People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it. Welcome to From On High.

Sunday, December 27, 2009

The GOP Deserves This

They swallowed the GW Bush Big Government ("compassionate conservative"; same thing) Kool Aid and now find themselves stinking up the place:
Dems Question GOP Lawmakers Who Changed Tune on Health Care
Associated Press

Democrats are troubled by the inconsistency of Republican lawmakers who approved a major Medicare expansion six years ago that has added tens of billions of dollars to federal deficits, but oppose current health overhaul plans.

All current GOP senators, including the 24 who voted for the 2003 Medicare expansion, oppose the health care bill that's backed by President Barack Obama and most congressional Democrats.

The Democrats claim that their plan moving through Congress now will pay for itself with higher taxes and spending cuts and they cite the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office for support.

By contrast, when Republicans controlled the House, Senate and White House in 2003, they overcame Democratic opposition to add a deficit-financed prescription drug benefit to Medicare. The program will cost a half-trillion dollars over 10 years, or more by some estimates.

With no new taxes or spending offsets accompanying the Medicare drug program, the cost has been added to the federal debt. [link]
Hang on a second.

It's laughable to read that the Democrats are "troubled" by the Republicans' about-face on the expansion of the role of government in our health care system.  Troubled?  How about "gleeful"?

And the Democrats can "claim" their proposal to be "paying for itself" till the cows come home.  It's going to cost us trillions in additional taxes and health care costs.  No sane, reputable person can argue otherwise.  (The CBO can't change that; it scored the initiative as it was presented; it can't deal with the fact that the data provided was manipulated so as to force the CBO to give a favorable response).

But the point is well taken.  Republicans in Congress - to go along with the head of their party - threw away any semblance of limited government credibility when they signed on - en masse - to Bush's reckless Medicare expansion.  For their actions, they deserve all the criticism and mockery that is now being heaped upon them.

Alas.  They knew better.  They could have done what was right.  Instead they did what was politic.  They became - briefly? - Democrats to  a man.  And they reaped the whirlwind.

Have they seen the error of their ways?  I have my doubts. There's always that uncontrollable need for praise from Katie Couric that skews their thinking.  Alas indeed.

- - -

So you know, I wrote the following on February 9, 2005, after passage of ObamaCare BushCare:
If you are a Republican, you need to hang your head in shame this morning. You were forewarned that the Medicare supplemental drug benefit - that was the new entitlement for the elderly that liberal Republicans and President Bush thought was a neat idea - was going to cost a lot more than was being estimated at the time the legislation was being fashioned.

Even those who predicted a much higher cost had no idea that it was going to be this bad ... (article cited).

This is, in a word, staggering.

And it was accomplished on your watch.

The people in this country put you Republicans in power in 1994 to put a stop to this sort of thing. Instead, it was your Republican majority that gave birth to this monster.

Another entitlement that we are unable to afford.

Of course, now you're going to hear your leadership fret about rising costs and about the need to do something. As they are already.

You deserve this, oh party of Reagan. Shame on all of you.
You deserve this, oh party of Reagan.  What were you thinking?

We Never Learn

I said after 9/11 that our government was going to push billions of dollars into efforts to secure our commercial air travel system so as to prevent the events of that days from ever occurring again, which would prompt the terrorists to simply change their tactics and seek out weaker, more vulnerable, targets other than United 757's.  Bridges.  Malls.  Nuclear facilities.

But I was wrong.  Al Qaeda knows weakness when it sees it.  It is still going after commercial jetliners.  And had a resourceful passenger not stopped the latest attack, tragedy in the skies of America would have been the news headline on Christmas day.

See "Explosive device set off aboard airliner."

See "Investigators: Northwest Bomb Plot Planned by al Qaeda in Yemen."

See "Passengers help foil attack on Detroit-bound plane."

Then there's this:

"Failed terrorist attack on Detroit-bound plane raises new security concerns."

New security concerns?

What's new about this attempt to bring a plane down from the skies over an American city and to potentially kill hundreds of people in the process?  This is a years-old concern.

Yet all the planning failed.

In fact, Homeland Security - after hundreds of millions have been poured into it - looked the other way.  See "Suspect in plane attack was on terror watch list."

For the love of God.

We're on our own, folks.  If you see a suspicious looking Muslim, prepare yourself, be alert, inform those around you, and work with them to prevent this kind of tragedy from ever occurring.

You'll get no help from your government.  That's painfully obvious.

- - -

A quote: ""On the one hand, it seems he's been on the terror watch list but not on the no-fly list.  That doesn't square because the American Department for Homeland Security has pretty stringent data-mining capability. I don't understand how he had a valid visa if he was known on the terror watch list."

Just as with 9/11 the collection of information isn't the problem.  Homeland Security has trillions of bits of information.

Acting on the information gathered was - and is - the problem.

Nothing has change.  Nothing has changed.

It's Called Racism

Either that or fear for their lives.

You decide:

Guess The Missing Word In NY Times Report On Attempted Plane Bombing
By Mark Finkelstein, NewsBusters

Imagine that there had been a series of three incidents in which members of a [invented for present purposes] fanatical Jewish sect had attempted to bring down airliners from Arab countries.

In reporting on the latest attempt and describing the previous ones, do you think the New York Times might have mentioned the religion of the perpetrators? So do I.

But with the legerdemain required to describe a spiral staircase without using one's hands, the Gray Lady has managed in its article today to report yesterday's attempt to bring down a NWA airliner, and the earlier attempts by Richard Reid [the "shoebomber'] and the those who plotted to bring down as many as ten jets leaving the UK for the United States, without using the word "Muslim." [link]

Sure enough, nary a one.

How does one prepare a stew and intentionally leave out the main ingredient?  Islam, like it or not, accept it or not, is what is driving these madmen to perpetrate the crimes they are seeking to commit.  It may be only their twisted interpretation of their religion, but it's still the driving impetus.

But the New York Times refuses to countenance the notion.  Like that'll make it all okay.

I prefer to think this isn't a matter of (perverse) racism, a mindset that refuses to allow these people to say a bad word about certain minorities and their customs - ever.  I think they're just cowards.

Could be wrong though.