CALL HARRY REID NOW!!

The most recent compromise regarding the new Health care legislation is sponsored by Harry Reid which is proposing to expand Medicare to people 55 years old.

With all due respect Senator Reid, Are you out of your mind?

You want to expand a program which currently is running on approximately 73 Billion dollars in unfunded liability. A program which reimburses at a lower rate than the cost of service. A program which is projected to be bankrupt in about 10 years. Also, a program which is riddled with fraud. All in the name of competition for insurance companies?

Here is a video by 60 minutes which describes the scope of Medicare fraud. It is excellent. It will make you wonder who is getting more competition, the insurance companies or the taxpayers?
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=5414400n&tag=contentMain;contentBody


Here is a link to email Senator Reid and let him know what you think:
http://reid.senate.gov/contact/index.cfm

5 Things you can do to support the Constitution

1. Read It!

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution.html

2. Speak out! Exercise you freedom of speech when you see the Constitution being violated.

3. Write! Your congressional representative and ask them to protect your right to property by not raising your taxes.

4. Practice the 2nd Amendment! (This comes from my husband: Get you concealed weapons permit)

5. Vote! Only for those representatives who vow to uphold and defend the Constitution.

Conservatism: Looking Forward

Conservatives have a very rich history in this country which provides excellent groundwork for the future as well as the immediate needs of our country. When considering how to reestablish the Republican Party, I think that it is critical to use the past as a foundation and to look forward to what the country needs. In my opinion, it is essential to keep things simple and to rely upon two main principles to drive the conservative movement forward. These two principles include adhering to the Constitution and focusing on the family.

The Constitution is what has made our country unique. It is what provides us our freedoms and is the basis for liberties. Other nations look to it as the example of what a democratic republic should be. Far too often members of our party have strayed from its principles to represent a special interest or corporation. Also, many so called Republicans have distorted its intentions in order to expand federal powers and interfere with our freedoms. In my opinion, it is our responsibility as conservative Republicans to evaluate what the Constitution offers us and to strictly adhere to its principles. When endorsing any candidate for any office, we must ask, “Will they support and uphold the Constitution?” When supporting any legislation it must be considered, “Will this restrict our freedoms as outlined in the Constitution? Will it interfere with my freedom of speech? Will it take away my right to my own property?” Former undersecretary of state for Calvin Coolidge, J. Reuben Clark, Jr., put it well when he said: “God provided that in this land of liberty, our political allegiance shall run not to individuals, that is, to government officials, no matter how great or how small they may be. Under His plan our allegiance and the only allegiance we owe as citizens or denizens of the United States, runs to our inspired Constitution which God himself set up…This principle of allegiance to the Constitution is basic to our freedom.” (Improvement Era, July 1940, p. 444.) It is my guiding belief that as Conservatives we must consider what is in the Constitution as well as who is willing to defend it over any self interests.

I believe that focusing on strengthening the family structure should also be the primary goal of the conservative Republican Party. When the family unit is weakened, individuals are forced to turn to their government for support. It is my view that this is the underlying cause for the increase in dependence by our citizens on the government. Without a functioning family or a community support network in place, the only place to turn in times of distress and hardship becomes the government. I see this far too often in my profession as a hospice nurse. When a family member is dying and there is no extended family or community that is able to step in and provide relief, the patient relies on the support of the hospice staff, provided to them indirectly by the government through Medicare, in their place. I also see as growing trend citizens requesting benefits from the government that might normally be provided by a family member or community such as housing and food. When families are no longer able to provide for themselves they become the taxpayers burden and therefore I believe that it is the duty of our elected representatives to do everything in their power to help families become self sufficient and provide for themselves. This principle is of primary concern to conservatives who believe that the government should not be the primary provider and that citizens have a responsibility to help themselves.

By using these two main principles as a guide when determining the future of the party, I believe that Republicans will not only win the support of the people of our nation they will also gain the much needed cohesion that the party is lacking. In the process, Conservatives will also help preserve the freedoms of the citizens of this nation. Finally, I believe that keeping things simple and focused will create a new, strong foundation to build upon.

