May, 2013 Obama Care Update, Part 6: Neener/Neener I told You So and More Bad News

This is the sixth in a series of posts that are reviewing the current situation relative to Obama Care. It has not been a pleasant journey through the first five posts, with the identification of skyrocketing legislation costs, past supporters of the legislation finally realizing what a disaster this law is, a growing and likely ineffective government bureaucracy to administer this fiasco, and the fact that the law will never come close to attaining its objectives, probably making things worse in the country’s health care industry.

Today’s post fails to wrap up these saddening current events since even this sixth post will not be enough to cover how poorly constructed, poorly financed, and poorly implemented this legislation is becoming.

1) We have already discussed the crumbling financials of Obama Care in detail. We reviewed how the original estimated cost of the law has already doubled. How government experts themselves now estimate that the legislation will add trillions of dollars to our national debt. And most importantly, how it now looks like the cost of health care for American citizens and American businesses will rise even more dramatically, the exact opposite of what the legislation and its supporters claimed would happen.

But let’s do a little I told you so. This escalating of health care costs is a surprise to only those that wrote the legislation. Clear thinking Americans and experts knew this was going to happen years ago, the politicians either did not believe basic math or did not understand basic math.

In a May 27, 2013 post on Liberty News website,

http://www.libertynews.com/2013/03/obama-2009-premiums-to-drop-3000-sebelius-today-not-so-much-in-fact-theyre-going-to-rise/

the website owners went back through history and reviewed what the experts were saying about Obama Care a few years ago. You will see that the disaster we see unfolding today because of the legislation was fully predictable when the legislation first appeared and was enacted (bold and italics added by me for emphasis):

******************************

I) In 2009, the Wall Street Journal determined:

“No Big Cost Rise in U.S. Premiums Is Seen in Study,” said the New York Times, while the Washington Post declared, “Senate Health Bill Gets a Boost.” The White House crowed that the CBO report was “more good news about what reform will mean for families struggling to keep up with skyrocketing premiums under the broken status quo.”

Finance Chairman Max Baucus [the same Max Baucus that now claims Obama Care is a “train wreck”] chimed in from the Senate floor that “Health-care reform is fundamentally about lowering health-care costs. Lowering costs is what health-care reform is designed to do, lowering costs; and it will achieve this objective.”

Except it won’t. CBO says it expects employer-sponsored insurance costs to remain roughly in line with the status quo, yet even this is a failure by Mr. Baucus’s and the White House’s own standards. Meanwhile, fixing the individual market—which is expensive and unstable largely because it does not enjoy the favorable tax treatment given to job-based coverage—was supposed to be the whole purpose of “reform.”

Instead, CBO is confirming that new coverage mandates will drive premiums higher.

II)  In 2010, Forbes determined:

If you’re thinking the legislation will tamp down overall health care spending, reconsider. Policy analysts ranging from the neutral Congressional Budget Office to the HMO lobby see no abatement in the growth rate of health care spending.

That sector of the economy is growing at a 7.4% annual rate, says actuarial firm Milliman. Medicare’s chief actuary, Richard Foster, thinks the Senate bill would expand health spending by $234 billion above current projections.

The premium hikes will result from cost shifting, better known as passing the buck.

III) In 2010, Reason magazine determined:

…contrary to what the administration and its supporters claim, under ObamaCare, insurance would probably get more expensive, and any decrease in rates for some would come at taxpayer expense.

Meanwhile, President Obama was telling people they would see a 3,000 percent drop in the cost of their premiums, and probably get a raise!

IV) Fast forward to today according to Liberty News:

Some people purchasing new insurance policies for themselves this fall could see premiums rise because of requirements in the health-care law, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius told reporters Tuesday.

Ms. Sebelius’s remarks come weeks before insurers are expected to begin releasing rates for plans that start on Jan. 1, 2014, when key provisions of the health law kick in.

Premiums have been a sensitive subject for the Obama administration, which is counting on elements in the health law designed to increase competition among insurers to keep rates in check. The administration has pointed to subsidies that will be available for many lower-income Americans to help them with the cost of coverage

*****************************
“…could see premiums rise as a result of the health care law.” This was not supposed to happen folks but it took the Washington political class three years to see this disaster, as witnessed by the prime implementer of the legislation, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, whereas many Americans saw this happening as far back as 2009.

When you claim that something will reduce costs and then turn around and openly admit it will increase costs, there is no other word to describe your efforts than “Failure.”

