Tuesday, December 29, 2009
Visit Steve Maloney GOP Site
Note to Friends: You can find my current columns at: http://stevemaloneygop.blogspot.com. The DraftPalin2012 blog may (key word) start up again after the 2010 election. If you'd like to be added to my mailing list, please e-mail me at: TalkTop65@aol.com. Thanks to all those who have visited this site.
Thursday, September 10, 2009
9/11f: Critical Lessons for America
Critical lesson #1: Never forget . . .
Critical Lesson #2: Never forgive . . .
Critical Lesson #2: Never forgive . . .
Governor Sarah Palin knows these lessons well. Barack Obama never knew them -- and never will.
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
Palin: Obama Proposing Bad Medicine
In a Wall Street Journal OP ED on September 8, Gov. Sarah Palin explained in simple, but compelling, words exactly what's wrong with Barack Obama's socialistic health care plan. The Palin article follows:
By SARAH PALIN
Writing in the New York Times last month, President Barack Obama asked that Americans "talk with one another, and not over one another" as our health-care debate moves forward.
I couldn't agree more. Let's engage the other side's arguments, and let's allow Americans to decide for themselves whether the Democrats' health-care proposals should become governing law.
Some 45 years ago Ronald Reagan said that "no one in this country should be denied medical care because of a lack of funds." Each of us knows that we have an obligation to care for the old, the young and the sick. We stand strongest when we stand with the weakest among us.
We also know that our current health-care system too often burdens individuals and businesses—particularly small businesses—with crippling expenses. And we know that allowing government health-care spending to continue at current rates will only add to our ever-expanding deficit.
How can we ensure that those who need medical care receive it while also reducing health-care costs? The answers offered by Democrats in Washington all rest on one principle: that increased government involvement can solve the problem. I fundamentally disagree.
Common sense tells us that the government's attempts to solve large problems more often create new ones. Common sense also tells us that a top-down, one-size-fits-all plan will not improve the workings of a nationwide health-care system that accounts for one-sixth of our economy. And common sense tells us to be skeptical when President Obama promises that the Democrats' proposals "will provide more stability and security to every American."
With all due respect, Americans are used to this kind of sweeping promise from Washington. And we know from long experience that it's a promise Washington can't keep.
Let's talk about specifics. In his Times op-ed, the president argues that the Democrats' proposals "will finally bring skyrocketing health-care costs under control" by "cutting . . . waste and inefficiency in federal health programs like Medicare and Medicaid and in unwarranted subsidies to insurance companies . . . ."
First, ask yourself whether the government that brought us such "waste and inefficiency" and "unwarranted subsidies" in the first place can be believed when it says that this time it will get things right. The nonpartistan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) doesn't think so: Its director, Douglas Elmendorf, told the Senate Budget Committee in July that "in the legislation that has been reported we do not see the sort of fundamental changes that would be necessary to reduce the trajectory of federal health spending by a significant amount."
Now look at one way Mr. Obama wants to eliminate inefficiency and waste: He's asked Congress to create an Independent Medicare Advisory Council—an unelected, largely unaccountable group of experts charged with containing Medicare costs. In an interview with the New York Times in April, the president suggested that such a group, working outside of "normal political channels," should guide decisions regarding that "huge driver of cost . . . the chronically ill and those toward the end of their lives . . . ."
Given such statements, is it any wonder that many of the sick and elderly are concerned that the Democrats' proposals will ultimately lead to rationing of their health care by—dare I say it—death panels? Establishment voices dismissed that phrase, but it rang true for many Americans.
Working through "normal political channels," they made themselves heard, and as a result Congress will likely reject a wrong-headed proposal to authorize end-of-life counseling in this cost-cutting context. But the fact remains that the Democrats' proposals would still empower unelected bureaucrats to make decisions affecting life or death health-care matters. Such government overreaching is what we've come to expect from this administration.
Speaking of government overreaching, how will the Democrats' proposals affect the deficit? The CBO estimates that the current House proposal not only won't reduce the deficit but will actually increase it by $239 billion over 10 years. Only in Washington could a plan that adds hundreds of billions to the deficit be hailed as a cost-cutting measure.
The economic effects won't be limited to abstract deficit numbers; they'll reach the wallets of everyday Americans. Should the Democrats' proposals expand health-care coverage while failing to curb health-care inflation rates, smaller paychecks will result. A new study for Watson Wyatt Worldwide by Steven Nyce and Syl Schieber concludes that if the government expands health-care coverage while health-care inflation continues to rise "the higher costs would drive disposable wages downward across most of the earnings spectrum, although the declines would be steepest for lower-earning workers." Lower wages are the last thing Americans need in these difficult economic times.
