must be bold enough to actually work.

Second, a true stimulus bill must be rooted in economic freedom for the American people. An economy centralized in Washington only brings about corruption and political favoritism that we see today. In order to have sustainable, long-term economic growth, we must provide small businesses with pro-growth policies. We can't just simply cut taxes but we must also reign in government spending and fiscal responsibility. An amendment requiring the federal government to balance their budget would be a great start to achieving this.

Third, in order to help businesses, we should implement cuts in Social Security and Medicare taxes. Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich is proposing a 50 percent cut in these tax rates. Small businesses would have more money to hire people or invest and employees would see an immediate growth in their take home pay allowing them to spend more in the private sector.

Fourth, the United States has the second highest combined corporate tax rate in the world at 39.1 percent (Japan has the highest rate at 39.5 percent). In order to entice foreign companies to invest in the Untied States, we must lower this rate to a more competitive advantage. Currently, Ireland has the lowest corporate tax rate of 12.5 percent.

During the 1990's, President Clinton and the Republican-controlled House showed us that in order to have economic growth you must have both pro-job and pro-investment tax cuts. The more jobs the private sector creates, the fewer number of people receiving welfare payments or unemployment benefits. By controlling spending, they were able to balance the budget for the next four years.

This is one time when history should repeat itself.

In a struggle between Capitalism and Socialism, which will Americans choose?

Capitalism is "an economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market." Socialism is "any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods."

There’s a new war going on and unfortunately it began with the previous administration. Just five months shy of leaving office, President George W. Bush signed into law the TARP bill to bailout the banks. President Bush said at the time he "abandoned free market principles to save the free market system." That’s a "bushism" that not even many Republicans could stand behind.

Five days before the election, then Senator Obama warned us that we are "five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America" but we didn't listen. While America does have her flaws, she doesn't need transforming. People come to America to live in a society based on freedom, prosperity and peace.

Norman Thomas, U.S. Socialist Party presidential candidate in 1940, 1944, and 1948 once said "The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But, under the name of "liberalism," they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program, until one day America will be a socialist nation, without knowing how it happened."

At a Business Roundtable meeting in March, President Obama said "I am a strong believer in the ability of the free market to generate wealth and prosperity that’s shared across the board." Shared across the board? That’s interesting; the definition of free market doesn't include any use of the words "shared across the board." Yet this administration will try and convince you that trickle-down economics ("the theory that the entire country benefits as the nation’s richest amass and spend") is a fantasy. I don't remember a single job being created from someone at the bottom of the income ladder, do you?

The left, as exemplified by Obama, firmly believes all of life is a zero-sum game i.e. if someone is rich; it’s always at the expense of the poor. Socialists believe a person, business or country is only successful because they hijacked success from those less fortunate. Socialism leads to severely limited freedoms and to enormous, almost entire, state control. It leads to suppression of free speech, suppression of religion, and suppression of all things we hold dear. We need to stop these preliminary steps, if we are to avoid a very bleak future.

Since the beginning of the Obama administration, liberals have attacked Wall Street executives for making money, doctors for making money, and insurance companies for making money. Just an FYI, insurance companies have a 3.3 percent profit margin while the average business in this country has a 4.6 percent profit margin. Where is their outrage at the actors who make $20 to $30 million for one film or at former Vice President Al Gore who makes millions on the claim of "global warming"?

The administration needs to keep in mind that Americans still believe in Capitalism. A May, 2009 Rasmussen poll found that 77 percent of Americans believe that a free market system is better than socialism. Politicians need to remember that the majority of Americans still see America as a "special and unique country."

Political dissent doesn't equal racism

Civil rights attorney Keith Watters recently warned against playing the race card saying "We should not yell 'racism' unless there is direct evidence… Sane voices need to come on the media and say loud and clear that this is not about race." During the Bush administration, dissent equaled patriotism. According to some today, dissent under President Obama equals racism.

I know there are people out there who oppose President Obama simply because he is black. I, however, am not one of them and I take offense when Congressmen like Hank Johnson (D-GA) and James Clyburn (D-SC) use the race card in the debate over the president’s policies. A Fox News Poll dated September 15-19 found that 65 percent of those polled described their opposition toward President Obama as "honest disagreement" while 20 percent said their disagreement was based on race. Even the president isn't asserting racism into the debate. He recently told the host of ABC’s ‘This Week’ "there are some who are…more passionate about the idea of whether government can do anything right. And I think that that's probably the biggest driver of some of the vitriol."

What gets lost in the debate is just how far we've come. Are we done? No, but when 43percent of white voters vote a black man for president and the leaders of both national parties are black (Michael Steele for the GOP and President Obama for the Democrats), one has to admit "we've come along way, baby."

I was at the September 12 "March on Washington" and what I saw were a million plus Americans who love their country. I saw American flags, "Don't tread on me" flags, and state flags from Alaska to Florida and everywhere in between waving in the wind. Signs reflecting the mode of the country read "I'm not your ATM", "You work for us", "It’s time to party like its 1773", and "the US Constitution is not negotiable." Were some of the 20 percent who oppose the president because of the color of his skin there, yes but they were easily outnumbered.