Obama-come-lately

I have generally been holding back my opinion on this blog in an effort to have a discussion forum, however, when I heard this yesterday on NPR I about lost my mind:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=120346278

Barack Obama, in order to address rising unemployment, is going to hold a "Job Summit" in December to bring in experts and discuss what could be done to create jobs.

So now he is going to do something to address 10.2% unemployment?

Yesterday was too late to do something about the lack of jobs. Last year was too late to be talking with experts about job creation. Taking a clue from Steve Wynn who said it should have been jobs, jobs, jobs since day 1!!

Instead, he has been preoccupied about stimulus, than stimulus, than cap- and- trade, than healthcare. You have to have a job first before you can reform the health insurance that you get from your job.

Also, there is no need for a summit. All Barack Obama has to do is to talk to the average citizen who would tell him that uncertainty is driving unemployment. With all this pending legislation which will possibly increase taxes, health insurance premiums, electricity, etc., nobody knows what they are going to be able to afford next month let alone next year. It doesn't take an expert to realize that the lack of liquidity in credit for small businesses is prohibiting them from growing. People are not spending because they are not sure if they will be able to pay their bills. Nobody knows for sure how things are going to go with the economy. Because of that jobs will not be created until the uncertainty is removed and an environment is created for business to grow through increased liquidity and reduced taxes.

Let me know what you think.

Conservatives vs. Progressive Republicans

Who new that this issue would be the one to bring up so many emotions? I think that this is such an interesting topic because it is at the heart of the issues that Republican party is facing at this time. The Republican party clearly has no central leader or central focus and this battle that is raging between the two factions will eventually bring us to the heart of the matter: Which direction is the right direction?

In my opinion there are many Progressive Republicans however they might not be the leaders that you imagine. I think that John McCain is the prime example. He ran as a "reform" candidate vowing to clean up the administrative mess that has been created through legalisation in favor of special interest groups. However, he still works within the framework of the bureaucracy. Also, I think Lindsey Graham is along the same lines.

The Conservatives however tend to be the rogue elements of the party that are trying to eliminate overspending and dramatically reduce government spending and regulation. They are also pushing against the own elements of their party which are more entrenched in the bureaucratic system using the mantra, "Is it in the Constitution?" I would consider Sarah Palin and Tim Pawlenty to be in this group.

This battle played out so interestingly in New York 23 Congressional race. The Progressive Republican was pushed out by party conservatives who than endorsed the Democratic Candidate who went on to win the race. The Conservative candidate who was a regular citizen that was endorsed by Sarah Palin narrowly lost in a district which has not elected a Democrat since 185o-something. This was a fascinating scenario which will continue to pay out over the coming months and in the upcoming elections. It will be interesting to see who prevails.

What do you think? How do you think that this battle is playing out?

Progressivism

As you might suspect, I am an avid Glenn Beck listener. One of the things that he persistently talks about is Progressivism and what he considered to be its evils. Hearing about this over and over, I have wondered what is Progressivism? I have been looking into it and I have decided that no matter what you think of it it is critical to understand what it is because it is the basis of the society in which we were living.

Progressivism started at the turn of the 20th century as a way to combat many of the social ills of the time. The people were looking for "reform" as they called it to alleviate many of the problems which were brought about by industrialization. Many of these efforts have brought us the security that we enjoy today including women's right to vote, child labor laws and food safety standards. These are all things that we take for granted and no matter what size of government we prefer we are very grateful for these guarantees because they improve our quality of life. However, this was also the time when special interest groups came into being as well as the growth of the administrative bureaucracy that is still growing to this day.

Also, it is important to remember that the main focus of progressives is to eliminate all social ills and the means they use to do that is through coercion by popular opinion or laws. Link and McCormick stated in their book Progressivism that, " The same basic drive for control motivated nearly every movement for social reform for the progressive era. Progressives sincerely believed that justice depended on social control."pg 103 I see this playing out in so many of the issues that we are being confronted with right now. For example, if you don't believe in gay marriage you must be a bigot or using compact fluorescent bulbs is the right thing to do and if you are not doing it you are hurting the earth for everyone.

