Obamacare

Ever heard the term useful idiots? Thousands of them gathered in the streets of D.C. at the height of the Iraq War. Pink-bedizened. Face paint. Bush/Hitler signs… strutting and fretting their 15 minutes on the stage. They were incapable of engaging in rational discussion. Arguments began with an effigy and ended with a ‘No Blood for Oil’ sign. America eventually turned against the War. Perhaps the idiots were useful. But when it came to “rational discourse,” there was no outcry from the establishment left.

These days, useful idiots comprise a small percentage of the town hall meetings and tea-parties of the center-right. This subset is loud, angry and not particularly conversant on the subject of health care. But they may be useful. Early on, the MSM tried to magnify this minority as a means of discrediting all opposition to healthcare nationalization. Turns out, they were more useful to the right for whipping up the base and expanding opposition to healthcare nationalization despite the MSM. For better or worse, people did a double-take.

Now that these idiots are being somewhat effective, the left (and even some libertarians) are whining about “rational discourse.” Part of me longs for an intelligent conversation. But as one who has witnessed way too much useful idiocy on the left – from Code Pink to the Hope and Change sheeple – I am no longer terribly eager to explain the nuances of end-of-life consultation now that the tables have turned. Democracy is warty. And tit was made for tat.

When it comes down to it, the right has been offering good ideas for healthcare reform for years—one of which was completely sandbagged in 2006. Saner rightwing voices are being marginalized by the MSM. The MSM's favorite narrative is that the right is being “obstructionist,” offering no reform ideas of their own. Nothing could be further from the truth. Now that a merry band of useful idiots is helping shut down the left’s aspirations for a “public option,” I’m okay with some of these folks being right for the wrong reasons. Until the left and the MSM are willing to a) acknowledge our reform ideas exist, b) discuss them intelligently before the public, and c) stop framing genuine opposition as nothing but a bunch of birthers, racists and troglodytes, I for one will sit back and smile whenever I hear a useful idiot say something like “death panel.” 

(Note: none of this is meant as my weighing on on the World Net Daily controversy. Some forms of idiocy are not useful.)

You’ve heard some chatter about scrapping the “public option” in favor of a co-op model. Remember: government healthcare by any other name smells just as bad. We can’t let them sneak in any variant on the original evil using doublespeak and legerdemain. As Harry Reid said: “We’re going to have some type of public option, call it ‘co-op’, call it what you want.”

Congress is also considering a federal mandate that would force insurers to cover people after they get sick or injured, called “guaranteed issue”. In states like New York and Massachusetts where this mandate is already the law, premiums are about four times the national average. This is simply unacceptable if Congress wants to make insurance affordable for people. (It’s not insurance if you can call and buy a policy after your house burns down. Likewise, it’s not insurance if you can call and buy a policy after you break your leg.) But they’re not interested in making insurance affordable. That’s never been the goal.

It’s always been about getting us to a socialized system. If you can drive up costs with government mandates, then turn around and blame insurance companies—that’s the quickest way to get what you want: single payer.

With this bill, Congressional Democrats are going to do anything they can to create dependant constituents and special interests. In other words, people, companies and providers will depend on them for resources. Creating dependents helps keep them in power, so they're happy to hop into bed with the very companies they publicly malign. This reform bill is, and has always been, a resources for votes-n-contributions deal. So they’re going to pull out all of the tricks. But it’s now clear: we won’t be duped. Let us go forward with Zen-like patience and continue to oppose anything these shifty politicians propose.

Today, the Social Security Institute (SSI) joined with Patients First to carry an urgent message to three critical states: ObamaCare as originally conceived is dead, and the real danger now is RINOcare or ObamaCare Lite, which the Administration is trying to smuggle into law disguised as a "bipartisan compromise." The purpose of the tour is to convince critical Republican Senators in these states that the time has come to abandon unrealistic and potentially dangerous efforts to negotiate a bipartisan compromise. Instead, the Congress should put consideration of major healthcare reform on hold for at least a year until the economy improves and the supercharged political environment settles down. The only bipartisan agreement Senators should be seeking at this time is to abide by the 60-Vote rule for health reform the Senate TWICE voted (by unanimous consent and 79 yeas respectively) earlier this year to apply to the healthcare debate.