Finally, President Obama argues in his op-ed that Democrats' proposals "will provide every American with some basic consumer protections that will finally hold insurance companies accountable." Of course consumer protection sounds like a good idea. And it's true that insurance companies can be unaccountable and unresponsive institutions—much like the federal government. That similarity makes this shift in focus seem like nothing more than an attempt to deflect attention away from the details of the Democrats' proposals—proposals that will increase our deficit, decrease our paychecks, and increase the power of unaccountable government technocrats.
Instead of poll-driven "solutions," let's talk about real health-care reform: market-oriented, patient-centered, and result-driven. As the Cato Institute's Michael Cannon and others have argued, such policies include giving all individuals the same tax benefits received by those who get coverage through their employers; providing Medicare recipients with vouchers that allow them to purchase their own coverage; reforming tort laws to potentially save billions each year in wasteful spending; and changing costly state regulations to allow people to buy insurance across state lines. Rather than another top-down government plan, let's give Americans control over their own health care.
Democrats have never seriously considered such ideas, instead rushing through their own controversial proposals. After all, they don't need Republicans to sign on: Democrats control the House, the Senate and the presidency. But if passed, the Democrats' proposals will significantly alter a large sector of our economy. They will not improve our health care. They will not save us money. And, despite what the president says, they will not "provide more stability and security to every American."
We often hear such overblown promises from Washington. With first principles in mind and with the facts in hand, tell them that this time we're not buying it.
Ms. Palin, Sen. John McCain's running mate in the 2008 presidential election, was governor of Alaska from December 2006 to July 2009.
By SARAH PALIN
Writing in the New York Times last month, President Barack Obama asked that Americans "talk with one another, and not over one another" as our health-care debate moves forward.
I couldn't agree more. Let's engage the other side's arguments, and let's allow Americans to decide for themselves whether the Democrats' health-care proposals should become governing law.
Some 45 years ago Ronald Reagan said that "no one in this country should be denied medical care because of a lack of funds." Each of us knows that we have an obligation to care for the old, the young and the sick. We stand strongest when we stand with the weakest among us.
We also know that our current health-care system too often burdens individuals and businesses—particularly small businesses—with crippling expenses. And we know that allowing government health-care spending to continue at current rates will only add to our ever-expanding deficit.
How can we ensure that those who need medical care receive it while also reducing health-care costs? The answers offered by Democrats in Washington all rest on one principle: that increased government involvement can solve the problem. I fundamentally disagree.
Common sense tells us that the government's attempts to solve large problems more often create new ones. Common sense also tells us that a top-down, one-size-fits-all plan will not improve the workings of a nationwide health-care system that accounts for one-sixth of our economy. And common sense tells us to be skeptical when President Obama promises that the Democrats' proposals "will provide more stability and security to every American."
With all due respect, Americans are used to this kind of sweeping promise from Washington. And we know from long experience that it's a promise Washington can't keep.
Let's talk about specifics. In his Times op-ed, the president argues that the Democrats' proposals "will finally bring skyrocketing health-care costs under control" by "cutting . . . waste and inefficiency in federal health programs like Medicare and Medicaid and in unwarranted subsidies to insurance companies . . . ."
First, ask yourself whether the government that brought us such "waste and inefficiency" and "unwarranted subsidies" in the first place can be believed when it says that this time it will get things right. The nonpartistan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) doesn't think so: Its director, Douglas Elmendorf, told the Senate Budget Committee in July that "in the legislation that has been reported we do not see the sort of fundamental changes that would be necessary to reduce the trajectory of federal health spending by a significant amount."
Now look at one way Mr. Obama wants to eliminate inefficiency and waste: He's asked Congress to create an Independent Medicare Advisory Council—an unelected, largely unaccountable group of experts charged with containing Medicare costs. In an interview with the New York Times in April, the president suggested that such a group, working outside of "normal political channels," should guide decisions regarding that "huge driver of cost . . . the chronically ill and those toward the end of their lives . . . ."
Given such statements, is it any wonder that many of the sick and elderly are concerned that the Democrats' proposals will ultimately lead to rationing of their health care by—dare I say it—death panels? Establishment voices dismissed that phrase, but it rang true for many Americans.