2) Mike Ruff owns eight Five Guys burger franchises that employ 150 people, many of them full time employees. At a Heritage Foundation event in early March, this small business owner pointed out the likely impacts on his business and employees:

• The many added costs of the Obama Care legislation are going to have to be passed on to his customers in the form of higher food costs.
• He estimates that Obama Care will take the ENTIRE profit of one of his restaurants to pay for Obama Care‘s impact.
• He is also holding off on opening three new Five Guys franchises until the Obama Care regulations are fully understood and he understands if this can be done profitably.
• He may be forced to transition many of his full-time burger cooks and other employees to part time status if the health care insurance premiums become too onerous and unaffordable under Obama Care regulations.
• He estimates that additional healthcare insurance costs under Obamacare could total $60,000 annually for his small business.

Again, please explain to me how this legislation is helping America when it will escalate health care insurance costs, reduce hours for working Americans, cause many covered Americans to lose existing health insurance, and stunt economic growth?

The video where Mr. Ruff explains this reality can be accessed at:

http://www.bizpacreview.com/2013/03/12/five-guys-owner-burger-prices-will-go-up-due-to-obamacare-55197

3) Consider a different but similar story of a small business owner relative to Obama Care, as reported in the March 20, 2013 issue of the Washington Post:

• Jody Manor has operated a small cafe and catering company for nearly three decades in Old Town Alexandria.
• Six years ago he purchased an adjoining building, and recently he started searching for a second location for expansion.
• Whether he moves forward with expansion depends on the price tag of the health care insurance requirements mandated by Obama Care.
• Manor’s company employs 45 people. If he brings in just five more, his business would soon be subject to new minimum coverage standards under the 2010 law and he does not know whether his current health plan would meet this threshold of coverage or how his insurance premiums might skyrocket.
• “These changes are less than a year away, and I still have no information about how much our premiums are going to cost,” said Manor, owner of Bittersweet Catering, Cafe and Bakery. “It definitely gives me pause when thinking about adding another location.

Two different food businesses, same quandary. Bad legislation followed by bad planning which is causing so much uncertainty that businesses are stuck in nowhere land relative to understanding how to keep their business alive and profitable and not break the law. Federal government and political class, neither has a clue what is going on.

But the steady beat of stupidity and fiasco continues on tomorrow where we review even more of the disgrace, disaster, and disappointment that is Obama Care, possibly the worst piece of legislation ever written in the history of America. Hopefully, one more post will finally get all of the disgraces, disasters, and disappointments up to date, at least for now.

Our book, "Love My Country, Loathe My Government - Fifty First Steps To Restoring Our Freedom And Destroying The American Political Class" is now available at:

www.loathemygovernment.com

It is also available online at Amazon and Barnes and Noble. Please pass our message of freedom onward. Let your friends and family know about our websites and blogs, ask your library to carry the book, and respect freedom for both yourselves and others everyday.

Please visit the following sites for freedom:

http://www.reason.com/
http://www.cato.org/
http://www.robertringer.com/
http://realpolichick.blogspot.com
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08j0sYUOb5w  

May, 2013 Obama Care Update, Part 1: Its Going To Be A Train Wreck and Other Impending Disasters

Okay, we have tried to stay away from the unfolding disaster that is Obama Care but the tidal wave of bad news is about to overwhelm us. Thus, we need to take some time out to review how much worse the ramifications of Obama Care is likely to be or have been already. Be forewarned: The bad news is so bad that this will take well more than one post.

1) Senator Charles Schumer from New York has long been a strong advocate for Obama Care. There are video clips back in 2009 and 2010 that show his strong argument that Obama Care legislation would reduce health care costs. This reduction in the nation’s health care costs was the major selling point of the law and the reason to push it through before anyone could read and analyze the impacts.

Well, apparently that argument no longer holds water. Consider recent the remarks of that same Senator in an interview he gave to the NBC news affiliate in Rochester, New York:

Our insurance department is empowered to protect families and we’re going to watch them like a hawk to make sure they do, because if they don’t, these rates could go through the roof … It’s in part because of Obama Care, but health care costs have been going up in double digits for years and years and years. The good news is in this bill, there’s a way to stop it.

Couple of observations:

• Insurance rates “could go through the roof...It’s in part because of Obama Care.” But, Senator, you promised insurance rates would not go up because of Obama Care.
• Yes, health care costs have been going up by double digits for years but this legislation was supposed to stop it not contribute to it. What happened?
• What is the good news in this bill that is supposed to stop the escalating costs? So far, none of the supporters of the legislation have been able to find this so-called “good news,” including yourself. Please share the “good news” for those of us that have not yet seen the light.