In a statement released yesterday, Hunter said:

"The American people have rejected ObamaCare. The President knows it, which is why he changed the definition of ObamaCare from 'healthcare reform' to 'health insurance reform' and why he pivoted from promoting a mandate that requires employers to provide health insurance to their employees to a direct federal mandate that individuals purchase insurance or pay a fine. The president also is repositioning himself to accept health-insurance co ops, the medical version of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac--call them Frannie Med--as a means of smuggling in a public option and eventually a single-payer system.

"The Hands-Off-My-Health Care Express is touring Wyoming and Iowa because Senators Mike Enzi (R-WY) and Chuck Grassley (R-IA) are two of the three most important United States Senators in the land right now. Senator Olympia Snowe (R-ME) is the third, and SSI is in the process of putting together a Maine tour before the Senate returns to session in September. These are the three Republican Finance Committee members trying to negotiate a so-called 'bipartisan compromise' on healthcare.

"We are concerned that the three Senate Republicans locked inside the hothouse of Washington, DC negotiations do not become so obsessed with the quixotic quest of forging a grand "bipartisan compromise" that they lose sight of the economic, political and fiscal realities of the situation and lose touch with the views and opinions of their constituents. The simple fact is, there is no way the Obama framework for reform within which Senate Republicans are being forced to negotiate can produce a solution that comports with the values and principles that most Americans hold dear; nor can that framework for reform produce a solution that will actually improve the healthcare system and be fiscally responsible. ObamaCare violates the fundamental laws of economic, and therefore it is time to go back to square one.

"Instead of trying to rush to enact a plan the American public is severely split over, Senators should come to a bipartisan consensus to abide by the 60-Vote rule for health reform the Senate TWICE voted to apply to the healthcare debate earlier this year. In Senate parliamentary terms, this means agreeing on a bipartisan basis NOT to ram health reform through the Senate by a simple majority vote under the special budget procedure known as Reconciliation.

"Reconciliation was devised as a special BUDGET PROCEDURE exclusively to facilitate annual budget legislation NOT for major reform of almost one fifth of the U.S. economy, which is at stake in healthcare reform. The Senate already has voted twice to maintain the REGULAR ORDER on health reform, i.e., NOT ram health reform legislation through under Reconciliation. These two overwhelming votes were ignored when the Senate Budget Committee Chairman (Senator Conrad-ND) took it upon himself to allow the 60-vote provision to be removed in the dead of night from the Conference Committee Report on the Budget Resolution despite a bipartisan vote of 79 Senators instructing the conferees to insist on the Senate's 60-Vote provision.

"The integrity and tradition of the Senate require that Senators of both parties abide by the Senate's cherished rules of unlimited debate unless 60 Senators agree to cut off debate and bring a matter to a vote. Senators who refuse to abide by the REGULAR ORDER in the Senate are resorting to legislative trickery and back room maneuvering to cram government healthcare down America's throat."

For more information on the Social Security Institute please visit our websites below:http://socialsecurityinstitute.comhttp://patientoptout.com

In HR 3200, 'America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 (Introduced in House)', there is a section that is called 'HOME VISITATION PROGRAMS FOR FAMILIES WITH YOUNG CHILDREN AND FAMILIES EXPECTING CHILDREN.'. This is section 404. There are several problems with this section that would allow for minor and major indoctrination efforts of unknown child raising methods. States could enact legislation that requires enrollment in the federal home visitations to qualify for access to State programs of any kind. The type of education is not specified. If you don't do as the "well-trained and competent staff" require, you could be penalized. The funding increases by $50 million yearly, allowing for the growth of the number of  'home visitation child education experts', possibly until every family has their very own indoctrination specialist.

HR 3200. section 404, is a provision to finance grants to states to "(ii) employ well-trained and competent staff, maintain high quality supervision," and the "purpose of this section is to improve the well-being, health, and development of children by enabling the establishment and expansion of high quality programs providing voluntary home visitation for families with young children and families expecting children."

Source - http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c111:1:./temp/~c111wVbHWS:e989688:

States can apply for the grants so long as they meet the requirements, one of which is "the number, quality, and capacity of home visitation programs for families with young children and families expecting children in the State;" Once the states begin the programs, to renew their grants or to increase their program size, they will need to increase the number of families in the program. States can enact requirements in any other programs they have that would require enrollment in the home child rearing education to qualify for access to the other programs like food stamps, cash assistance, public housing, public schooling. This would keep enrollment in the 'voluntary' home child rearing education visit program growing so that the state can continue to apply for more and more of the grants and swell the numbers of 'experts' to visit homes.

