And every senior should know there is no cutting of your guaranteed Medicare benefits.  Period.  No “ifs,” “ands,” or “buts.”  This proposal makes Medicare stronger.  It makes the coverage better and it makes the finances more secure.

By making this definite statement Obama is hoping that Granny will believe that if this bill passes, she will have access to the same doctors and receive the same kind of care and thoughtful attention she presently receives.

So what is that “guaranteed Medicare benefit” that Obama has been throwing around?  It’s that you can go on this government-run  health care program when you reach 65.  That is it!  There is no other guaranteed Medicare benefit.  Medicare provides whatever the government says it will provide at any given time and that is subject to change.

In an effort to control costs, Medicare has been squeezing doctors and hospitals for quite some time.  In fact,  more and more physicians and medical facilities are refusing to take Medicare patients.

Granny may already have  noticed an increase in her wait time to see a doctor.    She also may have observed that her doctor is spending less time with her at each visit.  It’s called rationing and it most certainly will get worse under ObamaCare,  no “ifs,”  “ands” or “buts.”

This bill sets up an Independent Medicare Advisory Board which is to recommend cuts for the sole purpose of limiting the amount of resources going to Medicare patients.  Some have called it a “Death Panel.”  You may think this is harsh but, if this bill passes, many seniors will die prematurely because the recommendations of these unelected bureaucrats will go into effect.   Congress is not required to act on them!

In order for this bill to pass, Granny must believe that she will be able to see a specialist when she needs one, who will be able to give her the expensive tests required to diagnose her problem.  Obama also wants Granny to believe that she will be able to receive that operation or treatment that could save or extend her life.   Nothing could be further from the truth!

There is a reverse incentive in this bill that actually penalizes Granny’s  primary care physician if he or she is in the top 10 percent of doctors who refer patients to specialists.  This puts a wedge between Granny and the doctor she trusts to act in her best interest.

There will come a time, when you, too, will be on Medicare.  Is this what you want for your “golden years”?

Now, let’s look at the second half of Obama’s disingenuous statement:

“It (the bill) will make Medicare stronger.”  As if to underscore that statement,  Obama also said, “This proposal adds almost a decade of solvency to Medicare.”

The bill under debate calls for cutting a half trillion dollars from Medicare, a program that is already going broke and will explode as more and more baby boomers retire.  Nevertheless,  Obama wants Granny to believe that this half trillion in savings will extend the life of Medicare another ten years.

But here is the problem with that.  Obama also has been telling us that this bill would not add to the deficit because he plans to pay for the estimated $1 trillion dollar cost of the bill – the actual cost is closer to $3 trillion – with a half trillion in tax hikes and that half trillion from Medicare.  In other words, he’s been double counting.  It’s like saying that you are going to use your savings to buy a new car next year and then going out and blowing it on a vacation!

Obama is fond of quoting the Congressional Budget Office when it suits him.  However, the CBO pulled the rug out from under his “saving Medicare” argument when it issued a letter on December 23, 2009, which said, in part,

“To describe the full amount of hospital insurance trust fund savings as both improving the government’s ability to pay for future Medicare benefits and financing new spending outside of Medicare would essentially double-count a large share of those savings and thus overstate the improvement in the government’s fiscal position.”

Nevertheless, Obama has that line down pat and he isn’t about to let the facts get in his way.   He thinks the nation’s senior citizens are stupid.  In fact, the fate of this bill largely hangs on his ability to fool Granny.

We owe so much to our all-volunteer force.   There is no other job that requires this kind of selfless dedication and courage.  We need the military and now the men and women on active duty need us to do something for them they cannot do for themselves. 

They need to be defended from Barack Obama’s plan to expand the gay rights agenda by using our armed forces as a laboratory for social experimentation.

In his State of the Union message President Obama boldly announced his intention to dismantle the law barring homosexuals from serving in the military.   Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Adm. Michael Mullen and his minion in the Senate, Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin, immediately began working toward that end.

The president is the commander-in-chief of our military.  The folks at the Pentagon work for him.  However, Congress writes the laws that set the rules that govern military personnel and “we the people” have the ability to control Congress.  When the president and Congress lose their way on military matters, “we the people” not only have the option of giving our elected representatives our input, it is our duty to do so.

Military personnel must obey their orders.   They are not really free to disagree with the policy of the commander in chief.  It is considered a career-ender for officers.   Furthermore, military personnel are not permitted to lobby Congress while in uniform.