More double talk as hysterical Obama Care supporters try more and more convoluted logic and double speak to justify their votes and support for this disastrous legislation. Three years later they still have not explained how this thing is supposed to reduce costs, possibly because they have no clue how it is supposed achieve that magic.

2) Montana U.S. Senator, Max Baucus, another early and rabid supporter of the Obama Care legislation, was much clearer than the good Senator from New York in describing what Obama Care will likely resemble. He called it a “train wreck.” “Train wreck” is never a good adjective when describing anything and it takes on an especially bad connotation when one of any legislation’s main supporters gives it that designation.

3) Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid was one of the prime drivers of Obama Care and helped shove it through the Senate without allowing enough time for anyone to understand what was in it, so he has been an advocate of the legislation from Day 1.

He and other Democrats were the ones that established the financial parameters and forecasts of the legislation, they told us what the cost would be, and how much it would reduce health care costs to individuals and the nation. The Republicans had nothing to do with the numbers and estimates, they were shut out of the process by Reid, Pelosi, and Obama.

However, as time has gone by, things have started to unravel with regard to the numbers:

• A bill that was sold to the nation as one that would cost under $900 billion in the first ten years now has an official price tag that is about double the original estimate just three years later.
• A main positive revenue contributor to the entire legislation was supposed to be the long term care aspect of the bill, the CLASS process. That process has already been shut down far short of its positive financial contribution to the overall financials.
• Another main positive contributor to the legislation’s financial projections was supposed to be the tax on medical devices. But 17 Democratic Senators, who originally voted to approve Obama Care, now want to repeal that tax since medical device manufacturers are putting pressure on them to do so in order to save their device businesses. If the tax is repealed, another positive financial contributor to the legislation will be shut down.
• Today and in the next few days we will cite other examples that illustrate the deteriorating condition of the Obama Care business case and financials.

How does Washington fix this disaster regarding the financials? Seems, if you are Harry Reid, you fix it like they fix everything in Washington, just spend more money, have more good money follow bad money down the drain. Consider the highlights from a recent radio interview Harry Reid gave to a Nevada radio station, as summarized in a May 5, 2013 article by The Hill:

• Reid said he actually shares peers’ concerns that Obama Care could become a “train wreck” if not implemented properly.
• Reid warned that citizens will not be able to choose health insurance plans on government health exchanges if the Federal government lacks the resources to establish them up and educate the public. Code word alert: “lack the resources” usually means they government needs to spend more money.
• “Max said unless we implement this properly it’s going to be a train wreck, and I agree with him,” Reid said, echoing the warning delivered last month by Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.).
• Wait for it…Reid warned the Federal government is not spending enough money to implement the law because of Republican opposition to Obama Care. Remember, the Republicans had nothing to do with setting up the law and the financial parameters but somehow it is their fault that this legislation is costing far more and delivering far less than Reid, Obama, and Pelosi promised.
• “Here’s what we have now, we have the menu but we don’t have any way to get to the menu,” Reid said. Maybe they should not have spent so much taxpayer money on developing the menu and more on actually addressing the root causes of our high health care costs.
• The shortage of funding to implement the law has forced President Obama to shift funds from other parts of the law, according to Reid. In other words, they screwed up the financial impact forecasts so badly that some of the other potential positive aspects of the legislation that were promised will not occur since they are shifting funding around to fulfill the exchanges and public education needs.

So let’s summarize Mr. Reid’s comments for him: “I believe in the bill and took credit for getting it approved without the help of any Republicans. I and other supporters put together all of the financial impacts and forecasts of the legislation without any help from the Republicans. Now that it is falling apart and costs are skyrocketing while potential positive aspects of the legislation are being abandoned, it is the Republicans’ fault. In order to fix what the Republicans screwed up, we need to spend a boat load more money to get Obama Care off the ground”

What a pathetic attempt at legislation, what a train wreck, and ducking the blame for the whole disaster.

