Kitten on the Keyboard

noreply@blogger.com (Kitten) — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 21:01:01 PST

Liberal Lies About National Health Care, Part 5

by Ann Coulter (more by this author)

Posted 09/23/2009 ET

Updated 09/23/2009 ET

(15) Democrats lost Congress in 1994 because President Clinton failed to pass national health care.

I'm not sure if this is another example of the left's wishful-thinking method of analysis or if they're seriously trying to trick the Blue Dog Democrats into believing it. But I gather liberals consider the 1994 argument an important point because it was on the front page of The New York Times a few weeks ago in place of a story about Van Jones or ACORN.

According to a news story by Jackie Calmes: "In 1994, Democrats' dysfunction over fulfilling a new president's campaign promise contributed to the party's loss of its 40-year dominance of Congress."

That's not the way I remember it. The way I remember it, Republicans swept Congress in 1994 not because Clinton failed to nationalize health care, but because he tried to nationalize health care. HillaryCare failed because most Americans didn't want it. (For more on this, see "ObamaCare.")

Bill Clinton had run as an old-school, moderate Democrat and then, as soon as he got elected, immediately became Che Guevara. (What is it with all our black presidents and these bait-and-switch tactics?)

Instead of pursuing "mend it, don't end it" on welfare and no "middle-class tax hike" -- as Clinton promised during the campaign -- he raised taxes, signed ridiculous gun restrictions into law, enacted "midnight basketball" as the solution to urban crime, announced that he was putting gays in the military and let Hillary run riot over health care.

But just to check my recollection, I looked up the Times' own coverage of the 1994 congressional races.

Republicans won a landslide election in 1994 based largely on the "Contract With America," which, according to the Times, promised "tax cuts, more military spending and a balanced-budget amendment." Far from complaining about Clinton incompetently failing to pass health care, the Times reported that Republicans were "unabashedly claiming credit for tying Congress up in knots."

These claims were immediately followed by ... oh, what was that word again? Now I remember ...

LANDSLIDE!

It was almost as if the voters agreed with the Republicans in opposing Clinton's risky health care scheme, then voted accordingly.

The Times' own polling showed that two-thirds of voters believed that "government should be less involved in solving national problems" -- which doesn't sound to me like voters being huffy with Clinton for failing to stage a government takeover of one-sixth of the economy.

In a Hail Mary pass just before the election, President Clinton pulled Hillary off the health care beat. CNN's repository of liberal cliches, Bill Schneider, reported that Clinton was trying to calm voters by "removing the most visible symbol of the liberal tilt of the last two years, which is the first lady."

And what a morale boost for the Democrats that must have been! Kind of like firing the manager of a losing baseball team in the last week of the season.

Too late. Shouldn't have tried to socialize health care.

(16) America's relatively low life expectancy compared to countries with socialist health care proves welfare-state health care is better.

The life expectancy argument is so stupid even The New York Times hasn't made it -- except in news stories quoting others or in the ramblings of the Times' more gullible op-ed columnists. You mostly hear the life expectancy argument from Hollywood actresses and profoundly dumb Democrats, such as Sen. Ben Cardin of Maryland.

Trying to evaluate the quality of a nation's health care by looking at life expectancy is like trying to estimate the birthrate by counting the number of flowers bought on Valentine's Day. (Or estimating future pregnancies of women with low self-esteem by adding up the total number of U.S. cities on a Bobby Brown tour and then multiplying by 2.)

There are lots of ways to get pregnant that don't require flowers or a backstage pass to a Bobby Brown concert, just as there are lots of ways to die that don't require setting foot inside a doctor's office.

For example, more Americans are murdered with guns than in any other industrialized country. (And it would be even more without concealed-carry laws! See John Lott, "More Guns, Less Crime.") According to a 1997 report by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the homicide rate with firearms alone was 16 times higher in the U.S. than in 25 other industrialized countries combined.

That will tend to reduce the U.S.'s "life expectancy" numbers, while telling us absolutely nothing about the country's medical care. (I promise that if you make it to a hospital alive, you are more likely to survive a gunshot wound in the U.S. than any place else in the world.)

It's comparing apples and oranges to talk about life expectancy as if it tracks with a country's health care system. What matters is the survival rate from the same starting line, to wit, the same medical condition. Not surprisingly, in the apples-to-apples comparisons, the U.S. medical system crushes the welfare-state countries.

For the glorious details, see next week's column.

noreply@blogger.com (Kitten) — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 21:01:01 PST

Sack Lunches

I put my carry-on in the luggage compartment and sat down in my assigned seat. It was going to be a long flight. 'I'm glad I have a good book to read perhaps I will get a short nap,' I thought.

Just before take-off, a line of soldiers came down the aisle and filled all the vacant seats, totally surrounding me. I decided to start a conversation. 'Where are you headed?' I asked the soldier seated nearest to me.