Changes in military policy should be based on military readiness.  Military policy should never be changed on a whim, but that seems to be the new standard for this president and the Democrat leaders in Congress with the notable exception of Rep. Ike Skelton who chairs the House Armed Services Committee.

Gates promised only to “minimize disruption” and to “mitigate” the “negative consequences” that dismantling the policy will have on unit cohesion, recruiting and retention.  Mullen admits that he doesn’t know what the effects will be but he is in favor of going ahead with this policy anyway. These men are a disgrace to the country!  Meanwhile, Levin is looking more and more like a dunderhead.

The issue of dismantling the law barring open homosexuals from serving in the military has been presented as one of fairness, basic civil rights and military necessity.  These arguments are difficult to defend.

•    The argument that the military needs every person who will serve in times of war just doesn’t hold up.  A study by the Center for Military Readiness shows that the number of soldiers discharged for homosexuality represents about one-third of 1 percent of all total discharges.  In other words, the number is minuscule.

•    On the issues of fairness, this is the question that really needs to be addressed:  Is it fair to put our men and women in the military, who have no control over where they sleep or shower,  in situations where they are viewed as objects of sexual desire?     Isn’t military life difficult enough as it is?

•    Our civil rights laws were written to protect citizens from discrimination based on immutable characteristics such as race and gender, not on political correct terms like “sexual orientation” or “gender identity.”    Furthermore, our military has never been constrained by civil rights concerns.  That is why the law that bars women from serving in combat positions has been upheld.  That is why there are no wheelchair ramps on tanks and submarines.

Over the years, I have watched military leaders, who have demonstrated great courage on the battlefield, fold on issues of political correctness, particularly when it comes to the feminization of our armed forces.  However, it has been encouraging to see our current crop of military leaders refuse to go along with the latest attempt to weaken the troops.

Last week, in hearings before the House and Senate the other members of the joint chiefs, Adm. Gary Roughead, Gen. George Casey, Gen. Norton Schwartz and General James Conway  had an opportunity to weigh in and they were not about to be rolled.  Marine Commandant General James Conway summed it up this way. “I think the current policy works . . . keep the law as it is.”

If these men were willing to put their careers on the line after a lifetime of service to our country in order to protect our men and women in uniform, can we sit back and do nothing?

If you sincerely support our troops, let your voice be heard.

All brooms are not equal.  Some brooms are too heavy.  Other brooms are too light.  Still, others are too thin to do an adequate job.  The good citizens of the United States of America demand broom standards.

Congress begins crafting a bill.  Brooms must be made to accommodate Americans of various weights and heights.  Also, brooms must be light enough to be operated by the weak and infirm.   The lobbying continues.  One group demands that the straw be “odder free.”  Another group wants the broom manufacturers to certify that the brooms are made of “all natural” materials.  Still, another wants to set the wages and benefits for the workers in the broom manufacturing industry.   

The cost of brooms begins to rise.   Groups representing the nation’s senior citizens begin to lobby for the government to provide brooms to the elderly at a reduced cost.  Other groups begin lobbying for free brooms for children and the poor.  Social BROOM Security, S-BROOM and MediBROOM are passed.

But the price of brooms continues to rise.  The broom industry argues that cost of labor and raw materials – not to mention all these new mandates – has forced broom manufacturers to raise the price in order to meet the new standards and keep up with the demand.  The manufacturers point out that their profit is a mere 3.3 percent, well below that of the suppliers of other essential products and services.  Nevertheless, liberal groups accuse the broom industry of price gouging.

The U.S. Census Bureau reports that 46 million U.S. citizens are now without this essential device.   There is a broom crisis!

Conservative groups maintain that more than a third of the people without brooms are pulling down incomes of over $50,000 a year.  They own flat screen televisions and iPods.   Certainly, these people could afford to buy a broom if that were the priority.  A whopping 70 percent of broomless children are eligible for S-BROOM and 27 percent of the non-elderly broomless are eligible for Medibroom.  Still, another large segment of the PWB, People without Brooms, is in the country illegally and shouldn’t be entitled to brooms at all.

Nevertheless, the drumbeat continues.  Congress must act to protect these broomless Americans!
The broom reform bill is passed.  Finally everyone is happy.  The “right” to a broom is now a reality.

Suddenly,  Americans who had no interest in sweeping are now sweeping two are three times a day and brooms are wearing out at a rapid rate.  There are simply not enough brooms to go around.  There are long lines to get a broom.  Those who have a critical dirt problem are simply out of luck because they have to wait in line with everyone else.