4) Consider the latest poll findings as reported in a recent Politico article that further illustrate the floundering popularity of Obama Care:

• According to a monthly poll done by the Kaiser Family Foundation, Obama Care‘s support amount among Americans is now down at 35%.
• This low level is tied with its lowest level of support since it was enacted in March, 2010.
• The poll found that only 35% of Americans view Obama Care ‘very’ or ‘somewhat’ favorably, down 8 percentage points since Election Day, 2012.
• The poll actually found that with just a few months until the key provisions of the law go into effect, more than 40% of Americans don’t even know that it is on the books.
• About half of that 40% believe it has already been repealed by Congress or overturned by the Supreme Court.
• The rest of that 40% aren’t sure what is going on.
• Just over half of Americans, 53%, say that they approve of efforts by opponents to change or stop the law “so it has less impact on taxpayers, employers, and health care providers.”
• In another measure of dwindling support, about one in three respondents believe that the law’s opponents should accept that it is the law of the land and stop trying to block its implementation, down from January’s finding of support at 40%, i.e. those supporting the legislation has dropped over 17% in just four months.

At least Americans are starting to understand how bad this legislation is and how ignorant they still are about what it all means, a disgrace against all of those politicians who wrote legislation and supported but their education job has been so pathetic.

5) We will leave you with one last piece of bad news relative to the legislation today and then continue on tomorrow. Elizabeth Colbert Busch, a Democrat who unsuccesssfully ran for a Congressional seat in South Carolina, recently showed that she couldn't get away from the Obama Care fast enough in the run up to the election she was in. She publicly called Obama Care “extremely problematic,” which is political code word for holy moly, this is going to be a real problem that I do not want to be anywhere near when it explodes.

First Baucus, then Reid, now Busch, the rats are starting to jump ship and leaving us all behind holding the Obama Care bag. Which is a specific topic we will review tomorrow, the secret negotiations in Washington that the political class is having to exempt themselves and their top aides from the throes of the bill that they put together but personally want no part of.

Our book, "Love My Country, Loathe My Government - Fifty First Steps To Restoring Our Freedom And Destroying The American Political Class" is now available at:

www.loathemygovernment.com

It is also available online at Amazon and Barnes and Noble. Please pass our message of freedom onward. Let your friends and family know about our websites and blogs, ask your library to carry the book, and respect freedom for both yourselves and others everyday.

Please visit the following sites for freedom:

http://www.reason.com/
http://www.cato.org/
http://www.robertringer.com/
http://realpolichick.blogspot.com
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08j0sYUOb5w

Congressman Rangel: Still Waiting For Your Apology For Calling Me An Obama Care Racist

Congressman Rangel:

Good day, sir. I wanted to follow up on an accusation you made regarding people like myself and many other Americans several years ago and see if you would be man enough to offer an apology. During the Obama Care legislation debate in 2009, you accused myself and millions of other Americans of being racists, similar to the violent and bigoted racists who opposed civil rights back in the 1960s:

"I want you to know and your viewing audience to know that the group that were in Washington fighting against the health care bill and fighting against the President, looked just like and shouted just like those groups that attacked the civil rights movement in the South."

(http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/rep-charles-rangel-likens-conservative-foes-health-care-reform-racist-foes-civil-rights-article-1.168098)

To be honest with you, I took those comments as a severe personal insult. First of all, you do not know me or any of the other Americans who had legitimate concerns over the contents and potential effects of Obama Care. We were simply voicing our opinions, as is our right to disagree with our government and the politicians that operate it. I have that right even if it ticks you off and sends you off on a rant that belittles the true heroes of the 1960s who fought real racism.

I have never considered myself a racist but I do consider myself a concerned American who considered all aspects of Obama Care and found it to be a horrible piece of legislation. I concluded that it would not curtail sky high health care costs, it would not make America healthy, it would not address the root causes of our problems in this area, and it would stifle the economy. Based on the comments of your peers:

http://loathemygovernment.blogspot.com/2012/03/dopes-democrats-offering-preposterous.html),

who may have not even have read the legislation they voted on, it appears I and many other did more to understand this legislation than those in Congress and in the White House. And for caring enough to gain that understanding, you associated us with racists.

1) But let’s fast forward from your comments in 2009 to present day. A few months ago, seventeen Democratic Senators who had voted to pass Obama Care petitioned the Obama administration to cut back on its taxing of medical device manufacturers:

http://loathemygovernment.blogspot.com/2013/01/the-devastation-that-is-obama-care-part.html

This tax was going to be one of the major funders of the Obama Care legislation. Does their desire to remove this funding source make them racists in your eyes since it will help undercut how this legislation is supported?

2) This past week, Senator Max Baucus of Montana had the negative following words regarding Obama Care at a Senate hearing (as reported by The Hill on April 17, 2013:

“I just see a huge train wreck coming down.”