Both Barack Obama an Hillary Clinton identify themselves as Progressives as well as many of the more liberal leaning legislators. This is another reason why it is essential to understand this aspect of history and the framework that has been set up by progressives to control social issues. This is a very complex issue and I feel that it needs to be understood so that we as citizens can act in our own best interest and advocate for issues that our important to us. Also, understanding Progressivism can help us to elect officials who will act in our best interests as well. Honestly, I am still forming my opinions on this topic. Let me know what you think.

Here is an excellent outline of the basic history of progressivism:
http://us.history.wisc.edu/hist102/lectures/lecture11.html

This is the book I read:
Link, Aurthur S. and McCormick, Richard L., Progressivism, Harlan Davidson Arlington Heights, Illinois, 1983.

Sustainability

It seems these days that the major buzzword is "Sustainability" Everyone is wondering if this activity is sustainable or if that product is sustainable. All of this is leaving me wondering why no one is questioning if our national debt is sustainable?

Take a minute to go to this Website and look at the actual numbers:
http://www.usdebtclock.org/

Right now the national debt per citizen is approx 344,000 and rising. Could you pay your portion off?

To me it only makes logical sense where this is going, and it is no place good. How can we as a nation possibly sustain this??? That is why I think that it is insane that we are even considering things like health care and climate change legislation which are not truly pressing, when the real emergency is the financial security of our country!

Robert D. Hales said in April 2009 general conference, "the four most caring words for those we love are “We can’t afford it.”" It is time our legislators started loving this country and showing discipline by eliminating the things that we cannot afford and helping us get out of this mess!

Health Care Town Hall with Congresswoman Titus

This past Monday evening I attended a Health Care Town hall hosted By Congresswoman Dina Titus. I found it to be a very fascinating experience and I appreciated it because I was introduced to several viewpoints which I never would have considered before. The crowd was very tough and riled up. I admire Congresswoman Titus for her patience and calm during the whole meeting. There were several hecklers looking for their 15 minutes of fame which I found to be very distasteful.

When asked whether she would enroll in the new health insurance option created by the government, Congresswoman Titus gave a hearty and sincere "Yes". For this I give her a lot of credit. Many of her colleagues would not do the same.

One point which was addressed which I found particularly interesting was the topic of allowing health insurance to be taken across state lines. I am for this because I believe that if their is a national public option I believe that insurance companies should be allowed to compete on a level field. However, Congresswoman Titus brought up an interesting point which was that each state has its own insurance commissioner with with its own set of rules an guidelines. So in order to make health insurance portable across state lines federal regulations will have to be created to allow exchangability. This is something that I had never considered before.

Another highlight was when Congresswoman Titus was asked about the financing for the new reform, one of the ways she said that it would be paid for was through addressing fraud and abuse in the current Medicare/Medicaid system. The crowd responded to this with a chorus of laughter. While I feel, and I am sure most people agree, that fraud has to be addressed in the new legislation because it is a huge drain and waste on taxpayer resources, I think such a negative reaction to this suggestion reflects the distrust and lack of faith that the population has in the government. Honestly I have to agree. The government of late has not done anything to restore our trust in their fiscal responsibility.

While addressing fraud and abuse are a step in the right direction, I still see no real way to pay for this new legislation. Despite what Congresswoman Titus believes, that this new plan could possibly make money, I still do not understand how that is possible. It is my perspective that if the government creates mandates and standards which all insurance companies are required to cover, the only thing that I can see that doing is driving the costs up for everyone. Mandates will not only create more costs for insurance companies to cover, which will than be passed onto the consumer, but they will also be able to charge more because everyone will have to have the same requirements whether they want to or not. While Congresswoman Titus did an excellent job clarifying the new leglislation, I still have many lingering doubts about how this will improve our healthcare delivery system.