The type of child rearing education these 'experts' will teach isn't specified. They could be teaching any number of methods. You may or may not agree with how they want you to raise your children. They can require how you punish a misbehaving child or how to reward a child who excels. They can indoctrinate your child with ideological points of view you do not agree with.

If you don't do as the "well-trained and competent staff" require, you could be penalized. Charges of child neglect could be brought if you do not agree with the methods or principles they are teaching. Then you have to try to defend your ability to parent in front of a judge. And if you fail to prove your case, your children are taken away by the state.

To start with, $50 million is available the first year, and an additional funding increases of $50 million yearly ($100 million second year, $150 million third year, on and on). This would  allow for the growth of the number of  'home visitation child education experts', possibly until every family has their very own indoctrination specialist. Imagine how many 'specialists' the program will have after 5 years and it is spending $250 million a year and growing and growing.

To keep those 'experts' employed and enough families being visited, the 'government option' for health care could one day require enrollment in 'home child rearing education visits'. This would be part of the long term strategy of the Progressives to control you and imbue your children into their ideology. One day, an Obamabot will be visiting you in your home to tell you how to raise your child, and teaching your child how to snitch on you, their parent if you don't do as the Obamabots require. Health Care Reform, a perfect program to sneak in some education indoctrination.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9KY2nYf7pFs

(Yes, I know that electric trains generally only have a powered third rail. I'm just extending the metaphor.)

One of the most tired phrases in politics is "Social Security is the third rail of American politics."  The problem is that it's true - Bush figured that out by squandering all of his political capital trying to reform it back in 2005.  It turns out that old people vote and they can be easily scared when the spectre of taking away their government checks is brought up.

We face a similar problem with health care.  It's obvious that the system doesn't work, and not just for people with pre-existing conditions and those who lose coverage.  It costs too much and isn't portable.  The lack of a true national market and the employer coverage model is a failure.  Too many people lack coverage and those people stick hospitals with huge bills for admissions that could have been solved with a visit to the family doctor, if they had one.

That being said, there are a lot of solutions better than Obamacare.  We've heard them before on this site and others and they aren't the point of this post.  The problem is that if Obamacare is defeated, no politician in their right minds will touch the healthcare issue with a 10-foot pole.  In persuing the worthy goal of defeating one specific bill, the issue has been demagogued to the point of insanity with threats of "death panels" (Sen. Isakson (R-GA), who put the provision nominally at issue, thinks this is nuts), "keep government away from my Medicare (note: WTF?) and all sorts of hyperbole about the continued "existence of the republic."

And don't think for a minute that every accusation about killing grannies and such lobbed against government can't be lobbed at private insurers.

So instead of a debate on what to do, we have people holding up pictures of Obama with a Hitler mustache shouting down elected officials before they can answer questions.  We have liberals convinced that people who oppose Obamacare are foam-at-the-mouth dittoheads and birthers organized by lobbyists.  And they're partially correct - many (not all) town hall shouters have spouted a lot of nonsense and many are making this personally about the president and anger at losing the last election.  It's embarrasing to people who have real issues with Obamacare who want to and make something work instead of yelling until they're red in the face.

The window for reasonable debate has closed by conservatives who want to make this Obama's Waterloo and liberals who are circling the wagons against a perceived onslaught of crazies.  The next reform proposal from either side will fall into the same pattern.  Eventually, everybody with power to do anything will throw their hands up.

Now healthcare is a "third rail," just like Social Security.  There are other, smaller, third rails to contend with.  Our primary system is rigged to prevent any serious talk about ethanol.  Serious agriculture subsidies reform is stymied because the committees that make ag policy are filled with congressmen from districts that feed off the USDA teat.  We can't have a serious discussion about Israel for long without someone getting called an anti-semite or a zionist likudnik stooge.

The problem?  You can't cut the size of government with all of these third rails in the way.  Everything has to be on the table.