Working through "normal political channels," they made themselves heard, and as a result Congress will likely reject a wrong-headed proposal to authorize end-of-life counseling in this cost-cutting context. But the fact remains that the Democrats' proposals would still empower unelected bureaucrats to make decisions affecting life or death health-care matters. Such government overreaching is what we've come to expect from this administration.
Speaking of government overreaching, how will the Democrats' proposals affect the deficit? The CBO estimates that the current House proposal not only won't reduce the deficit but will actually increase it by $239 billion over 10 years. Only in Washington could a plan that adds hundreds of billions to the deficit be hailed as a cost-cutting measure.
The economic effects won't be limited to abstract deficit numbers; they'll reach the wallets of everyday Americans. Should the Democrats' proposals expand health-care coverage while failing to curb health-care inflation rates, smaller paychecks will result. A new study for Watson Wyatt Worldwide by Steven Nyce and Syl Schieber concludes that if the government expands health-care coverage while health-care inflation continues to rise "the higher costs would drive disposable wages downward across most of the earnings spectrum, although the declines would be steepest for lower-earning workers." Lower wages are the last thing Americans need in these difficult economic times.
Finally, President Obama argues in his op-ed that Democrats' proposals "will provide every American with some basic consumer protections that will finally hold insurance companies accountable." Of course consumer protection sounds like a good idea. And it's true that insurance companies can be unaccountable and unresponsive institutions—much like the federal government. That similarity makes this shift in focus seem like nothing more than an attempt to deflect attention away from the details of the Democrats' proposals—proposals that will increase our deficit, decrease our paychecks, and increase the power of unaccountable government technocrats.
Instead of poll-driven "solutions," let's talk about real health-care reform: market-oriented, patient-centered, and result-driven. As the Cato Institute's Michael Cannon and others have argued, such policies include giving all individuals the same tax benefits received by those who get coverage through their employers; providing Medicare recipients with vouchers that allow them to purchase their own coverage; reforming tort laws to potentially save billions each year in wasteful spending; and changing costly state regulations to allow people to buy insurance across state lines. Rather than another top-down government plan, let's give Americans control over their own health care.
Democrats have never seriously considered such ideas, instead rushing through their own controversial proposals. After all, they don't need Republicans to sign on: Democrats control the House, the Senate and the presidency. But if passed, the Democrats' proposals will significantly alter a large sector of our economy. They will not improve our health care. They will not save us money. And, despite what the president says, they will not "provide more stability and security to every American."
We often hear such overblown promises from Washington. With first principles in mind and with the facts in hand, tell them that this time we're not buying it.
Ms. Palin, Sen. John McCain's running mate in the 2008 presidential election, was governor of Alaska from December 2006 to July 2009.
Monday, August 31, 2009
One Thing in Common With Obama
To all my honored guests who come here with such frequency, I'll be taking a short vacation -- if our awful president can do so, well "yes I can" -- until September 4, this coming Friday, when I'll start posting with the usual regulatity. Have a great week everyone. I love you all . . . especially Gov. Sarah Palin . . . but I know she's only one of many wonderful people in our great country. God bless America.
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
Conservatives4Palin Worth Visiting
Thanks so much to Adam Brickley, founder of The Sarah Palin Movement, for nominating me (on my birthday!) on Conservatives4 Palin for the Palin. I'm honored and humbled . . . and give special thanks to the Conservatives4Palin site, one I urge you to visit regularly. I'd also like to give a tip of the hat to Gov. Palin and her remarkable family.
Monday, August 24, 200
By Adam Brickley, aka "ElephantMan"
Doug Brady wrote a great post earlier proposing August 29, the anniversary of Gov. Palin's nomination as the Republican vice presidential candidate, as "Sarah Palin Day". This is a fine idea. He also nominated yours truly for some kind of award (thanks!). However, I would be remiss not to throw in a few nominations myself. I get a lot of credit for launching the original Draft Palin site, but there are definitely two or three people who did at least as much work as I did and hence deserve awards. So, I would place the following nominations for the Sarah Palin Day Award:
Doug Brady wrote a great post earlier proposing August 29, the anniversary of Gov. Palin's nomination as the Republican vice presidential candidate, as "Sarah Palin Day". This is a fine idea. He also nominated yours truly for some kind of award (thanks!). However, I would be remiss not to throw in a few nominations myself. I get a lot of credit for launching the original Draft Palin site, but there are definitely two or three people who did at least as much work as I did and hence deserve awards. So, I would place the following nominations for the Sarah Palin Day Award:
1. Steve Maloney - Steve was the second-ever Palin blogger, and my lonely partner in crime for most of 2007. To be honest, Steve drove some of our earliest endorsements and did a lot of heavy lifting during a time when I couldn't (retirees have more time to blog than intern/college students). No Steve, no Palin Movement - period. By the way - Steve is still involved with a large network of Palin bloggers, C4P is big, but Steve and his gang do a lot to keep together all of the little bloggers for Sarah. If you don't know him, you should.
