Kerry's Yacht, undergoing maintenace in Rhode Island

Just how does a kept man go about getting a little pocket change to spend? It must be just a little damaging to the ego to have to always go to the little lady to ask for spending money. So, when Senator John Kerry (Democrat, Massachusetts) had to choose a location to moor his new yacht, did he go to his wife Teresa, heir to the Heinz Catsup fortune, and make a deal? Did he propose that if he could save a few bucks on the taxes owed on the 76 foot luxury sloop, that perhaps Teresa would let him have a couple of bucks to keep for himself?


Senator Kerry chose to store his new yacht in the state of Rhode Island, close to his home in Boston, but light years away in terms of tax liability. While the Commonwealth of Massachusetts charges a sales tax of 6.25% on the purchase of a yacht, the State of Rhode Island charges nothing. By mooring the vessel in Rhode Island, Senator Kerry saved his wife a quick $437,500 in sales tax. But that seems like a lot of money to let the Senator have for play money. Perhaps Teresa was more comfortable allowing the Senator to keep the $70,000 in annual excise taxes that would have been charged by Massachusetts if the yacht was berthed there. That’s a little more like it, don’t you think?


The senior senator from the Bay State, the former presidential candidate in 2004, is normally a strong adherent to the redistribution of wealth mantra advocated by his party and particularly by President Barack Obama. The choice to berth his yacht in Rhode Island reveals that perhaps Senator Kerry just wants to redistribute everyone else’s wealth, but retain Teresa’s for his own use, at least that part of Teresa's wealth to which she allows him access.


A spokesman for the Senator denied that taxes had anything to do with the Senator’s decision to berth his yacht in Rhode Island. Kerry toadie David Wade said Friday the boat is being kept at Newport Shipyard not to evade taxes, but "for long-term maintenance, upkeep and charter purposes." Of course, Mr Wade, that is clear for all to see. They do much better long-term maintenance in Rhode Island.


The question for Senator Kerry, and for the rest of the ruling class thieves and plunderers in Washington DC, is just how stupid do they think we are? The answer seems to be very, very stupid. Its hard to find fault with that opinion. After all, what evidence do they have to the contrary? We did almost elect Senator Kerry to the highest office in the land. And we actually did elect an incredibly inexperienced and unqualified first-term senator from Illinios to the same office. But those mistakes are in the past, and the tribulations of the last few years have taught us a great deal about our current leaders. Perhaps, when Americans go to the polls this November, we will show Senator Kerry and his fellow travelers exactly how stupid we are.

One Step Closer to the Public Option

An interesting news story in the New York Times last week points out the next step in the Obama Administration’s campaign to run American health insurance companies out of business and replace them with a government-run “Public Option.” The story, written by Robert Pear appeared on July 15th under the headline “Health Plans Must Provide Some Tests at No Cost.”

The news story indicated that the White House “issued new rules” that direct health insurance companies to provide many screening tests, blood pressure testing, diabetes screening, cholesterol screening, cancer screening, vaccinations, and prenatal care to customers at no cost. Under the new White House rules, insurance companies will be required to provide these services at no cost, with no co-payment, and no change in deductables.

The White House’s issuing “new rules” by which private businesses are now required to conduct their business raises the question (In my mind, if not in the New York Times’) of the president’s constitutional authority to perform such an action. A careful reading of Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution of the United States does not contain any language that could be construed as giving the president the authority to direct the actions of private businesses. Even those who contend that Article I, section 8, the so-called “Commerce Clause,” gives the government the authority to regulate interstate commerce must acknowledge that as a power of the legislative branch, not the executive. But this president has not let the question of constitutional authority bother him in any of the other issues he has dealt with in the last nineteen months, why should health insurance companies be different?

On the face of it, the White House action may appear to be welcome news for the oppressed health care consumer. But what are the real effects of these “new rules?” While health insurance company customers may not be required to pay for these free services, they will see the cost of these services reflected in higher premiums for their policies. The story in the New York Times indicated that the White House estimates consumers could expect to see increases of about one and a half percent to their premiums. The White House’s record of cost estimates for its pet projects has not been particularly accurate, not to say misleading or fraudulent.

But when the price for a scare resource or service is artificially driven to zero, a prudent student of economics can quickly predict what will happen to the demand for that scarce resource. Demand will skyrocket. People will have no reason to think twice about ordering this or that test or screening, and the insurance companies will be forced to spread the cost over all their customers in the form of increased premiums. But if the government can tell the insurance companies what services to provide for free, what is to stop them from telling companies what they may charge for their insurance premiums? One has to suppose that at least one of the 243 new bureaucracies created by the Obama Care bill will concern itself with approving or rejecting insurance premium increases.

This is just the first instance of “new rules” emanating from the White House. A month from now, they can require that health insurance companies pay for out-patient surgery, X-rays, MRIs, and any other service they can imagine. One can only imagine if the White House will determine that heart transplant surgery should be free of charge in future editions of White House “rules.”