It isn’t long before the cost of this new mandate has skyrocketed and is causing a strain on the country.   The government comes up with a plan.  It will simply pay the manufacturers less for their brooms as the demand continues.   However, these private manufacturers cannot afford to operate at a loss and one broom company after another is forced to close its doors.

The government begins to manufacture all brooms but the demand continues to grow.   The government falls deeper and deeper into debt to the point that essential services are threatened.   Congress does the only sensible thing.  It begins to limit the amount of straw each broom can contain and the length of the handle is cut down in size.

It isn’t long before people begin to realize that they are now forced to sweep on their hands and knees with a few scraggly straws that are of little or no use at all.

Here are some things to keep in mind as your representatives debate health care:  Government restrictions and mandates lead to higher prices.  A government that competes with private companies will not play fair and will eventually run those companies out of business.   A single payer leads to reduced services and fewer choices.   Rising costs will never be solved by taking the consumer completely out of the picture.

The free enterprise system is far from perfect, but it has given the people of this country the highest standard of living and the best health care in the world.  There are better ways to solve the problem of the 8 to 12 million chronically uninsured than to turn the system upside down.  Consider the story of the scraggly broom.

Let our countrymen know that the people alone can protect us
against these evils [of monarchial government]. Thomas Jefferson

It’s time someone had the guts to say it and my friend Tom Tancredo did just that at the Tea Party Convention in Nashville.   The problems in this country will never be solved by registering more voters.  Our problems will be solved by registering more informed voters.

By that I’m not suggesting, nor was he, that voting should be limited to those who hold Ph.D.’s or any degree of higher education.  However, voters should be able to demonstrate some understanding and appreciation of our system of government and how it was designed to work before they can register to vote.   At the very least, we should require new registrants to pass a  basic civics test, the kind given to immigrants seeking to become naturalized U.S. citizens.

An ignorant electorate cannot remain free.  That was the driving principle behind Jefferson’s push for public education.    In 1787, Jefferson lamented to John Adams,  “It is a misfortune that (our countrymen) do not sufficiently know the value of their constitution, and how much happier they are rendered by them, than any other people on earth by the governments under which they live.”

It would have been unthinkable to Jefferson and his colleagues that we would spend a small fortune on each and every citizen in order to provide twelve years of public education only to graduate political ignoramuses.   It is a sad fact that only about 3 percent of today’s graduating high school seniors are able to explain our political system’s simple checks on presidential power and only half of all of our citizens, 25 years or older, can name our three branches of government.

The downward spiral toward civic illiteracy began when we allowed high school government classes, deemed too boring by the education elite, to be replaced by social studies.  Instead of teaching our young people about their government, today’s social studies mixes sociology and psychology with liberal activism, guilt, group-think and a desire to become citizens of the world. Instead of teaching students how a bill becomes a law and how to hold their elected representatives accountable students learn the virtues of multiculturalism and how to combating global warming.

Service learning, in which students volunteer in the community, is another civics substitute.  This  may make students feel good about themselves but leaves them devoid of any knowledge of the political process.

It is ironic that civics was taken out of the classroom about the time 18-year-olds were given the right to vote.  This produced a steady decline in voting by young adults along with a growing skepticism and outright distrust of the political process.

The trend began to change in 2004, with an increase in the participation of young voters with at least some college education.   “Rock the Vote” used  music, popular culture, and new technologies to make voting the “hip” thing to do,  however, not without controversy.  The supposedly nonpartisan group used left-wing scare tactics and skewed ads to encourage young people to register and vote in record numbers.    .

One can only imagine how our founders would feel if they could see our attempts to chase people down, who have demonstrated no interest in the political process, in order to get them to register to vote.  That is what was accomplished when Congress passed the motor-voter bill which was signed into law by President Clinton.   Motor-voter required that anyone applying for a driver’s license be offered a voter registration form.   As a result, we put more politically ignorant people on our voting roles and we have continued to add more each and every year.

It would be unthinkable to give someone a license to drive an automobile without first requiring the applicant to pass a basic driving test.  The results would be disastrous.    Likewise, it is equally disastrous to register people to vote without making sure they understand the political rules of the road and are otherwise qualified.

Liberals will not be happy until everyone who can fog a mirror is registered to vote.  Nevertheless, there should be some requirements that could be met by anyone with a desire to take part in the civic process.

Liberals want gun owners to pass a competency test before they can own a firearm, yet will not support such a test when it comes to operating a voting machine.