'Petawawa. We'll be there for two weeks for special training, and then we're being deployed to Afghanistan.

After flying for about an hour, an announcement was made that sack lunches were available for five dollars. It would be several hours before we reached the east, and I quickly decided a lunch would help pass the time.

As I reached for my wallet, I overheard soldier ask his buddy if he planned to buy lunch. 'No, that seems like a lot of money for just a sack lunch. Probably wouldn't be worth five bucks. I'll wait till we get to base.

His friend agreed.

I looked around at the other soldiers. None were buying lunch. I walked to the back of the plane and handed the flight attendant a fifty dollar bill. 'Take a lunch to all those soldiers.' She grabbed my arms and squeezed tightly. Her eyes wet with tears, she thanked me. 'My son was a soldier in Iraq; it's almost like you are doing
it for him.'

Picking up ten sacks, she headed up the aisle to where the soldiers were seated. She stopped at my seat and asked, 'Which do you like best - beef or chicken?'

'Chicken,' I replied, wondering why she asked. She turned and went to the front of plane, returning a minute later with a dinner plate from first class. 'This is your thanks.'

After we finished eating, I went again to the back of the plane, heading for the rest room. A man stopped me. 'I saw what you did. I want to be part of it. Here, take this.' He handed me twenty-five dollars.

Soon after I returned to my seat, I saw the Flight Captain coming down the aisle, looking at the aisle numbers as he walked, I hoped he was not looking for me, but noticed he was looking at the numbers only on my side of the plane. When he got to my row he stopped, smiled, held out his hand, and said, 'I want to shake your hand.'

Quickly unfastening my seatbelt I stood and took the Captain's hand. With a booming voice he said, 'I was a soldier and I was a military pilot. Once, someone bought me a lunch. It was an act of kindness I never forgot.' I was embarrassed when applause was heard from all of the passengers.

Later I walked to the front of the plane so I could stretch my legs. A man who was seated about six rows in front of me reached out his hand, wanting to shake mine. He left another twenty-five dollars in my palm.

When we landed I gathered my belongings and started to deplane. Waiting just inside the airplane door was a man who stopped me, put something in my shirt pocket, turned, and walked away without saying a word. Another twenty-five dollars!

Upon entering the terminal, I saw the soldiers gathering for their trip to the base. I walked over to them and handed them seventy-five dollars. 'It will take you some time to reach the base. It will be about time for a sandwich. God Bless You.'

Ten young men left that flight feeling the love and respect of their fellow travelers. As I walked briskly to my car, I whispered a prayer for their safe return. These soldiers were giving their all for our country. I could only give them a couple of meals.

It seemed so little...

A veteran is someone who, at one point in his life, wrote a blank check made payable to "The United States of America " for an amount of up to and including my life.'

That is Honor, and there are way too many people in this country who no longer understand it.

noreply@blogger.com (Kitten) — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 21:01:03 PST

True Friends

When you are sad, I will jump on the person who made you sad like a spider monkey jacked up on Mountain Dew!!!

When you are blue, I will try to dislodge whatever is choking you.

When you smile, I will know you are plotting something that I must be involved in.

When you're scared, we will high tail it out of here.

When you are worried, I will tell you horrible stories about how much worse it could be until you quit whining, ya big baby!!!!

When you are confused, I will use little words.

When you are sick, stay away from me until you are well again. I don't want whatever you have....

When you fall, I'll pick you up and dust you off-- after I laugh my ass off!!

This is my oath to you....I pledge it to the end.

“Why?” you may ask; -- because you are my FRIEND!

noreply@blogger.com (Kitten) — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 13:26:26 PST

Gotta Admit it's Inventive.....

REDNECK BABY CHAIR AND TEETHING RING

noreply@blogger.com (Kitten) — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 13:09:24 PST

I was so depressed last night...

thinking about the economy, the wars, lost jobs, savings, Social Security, retirement funds, etc., so I called Lifeline...

Got a Call Center in Pakistan...

I told them I was suicidal...

They got all excited and asked if I could drive a truck.

noreply@blogger.com (Kitten) — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 21:01:01 PST

A new supermarket opened in Parrish.

It has an automatic water mister to keep the produce fresh. Just before it goes on, you hear the sound of distant thunder and the smell of fresh rain.

When you pass the milk cases, you hear cows mooing and you experience the scent of fresh mown hay.

In the meat department there is the aroma of charcoal grilled steaks with onions.

When you approach the egg case, you hear hens cluck and cackle, and the air is filled with the pleasing aroma of bacon and eggs frying.

The bread department features the tantalizing smell of fresh baked bread & cookies.

We don't buy toilet paper there anymore.

noreply@blogger.com (Kitten) — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 21:15:00 PST

Sometimes we wonder...

“What did I do to deserve this?” or “Why did God have to do this to me?”

Here is a wonderful explanation!

A daughter is telling her Mother how everything is going wrong; she's failing algebra, her boyfriend broke up with her, and her best friend is moving away.

