Letter to the Editor, Virginian Pilot, September 7, 2009
In your September 7, 2009, article “Critics led Obama adviser to resign, he says,” you selectively quote facts to infer that the principal reasons “conservatives” called for Van Jones’ resignation as the “Green Jobs Czar” was his inadvertent signature on a “9/11 Truther” petition and his public statement that Republicans are “A—holes.” Nothing could be further from the “truth.” Being called names does not offend this conservative: I have come to expect it from the left. What offends me about Jones are facts that you do not report in your paper: he is a self avowed Communist, who was selected and vetted solely by the Obama administration and not the congress, operates outside the purview of congressional oversight, and controls $30B in public funding.
In 1992, Jones was quoted as saying, “In jail I met all these young radical people of color – I mean really radical, communists and anarchists. And it was, like, ’This is what I need to be a part of.’ I spent the next ten years of my life working with a lot of those people, I met in jail, trying to be a revolutionary … I was a rowdy nationalist, on April 28 and then the verdicts came down on April 29. By August, I was a communist.” In 2005 he said, “ I’m willing to forgo the cheap satisfaction of the radical pose for the deep satisfaction of the radical ends.” His four year old son is named after a militant Marxist guerilla. This is not a person I, or any American, should want advising the President, unanswerable to Congress, and controlling a $30B budget.
President Obama said during his campaign that if one wanted to know how he would govern to examine those to whom he would look for advice. Well, I did, and the picture is not pretty. Van Jones is one of many in his cadre of 37+ “Czars” who have questionable ties to socialist, Marxist, Communist ideology and organizations.
Subscribe To
Posts
All Comments
Monday, September 7, 2009
Saturday, September 5, 2009
Reframing the Health Care Debate
An Open Letter to the President, Congressman Nye, Senator Webb, and Senator Warner
Nancy Pelosi has recently indicated she may be willing to substitute a "trigger" in the healthcare legislation in place of a binding requirement for a "public option." Her "thinking," if you want to call it that, is to give insurance companies time to drive costs down or else the public option will be implemented. The fallacy of this argument is that the "trigger" levels can never be met by insurance companies, without a concomitant elimination of layers of regulation and artificial Medicare fee schedules, set by government and to which private insurance rates are tied. In fact, I believe her strategy is to ADD regulation and price controls, which would in effect "trigger" the public option.
Let this citizen be clear. Reframing this debate by using "words that work" phraseology or substituting new concepts of "triggers" and "co-ops" for the concept of a public option will not work and do not change the underlying facts of the debate. I do not want out of control government managing another one-sixth of the economy through social engineering. Congress would be better off spending its time figuring out how to pay for the debt it has incurred and scaling back the programs that are driving that debt: inefficient, corrupt, and in most cases, ineffective government programs like Medicare, Medicaid, and VA run healthcare (among many others).
My freedom is more important to me than my health, which I seem to be managing just fine on my own because I OWN IT. It is unfortunate that I was not given the option to own and manage my own "social security" (viz., a private option to Social Security, an ironic concept, don't you think). If I had been given that option, I would have three times the amount of money I expect to receive from Social Security, under present forecasts. Unfortunately, the government did not invest that money, they traded it for IOUs to China and spent it on programs like the National Endowment of the Arts, which the administration is now trying to co-opt into producing art, music, and slogans, to market its policies. Why should I believe that "public" health care should turn out differently?
In closing, I recommend that you obtain a copy of Thomas Sowell's book, Basic Economics, AND READ IT. Apparently, either Congress does not understand basic free-market economics or they choose to ignore it in an attempt to "remake" America in the image of European socialism.
Nancy Pelosi has recently indicated she may be willing to substitute a "trigger" in the healthcare legislation in place of a binding requirement for a "public option." Her "thinking," if you want to call it that, is to give insurance companies time to drive costs down or else the public option will be implemented. The fallacy of this argument is that the "trigger" levels can never be met by insurance companies, without a concomitant elimination of layers of regulation and artificial Medicare fee schedules, set by government and to which private insurance rates are tied. In fact, I believe her strategy is to ADD regulation and price controls, which would in effect "trigger" the public option.
Let this citizen be clear. Reframing this debate by using "words that work" phraseology or substituting new concepts of "triggers" and "co-ops" for the concept of a public option will not work and do not change the underlying facts of the debate. I do not want out of control government managing another one-sixth of the economy through social engineering. Congress would be better off spending its time figuring out how to pay for the debt it has incurred and scaling back the programs that are driving that debt: inefficient, corrupt, and in most cases, ineffective government programs like Medicare, Medicaid, and VA run healthcare (among many others).
My freedom is more important to me than my health, which I seem to be managing just fine on my own because I OWN IT. It is unfortunate that I was not given the option to own and manage my own "social security" (viz., a private option to Social Security, an ironic concept, don't you think). If I had been given that option, I would have three times the amount of money I expect to receive from Social Security, under present forecasts. Unfortunately, the government did not invest that money, they traded it for IOUs to China and spent it on programs like the National Endowment of the Arts, which the administration is now trying to co-opt into producing art, music, and slogans, to market its policies. Why should I believe that "public" health care should turn out differently?
In closing, I recommend that you obtain a copy of Thomas Sowell's book, Basic Economics, AND READ IT. Apparently, either Congress does not understand basic free-market economics or they choose to ignore it in an attempt to "remake" America in the image of European socialism.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)