2. Kristopher Lorelli - Started his own Palin site in early 2008, PalinForVp.com (prompting me to buy up PalinForVP.net, PalinForVP.org, and PalinForVP.info). Despite the odd name similarity, Kris was a great partner, and did even more work behind the scenes than he did with his site. From what I heard, quite a large amount of pro-Palin literature and email was sent to McCain campaign officials by Kris. He's now one of the major brains at the other team blog I contribute to - Race42012.
Commenter of the Year Award - "The Original Ted"For any hard-core, long-time Palinite who was involved in the movement before Sarah's nomination, Ted needs no introduction. If you got involved later - I'm sure many old-schoolers in the comments section will be happy to tell you about his efforts. I will leave the Ted stories to the commenters - as it seems only right that our commenter award nominee should be lauded primarily by his compatriots below the fold.
Sunday, August 23, 2009
Sarah Palin Faces Party Elites
Sarah Palin exemplifies nearly everything that's good about America, so why do many in the party elites dislike her? There's even a name for the condition: Palin Derangement Syndrome.
Saturday, August 22, 2009
Obama Undermines America's Spiritual Foundation
The following column is by Larry Perrault, a theologian and political philosopher who lives in Houston, Texas. Larry is a strong supporter of Gov. Sarah Palin. In the 2008 primary season, he supported Gov. Mike Huckabee.
I am disabled with MS. But, I do a lot of Internet communication. I’m also working on a writing project. I got this Special Message below from HuckPAC. Properly enough as a minister, your father retains and expresses a relatively positive Outlook. I hope in some respect, I’m able to project a bit of such a positive disposition. However, it strikes me as a bit sanguine to talk about getting “this country back on track.” Even assuming that we might thwart or more likely slow, the intrusion of the federal government into the private domain of medical care, the fiscal folly already accomplished alone is not a mere ditch but a multi-generational canyon from which it is hard to imagine how we could emerge in any sort of typically American state of health in liberty and commerce. The record of Republicans in undoing liberal folly is not a sterling one and appears particularly unpromising in the case of the enormity of this profligacy.
I watch your father’s television program weekly. I would sure love to hear it if he has reason beyond a mere encouragement for America to persevere, putting one step in front of the other irrespective of circumstance. I’m near his age and would share much of the romance of America as having experienced God’s blessing. But, I believe it has experienced that not by virtue of our name or geography but by the maintenance of some respect of the liberty that is the endowment of the creator. Today, we retain the name with which the USA was founded, but for many years that respect of liberty has been allowed to (unconstitutionally) drift until today, when it seems to have disappeared down a stretch of whitewater rapids. It is not a political or geographical definition but a social ideal that is the
I am disabled with MS. But, I do a lot of Internet communication. I’m also working on a writing project. I got this Special Message below from HuckPAC. Properly enough as a minister, your father retains and expresses a relatively positive Outlook. I hope in some respect, I’m able to project a bit of such a positive disposition. However, it strikes me as a bit sanguine to talk about getting “this country back on track.” Even assuming that we might thwart or more likely slow, the intrusion of the federal government into the private domain of medical care, the fiscal folly already accomplished alone is not a mere ditch but a multi-generational canyon from which it is hard to imagine how we could emerge in any sort of typically American state of health in liberty and commerce. The record of Republicans in undoing liberal folly is not a sterling one and appears particularly unpromising in the case of the enormity of this profligacy.
I watch your father’s television program weekly. I would sure love to hear it if he has reason beyond a mere encouragement for America to persevere, putting one step in front of the other irrespective of circumstance. I’m near his age and would share much of the romance of America as having experienced God’s blessing. But, I believe it has experienced that not by virtue of our name or geography but by the maintenance of some respect of the liberty that is the endowment of the creator. Today, we retain the name with which the USA was founded, but for many years that respect of liberty has been allowed to (unconstitutionally) drift until today, when it seems to have disappeared down a stretch of whitewater rapids. It is not a political or geographical definition but a social ideal that is the
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