Meanwhile, her Mother is baking a cake and asks her daughter if she would like a snack, and the daughter says, “Absolutely Mom, I love your cake.”

“Here, have some cooking oil,” her Mother offers.

“Yuck” says her daughter.

“How about a couple raw eggs?”

“Gross, Mom!”

“Would you like some flour then? Or maybe baking soda?”

“Mom, those are all yucky!”

To which the mother replies. “Yes, all those things seem bad all by themselves. But when they are put together in the right way, they make a wonderfully delicious cake!”

God works the same way.

Many times we wonder why He would let us go through such bad and difficult times. But God knows that when He puts these things all in His order, they always work for good!

We just have to trust Him and, eventually, they will all make something wonderful!

God is crazy about you.

He sends you flowers every spring and a sunrise every morning.

Whenever you want to talk, He'll listen. He can live anywhere in the universe, and He chose your heart.

Life may not be the party we hoped for, but, while we are here, we might as well dance!

noreply@blogger.com (Kitten) — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 11:38:00 PST

I think we know who's the Alpha dog in this relationship....

noreply@blogger.com (Kitten) — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 21:01:02 PST

Ever Wonder.....You know that indestructible black box that is used on airplanes? Why don't they make the whole plane out of that stuff?!

noreply@blogger.com (Kitten) — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 18:07:19 PST

The Worst Bill Ever

November 5, 2009

Speaker Nancy Pelosi has reportedly told fellow Democrats that she's prepared to lose seats in 2010 if that's what it takes to pass ObamaCare, and little wonder. The health bill she unwrapped last Thursday, which President Obama hailed as a "critical milestone," may well be the worst piece of post-New Deal legislation ever introduced.

In a rational political world, this 1,990-page runaway train would have been derailed months ago. With spending and debt already at record peacetime levels, the bill creates a new and probably unrepealable middle-class entitlement that is designed to expand over time. Taxes will need to rise precipitously, even as ObamaCare so dramatically expands government control of health care that eventually all medicine will be rationed via politics.

Yet at this point, Democrats have dumped any pretense of genuine bipartisan "reform" and moved into the realm of pure power politics as they race against the unpopularity of their own agenda. The goal is to ram through whatever income-redistribution scheme they can claim to be "universal coverage." The result will be destructive on every level—for the health-care system, for the country's fiscal condition, and ultimately for American freedom and prosperity.

•The spending surge. The Congressional Budget Office figures the House program will cost $1.055 trillion over a decade, which while far above the $829 billion net cost that Mrs. Pelosi fed to credulous reporters is still a low-ball estimate. Most of the money goes into government-run "exchanges" where people earning between 150% and 400% of the poverty level—that is, up to about $96,000 for a family of four in 2016—could buy coverage at heavily subsidized rates, tied to income. The government would pay for 93% of insurance costs for a family making $42,000, 72% for another making $78,000, and so forth.

At least at first, these benefits would be offered only to those whose employers don't provide insurance or work for small businesses with 100 or fewer workers. The taxpayer costs would be far higher if not for this "firewall"—which is sure to cave in when people see the deal their neighbors are getting on "free" health care. Mrs. Pelosi knows this, like everyone else in Washington.

Even so, the House disguises hundreds of billions of dollars in additional costs with budget gimmicks. It "pays for" about six years of program with a decade of revenue, with the heaviest costs concentrated in the second five years. The House also pretends Medicare payments to doctors will be cut by 21.5% next year and deeper after that, "saving" about $250 billion. ObamaCare will be lucky to cost under $2 trillion over 10 years; it will grow more after that.

• Expanding Medicaid, gutting private Medicare. All this is particularly reckless given the unfunded liabilities of Medicare—now north of $37 trillion over 75 years. Mrs. Pelosi wants to steal $426 billion from future Medicare spending to "pay for" universal coverage. While Medicare's price controls on doctors and hospitals are certain to be tightened, the only cut that is a sure thing in practice is gutting Medicare Advantage to the tune of $170 billion. Democrats loathe this program because it gives one of out five seniors private insurance options.

As for Medicaid, the House will expand eligibility to everyone below 150% of the poverty level, meaning that some 15 million new people will be added to the rolls as private insurance gets crowded out at a cost of $425 billion. A decade from now more than a quarter of the population will be on a program originally intended for poor women, children and the disabled.

Even though the House will assume 91% of the "matching rate" for this joint state-federal program—up from today's 57%—governors would still be forced to take on $34 billion in new burdens when budgets from Albany to Sacramento are in fiscal collapse. Washington's budget will collapse too, if anything like the House bill passes.

• European levels of taxation. All told, the House favors $572 billion in new taxes, mostly by imposing a 5.4-percentage-point "surcharge" on joint filers earning over $1 million, $500,000 for singles. This tax will raise the top marginal rate to 45% in 2011 from 39.6% when the Bush tax cuts expire—not counting state income taxes and the phase-out of certain deductions and exemptions. The burden will mostly fall on the small businesses that have organized as Subchapter S or limited liability corporations, since the truly wealthy won't have any difficulty sheltering their incomes.