Unfortunately, for many in this country, voting is a lot like Russian roulette or shooting darts, blindfolded.

The right to vote is not absolute.  If it were, we would be registering citizens at birth.  The right to vote should be based on basic civic literacy, nothing more, nothing less.

It is no secret that the Republican hierarchy across the nation has been courting tea-party leaders but this meeting represented the first serious “real” date.

Can the tea party movement cooperate with a political party it once despised? Can it find a place or even coexist within the confines of a brand that many of these new activists feel is a “tainted”?

The answer is you can date the GOP, or interested Democrat Party leaders for that matter, but you don’t have to hold hands or “go steady.”

Some tea-party activists believe the answer is a third-party moment. In fact, in some recent polls, a hypothetical Tea Party won more support than the Democrats or Republicans.

Unfortunately, it takes time and money – lots of money – to create a viable third party and that seems to be in short supply in the tea-party movement. The reality is most third-party movements get trapped in the underbelly of politics and end up threading water for decades on end without making any real gains.

There is a third way and it is straightforward, simple and relatively easy: a takeover of the two political parties, one precinct at a time through precinct representatives. These representatives help elect county party leaders, who write the platform and often endorse candidates.

By all means, maintain your independence, but if you work from the ground up through the existing party structure, you don’t have to reinvent the wheel. It is the quickest way to achieve your goals of safeguarding individual liberty, cutting taxes and reducing the public debt.

Unfortunately, most people have lost interest in local politics and see local party meetings of little or no value. Nothing could be further from the truth. That’s where it starts. That’s where the process of picking candidates really begins.

Apparently, many grassroots Democrats caught on to the importance of local meetings some time ago. Back during the run up to the 1992 elections, one member of my local Republican Party Central Committee observed that the majority of cars in the parking lot at her meetings had Clinton/Gore bumper stickers. Yes, undercover Democrat activists had obtained positions in this local Republican Party and likely many others as well. Is it any wonder that the GOP has drifted further and further to the left?

If tea-party leaders are really serious about taking back the government, they need look no further than the model available at the National Precinct Alliance. The group headed by Philip Glass began working in Nevada and has already taken control of the Republican Party in Las Vegas and his activists are spreading their control across the state and into neighboring Arizona. Now, states as far away as Ohio are seeing an increase in candidates running for Republican Party precinct positions largely due to Glass’ efforts. His strategy is simple – take over the precinct, take the state, take the party.

In most precincts it’s not a case of ousting existing incumbents, but simply showing up at party meetings and filling vacant positions.

Glass maintains his group is nonpartisan but encourages people to begin where they feel most comfortable. For most tea -party activists it has been within the GOP.

There was a time when there wasn’t a dime’s worth of difference between the goals of the two major political parties. The only disagreement was how best to achieve them. Not anymore! As the Democrat Party has drifted toward socialism, the Republican Party has steadfastly maintained its support of our founder’s principles of individual liberty and limited government, but the votes of the majority of its members tell a different story.

Gore Vidal once said, “It makes no difference who you vote for. The two parties are really one party representing 4 percent of the people.”

If tea -party activists are really serious about making a difference, they have to begin working from the ground up in both political parties. That’s how you become the “4 percent.”

Bear in mind, when you have two good candidates (one from each party) running against each other in the general election, no matter who is elected, we all win.

Do you recycle? Do you meticulously separate your cans, bottles and plastic containers from the paper and cardboard?

The world is going green, but when it comes to our garbage, what we have been conditioned to do or feel compelled to do or – worse still – are coerced to do may end up hurting, not helping, the environment.

There is nothing inherently wrong with recycling. It’s been going on since the beginning of time and is as old as, well, garbage itself.

In urban areas, there must be an orderly and sanitary way to dispose of trash. Only in the last 25 years, however, have state and federal regulators gotten involved in the methods used in trash disposal.

Presently, the nation is preoccupied with recycling. Much of it is counterproductive and based on misinformation. Thanks to Daniel K. Benjamin, a professor of economics at Clemson University, and PERC, the Property and Environmental Research Center, for a study that examined the “Eight Great Myths of Recycling.” They are as follows:

1. Our Garbage will bury us.
2. Our garbage will poison us.
3. Packaging is the problem.
4. We must achieve trash independence.
5. We squander irreplaceable resources when we don’t recycle.
6. Recycling always protects the environment.
7. Recycling saves resources.
8. Without forced recycling mandates, there wouldn’t be recycling.

