Caveat Emptor: Rethink Obama's Health-Care Bill

Are you sold on the Obama Health-Care bill? If so, think about a serious issue that hasn't been completely explained to Congress or the American public.

In 2006 the Democrats took over control of Congress and immediately they restored the pay-go as a rule for both houses. (In basic jargon, this meant that if a new entitlement program were enacted, in order to pay for it some other program had to be cut....somewhere). This year, Obama begged the legislature to make it a law, envisioning that he would have more power to enforce it. What is not reported to the public is the fact that it could do the opposite. This bill states that if Congress has spent more on new entitlements (or has given more tax cuts) than it has saved, the Prez. can roll back or hide the excess.

So why is that such a bad idea? The Congressional Budget Office sent out an alarming memo that said that the bill as introduced might allow spending to increase by an alarming amount ( let's call it an astronomical amount). The memo further stated, "that rule would allow Congress to enact legislation that would increase deficits by an amount in the vicinity of $3 trillion over the 2010-2019 period with a sequestration."

Still confused? The bill would exempt from pay-go all of the spending in Medicare physician payments and all of the revenue dependent on estate and gift taxes, the alternative minimum tax for individuals and the administration's plan to continue the middle-income tax cuts of 2001-2003.

This pay-go program doesn't have a multi-year cap on discretionary spending and could result in a budget with a 40% loophole of staggering proportions that doesn't have to be paid for.

Mr. Obama promised transparency, he promised a "revenue neutral" budget, he promised accountability. What many are seeing is a devil in the details that might just up and bite us on the butt. Caveat emptor.

Hey Mr. Prez, the Community College Idea Just Sucks.

Hey, Mr. Obama, this time I truly think you are on the wrong track, talking to a pseudo audience, and, yes, clearly not doing your homework.

Ok, Mr. Prez., you've got the gals/guys in the White House who are doing their best to shine old leather and even make it smell better, but let's be honest the community college (drum roll, please) theme is meritless. Here's why:
1. This nation's leaders go out of their way to deny more funding to public, and now you think they will pony up more. Get real. They always cite business models as if the profit and loss statement creates thinking citizens;

2. Your ideal/ idea collides with existing monies for common ed and now ( believe me, please) this concept will only take more $$$ from common ed;

3. Your data re: future jobs lack anything close to a syllogism in that most future business do not require an associate's degree;

4. This nation's spine is reinforced with blue collar, hard working men and women, and they will tell you that being an electrician, plumber, carpenter, janitor, assembly-line worker didn't require attending any college. (Note here: most would tell you that they wanted out of the draconic world of the classroom);

5. At the risk of sounding elistist and I am not, it is extremely important that we as a nation not work toward watering down higher level education simply to advance a "not really important" product;

6. In the market place of ideas, Mr Prez., this idea ought to die and be replaced by a huge move toward more monies for vocational ed programs, community college programs, and yes, a goal toward pushing young people (who want it) through portals of a place called college.