This surtax could hit ever more earners because, like the alternative minimum tax, it isn't indexed for inflation. Yet it still won't be nearly enough. Even if Congress had confiscated 100% of the taxable income of people earning over $500,000 in the boom year of 2006, it would have only raised $1.3 trillion. When Democrats end up soaking the middle class, perhaps via the European-style value-added tax that Mrs. Pelosi has endorsed, they'll claim the deficits that they created made them do it.

Under another new tax, businesses would have to surrender 8% of their payroll to government if they don't offer insurance or pay at least 72.5% of their workers' premiums, which eat into wages. Such "play or pay" taxes always become "pay or pay" and will rise over time, with severe consequences for hiring, job creation and ultimately growth. While the U.S. already has one of the highest corporate income tax rates in the world, Democrats are on the way to creating a high structural unemployment rate, much as Europe has done by expanding its welfare states.

Meanwhile, a tax equal to 2.5% of adjusted gross income will also be imposed on some 18 million people who CBO expects still won't buy insurance in 2019. Democrats could make this penalty even higher, but that is politically unacceptable, or they could make the subsidies even higher, but that would expose the (already ludicrous) illusion that ObamaCare will reduce the deficit.

• The insurance takeover. A new "health choices commissioner" will decide what counts as "essential benefits," which all insurers will have to offer as first-dollar coverage. Private insurers will also be told how much they are allowed to charge even as they will have to offer coverage at virtually the same price to anyone who applies, regardless of health status or medical history.

The cost of insurance, naturally, will skyrocket. The insurer WellPoint estimates based on its own market data that some premiums in the individual market will triple under these new burdens. The same is likely to prove true for the employer-sponsored plans that provide private coverage to about 177 million people today. Over time, the new mandates will apply to all contracts, including for the large businesses currently given a safe harbor from bureaucratic tampering under a 1974 law called Erisa.

The political incentive will always be for government to expand benefits and reduce cost-sharing, trampling any chance of giving individuals financial incentives to economize on care. Essentially, all insurers will become government contractors, in the business of fulfilling political demands: There will be no such thing as "private" health insurance.

All of this is intentional, even if it isn't explicitly acknowledged. The overriding liberal ambition is to finish the work began decades ago as the Great Society of converting health care into a government responsibility. Mr. Obama's own Medicare actuaries estimate that the federal share of U.S. health dollars will quickly climb beyond 60% from 46% today. One reason Mrs. Pelosi has fought so ferociously against her own Blue Dog colleagues to include at least a scaled-back "public option" entitlement program is so that the architecture is in place for future Congresses to expand this share even further.

As Congress's balance sheet drowns in trillions of dollars in new obligations, the political system will have no choice but to start making cost-minded decisions about which treatments patients are allowed to receive. Democrats can't regulate their way out of the reality that we live in a world of finite resources and infinite wants. Once health care is nationalized, or mostly nationalized, medical rationing is inevitable—especially for the innovative high-cost technologies and drugs that are the future of medicine.

Mr. Obama rode into office on a wave of "change," but we doubt most voters realized that the change Democrats had in mind was making health care even more expensive and rigid than the status quo. Critics will say we are exaggerating, but we believe it is no stretch to say that Mrs. Pelosi's handiwork ranks with the Smoot-Hawley tariff and FDR's National Industrial Recovery Act as among the worst bills Congress has ever seriously contemplated.

noreply@blogger.com (Kitten) — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 18:02:34 PST

Embedded income tax costs eliminated with FairTax

Roger Buchholtz, MI FairTax Director, recently wrote to us asking that we focus on another huge problem created by the income tax system - embedded and hidden income tax costs. He’s right; it’s the part of the income tax iceberg that lives dangerously hidden beneath the surface of our economy and our tax structure. Every consumer pays them hidden inside retail prices, wages and benefits are often depressed because of them and American companies are at a severe price disadvantage with foreign competitors because of them. The FairTax eliminates these hidden tax costs and - among other advantages - allows retail prices to drop in their absence.

American consumers typically don’t understand that federal tax costs are added into the price of domestically produced goods and services because these costs are hidden from plain view by “embedding” the costs into retail prices. But as any American business owner knows, income taxes, FICA payroll taxes, and the cost of obeying tax laws is a big part of business operating and production costs. Every employer pays half of each employee’s Social Security and Medicare taxes (FICA), the second highest corporate tax rate in the world and the significant cost of filing tax paperwork and maintaining records. These costs are added all along the production, distribution and retail sales line right up to the consumer.