There is no garbage crisis: never has been; never will be - especially if the free market is allowed to handle the process. Government has a role to play in regulating where our landfills can be located and making sure that they are safe for the environment. However, when it comes to dictating what we can dispose of and what we must recycle, this is going way too far.

There is great truth to the saying, “One person’s trash is another person’s treasure.” Throughout the world, it is the poor who benefit most from the scavenging process. Likewise, here in the U.S., it is the less affluent, less densely populated areas that benefit most from the business of garbage disposal. According to the Benjamin study, this trade in trash is driven by widely varying disposal costs and inexpensive transportation. The garbage trade raises our wealth as a nation by at least $4 billion. There is no shortage of landfills and the modern landfill is not dangerous. In fact, it is often more expensive and more costly to the environment to recycle than to send those products to a landfill.

Recycling is a manufacturing process and it has an environment impact. The U.S. Office of Technology Assessment says it is “usually not clear whether secondary manufacturing produces less pollution per ton of material processed than primary manufacturing processes.”

Let’s look at paper. The Environmental Protection Agency found that there were only five toxic substances found in the virgin paper process, while there are eight in the recycling process. The EPA found there are twelve toxic substances common with both processes but, among the twelve, all but one was more prevalent in the recycling process.

To be sure, recycling-based secondary manufacturing generally uses less energy and consumes less raw materials. However, all raw material and energy savings evaporated when PERC compared the true costs of recycling versus other forms of disposal.

In communities where curbside recycling is mandated, it requires more trucks to collect the same amount of waste. This requires more iron and coal mining, more steel and rubber manufacturing and more petroleum, which produces more air pollution. All the associated costs are passed along to consumers and taxpayers. Yes, many states and local communities subsidize their recycling programs and hide the true costs in an attempt to prove these programs are cost-effective.

It is not surprising to discover that all the profitable opportunities for recycling have been provided by the private sector. This type of recycling dwarfs all government recycling programs. Informed, voluntary recycling conserves resources and raises our wealth. However, things like bottle and can deposit laws - which artificially raise the value of these items to 5 or 10 cents, when in actuality they are worth only a penny or less - induces many to engage in a wasteful activity which consumes valuable time and resources which could be put to better use.

Bottom line: Market prices will, in fact, cause companies and individuals to recycle their own and other people’s trash. This, in turn, provides the greater benefit to the environment and all concerned.

Although no one outside of Focus on the Family, which produced the spot, and CBS has seen the ad, it likely will highlight the story of this Heisman Trophy winner’s amazing birth.

By now,  most true-blue football fans are somewhat familiar with Tebow, who is as famous for his faith in Christ as he is for his gridiron ability.  After Super Bowl Sunday, even the casual fan will know why Tim’s mother is one of his heroes. 

In 1987, Pam Tebow was serving on the mission field in the Philippines when she became pregnant with Tim, her fifth child.  During the pregnancy she became seriously ill and was given a drug to rouse her from a coma and treat her dysentery that threatened the health of her baby.   Doctors recommended an abortion, which she declined.

It’s a beautiful story of faith, courage and conviction.  It is non-controversial and should be celebrated.  So, where’s the rub?

The problem for groups like the National Organization for Women, the Women’s Media Center and the Feminist Majority (there’s an overstatement if ever there was one) Foundation is that, after more than three decades of debating the abortion issue, they still lack the courage of their convictions.  They simply will not stand up and say what it is they want pregnant women to do.

Yes, Pam Tebow chose life for her baby, knowing all the while that he might be less than a perfect child.  She also knew that he might inconvenience her life in some way.  However, she knew that what was in her womb was a living, breathing child, not simply a glob of pregnancy tissue (as these so-called pro-choice groups like to put it).   Nevertheless, Mrs. Tebow was prepared to welcome that child into the world and love him no matter what.   Pam Tebow knew that her Bible, which is the basis for her Christian faith, has a commandment that says, “Thy shall not murder,” so she would not permit doctors to take Tim’s life and left his fate up to God.

Feminist groups are tying themselves in knots over this ad and the reason couldn’t be more obvious.  They claim to be “pro-choice” so why not simply celebrate Pam Tebow’s choice?

These feminist spokespersons are afraid to attack Tim Tebow or his mother directly.   Instead, they attack Focus on the Family,  a group that promotes adoption and pregnancy help centers which offer tangible help to women with crises pregnancies.