Healthcare isn't just a sixth of the U.S. economy, it's a very big chunk of government spending.  The problem with the deficit hawkery I've heard recently is that it's small bore.  Spending freezes avoid the difficult choices about what exactly we want to cut.  Pork appropriations, non-military foreign aid and arts funding seem like ripe targets for popular cuts, but they make up a vanishingly small part of the budget and won't change the overall fiscal picture.  Survey after survey shows that people think government is too big, but they don't want to cut funding for Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security education, defense or anything specific beyond the amorphous "waste."  The only real solution is to slow and reverse the growth of healthcare costs while still providing the care people demand, and we are in the process of blowing it for the next several decades by turning a deadly serious issue over to the loudest, angriest, least reasonable wing of the movement, destroying any hope of comprimise a la Wyden-Bennett.

In the zeal to stop a bad new policy, we have guaranteed decades of the bad old policy.  Good job guys.

I know the Left likes to ridicule anyone who mentions Ayn Rand or Atlas Shrugged. They especially like it when conservatives or Republicans say something about "Going Galt".

It seems to me that one reason for this is a (deliberate?) misunderstanding of what we -- or at least, I -- mean when we say that.

By "Going Galt", it seems to me, we (mostly) mean that someone will not take that next step, make that investment of time, effort, thought, or money, to make their mark in the world and make a difference.

Like Rand's great philosopher Hugh Akston who became a short order cook in a roadside diner, rather than using abilities to their utmost, someone who "goes Galt" might simply choose to do something else, rather than take the extreme Galt/Wyatt/Mulligan option of completely removing themselves from the reach of the looters and the moochers.

In that light, I think Obamacare is going to cause us more problems than many have been imagining. . . .

I have heard from a surgeon whom I trust and respect (though I don't know his source for this information) that much more than half of all surgeons are 55 or older.

Given the basic premise that people do things based on the incentives involved, and given the further premise that Obamacare (or, if it fails, the next incarnation of it) will reduce the financial and professional incentives to become a doctor, my friend believes strongly that we will be in for medical rationing simply because we will not be able to find enough doctors, regardless of what happens due to gov't bureaucratic manipulations.

My friend spent 14 years -- FOURTEEN YEARS -- after college training to become a doctor, then surgeon, then getting his specialty skills.

What makes people think that we will be able to find "volunteers" to go through such a rigorous and lengthy program, all the while incurring massive amounts of debt for the cost of their schooling and training, just so that they can be asked to work 36-hour shifts* for whatever salary a bureaucrat determines they are worth?

My friend loves his work. He does it for the satisfaction he gets from it.  (Now.) But when asked if he would have gone through everything he went through solely for the satisfaction of the job, he says no.  The potential to make a good living for himself and his family was definitely part of the attraction to the career choice in the first place.

There are other jobs he could have loved and been accomplished in performing, while paying well.  Plus they would have afforded him much more time to spend with his family as his children grew up, rather than having to spend significant portions of not just days but nights as well away from home and on call.

The point I want to leave you with is that we can expect to lose men such as him from the medical profession if we insist on making them gov't cogs rather than free actors, capable of making what they can in a market which rewards them for their dedication, efforts, sacrifices, and skills.

Beware what you wish for, Obamacare supporters.  You might just get it . . . and then the supply of producers whose efforts you have appropriated will dry up, relieving you of the burden of looting them.

---------------

* Yes, I know the 24+ hour shifts don't last forever.  And that they are concentrated in the early years of training, but does that really make anyone think that people will jump at the chance to perform such arduous tasks for the pittance the DC paper pushers are willing to fork out?  Really?

(An open letter from the Chairman of the RLC to liberty activists attending health care townhall events this month)

I’ve been studying videos of the Townhall protests which have taken place so far, have talked to participants and have been tracking the media coverage and the spin which the left is trying to put on the protests. As a result I have some suggestions for Republican Liberty Caucus activists who attend these events which I hope you will also share with others who go with you.

The line of attack against the protests is to try to discredit them as “astroturf” events sponsored by healthcare lobbyists and organized by national issue advocacy groups like FreedomWorks. They’re also calling grassroots activists “mobs” and “rioters” who are trying to silence debate by intimidation. They’re even suggesting that protesters are being bussed in from other areas in completely staged events. Because it’s what they know and what they have done themselves, they’re assuming that our authentic grassroots protests are as bogus and contrived as the paid picketers sent out by the unions and the fraudulent protest rallies by paid ACORN stooges. At least they think they can make that accusation stick.