Let me know what you think. Here is a link to a local news story about the town hall:

http://www.lasvegasnow.com/Global/story.asp?S=11342661

Book Review: The 5000 Year Leap

I recently finished this excellent book by Cleon Skousen. I highly recommend reading this book. This book is focused on the Constitution and briefly describes the events and thought processes that the Founding Fathers used to develop the Constitution. The main premise revolves around the belief that the Founding Fathers intended God and religion to be a part of this country and that they relied on God while developing the foundation of our government. Skousen has found through his research that the Founding Fathers were all men of faith, and while they firmly believed in freedom of religion, they also believed in the importance of relying on Divinity. Skousen lays out 28 principles which he has extracted from his research as to what he believes to be the most important guidelines the Founding Fathers relied upon and intended to remain as the foundation of our society. Some of them include: #2. People cannot survive under a Republican Constitution unless they remain virtuous and morally strong. #4. Without government religion the government of a free people cannot be maintained. #15. The highest level of prosperity occurs when there is a free-market economy and a minimum of government regulations. #27. The burden of debt is as destructive to freedom as subjugation by conquest.

This book has been cited as one of the primary texts currently influencing the remaking of the Conservative movement. Despite being written about 20 years ago, the taking points are very timely. It is a must read for anyone interested in maintaining conservative values in our country.

If anyone is interested in reading this book, just leave a comment and I will send it to you. I only have one copy however, so whoever is first will get it!

What do light bulbs have to do with it?

Bruce brought up an excellent point in his response to the healthcare debate video, "What do light bulbs have to do with it?" This is a very interesting question and I thought it deserved an answer.

By 2012, the government has mandated that all light bulbs manufactured must only be compact fluorescent bulbs and that all other types of bulbs be phased out by that time. The primary motivation behind this is to save energy as well as to dramatically reduce carbon emissions. This is all very well intended, it is good to save the earth. However, what is not widely discussed or publicized is that these light bulbs have a high concentration of mercury and if broken require a hazmat team to clean them up. So, if you break a light bulb in your home, in order to protect yourself from mercury poisoning, you must hire a hazmat team to come and clean it up at an expense to you of approximately $1200. When I discovered this I quickly changed out all low lying bulbs in our home to the now old fashioned tungsten ones. Since than my son has broken 2 bulbs. Thankfully, we did not need hazmat both times.

While this information is listed in small print on the back of the packaging, it is not widely know. The other issue is that these bulbs cannot be disposed of in the regular garbage or recycling. Did you know that? In order to be properly cared for since they are considered a hazardous substance they must be taken to a proper recycling facility in your area, as mentioned on the packaging. Where is this center, I have no idea. I am sure the extra car trip possibly cancels out the saved carbon emissions.

I am guessing that what Congressman Rogers was referring to in his tirade regarding government involvement in our lives is that the government often makes mandates with good intentions, like saving the earth, but often does not consider the unintended consequences. What are we going to do when our landfills are littered with hazardous mercury bulbs because no one knows where to dispose of them or bothers to take them to the proper facility? Possibly this is a trade off, (I am no environmentalist or scientist), but now we will have cleaner air but dirtier land? This is just an small example of the government getting involved in the details of our lives which has the potential to not work out exactly as intended. Many people, I think, are turned off by this potential with healthcare as well as other areas of reform. Let me no what you think....

CHANGE

I recently read an article form the April 13, 2009 issue of Time magazine which discussed the methodologies behind Barack Obama's "Change." I found this article fascinating and I thought I would share some of the highlights. What I find most intriguing about this article however is that it was published six months ago. So, looking back on the past six months it is interesting to see how the concepts reviewed in the article are now being or attempting to be implemented.

The title is "How Obama is Using the Science of Change," by Michael Grunwald, and that is exactly what it is about. The focus of the article is how the implementation of Barack Obama's policies, including cap and trade and health reform, are intended to influence us to change our behaviors for the benefit of American society. He is relying upon a group behavioral economists who have researched human behaviors and how you can get the majority of people to participate in specific behaviors. More specifically, the economist have discovered that the primary motivation for people in general to change their behaviors is the notion that "everyone is doing it" or that it is the socially acceptable behavior. For example, "The most powerful motivator for hotel guest to reuse towels, national park visitors to stay on marked trails and citizens to vote is the suggestion that everyone is doing it."

