Why shouldn't government officials live under the same "guidelines" they are going to impose on private companies?  Their decisions can also lead to undue risk, and the government, at both the federal and state levels, is definitely too big to fail.  How about pay caps any year that we run a deficit.

 

Did you know federal Congress people do not pay into social security or medicare?  They have special programs that we don't.  These programs include full pay and health coverage at retirement for the remainder of their lives, which is also transferred to surviving spouses.  No wonder they don't care that social security and medicare are going bankrupt.

 

Do you think Congress people will live under the same government healthcare program(s) they will impose on us?  Doubtful.  They know if the government provides, the government decides.  And they don't want to give up their right to choose.

 

If Congress moves forward with the idea of taxing our employer-provided health insurance, will their health coverage also be taxed?

 

Why is it okay for Iran to develop nuclear power, but we can't do so in the U.S.?

 

Why is it so bad for the U.S. to impose its will on other countries, but okay to tell Israel what to do?  And why is it okay for the U.S. government to tell the U.S. citizens (you know - those of us who are supposed to be protected from government by the constitution) what to do?

 

The President takes the press out for hamburgers all the time.  So how do you feel about him mandating new regulations on our health, including what we can and cannot eat and how much exercise we need to get?  (Don't believe it's coming?  Well, who ever thought the government could take over the financial system and two automobile companies?)

 

Are you angry that corporate executives took more trips via private jets last year than the year before?  If so, are you also angry that President Obama and the First Lady went on a date to New York City via Air Force One?  And that the First Lady and Kids stayed an extra day in France so they could shop, requiring that they take another private plane?  Both the corporate executives and the White House argue that they need these perks because of safety.

 

Why were we outraged that "Bush Lied" when the world's intelligence agencies all agreed that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, yet we don't hear anything about President Obama's insistence that the nearly $800 billion stimulus bill was needed in order to keep the unemployment rate below 8%.  (The unemployment rate is now above 9%.)

 

And finally, have you ever heard any government official apologize for being wrong about anything???

 

 

 

Upon hearing that the Obama administration forced the CEO of GM to resign and directed the execs to re-do their plan to get more bail-out money by the Obama administration, a friend of mine said it's about time big business gets put in line.  I'm not going to argue the virtues of big business.  I will argue, though, that this is definitely not an example of a big business getting put in line.  In fact, I predict that GM will have a significant competitive advantage thanks to Obama's intervention.

 

Counter-intuitive?  Well, let's look at what Obama said during his press conference this morning regarding the auto bailout.  He said that in order to help auto makers, the federal government would purchase more fleet vehicles.  Will the federal government purchase from the low cost provider?  Or perhaps from the provider of the most fuel efficient vehicles?  Of course not.  After giving billions of dollars to GM, do you think the taxpayers wouldn't be in an uproar if at least the vast majority of these fleet vehicles weren't purchased from GM?  Of course they will.  And the Obama officials want to stay in power, so they will bow to the will of the people - of course in the taxpayer interest.  So GM gets more business, without having to compete for it, and without having to provide the best product.  And let's not forget the billions in taxpayer money GM will receive to shore it up.  (We all know that now that Obama has taken over, whatever plan that is produced in 60 days will meet his requirements for further funding.)

 

What about the former CEO of GM who was just asked to resign?  He walks away with over $20 million and no longer has the long days and nights of worry.  My guess is he'll be okay.  Is it right for the President to force a CEO of a private company out?  No - it is fascist.  But I can understand the argument that once a company takes money from the government, the government can tell them what to do.  (Remember that, all of you who receive the so-called "Earned" Income Tax Credit.  And those of you who want the government to pay for your healthcare.  Do you like this scenario, soon to come to a DMV-style hospital near you?:  Sorry, but you have been refused for this life-saving operation.  You already used more than your fair share of healthcare over the last 10 years.  Plus, you're retired and not producing.  So go home, take these two pills, and die quietly in order to decrease the surplus population.  Next in line, please...)

 

The bottom line is that the Obama administration is picking winners, and those winners will receive substantial advantages over their current customers and potential new, innovative customers.  So what's the answer?  We have a system in place to deal with failing companies - one that has worked for decades.  It's called bankruptcy court.  Bankruptcy judges and their staff are experts at helping companies to reorganize or divest their assets.  They have the training and tools at their disposal, not to mention the experience.  Would GM survive?  Maybe and maybe not.  Either way, they would not be given the best end of an uneven playing field on a silver platter.  Now that, to me, is fairness.

I'm guessing many would wonder why I want a Robin Hood character since most have been taught that Robin Hood took from the rich and gave to the poor, (i.e. redistributed the wealth) ala communism.  Actually, in a feudal system, which Robin Hood was part of, the only rich were the royalty.  The royalty were the government.  They levied high taxes on their subjects - that is, the people who produced via their labours.  So it is evident that Robin Hood was not redistributing the wealth.  He was actually reclaiming the taxes from the royalty/government, and giving them back to those who laboured to produce.

 

When thinking about the feudal systems of the past, most believe that the system was very unfair.  The subjects toiled long hours, most in back-breaking work.  And the royalty took their produce and lived in luxury, while telling the subjects what they could and could not do, and punishing them if they stepped out of line.  Robin Hood was a hero to the people because he stood up against the royalty.  He stood for private property rights, or the right for individuals to keep what they had produced.

 

In America we don't have royalty, but we do have a bloated government with officials who believe they are above the law (note:  Geithner not paying taxes, Dodd getting sweetheart mortgages, Frank providing cover for his boyfriend, etc.).  These government officials are spending taxpayer money like there's no tomorrow.  They are even spending our children's taxes, and will soon be claiming our grandchildren's taxes if we don't stop them.  Now, with the AIG fiasco, a precedent is being set that the government can tax any money that they believe wasn't rightfully earned, even after the fact and in violation of an employment contract.  If we do not have the right to what we have toiled to produce, how is our system different than the unfair feudal system that Robin Hood fought against?