There’s almost a month of further opportunities ahead of us as legislators go to their home districts and meet with constituents. Before the left can seize control of the debate and totally distort public perception of our legitimate protests and very real concerns, we need to take some steps to make that more difficult for them and to counter their talking points. So when you go to a townhall meeting -- and I hope every one of you will attend one or more -- keep these five suggestions in mind.

1. Go to expose the truth, not just to protest. There’s a lot more potential to advance our issues if you get to talk and ask questions and give legislators a chance to hang themselves with their answers. Ask them questions and let them know what you want, what you’re worried about and that you will hold them accountable. Just waving signs and shouting slogans will let them paint you as bullies. Some townhall meetings have already been cancelled because of protests, so you have to appear non-threatening. Be nice, but don’t let them get away with anything. Challenge their talking points and spin with the facts. Keep calm and demand answers.

2. Go with questions in mind. Have several thought out in advance so that if someone else asks one you wanted to ask you have a back-up ready. Read the Health Care bill (HR3200 on opencongress.org) and find something in it which bothers you. Preface your question by telling them that you’ve read the bill or most of the bill. Be honest about it and ask them about specifics. Ask them how they plan to pay for the massive cost of the “public option” without raising the deficit as Obama has promised. Will it mean raising taxes? Ask them if you’ll be able to stay with your current doctor or change from one private plan to another under Obamacare. Ask them how they expect private insurers to compete with a tax-subsidized government “public option.” Ask them if they’re going to enroll themselves and their faimily in the new system. Ask about the penalties for small businesses and individuals which want to opt out of the system.

3. Don’t limit your questions to healthcare. Once you have the floor you can’t be brushed off before you can get a question off, so ask about other issues which concern you. Ask about the new Food Safety act (HR2749) and whether it’s a good idea to put control of our food supply under the FDA. Ask them if they are going to support the Federal Reserve Transparency Act (HR1207). Ask them whether they think the “Cash for Clunkers” program (HR2751) is a good idea considering it encourages so many Americans to take on more debt. Ask them if they support the National Right to Carry Reciprocity Act (HR197) and the Citizens Self Defense Act (HR17) which protect the rights of gun owners. Ask them if they support the Medical Marijuana Patient Protection Act (HR2835). Ask about the cost of “Cap and Trade” (HR2454) and how much it will cost taxpayers and small businesses. Ask if they think that creating special classes of privileged citizens under the Hate Crimes Bill (HR1913) is a good idea. There are lots of good issues to raise and you can find all the bills on opencongress.org. Just make sure you know the issue you’re asking about and don’t let them get away with brushing off your question. If all else fails, just ask them if they’ve actually read the Health Care bill or if they read all the bills they vote on. That seems to throw all of them for a loop.

4. Don’t just hold Democrats accountable. If there are Republican Congressmen or Senators in your area who are holding townhall meetings don’t give them a break. Attend their events and ask them the same questions you would ask the Democrats and ask them clearly if they are going to support or oppose Obamacare. Ask them about other issues as well. Let them know that you don’t want them caving in to the Democrats on these issues and that you support them if they remain true to Republican principles of fiscal responsibility and individual liberty.

5. It’s a small technical point, but vitally important. When you are called on, state your name and where you are from very clearly. This will allow the media to follow up with you afterwards if they want more information and it will make very clear that you are from the congressman’s district or at least his state and have a legitimate reason to be there. Don’t let the media portray you as a shill or an outside agitator. Stand up, be counted and be clearly identified.

Remember to have confidence and not to be be intimidated. These are your representatives. You pay their salary and they should be responsive to your concerns. Be knoeledgable, be polite, make your points and ask your questions clearly and then let them respond. Ask a followup if you can. Their response is likely to do them more harm than anything you say if you can expose them as ill-prepared, ignorant or dismissive. Be informed. Be outspoken. Let them know you hold them accountable.

In Liberty,
Dave Nalle
National Chairman, Republian Liberty Caucus

Let’s put aside our right-leaning suggestion box for a moment and put the challenge straight to the left as follows… (Warning: intellectual honesty check.) Will your bill:

1. Control Costs? If you have any third-party payer system, you’ll have a situation in which people overconsume. Because they have no incentive to be bargain shoppers, they won’t shop for bargains. Costs will continue to go up. Subsidized healthcare ensures people will continue consume more of what they don’t have to pay for directly. That’s the major driver of costs in healthcare. How will you deal with this problem—which is the main problem (not “administrative costs”?)