To some, this just represents business “paying its fair share” and political figures often direct voter scorn toward the business sector claiming that businesses are not carrying enough of the tax burden. But only people pay taxes, not businesses, and such rhetoric disguises the truth of this hidden tax cost. Business taxes are, in reality, always passed along to consumers and/or workers. Business tax costs are commonly paid for by charging consumers more for the product or service, or by depressing employee wages and benefits. Typically, it is a combination of the two strategies that is used to pay required business tax costs.

Harvard economist Dale Jorgenson added up the entire FICA payroll tax cost (the employee and employer share), as well as business income taxes paid and compliance costs, and found that the production costs of domestic goods and services could decrease by approximately 22 percent on average after embedded tax costs are removed. Arduin, Laffer, and Moore, another respected group of economists, estimated production costs could decrease by a minimum of 11.55% if businesses provided employees with gross pay (including income tax withholding and only the employee share of payroll taxes) after enactment of the FairTax.

The other self-defeating consequence of these embedded tax costs is the effect on the “Made in America” label and job creation here in the United States. Foreign producers don’t suffer these costs when selling products or services here. Foreign governments typically forgive such taxes on overseas sales. It leaves American producers with a huge cost disadvantage on both domestic sales the sale of products and services overseas. By eliminating these costs, retail prices will fall under competitive pressures, taxpayers will see the tax cost of our federal government, and American companies will be freed of as much as a 22% producer cost disadvantage that typically translates into higher prices and lower wages and benefits for American workers. By eliminating these costs, more American jobs will be created with more favorable tax treatment for USA-based companies.

The FairTax eliminates embedded tax costs by shifting all such taxes into the open. It means a more honest relationship between the citizen and government and it means that American businesses will no longer have the American tax system working against job creation and competitiveness with foreign producers. Many believe that elimination of these costs will also lead to a resurgence of the American manufacturing base, which has been steadily declining over the most recent decades. It is one more income-tax-produced problem solved by the FairTax, and one more way to make the economy boom once again.

noreply@blogger.com (Kitten) — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 17:58:54 PST

noreply@blogger.com (Kitten) — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 17:51:30 PST

Did You Know?

The Alternative Minimum Tax was created in 1969 to capture taxes from 155 families who were so rich and so skilled at using the many arcane provisions of the tax code that they paid little or no income taxes. But because Congress erred and failed to index the provision for inflation, as many as twenty-three to twenty-five million middle-class taxpayers have technically already lost eligibility for deductions for children, real estate, and state taxes, as well as other exemptions and deductions. Oops! Congress passes a legislative “patch” each year to keep the AMT from going into effect but still counts the projected income from this growing Congressional error against federal spending.

noreply@blogger.com (Kitten) — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 11:33:00 PST

More Boortz: A lesson learned from Old Butch the Rooster

John was in the fertilized egg business. He had several hundred young layers (hens), called 'pullets,' and ten roosters to fertilize the eggs. He kept records, and any rooster not performing went into the soup pot and was replaced.

This took a lot of time, so he bought some tiny bells and attached them to his roosters. Each bell had a different tone so he could tell from a distance which rooster was performing. Now, he could sit on the porch and fill out an efficiency report by just listening to the bells.

John's favorite rooster, old Butch, was a very fine specimen, but this morning he noticed old Butch's bell hadn't rung at all! When he went to investigate, he saw the other roosters were busy chasing pullets, bells-a-ringing, but the pullets, hearing the roosters coming, would run for cover. To John's amazement, old Butch had his bell in his beak, so it couldn't ring. He'd sneak up on a pullet, do his job and walk on to the next one.

John was so proud of old Butch, he entered him in the Renfrew County Fair and he became an overnight sensation among the judges.

The result was the judges not only awarded old Butch the No Bell Piece Prize but, they also awarded him the Pulletsurprise as well.

Clearly old Butch was a politician in the making. Who else but a politician could figure out how to win two of the most highly coveted awards on our planet by being the best at sneaking up on the populace and screwing them when they weren't paying attention. Vote carefully next time, the bells are not always audible.

noreply@blogger.com (Kitten) — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 21:01:03 PST

FairTax on Twitter

It's FairTax Friday - look at your paystub!

Fairtax makes our exports more competitive overseas, it lowers our balance of trade deficit & increases employment at home.

FairTax.org

noreply@blogger.com (Kitten) — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 14:20:11 PST

Election 2009: Change I Can Believe In!

by Ann Coulter

Posted 11/04/2009 ET

Updated 11/04/2009 ET

-- MSNBC, Aug. 31, 2009, Keith Olbermann on Robert F. McDonnell, Republican candidate for governor of Virginia:

"In (McDonnell's master's thesis), he described women having jobs as detrimental to the family, called legalized use of contraception illogical, pushed to make divorce more difficult, and insisted government should favor married couples over, quote, 'cohabitators, homosexuals or fornicators.' Wow. When did he write this? 1875? No, 1989. Wow, 1989.

"Goodbye, Mr. McDonnell."