When backed into a corner, these radical feminists claim they want to make abortions safe, legal and rare.  Why can’t they simply commend Focus on the Family for doing its part to make abortions rare and simply agree to disagree on their first two objectives?   Instead, they are out trying to demonize Focus for being “intolerant.”

We are told that the Focus ad does not get into the controversial issue of abortion but, instead, will feature a positive message celebrating life.

Clearly, the only choice these radical feminists want promoted or celebrated is abortion and abortion alone.

Of course, these groups could buy their own ads, but what would be the message?
•    Scrape out that unwanted glob of pregnancy tissue and be free!
•    Guarantee yourself a perfect child, abort!
•    If you are pregnant and not equipped to raise a child, see that no one else does.  Kill it!

Then, there is a compelling tag that could run at the end of every commercial, “Choose death!”

Now, I think you can see why these feminist groups are in such a tizzy.  They have no real message with which to counter this ad.

That is why they are putting out surrogates to criticize Tim for becoming “political,” and suggesting that this might turn off his fans.

Is Tim Tebow being political or simply standing by the moral principles on which he claims to believe?  Does the extreme left  now view this as a character flaw in star athletes?

Let’s see, which sports star would you like your child to emulate, Tiger Woods or Tim Tebow? One uses women, the other respects them.   I know.   It’s a hard choice, especially for radical feminists.

The more light that shines on Tim Tebow, the sillier these radical feminist groups look.  That is why their unspoken message to Tim Tebow and his mother Pam is “Sit down and shut up!”

————————————————————————————

I would like to recommend this book to my Christian readers who wish to fully understand this issue as it relates to the Bible and to the culture.  It is out of print but currently is available through Amazon.com both new and used. Take advantage of this opportunity to get it while you can.

The federal deficit in 2009, the amount we added to the nation’s credit card, was a record $1.4 trillion, which was our largest, as a share of our Gross Domestic Product, since the end of World War II.

The Congressional Budget Office predicts the deficit for 2010 will be $1.35 trillion and drop to $980 billion in 2011, which is based on the assumption that the Bush tax cuts, which ended the last recession, will be allowed to expire.  In other words, taxes will be raised on almost everyone.

When this happens, it, most certainly, will have a depressing effect on the overall economy and will discourage job creation.

Nevertheless, based on the current numbers, the CBO is predicting that economic growth this year will be an anemic 2 percent with  unemployment remaining in the 10.1 percent rage, easing slightly to 9.5 percent the following year.  Loosely translated:  more pain; little gain.

In his State of the Union speech last night,  President Obama proposed a three-year freeze on domestic agency budgets.  Bear in mind, this is after the 10 percent raise he gave them this year.   It’s like shutting the door just after you’ve raided the refrigerator.

It is also important to understand that this freeze only affects the $477 billion of discretionary spending that must be approved by Congress each and every year.  In reality, it represents only a tiny portion of the federal budget because Congress routinely creates “entitlements” for the things members consider to be important.

Now, when “we the people” hear the word “entitlement,” we immediately think about Social Security and Medicare, programs that we have paid into and we feel  “entitled” to have returned.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  Although Social Security and Medicare are two of the largest entitlements, most entitlements simply represent the whims of the various members of Congress.  New entitlement programs are set up each and every year.  They are like individual spaceships that are put on automatic pilot and launched into the spending stratosphere.

The proposed freeze by President Obama is tantamount to taking a teaspoon of water out of the Atlantic Ocean.  CBO Director Douglas Elmendorf put it this way.

“U.S. fiscal policy is on an unsustainable path to an extent that cannot be solved by minor tinkering.”

Under current law, if everything remains the same, the CBO’s new estimate states that the Treasury will need to borrow another $6 trillion between 2011 and 2020, and, believe it or not, that’s the really good news.  Once the baseline is scrubbed of several unrealistic assumptions that Congress demands CBO use, the deficit returns to $1.4 trillion in 2010 and balloons to $1.9 trillion by 2020.   Brian Riedl of the Heritage Foundation ran the numbers for us and came up with another $7 trillion in debt over the next decade or an additional  $13 trillion in new red ink.

Last night, in his report to Congress, Obama threw out a few fig leafs to the middle class, promising easier repayment terms for student loans,  tax credits for families who pay for day care or care for elderly relatives and, of course, more government programs to create jobs, jobs, jobs.

Meanwhile, the public seems to understand that the first $787 billion stimulus resulted in a net job loss and most of the jobs that were saved or created were government jobs.   Bigger government will not save us, never has and never will.