(http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/health-reform-implementation/294501-baucus-warns-of-huge-train-wreck-in-obamacare-implementation).

These comments were made at a hearing that grilled Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius on Obama Care implementation. Does correctly calling Obama Care a “train wreck,” the same conclusions that myself and many other Americans reached years ago, now make Senator Baucus a racist?

3) This past week, Regal Entertainment Group, which has over 500 movie theaters in 38 states announced that it has to cut back the hours of most of its workers to 30 or less because of Obama Care‘s definition of full time workers:

“To comply with the Affordable Care Act, Regal had to increase our health care budget to cover those newly deemed eligible based on the law’s definition of a full-time employee. To manage this budget, all other employees will be scheduled in accord with business needs and in a manner that will not negatively impact our health care budget.”

Does this action of Regal make them racists because the impositions and conditions required by Obama Care is crushing their ability to operate a successful business?

Since Applebee’s, Olive Garden, and thousands of other restaurants have had to cut hours of employees as a result of Obama Care or go out of business, does that make them racists?

Since Palm Beach State College, Kean University, and many other colleges and universities have done the same thing, does that make them racists?

Since many American medical device manufacturers have had to cut hours and cut job positions as a result of Obama Care, does that also make them racists?

4) In a March 26, 2013 Wall Street Journal article, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said that health insurance premiums for many Americans are likely to go up substantially as a result of Obama Care during comments she made in Philadelphia. That same article reported on a new report from the Society of Actuaries, a nonpartisan professional association, a report that has warned and predicted that the cost of medical claims in the new individual-insurance market could rise by an average of 32% per person over the first few years the law is in place.

So does these conclusions make the Secretary and the Society racists for daring to point out what we were saying years ago, the inability of Obama Care to address the root causes of our escalating health care costs will result in Americans paying more for health care insurance?

5) Several years ago, when Obama Care was being hyped, unions were very big supporters of the legislation. However, on April 17, 2013, the United Union of Roofers, Waterproofers and Allied Workers International President Kinsey M. Robinson issued the following statement calling for a repeal or complete reform of President Obama’s Affordable Care Act (ACA):

“Our Union and its members have supported President Obama and his Administration for both of his terms in office.

But regrettably, our concerns over certain provisions in the ACA have not been addressed, or in some instances, totally ignored. In the rush to achieve its passage, many of the Act’s provisions were not fully conceived, resulting in unintended consequences that are inconsistent with the promise that those who were satisfied with their employer sponsored coverage could keep it.

But provisions jeopardize our multi-employer health plans, have the potential to cause a loss of work for our members, create an unfair bidding advantage for those contractors who do not provide health coverage to their workers, and in the worst case, may cause our members and their families to lose the benefits they currently enjoy as participants in multi-employer health plans…

Does this change of view, based on the realization by the union that this is not a good piece of legislation, a conclusion us so-called "racists" reached years ago, make this union and their members racists?

6) Senator Jay Rockefeller, one of the architects of the Obama Care, made the follwing statements on the legislation earlier this week:

• “[Obama Care] is probably the most complex piece of legislation ever passed by the United States Congress.” 
• “[Obama Care] is just beyond comprehension.”
• “[Obama Care] so complicated and if it isn’t done right the first time, it will just simply get worse.”

These conclusions of a one-time supporter of Obama Care are the same feelings and worries we expressed a few years ago when you accused us of being racists. Do these comments put one of your Democratic peers in that racist category also?


No one should be called a racist for simply having a different opinion of a politician. It is demeaning to Americans, it is demeaning to the profession of politics, and most importantly, it is demeaning and insulting the people in the 1960s who fought actual racism and hatred. I look forward to your apology. Thank you.

Bruno Korschek
Our book, "Love My Country, Loathe My Government - Fifty First Steps To Restoring Our Freedom And Destroying The American Political Class" is now available at:

www.loathemygovernment.com

It is also available online at Amazon and Barnes and Noble. Please pass our message of freedom onward. Let your friends and family know about our websites and blogs, ask your library to carry the book, and respect freedom for both yourselves and others everyday.