With the government on the one hand requiring that companies provide certain services, and on the other hand controlling the price those companies can charge for the services, the companies will find themselves in a rapidly closing vice that will squeeze them out of business. And where will we turn when all the health insurance companies are put out of business?

The need for a “Public Option” will become clear. Insurance companies will no longer be able to provide the necessary services, so the government will have to step in to rescue us with the public option. Despite frequent denials by the president throughout the entire legislative process leading up to the passage of Obama Care, wasn’t that the objective of the Obama Administration all along?

Presidential Popularity

President Barrack Obama has reached a new low in popularity with the American people, according to an ABC News/Washington Post survey taken in early July. In the poll, 60% of voters polled expressed a lack of faith that the President was making the correct decisions for the nation. Voters voiced disapproval of the Obama agenda on nearly every issue put to them by the poll.

They disapproved of Mr Obama’s handling of the economy by a 54-43% margin. Similar numbers were true for Mr. Obama’s handling of Health Care (50-54%), the budget deficit (56-40%), and financial regulatory reform (50-44%). Only in one area did the voters polled support the president’s actions by a majority. They approved of his handling of the President’s position as Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces by a margin of 55-44%, apparently in response to his firing General McCrystal, the former commander of forces in Afghanistan.

President Obama’s overall popularity has dropped to 50% of voter approval, which reflects a continuing decline since his popularity peaked in April, 2009, several months after his inauguration. His approval at that time was a stratospheric 69%, but has fallen every month since that time.

Mr Obama’s popularity remains considerably higher than his predecessor in the White House at the end of his second term. George Bush was hovering in the 30% approval level when he left office. But there is a remarkable difference in the approval ratings for the two presidents. President Bush finished his second term at the 30% approval level after nearly eight years of unrelenting criticism from a merciless adversarial press. Mr Obama, on the other hand, has fallen to his current level of popularity despite the shameless, adoring coverage of the mainstream media since arriving at the White House.

After a short respite following the terror attack of September 11, 2001, the media returned to the incessant drumbeat of criticism of Mr. Bush on his Iraq policy, attempted reform of Social Security, tax cuts for the “wealthy,” and even included fraudulent attacks on Mr Bush’s National Guard service by CBS anchor Dan Rather just prior to the 2004 Presidential Election. Coverage of the war in Iraq included regular mention of the number of Americans killed and injured in an effort to diminish popular support. Their attacks on Mr Bush included continued references to a faltering economy during the entire Bush presidency, despite the fact that the nation enjoyed an economic boom for much of Bush’s terms, including the addition of 2.7 million jobs directly attributed to the Bush tax cuts.

News conferences with Mr Bush featured barbed questions from hostile reporters. ABC News “reporter” Terry Moran has said of the White House Press Room, “In that room, one of the things a questioner has to do is create a moment, a confrontation with the President,” Moran explained. “The point is to get them to answer questions, not just stand up there and use all the majesty of the Presidency to amplify his image.”

And yet majesty was all many reporters could see when referring to Mr Obama. The same Terry Moran from ABC News, who favored confrontation with Mr Bush, gushed his adoration for the newly inaugurated President Obama, saying “Barack Obama is the first President since George Washington to be taking a step down into the Oval Office.” Evan Thomas, of soon-to-be bankrupt Newsweek, was similarly impressed, and said, “In a way, Obama is standing above the country, above the world. He's sort of God." ABC News assumed a non-confrontational approach with respect to the new president, when reporter Bill Weir had the following comment on Mr Obama’s inauguration, "Never have so many people shivered so long with such joy. From above, even the seagulls must have been awed by the blanket of humanity." I am sure they were awed, if not by the majesty of President Obama, then by the utter lack of integrity of the mainstream media.

George Bush endured two complete terms of constant adversarial press coverage, to which he refused to respond. He believed that responding to those shameless attacks was beneath the dignity of the office he held. Mr Obama, on the other hand, has enjoyed the fawning support of a corrupt media while instituting policies that expand government power while recklessly spending money he does not have. His popular support is falling with every move he makes. Even the desperate support from a derelict and incompetent media are not enough to prop up the failing second term of the Carter Administration. The question is: How long will Mr Obama's popularity remain at 50% approval if his dupes and toadies in the media actually begin to do their jobs?

Dirt as a Political Strategy

A news story appearing in the Washington Post on July 7 provides searing insight into the character of the Democrat Party. The story, written by staff reporter Philip Rucker appears under the headline, “Democrats digging harder than ever for dirt on Republicans.” The story goes on to indicate that democrat opposition researchers are moving faster and more aggressively to unearth unflattering details about the lives of their Republican opponents in the upcoming congressional elections. They are looking for issues such as unpaid taxes and connections to financial firms that have benefitted from government bailouts.

(See Mr Rucker’s story at: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/06/AR2010070605271.html)

Leaving aside the obvious hypocrisy of Democrat operatives finding fault with tax cheats and politicians associated with bailed out financial firms (Treasury Secretary Tim Geitner, call your office), this story illustrates the lack of philosophical depth in the Democrat Party. Of course, opposition research is not a new phenomenon and both sides do it. But for a major Washington newspaper to run a story on the extent of the Democrat search for dirt illustrates that they cannot run on the issues.