-- MSNBC, Sept. 22, 2009, Rachel Maddow also on McDonnell:

"And here's where the conservative movement and the Republican establishment smash into each other like bumper cars without bumpers. Here's where Republican electoral chances stop being separate from the wild-eyed excesses of the conservative movement.

"Part of watching Republicans try to return to power is watching ... the conservative movement eat the Republican Party, eat their electoral chances over and over and over again."

On election night, conservatives-eating-Republicans resulted in an 18-point landslide for McDonnell, who beat his Democratic opponent 59 percent to 41 percent -- winning two-thirds of all independent voters and ending the Democrats' eight-year reign in the Virginia governor's office.

Republicans swept all statewide offices for the first time in 12 years, winning the races for lieutenant governor and attorney general, as well as assembly seats, garbage inspector, dog catcher and anything else Virginians could vote for.

To paraphrase a pompous blowhard: Goodbye, Mr. Democrat.

And that's not the most exciting news from election night! Astoundingly, Jon Corzine, the incumbent governor of heavily Democratic New Jersey -- a state that Barack Obama won by 16 points just a year ago -- lost by 5 points.

At 49 percent for Republican Chris Christie versus 44 percent for Corzine, the election wasn't even close enough to be stolen by ACORN. (Although Corzine did extremely well among underaged Salvadoran prostitutes living in government housing.)

The biggest winner election night was pollster Scott Rasmussen, who -- once again -- produced the most accurate poll results. New York Times poll: Corzine 40, Christie 37; Quinnipiac poll: Corzine 43, Christie 38; Rasmussen poll: Christie 46, Corzine 43.

The biggest loser was President Obama, who campaigned tirelessly for Corzine, even giving up golf on several occasions and skipping a quarter-million-dollar "date night" with Michelle to stump for the Democrat.

Just two days before the election, Obama was at a rally in New Jersey assuring voters that Corzine was "one of the best partners I have in the White House. We work together. ... Jon Corzine helped get this done."

Except the problem is that voting for Obama a year ago was a fashion statement, much like it was once a fad to buy Beanie Babies, pet rocks and Cabbage Patch Kids. But instead of ending up with a ridiculous dust-collector at the bottom of your closet, the Obama fad leaves you with higher taxes, a reduced retirement fund, no job and a one-year wait for an MRI.

That is why Corzine's defeat sounded the death knell for national health care.

The good news: Next time Corzine is in a major car accident after speeding on the New Jersey Turnpike, he'll be able to see a doctor right away.

The media will try to rescue health care by talking about nothing but the 23rd district of New York, where the Democrat won Tuesday night. Congratulations, Democrats -- you won a congressional seat in New York! Next up: A Catholic elected pope!

Far from an upset, the Democrats' winning the 23rd district was a long-term plan of the Obama White House. That's why Obama made John McHugh, the moderate Republican congressman representing the 23rd district, his Secretary of the Army earlier this year. The Democrats thought McHugh's seat would be easy pickings.

Only in the last week has everyone acted as if a Democratic victory in the 23rd district would be a shocking surprise -- an upset victory caused by puritanical Republicans staging inquisitions against "mainstream" Republican candidates like Dede Scozzafava, the designated "Republican" candidate in the special election.

This is preposterous -- there was absolutely nothing Republican about Scozzafava. As a supporter of partial-birth abortion, card-check union schemes and massive government spending programs, she was less Republican than John McCain.

Even Markos Moulitsas of Daily Kos called Scozzafava the most liberal candidate in the race -- which may explain why she was the choice of George Soros' Working Families Party and why she promptly endorsed the Democrat after withdrawing from the race last weekend.

Conservative opposition to Scozzafava hardly suggests that they plan to impose litmus tests on every Republican candidate in the 2010 elections.

Speaking of litmus tests, on MSNBC recently, liberal blogger Jane Hamsher said of the possibility that a blue dog Democrat would oppose national health care: "I dare Blanche Lincoln -- I dare Blanche Lincoln to join a filibuster. She'll draw primary opponents so fast it would make your head spin."

While I'm sure an out-of-touch liberal blogger from Hollywood knows more about Arkansas than an elected senator from that state, Hamsher's threat sounds more like an intra-party civil war than conservatives opposing a George Soros-supported Republican candidate in a New York congressional race.

Not only do conservatives not pick insane fights -- such as staging a 2006 primary fight against a recent vice presidential candidate because he supported the war in Iraq -- but conservatives are more popular than Republicans.

By contrast, liberals are less popular than Democrats. When conservatives take control of the Republican Party, Republicans win. When liberals take control of the Democratic Party, Democrats end up out of power for eight to 12 years.

noreply@blogger.com (Kitten) — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 11:27:04 PST

THE GOP HAS A PLAN

By Neal Boortz @ November 4, 2009 8:40 AM

So the Republicans have come up with a 230-page healthcare alternative. It took the Democrats 1,990 pages. Wonder why it took so much more. Could it be perhaps because the Democrat plan grossly expands the federal government and bureaucracy?