Please visit the following sites for freedom:

http://www.reason.com/
http://www.cato.org/
http://www.robertringer.com/
http://realpolichick.blogspot.com
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08j0sYUOb5w

Political Insanity - Worldwide And Locally

Nikita Khrushchev of Russia once said: "Politicians are the same all over, they will build you a bridge even if there is no river." Following up on his insight, let's look at some political insanity around the world and a few local examples to prove that the political class is truly an international animal:

• An article that was summarized in The Week magazine on November 27, 2009 was originally written by Ninez Cacho-Olivares of the The Daily Tribune. The article discussed the corruption that emanates from Constancia de Guzman who, ironically, is the President of The Philipines' Anti-Graft Commission. Ms. de Guzman hired both her son and his girl friend as consultants and declared this was not nepotism since her son was qualifed for the position. These were just two of several family members she hired. While the Philippines is a notoriously corrupt government, she has not investigated, never mind prosecuted, a single major official during her term as President of the Commission. When the president of the country was accused of diverting federal money to her presidential campaign, de Guzman promised to investigate but never got around to it. All of this left Cacho-Olivares wondering what de Guzman and her family do all day.
• Another article from The Week, this one from the November 13, 2009 issue, discussed the plight of Jacques Chirac of France. He was the president of France from 1995 to 2007. He has been ordered to go on trial becuase of corruption during his presidential term when he operated a "grace and favor" system that provided ghost jobs and Paris apartments to his friends and cronies. It involved kickbacks from contractors that went to Chirac's political party and suitcases of cash that were left at his residence. There were so many accusations of corruption that the presiding judge decide to ignore the lesser charges since to prosecute all of the charges would have taken years. However, many in France do not want the case to go forward. Why? The article sums it up in the final paragraph: "If Chirac goes down, he could take a lot of others with him. Many members of France's political class have an interest in preventing such an outcome." Sounds similar to Pelosi's refusal to investigate or censure members of her own party in the House Of Representatives (e.g. see the exploits of Congressmen Rangel, Murtha and others as outlined in previous posts).
• In an article published on Earthlink's news page on November 18, 2009, it was revealed that a senior Afghanistan government official allegedly took a $20 million bribe to steer a billion dollar copper mine project to a Chinese company. Bad enough he took a bribe, but his actions cut out companies from countries (United States, Canada, and others) that are fighting against the Taliban and Bin Laden's thugs for control of the country. According to several sources cited in the article, the selection process was highly secretive and done behind closed doors without consulting experts both within and outside the government who could have constructively helped with the bidding process.
• Back in the United States, the St. Petersburg Times reprinted a NY Times article on December 6, 2009. The article reported that U.S. Senator Max Baucus, chairman of the powerful Senate Finance Committee, had nominated a woman to be the U.S. district attorney for his home state of Montana.....that he also was currently dating. The woman had worked for Baucus as his state office director from 2003 to 2009. Of course, a Baucus spokesperson insisted that the woman was nominated "solely on the basis of her credentials."
• And to no one's surprise since it is related to Illinois politics, the law offices of the lawyers defending former governor Rod Blagojevich on corruption charges were burglarized recently and eight computers and a safe containing evidence to be used to defend the ex-governor were stolen. This is interesting from two perspectives. First, of all the burglaries that could have happended, it just so happened to be associated with a potentiall corrupt Illinois politician. Second, even though the news reports of the burglary said that an alarm had been tripped and police were dispatched, the burlgars were still able to escape with the eight computers and the safe. Makes you wonder how quick the police were in reacting to the alarm, walking out of a lawyer's office with that many computers and a safe cannot be done that quickly. I am pretty sure we will revisit this event many times in the future.

Thus, it looks like Nikita was right, politicians are the same all over. Nowhere do they realize that the appearance of conflict of interest is just as bad as actual conflict of interest. Nowhere do they have any trepidation of misserving the public to their own enrichment or the enrichment of their associated friends and political parties. One charateristic that they all seem to have in common is that they all seemed to have been in the same government position/office a long time. Previous posts in this blog showed a high correlation between the degree of corruption of U.S. Congressional members and their terms of service, i.e. the longer they are in service the more corrupt they appear to be. Chirac was in the same office thirteen years (and in the political arena even longer), de Guzman had been in her position for many years, and Baucus has been in his Senate position for over thirty years. Either way, that is why the need to impose term limits on U.S. Congressional terms as outlined in "Love My Country, Loathe My Government" are so necessary. It is one of the best ways to cut down on rampant corruption and conflicts of interest. We do not need any extra bridges.

Visit our website at www.loathemygovernment.com to order an autographed copy of the book, "Love My Country, Loathe My Government -Fifty First Steps To Restoring Our Freedom and Destroying The American Political Class" and to sign up for the cause. The book is also available online at Amazon and Barnes And Noble.

YQF3W74UXXEAVPBHWM375EAD