2. Avoid Using Price Controls? Bureaucrats determining prices will, as it always has, mean gross distortions (that whole supply and demandt thing). In the absence of real prices, resources don’t get allocated properly, because prices are a way to deal with dispersed, complex information. This is the problem we saw in the Soviet Union and it’s a major problem for the Canadian system. Will your system use price controls?

3. Avoid a Special Interest Bonanza? Any subsidized, government-provided reform will mean healthcare becomes a Freddie and Fannie phenomenon. Private companies that serve the government insurer will become special interests. They will game the system and rape it, as they have in so many other spheres of our life when colluding with government. Their prices will go up (unless controlled) and their profits will remain private. Losses will get covered up by continued subsidies and cost-shifting through higher taxes. This may also mask the cost-spiral (for a while). Eventually, heavy rationing will ensue or taxes will go through the roof. Is this bill healthcare corporatism?

4. Avoid Rationing Healthcare (Limiting “Access”)? If the government really wants to control costs, it will have to ration care. The problem is, we need a system in which individuals ration their own care, not bureaucrats with little or no connection to the individual. I ration my own healthcare (by shopping with my HSA dollars) and I prefer to keep it that way, despite the protestations of leftish types who believe they can make better decisions about my healthcare than I. Rationing means quality goes down and access gets limited.

5. Avoid More Deficit Spending? President Obama seems to be betting on energy taxes (cap and trade) to pay for what would amount to massive increases in government spending on healthcare. If the cap and trade bill doesn’t pass, will the government be able to pay for healthcare reform by simply cost-shifting to the wealthy? Or will taxes go up for everyone and big time rationing happen? The American people are at their end with the record deficits. Are you willing to push the envelope?

If your healthcare bill can’t pass this simple 5 question test, it’s not a good bill.

See what I say say 57 seconds into this video.

(Make sure you click on the video report to the left of the text report.)

Cahnman out.

Greetings from the Great City of Austin in the Great State of Texas in the Good Old U S of A on this, our Independence Day.  Just spent three hours under the 105 degree Texas sun (in addition to walking back and forth to the capital...about 2 miles in each direction).  Before I collapse from Heat Stroke, let me share a few observations:

Attendance: Roughly 3000.  Substantially lower than the April tea party @ the Capitol.  Then again, at the April party the temperature was 75.

Crowd: Mostly folks in their 50's and 60's.  Some families with children.  All in all, an older crowd than April.  About 30% Ron Paul types, 50% more traditional GOPer, 20% assorted other.

Signs: Generally quite clever.  Personal favorites: any of the several that referred to Waxman/Markey as "Crap and Trade."

Sleeper GOP Gubernatorial Candidate: Debra Medina.  I might be biased because I met her today (also briefly met Sen. Cornyn and Gov. Perry) AND got to talk to her a bit.  She's a down the line, SERIOUS, conservative.  Like the message, concerned about viability.  I told her I intend to re-elect the incumbent, but that if she could prove herself a viable candidate in BOTH the primary AND general, I'd consider giving her my vote.

Most Embarrassing Moment for a Speaker: Sen. John Cornyn being greeted by a loud chorus of Boos as he took the stage due to his vote on TARP.

Most Embarrassing Moment for the Ron Paul supporters: Continuing to Boo Senator Cornyn after he acknowledged their concerns and moved on to Porkulus/Crap and Trade/Obamacare where he's firmly on our side.

Best Speaker, Runner Up: Wanye Allyn Root.  The 2008 LIbertarian Party Vice Presidential Nominee gave the crowd an inspiring speech on the value of limited government with a whole lotta quotes from Goldwater and Reagan thrown in.  Gets brownie points in my book for his rousing (by libertarian standards) defense of President Bush's overspending and bailouts being several orders of magnitude less bad than President Obama's overspending and bailouts.

Best Speaker, Overall: Governor Perry.  No one else even came close.  Whatever his alleged flaws, Governor Perry has done A TON over this past decade to have left us the strongest economy in the country right now.

In many ways, the attitude of people in Texas towards Governor Perry right now reminds me of the attitude in NYC of people towards Rudy in July 2001.  The man's gotten so much right that his citizens now take these things for granted.

All in all, an Afternoon well spent!

I hope this helps.

That is all.

Cahnman out.