Last night, Obama accepted responsibility for failing to deliver swiftly on some of the changes he promised a year ago, but he never admitted that his priorities are out of step with the nation’s and have been counterproductive.   For starters, the president needs a new cabinet, one with a lot of real-world private sector business experience.

Despite all the lofty rhetoric we just heard from the president, Barack Obama is viewed as a weak leader here and abroad.   On Tuesday, the Democrat-controlled Senate voted down his proposal to create a bipartisan commission to reign in those out of control entitlement programs, even though the measure had more than enough Republicans on board to break a filibuster and get down to the question.

Internationally, the president had little success with his “apology tour.”   However, the American people are forgiving.  He could get the country back on the right track and save his presidency if he simply could admit he has been wrong and apologize to the people here at home.

Since 1990, Haiti has received more than $6 billion dollars in aide, $3 billion from the U.S. alone.  Add to that another $1 ½ billion it has borrowed from international sources (the debt has now been forgiven). Some said that is tantamount to pouring money down a rat hole.

How is it that this poor country that is within spiting distance from our shores  is still unable to help itself?

Is Haiti a lost cause?  Hardly.  

Unfortunately our efforts to help this country have done more harm than good and we need to learn from our most recent mistakes if we sincerely want to give the people a hand-up and finally become the good neighbor Haiti deserves.

The Duvliers, Francois “Papa Doc” and Jean-Claude “Baby Doc,” ruled Haiti with iron fists from1957-1986.   During that time many Haitians fled to the U.S. to escape persecution.

In 1986, a revolution began and the Reagan Administration persuaded “Baby Doc” to leave.  The way was paved for a free election.

In 1990, Jean Betrand Aristide, a former priest who was expelled from the Salesian order for preaching the righteousness of class violence, was overwhelmingly elected president. The results were predictable:  Aristide forcibly removed the mayors in rural areas, unilaterally named five judges to the Supreme Court and began a seven month reign of terror as brutal as any Haiti had ever seen.  As a result, he was forcibly removed by the army and fled to the United States.

President George W. H. Bush was the first to prop up Aristide.  His foreign policy consisted of supporting existing governments, no matter how bad or corrupt they were.   At his urging, the Organization of American States began enforcing a blockade against Haiti.  This wiped out the country’s light industry and destroyed the small but growing middle class.  Bush then signed an executive order that gave Aristide access to Haiti’s treasury.

Aristide used Haiti’s money to hire a former Clinton campaign aid, Michael Barnes, as his lawyer.  He also hired McKinney & McDowell — a top public relations firm that handled such clients as the NAACP, the African National Congress and the National Organization of Women — to launch a campaign in Washington to promote his return to the island.

In 1994, President Clinton sent American troops to invade Haiti and forced Aristide back on his people.  This was a terrible and costly mistake.   Aristide continued to misbehave and stole the country blind.  When his term was over he formally stepped aside but continued to rule the country, de facto, with an army of paid thugs from a sprawling pink palace he build for himself and his militia.

In May of 2000, after Aristide’s Lavalas Party stole the Senate elections and forced Leon Manus, the jurist who ruled it a fraud, to flee for his life, the OAS and the United States simply gave up on Haiti.  Aristide was formally elected president again in a process that was so corrupt that barely five percent of the people even bothered to vote.

The turmoil continued until Aristide was finally removed to the Central African Republic with the aid of the administration of George W. Bush.

During the Aristide years, Haiti went from one of the poorest country in this hemisphere to one of the poorest countries in the world.   After Aristide’s departure, the news media slowly pulled up stakes and the world lost interest in the plight of this desperate country, made worse by a series of devastating hurricanes and tropical storms.

Before any fledgling democracy can take hold order must be restored.  This was a tall order for the new coalition government in a country that had been ruled by violence and drug lords.  When this government took over there were  2500 police for a country with 8 and ½  million people.  Before the earthquake struck the drug lords were on the run and the number of police had risen to 9500 with plans to ramp up to 14,000 by 2011.   Just how many members of that government survived the earthquake is anyone’s guess.

The principle “You break it; you fix it” should apply here.

It is ironic that former presidents Clinton and Bush have come together to call attention to Haiti’s plight.  Perhaps now, the country finally will get the kind of focused attention that it needs to get back on its feet.

————————————————————————————–

I have been reporting on this country for the last 18 years.  Please see my columns under the category of “Haiti” for more details, including exactly what happened to the money.  My husband and I spent our honeymoon in Haiti and became deeply concerned about this country and its people at that time.  Through Childcare Worldwide we have sponsored and educated two young girls in Haiti (they survived the earthquake) and were making plans to go visit them before they graduate in the spring.