What does the Republican alternative include? Glad you asked. Some of the highlights are:

Increasing incentives for people to use health savings accounts
Capping non-economic awards in medical malpractices cases
Incentives for states to drive down premium costs
Allowing health insurance to be sold across state lines

What does the Republican plan NOT include?

No employer mandate
No individual health insurance mandate
It doesn't require insurers to cover pre-existing conditions
Probably some abortion stuff that I could care less about

As the Republicans introduced their bill the Democrats were passing around a binder with a cover page reading "Republican Health Care Plan." Inside you would only find blank pages. Very cute ... the Republicans introduce a 233 page plan, and the Democrat Socialist Party refuses to acknowledge its very existence.

There is, though, something wrong with the GOP bill. They posted it online in a non-searchable format. This is particularly vexing to reporters like Jamie Dupree. If you follow him on Twitter [@jamiedupree] you can share his pain. There is, as I see it, only one reason to post your legislation in this manner ... and that's to make it more difficult for snoopy reporters and voters to get into that bill and look for specific little goodies. We expect this from Democrats. Republicans need to correct this.

noreply@blogger.com (Kitten) — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 11:22:22 PST

More Boortz: THE BUFFALO JUMP ELECTION

So we had elections this week. Most Americans probably didn't even know about 'em. They are too busy managing their fantasy football leagues. But these elections do matter. Two states that had Democrat governors now have elected Republican governors – Virginia and New Jersey. Might not be a big deal to people outside of those states, but what do these elections mean for Barack Obama? Remember that it was one year ago that this nation was engaged in an act of mass suicide. It was a Buffalo Jump election. You like that? A Buffalo Jump election. Let me explain.

Ever heard of a place called Head-Smashed-In Buffalo Jump? Okay, well here is the deal. How did our wonderful Native Americans hunt buffalo? They didn't ride, bare-backed, bow-and-arrow in hand, ready to nail a buffalo. That's not how it was done. Instead … they had Buffalo Jumps. They would find a cliff and then send out a buncha Indians on horseback, and they would herd the buffalo and cause them to stampede. And where would they send the buffalo? Right over the cliff. Some would die. Others would be wounded. But after they ran them over the cliff, they would go down there and finish them off.

Last year was a Buffalo Jump election. The media got on their little media ponies and started herding voters and they herded them right over the cliff. It was like mass suicide. That's what this country experienced one year ago.

But the ballot box still works. But 2010 could be the last chance to save this Republic.

noreply@blogger.com (Kitten) — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 21:01:02 PST

Know the Difference betwee n

A Cold & Swine Flu Symptoms

Symptom	Cold	Swine Flu
Fever	Fever is rare with a cold.	Fever is usually present with the flu in up to 80% of all flu cases. A temperature of 100F or higher for 3 to 4 days is associated with the flu.
Coughing	A hacking, productive (mucus- producing) cough is often present with a cold.	A nonproductive (non-mucus producing) cough is usually present with the flu (sometimes referred to as dry cough ).
Aches	Slight body aches and pains can be part of a cold.	Severe aches and pains are common with the flu.
Stuffy Nose	Stuffy nose is commonly present with a cold and typically resolves spontaneously within a week.	Stuffy nose is not commonly present with the flu.
Chills	Chills are uncommon with a cold.	60% of people who have the flu experience chills.
Tiredness	Tiredness is fairly mild with a cold.	Tiredness is moderate to severe with the flu.
Sneezing	Sneezing is commonly present with a cold.	Sneezing is not common with the flu.
Sudden Symptoms	Cold symptoms tend to develop over a few days.	The flu has a rapid onset within 3-6 hours. The flu hits hard and includes sudden symptoms like high fever, aches and pains.
Headache	A headache is fairly uncommon with a cold.	A headache is very common with the flu, present in 80% of flu cases.
Sore Throat	Sore throat is commonly present with a cold.	Sore throat is not commonly present with the flu..
Chest Discomfort	Chest discomfort is mild to moderate with a cold.	Chest discomfort is often severe with the flu.

noreply@blogger.com (Kitten) — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 21:01:01 PST

Ever Wonder....Why don't sheep shrink when it rains?

noreply@blogger.com (Kitten) — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 08:26:18 PST

Swine Flu Update

What is the difference between Bird Flu and Swine Flu?
For bird flu you need tweetment and for swine flu you need oinkment

noreply@blogger.com (Kitten) — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 07:43:20 PST

Swine Flu Paranoia

noreply@blogger.com (Kitten) — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 21:01:01 PST

Liberal Lies About National Healthcare: Fourth in a Series

by Ann Coulter (more by this author)

Posted 09/09/2009 ET

Updated 09/09/2009 ET

(12) Only national health care can provide "coverage that will stay with you whether you move, change your job or lose your job" -- as Obama said in a New York Times op-ed.