According to the article, his concept of adjusting social norms has been extensively written about by many of his top advisers. Some of the suggestions by these advisers included in the article for adjusting our behaviors include having preventative care doctor's appointments scheduled for us or seniors being enrolled automatically in drug plan options. Other suggestions include automatic enrollment for retirement savings and having everyone automatically be an organ donor unless you say no. In other words, quoting the author of the article,"Behavioral economics leaves room for government action to help us do what we would really want to do if we were rational agents" (emphasis added)

This is certainly something to think about. The author summarizes what he believes Obama's intentions to be by stating "Obama is no therapist changing individuals one at a time. He's an organizer trying to build community and inspire collective action through ...rhetoric about shared values. In other words he's trying to create social norms."

So the "Change" that we have been expecting, and know is already here, is focused not on the government changing, but rather the citizens conforming their behavior to new social norms. I found this article to be very eye opening and subtle. I guess only time will tell if it is in fact true.

If you have a chance to read this fascinating article, please do, and than let me know what you think.
Here is a link to the article:
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1889153,00.html

Meeting with Office of Congresswoman Titus

Feeling compelled to completed my civic duty, I asked for a meeting with Dina Titus, my local congresswoman, in order to petition her to not vote for the new healthcare legislation as well as to express my opinions to her on the topic. It took me about one month to get the appointment, and it was not with her, but rather as staffperson Susan.

I have to say that despite generally being on the other side of the isle from her politically, I give her a lot of credit for offering a staffperson to meet with me. The staffperson was genuinely interested in hearing my side of things and completely open to answering my question. She was very interested in my hospice nursing experience. Also, Titus did not vote for the HR 3200 bill in her committee because she felt that it would not include enough small businesses.

That being said Congresswoman Dina Titus is for "healthcare reform" as her staffperson stated and is supporting some form of a public option. It sounds to me like she will vote for some form of this bill. However, the staffperson would not say which way she would vote, only that she is waiting to receive the final version before making a decision.

This meeting was no was not a watershed moment ans will not be changing any votes, but I was so grateful not only to express my views to my congressperson but also to participate in the democratic process. I thank Congresswoman Titus for the opportunity

Healthcare debate video

If you have four minutes watch this clip. It is impressive. My father-in-law Kevin sent it to me:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G44NCvNDLfc&feature=player_embedded

My sentiments exactly

When I saw this sign in my neighborhood today I thought, "My sentiments exactly" I am happy to know that my fellow neighbors feel the same way. It takes a lot of courage to express your views in this manner one full year before the election.

The matter at hand is, who is "anyone." Depsite Harry's approval rating in the low thirties, the Clark County Republican party has yet to come up with anyone noteworthy or even generally well know to challenge Harry. Here is a list from the Dump Harry PAC of the top 5:

Sue Lowden (2-1): Clearly the new front-runner. But can she put together a winning campaign team and navigate the minefield of at least a dozen other serious and credible candidates? Remember, it's not the best candidate who necessarily wins, but the best campaign.

Sharron Angle* (4-1): Slow and steady. Angle has been quiet over all the recent developments, but that’s because she’s single-minded of purpose. If Lowden doesn’t post or falters before the first turn, Angle will be right there to take advantage.

Danny Tarkanian (7-1): Stumbled badly out of the gate last week by announcing his announcement from out-of-state, then announcing from behind the gates of his upper-class gated community a couple days later, and then announcing yesterday a town hall meeting on health care without announcing where or when the event would be held. On the other hand, he does have a very active Internet communications network established and could use that to advantage once he gets his sea biscuit) legs back under him.

Mark Amodei (15-1): Perhaps the only remaining potentially serious candidate not to make a decision on running yet. However, Amodei was trolling the DC waters for potential support just a few weeks ago and has been quietly interviewing for possible campaign staffers should he jump into the fray. With Heller’s decision not to run, expect Amodei to make his decision soon. He can’t afford to lose any more time in the fundraising department.