Most of Haiti’s people are desperately poor.  The only chance they have to break out of poverty is through education.  The coalition government that was established after Aristide’s departure appears to be a good one, but without adequate aid, progress was slow, too slow.  The government was only educating 20 percent of Haiti’s children.

If you would like to help, I strongly recommend you do so through Childcare Worldwide.  I am on the advisory board of that organization and have worked with it for more than 20 years.  I have a link to the organization on the right side of the homepage.   When you go there, you will discover that this organization takes only three percent of what is given for overhead — almost unheard of today.  Also, Childcare Worldwide takes NO GOVERNMENT MONEY and is a member of the Better Business Bureau, the Evangelical Council for Financial Accountability, and Christian Service Charities. CWW has received a 5-star rating from MinistryWatch.com and Charity Navigator’s highest rating of 4 stars!

Immediately, after assuming the office of president of the United States, Obama began clamoring for an unprecedented $787 billion dollar stimulus package. It was necessary, he told us, in order to put Americans back to work and arrest the rising rate of unemployment at eight percent.

A year later, the unemployment rate is hovering around 10 percent, but when you add to the list the number of discouraged workers or those working only part time, the rate is a staggering 17.3 percent.

What went wrong?

Central to the president’s plan was his pledge not simply to create jobs, but to create “green jobs.”

After one year of this, we’ve seen four million more jobs evaporate, but the president’s answer to this problem, incredibly, is more green jobs.

Last week, Obama demonstrated that he is in serious denial by proclaiming, “The Recovery Act has been a major force in breaking the trajectory of this recession and stimulating growth and hiring. And one of the most popular elements of it has been a clean energy manufacturing initiative that will put Americans to work while helping America gain the lead when it comes to clean energy.”

Obama announced that he plans to use another $2.3 billion from the stimulus for tax credits for American manufacturers of clean energy technologies and he wants Congress to chip in another $5 billion. Obama marveled that he had “far more qualified applicants than we’ve been able to fund.”

No surprise here. When the government is handing out money there will never be a shortage of people willing to accept it.

Now, I have nothing against green energy, but in a free market economy, it is not the government’s place to pick winners or insure losers.

Obama isn’t the first president to throw money at green energy. He is simply building on the mistakes of his predecessors. In fact, our subsidies have become so attractive that in 2008, BP and Royal Dutch Shell announced they were abandoning their plans to build wind farms in Britain in favor of the United States. Lucky us! Doesn’t that prove that renewable energy is viable only where there is taxpayer support or mandates?

Nevertheless, our president remains wildly enthusiastic claiming this latest initiative likely will generate “17,000 jobs” and the roughly $5 billion more that we’ll leverage in private sector investments “could help create tens of thousands of additional jobs.”

What’s wrong with this picture?

Most of the president’s assumptions are based on myths created by a plethora of special interest groups. In fact, there are seven major myths that have been created by these groups.

Andrew O, Morriss and William T. Bogart, senior fellows at the Property and Environmental Research Center, PERC, have produced a study on these myths along with colleagues Andrew Dorchak and Roger E. Meiners.

The seven “green jobs” myths are as follows:

• Everyone knows what a “green job” is.

• Creating green jobs will boost productive employment

• Green jobs forecast are reliable

• Green jobs promote employment growth.

• The world economy can be remade by reducing trade, relying on local production, and lowering consumption.

• Government mandates are a substitute for free markets

• Wishing for technological progress is sufficient.

Yes, you may think that you know what a green job is but it seems there are as many definitions as there are interest groups.

Green jobs are a lot like art. They are in the eye of the beholder. Your idea of a green job is another man’s boondoggle or another man’s trash, literally.

According to this PERC team, the biggest gain in green jobs in one study were secretarial positions; management analysts, bookkeepers, janitors and lawyers. Still another study counts government administrators. Furthermore, these studies consistently ignore the millions of jobs that will be destroyed by the restrictions imposed by governments on disfavored products and technologies.

It may surprise you to learn that the green jobs literature essentially dismisses nuclear power, which is clean, cost effective and essentially carbon free. This calls into question the expressed concern of “green power” advocates which is to reduce carbon.

Bottom line: Either this president is gullible or he is in the pocket of these green jobs special interest groups, and he is willing to run our economy into the ground in order to do their bidding.