This is obviously a matter of great importance to all Americans, because, with Obama's economic policies, none of us may have jobs by year's end.

The only reason you can't keep -- or often obtain -- health insurance if you move or lose your job now is because of ... government intrusion into the free market.

You will notice that if you move or lose your job, you can obtain car and home insurance, hairdressers, baby sitters, dog walkers, computer technicians, cars, houses, food and every other product and service not heavily regulated by the government. (Although it does become a bit harder to obtain free office supplies.)

Federal tax incentives have created a world in which the vast majority of people get health insurance through their employers. Then to really screw ordinary Americans, the tax code actually punishes people who don't get their health insurance through an employer by denying individuals the tax deduction for health insurance that their employers get.

Meanwhile, state governments must approve the insurers allowed to operate in their states, while mandating a list of services -- i.e. every "medical" service with a powerful lobby -- which is why Joe and Ruth Zelinsky, both 88, of Paterson, N.J., are both covered in case either one of them ever needs a boob job.

If Democrats really wanted people to be able to purchase health insurance when they move or lose a job as easily as they purchase car insurance and home insurance (or haircuts, dog walkers, cars, food, computers), they could do it in a one-page bill lifting the government controls and allowing interstate commerce in health insurance. This is known as "allowing the free market to operate."

Plus, think of all the paper a one-page bill would save! Don't Democrats care about saving the planet anymore? Go green!

(13) The "public option" trigger is something other than a national takeover of health care.

Why does the government get to decide when the "trigger" has been met, allowing it to do something terrible to us? Either the government is better at providing goods and services or the free market is -- and I believe the historical record is clear on that. Why do liberals get to avoid having that argument simply by invoking "triggers"?

Why not have a "trigger" allowing people to buy medical insurance on the free market when a trigger is met, such as consumers deciding their health insurance is too expensive? Or how about a trigger allowing us to buy health insurance from Utah-based insurers -- but only when triggered by our own states requiring all insurance companies to cover marriage counseling, drug rehab and shrinks?

Thinking more broadly, how about triggers for paying taxes? Under my "public option" plan, citizens would not have to pay taxes until a trigger kicks in. For example, 95 percent of the Department of Education's output is useful, or -- in the spirit of compromise -- at least not actively pernicious.

Also, I think we need triggers for taking over our neighbors' houses. If they don't keep up 95 percent of their lawn -- on the basis of our lawn commission's calculations -- we get to move in. As with Obama's public option trigger, we (in the role of "government") pay nothing. All expenses with the house would continue to be paid by the neighbor (playing "taxpayer").

To make our housing "public option" even more analogous to Obama's health care "public option," we'll have surly government employees bossing around the neighbors after we evict them and a Web site for people to report any negative comments the neighbors make about us.

Another great trigger idea: We get to pull Keith Olbermann's hair to see if it's a toupee -- but only when triggered by his laughably claiming to have gone to an Ivy League university, rather than the bovine management school he actually attended.

(14) National health care will not cover abortions or illegal immigrants.

This appeared in an earlier installment of "Liberal Lies About Health Care," but I keep seeing Democrats like Howard Dean and Rep. Jan Schakowsky on TV angrily shouting that these are despicable lies -- which, in itself, constitutes proof that it's all true.

Then why did Democrats vote down amendments that would prohibit coverage for illegals and abortion? (Also, why is Planned Parenthood collecting petition signatures in Manhattan -- where they think they have no reason to be sneaky -- in support of national health care?)

On July 30 of this year, a House committee voted against a Republican amendment offered by Rep. Nathan Deal that would have required health care providers to use the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) Program to prevent illegal aliens from receiving government health care services. All Republicans and five Democrats voted for it, but 29 Democrats voted against it, killing the amendment.

On the same day, the committee voted 30-29 against an amendment offered by Republican Joe Pitts explicitly stating that government health care would not cover abortions. Zealous abortion supporter Henry Waxman -- a walking, breathing argument for abortion if ever there was one -- originally voted in favor of the Pitts amendment because that allowed him, in a sleazy parliamentary trick, to bring the amendment up for reconsideration later. Which he did -- as soon as he had enough Democrats in the hearing room to safely reject it.

If any liberal sincerely believes that national health care will not cover illegals and abortion, how do they explain the Democrats frantically opposing amendments that would make this explicit?

noreply@blogger.com (Kitten) — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 21:01:00 PST

Ever Wonder......Why do they sterilize the needle for lethal injections?

noreply@blogger.com (Kitten) — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 21:15:00 PST

Fox Hunting

I received this in email and I have to agree! This insanity has to stop!! Where is Congress?? Where is Pelosi, Reid, and Murtha?

While I always agree that hunting is an ethical God given right, I think that I would have to agree with the author on this one... fox hunting in Colorado should be banned!

Please help ban fox hunting in Colorado ~

THIS MADNESS MUST STOP!!