John Chachas (50-1): Rumored to have a half-dozen fundraising events scheduled for the rest of this month. However, all of them are out of state - as is the candidate’s official residence. With Lowden and Baby Tark now in the running, the Wall Street banker’s theme song ought to be: “Won’t you come home, John Chachas, won’t you come home?”

Have you heard of any of these people? This is the main obastacle. There is no frontrunner from the Republican side. They are floundering around united only by the desire to kick Harry out. Get it together! The election is only 1 year away!

Reid's Response

Exercising my right as a U.S. citizen and attempting to participate in the democratic process I wrote to Senator Reid expressin my opinion of the healthcare legislation, which was to vote against it. This is his response:

Dear Mrs. Olson:

Thank you for contacting me to express your concerns about health care reform. Please be assured that I have noted each of your concerns and that I will remain mindful of your views.

In America today, concerns about our health care system have been rightly brought to the forefront of the national consciousness. Many of us are familiar with the reports of 47 million uninsured Americans, escalating prescription drug prices, and declining health insurance benefits. Unfortunately, for too many across Nevada and the country, these facts and statistics are not anonymous findings removed from daily life. As a fellow Nevadan, and as the Senate Majority Leader, I know that millions like you are struggling with the reality of America's health care crisis.

Amid our health care crisis, however, I believe there are opportunities for members of Congress, the President and his Administration, the private sector, and other stakeholders to work together for the benefit of the American people. It is my hope that the solutions we develop and enact will ensure quality, affordable health care coverage for all Americans, regardless of their age, income, employment, or health status. Those fortunate enough to have adequate coverage, I am also mindful of minimizing disruptions of the care they are already receiving.

As Nevada's senior senator and the Senate Majority Leader, it is my job to do what is in the best interest of our state and work on behalf of the people of Nevada. Please be assured that I take these responsibilities very seriously, and I will continue to do everything I can to make Nevada an even better place to live and afford good, quality health care.

Again, thank you for taking the time to share your concerns with me, and I look forward to hearing from you in the future.
My best wishes to you.

Sincerely,
A
HARRY REID
United States Senator
Nevada

I found this to be a very pleasant but neutral response. Considering his approval ratings are in the low thirties, he is certainly trying to keep all options open. But my question to him is, "What are you going to do Senator Reid ? Exactly what is it you think is best for Nevadans?"

Science in its wrongful place

When I heard about Obama's new "science czar's" perspective on children and population control I would hardly believe my ears. John Holdren ,who was appointed as the director of the Office of Science and Policy Technology, has been quoted as saying, “The fetus, given the opportunity to develop properly before birth, and given the essential early socializing experiences and sufficient nourishing food during the crucial early years after birth, will ultimately develop into a human being.” So, if Iheard correctly, Holdren stated that he does not believe that a baby is a human being until after it has developed properly outside of the womb? The stated misson of the Office of Science and technology , as quoted from the OSTP.gov website is that, "The Obama administration and the Office of Science and Technology Policy are committed to restoring science to its rightful place in America as a tool for crafting smart policies that will strengthen the nation. " So what does he mean by "rightful" place. This is the question at hand. The OSTP website goes on to say that, "That means getting the best available evidence to decision-makers; hiring highly qualified public servants to interpret that evidence; and strengthening and making full use of the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST)." If the means to restoring science to its righful place include direction from some one who belives that babies are not humans I believe that this is the WRONG direction. It is unclear how much power this czar actually has, but what we do know is that he has the ear of the president. If I had the ear of the president, I would say, "Take a look at my son, does he look human to you?" I would also say that anyone who does not think so has maybe has not recieved enough nourishment from their mother after birth and possible has not developed into a human themselves. At least they have not developed a heart and must be "deficient in some way. This is definately a person that we should be taking any advice from.

www.cnsnews.com/public/checker.aspx?rsrcID=51676

Introduction

I am so concerned with the direction our country is going and I feel uncertain about the future. I am searching for a way to make a difference, but unsure how. However, I feel that the least I can do is share information regarding current legislation as well as any other noteworthy news tidbits that I stumble upon. This really is a way for me to air my grievences, so readers, feel free to air yours here as well!