Moms, dads, kids, grandparents, whites, blacks, and hispanics, all concerned with the direction this country is headed flocked to our nation’s capitol. It's not just the direction of the past 8 months but of the past 70 years that has us worried. Big government started in the 1930’s under FDR, slowed down under President Clinton and began a new rapid rate of growth under President George W. Bush. In the past few decades, we've seen out of control spending, a Congress that has become to powerful and unaccountable to the citizens who elect them, and a government that has become to close to Wall Street and the labor unions.

Simply put, Americans are fed up and they aren't going to take it anymore and the color of the president’s skin has nothing to do with it. Senior White House Advisor David Axelrod said the day after the march "I don't think it’s indicative of the nation’s mood . . . "You know, I don't think we ought to be distracted by that. My message to them is, they're wrong." With tea party protesters now numbering in the millions, the Obama administration is making a huge mistake. With remarks like this, the administration is showing us that they have their heads in the sand and this will hurt them in 2010.

Yes America, Republicans do have a health care plan

Despite the democrats attempt to tell you otherwise, the Republicans do have a health care plan (in fact they have several but I want to share two of them with you). For more information on all health care bills currently before the House and Senate, visit http://www.ifebp.org/Resources/News/TopicsInDepth/Health+Care+Reform+Discussion/congressionalproposals.htm#House%20Bills

Bill number one is called "The Patients' Choice Act of 2009" (S 1090/HR 2520) sponsored by Senators Tom Coburn, M.D. (R-OK) and Richard Burr (RC) and Representatives Paul Ryan (RI) and Devin Nunes (RA). The bill addresses comprehensive health care reform by doing the following (quoting directly from the bill):

1. Shifts health care tax benefits to individuals and families in the form of a "Medi-Choice" tax rebate worth about $2,200 for individuals and $5,700 for families. Under this plan, if you like the health care you have, you can keep it – but you'll have more money in your pocket because you will still receive a tax rebate.

2. Lowers health care costs and insurance premiums by more sensibly caring for those with chronic illnesses and those deemed "uninsurable."

3. Utilizes risk adjustment mechanisms and other options at the State level – such as reinsurance and risk pools – to extend coverage to those with chronic medical conditions.

4. Markets can't solve all problems. This bill prevents cherry picking – when insurance companies choose to cover only healthy patients – by equalizing risk across insurance companies and reversing the perverse incentives that leave those most vulnerable with the fewest options.

5. Creates voluntary state-based solutions – state health exchanges – that will offer health insurance benefits using the same standard used for Members of Congress. Every American would have guaranteed access to coverage and care under this plan, regardless of patient age or health history.

6. Ensures that states get to design the solutions their patients need, states would have the freedom to form voluntary pooling arrangements with other state exchanges to diversify risk pools, ease administrative burdens and cover costs for insurance.

7. Provides simple new opportunities for automatic enrollment to help people who need coverage

8. Removes the stigma from Medicaid recipients and give them the ability to purchase the health coverage and care they need from any provider. It preserves Medicaid for the blind, aged, and disabled and eliminates widespread fraud in the programs.

On May 20, 2009, the bill was referred to the Senate Finance Committee and the following House committees - Energy and Commerce and Ways and Means "for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned." Translation, it’s waiting for review but since the bill is sponsored by the Republicans and the committees are controlled by the Democrats, it could be a very long wait.

Bill number two is called "The Empowering Patients First Act" (HR 3400) sponsored by The Republican Study Committee (chairman, Rep Tom Price, M.D. of GA). The bill is centered on four main principles. They are (again, quoting directly from the bill):

Principle 1: Access to Coverage for All Americans – Makes the purchase of health care financially feasible for all Americans, covers pre-existing conditions, protects employer-sponsored insurance, and shines light on existing health care plans.

Principle 2: Coverage is Truly Owned by the Patient – Grants greater choice and portability to the patient, and also gives employers more flexibility in the benefits offered. It also expands the individual market by creating several pooling mechanisms.

Principle 3: Improve the Health Care Delivery Structure – Establishes doctor-led quality measures, ensuring that you get the quality care you need. It also reimburses physicians to ensure the stability of your care, and encourages healthier lifestyles by allowing employers to offer discounts for healthy habits through wellness and prevention programs.

Principle 4: Rein in Out-of-Control Costs – Reforms the medical liability system. Also, the cost of the plan is completely offset through decreasing defensive medicine, savings from health care efficiencies, sifting out waste, fraud and abuse, plus an annual one-percent non defense discretionary spending step down.

On July 30, 2009, this bill was referred to the following House committees - Energy and Commerce, Ways and Means, Education and Labor, Oversight and Government Reform, Judiciary, Rules, Budget and Appropriations “for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provision as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.” Again, democrats control all committees and will most likely sit on this bill.

Both bills continue the Health Savings Accounts (HSAs) that allow individuals to set aside tax free money for routine care. HSAs are now used by more than six million Americans and could reduce costs by allowing patients to shop for the coverage and services that suit their needs.

The majority of Americans believe we need some type of health care reform, but not the radical reform sponsored by the left. It is imperative as members return to Congress the week of September 8 that we get the word out that Republicans do have alternatives and that Congress should consider them instead of burying them in committee.