A major political party seeking to gain the favor of the American electorate should be able to boldly proclaim its fundamental principles and defend them in debate. The articulation and defense of its principles should be the primary effort of a party to seek electoral approbation. And yet the Democrat party, apparently unwilling to proclaim its support for income redistribution and an increasing takeover of the private sector, seems to be focusing on finding dirt on their Republican opponents.

They cannot, at least with straight faces and supported by facts, claim that their economic recovery plan is working. Unemployment continues to hover at or near 10%. Housing demand continues to drop. Construction has come to a halt. The outlook for economic recovery is dim, unless you are employed in a government job and a member of the union. In the area of Homeland Security, Democrats are actively supporting open borders and amnesty to illegal aliens now in the country. After all, it’s unrealistic to try to deport 12 million people, unless they were potential Republican voters.

In foreign affairs, Iran continues to develop the nuclear weapon that will plunge the Middle East into war as sure as tomorrow’s sunrise, with no realistic response from the Democrat President or Congress. Instead, the Iranian leaders laugh at and ridicule the weak American President. Meanwhile, Mr Obama has castigated our Israeli allies for building settlements in their own country while providing aid and comfort to Hamas terrorists. On a more personal level, American voters may not approve of our President bowing and scraping before unfriendly dictators as a viable foreign policy. With a completely ineffective foreign policy failing as surely as their domestic policies, it is little wonder that Democrat opposition researchers are working overtime.

With a paucity of issues on which they can campaign, digging dirt on their opposition is the only effective strategy remaining to a truly bankrupt political party. That bankruptcy was evident in the eulogies for the late Senator Robert Byrd, where democrat luminaries like Bill Clinton attempted to make excuses for Senator Byrd’s long and intimate association with a violent, racist organization like the Ku Klux Klan. What they do not yet recognize is that they have gone too far for dirt on their opponents to suffice. They have lurched too far to the left for the American people to be impressed by the exposure of tax cheats and cozy financial arrangements. Their ideas are as bankrupt as their behavior has always been.

A New Sherrif in Town?

The upcoming congressional elections illustrate the wisdom of the founding fathers, the giants who wrote and ratified the Constitution of the United States in 1787-88. They were able to foresee the potential for abuse of power by the political factions that would exist in the future. They provided a vehicle for the people of the republic to assert their sovereignty over the government by establishing the terms of the senators and congressmen, in which the entire House of Representative and one third of the Senate will have to stand for election every two years. In their wisdom, the Founders established a system that would never go more than two years without an opportunity for the people to make substantial changes to the political class.

This year, the prospect for significant change is looming over the political class in Washington D.C. One of the most significant aspects of the prospective conservative ascendancy in this fall’s mid-term elections is that with a Republican majority in either the House of Representatives or the Senate, leadership of committees in those bodies will also be in Republican hands. The new committee chairmen would then have the power to set agendas and schedule hearings.

Congressional committees, chaired by Republicans, could then take it upon themselves to inquire into some of the murky issues and outright corruption the current Obama lap-dog congress condones. Congress is supposed to be, after all, a separate and distinct branch of the government with the function of legislating the nation’s business, with the secondary role of acting as a check on the power of the other branches. Instead, this highly partisan democrat majority congress acts as the president’s rubber stamp, approving sweeping legislation without ever reading it.

But what if there was a congress in session that actually performed its Constitutional function of writing laws, appropriating funds, and providing oversight of the other branches of government such as the burgeoning, unelected, federal administrative bureaucracy? Would such a congress have any interest in executive branch shakedowns of oil companies that put $20 billion in the president’s hands to disperse as he sees fit? Would it have any interest in the government’s ownership of automobile companies? Or would it have any interest in influencing the foreign policy of an administration whose chief executive bows in the presence of foreign dictators and who attempts to appease our enemies while chiding our closest allies?

With the politically motivated Obama Administration lurching from crisis to crisis and failing to govern effectively in the areas that are most crucial to the American people, like growing the economy instead of growing government unions, a curious adversarial congress could provide the check on further depredations of the nation’s economic health. Such a congress might actually read the legislation before they enact it. They might be really concerned with the crushing burden of debt their actions impose on future generations.

But the most important result of the potential new conservative majorities will be the exposure of the widespread corruption of this administration. With Republican chairmen in place in the House of Representative and the Senate, some committee might choose to get to the bottom of the White House’s clumsy attempt to get Congressman Joe Sestak to drop out of the Pennsylvania senatorial race against the hapless Arlan Spectre. Though that action is a felony, but has been overlooked by any of the congressional “watchdogs.” Like the derelict and negligent mainstream media, the current congress has chosen to look the other way rather than inquire into the seedier side of the Obama Administration. We can only imagine the enthusiasm with which the current congress would be investigating these issues if the George Bush White House was responsible. After the November elections, there may be a new Sherriff in town, if they have the intestinal fortitude to do their jobs.