Ken's Comments

President Obama went to accept the Nobel Peace Prize and at the podium before the Peace Prize Committee and a room "packed with European dignitaries" President Obama said: “Whatever mistakes we have made, the plain fact is this: the United States of America has helped underwrite global security for more than six decades with the blood of our citizens and the strength of our arms,” Obama said. “The service and sacrifice of our men and women in uniform has promoted peace and prosperity from Germany to Korea, and enabled democracy to take hold in places like the Balkans.” I disagree with Obama on a lot of things, but our President got up in front of the world and said something that needed to be said. My hat is off to President Obama. If you need proof that it was the right thing to say, Gary Trudeau, the author of the Doonesbury cartoons, drew a strip condemning President Obama for his speech. A full report of the President's speech can be found at: http://news.yahoo.com/s

Giving credit where credit is due, Frank Rich, a columnist with the NY Times, had an outstanding suggestion: "In his Cairo speech last June, President Obama effectively built a connection with the Muslim mainstream. Maybe he could spark the debate by asking that same audience this question: 'Whenever something like Fort Hood happens you say, ‘This is not Islam.’ I believe that. But you keep telling us what Islam isn’t. You need to tell us what it is and show us how its positive interpretations are being promoted in your schools and mosques. If this is not Islam, then why is it that a million Muslims will pour into the streets to protest Danish cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad, but not one will take to the streets to protest Muslim suicide bombers who blow up other Muslims, real people, created in the image of God? You need to explain that to us — and to yourselves." Mr. Rich is right on with his suggestion - President Obama is the perfect person to call out the Muslim com

When health care reform started, a key goal was to lower the cost of coverage. Here is the Democrats idea of how to lower health care coverage costs. First the "facts" (the text below is taken from the NY Times): "Before taking account of federal subsidies to help people buy insurance on their own, the [Congressional Budget Office or C.B.O.] said the [Senate health care reform] bill would tend to drive up premiums. But as a result of the subsidies, it said, most people in the individual insurance market would see their costs decline, compared with the costs expected under current law. The subsidies, a main feature of the bill, would cost the government nearly $450 billion in the next 10 years and would cover nearly two-thirds of premiums for people who receive them. "For most people who get health insurance through employers — five-sixths of the total market — the budget office concluded that there would be little change in their premiums relative to the amounts pr

The link below is to an interesting story about President Obama. The gist of the Politico article is that there are some themes or "storylines" developing about the Obama Administration. If more than one of catches firm hold in the minds of the public it could damage President Obama's chances at re-election. Now you might say, give me an example - last year, the Democrats developed a story line that John McCain would be four more years of President Bush, it was not true, but it was a prospect no one really wanted. The Obama campaign picked up on that and was very successful in getting people to believe the story line and it had a lot to do with President Obama getting a significant number of votes from independent voters and conservative Democrats. Here is the link to the article: http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20091130/pl_politico/29993 Comments on a couple of the story lines: 1. One story line suggests President Obama is over-exposed. Interestingly, President John

A very interesting story from the NY Times about the crisis looming ahead thanks to the Bush / Obama economic recovery plan. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/23/business/23rates.html?th&emc=th Essentially, the Bush / Obama economic recovery plan is a lot like taking out an adjustable rate mortgage with really low teaser interest rates. When interest rates go up, the Federal government is going to be slammed. The NY Times - not what I'd call a conservative news outlet - article has a quote estimating that interest payments on the money we've borrowed will be as much as $700 billion per year in the future. That is as much as we spent this year on the economic stimulus bill and we will be paying that each year. Now, just to review, what is Bush / Obama economic recovery plan? It involves spending lots and lots of money that the Government does not have including: Economic stimulus - $400 billion under President Bush if I recall correctly, repeated by President Obama at a higher

Recently, a question was asked on Yahoo Answers about whether the Republicans are ignoring the fact that there are significantly more African Americans registered as voters than ever before. Here is my answer: The mere fact that someone raises the question indicates that whatever the Republicans are doing, it's not effective. The fact is, the Republicans are not ignoring the fact that there are more black voters than before. However, as the question indicates, the efforts being made by the Republicans to address this are not working. Furthermore, the Republicans are somewhat hindered in those efforts by the vitriolic conservative talk show hosts. The result is that unless something dramatic happens we will probably see minorities like the Hispanics community and the African American community continuing to support President Obama in large numbers in the next election. Fact - the Republican Party has tried to address the issue of race with the voters. After the last election, th

Rush Limbaugh got fooled by an internet scam but his handling of the matter afterwards concerns me. Rush was fooled into thinking that a phony document on the internet was President Obama's college thesis. What concerns me is how Rush handled the matter after learning the truth. For someone who was badly treated due to internet lies, Rush apparently did not do unto others as he wanted done unto him. Apparently Rush Limbaugh got hold of a document that was on the internet which supposedly was President Obama's college thesis. The President's College thesis was never released by the Obama campaign and seems to have disappeared. The paper and the mysterious circumstances around it were things many conservative talk show people spent a lot of time discussing. After receiving the document alleging to be the President's thesis, Rush Limbaugh read the document on the air and spent time analyzing it. Later Rush Limbaugh found out that the documents were fakes. Hey that h

Conservative talk show hosts usually raise good points but occasionally they raise issues that just make me say "So What." This includes Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Lou Dobbs and others. The issues to which I refer are things that make them sound like whiners or like goofy people. They really need to get a grip on reality and not try to criticize everything President Obama does. Example #1 - Lou Dobbs raising the issue of whether President Obama is an American citizen. Lou said he has no doubt the President is but asked why doesn't the President just release his Birth Certificate and put all this to rest. This is an issue raised by some people who are just looney so why give it any credence. Example #2 - The President goes to Denmark to try to help Chicago win the Olympic games and some conservative commentators go bonkers. My answer - so what! Chicago is an American city - it is also the President's home town. Winning the Olympics would have been a big deal

I saw a question on Yahoo Answers about Insurance companies benefitting from being exempt from anti-trust laws. Until I saw that question and some of the subsequent discussion, I was not aware that this was an issue in the health care debate. Actually, the anti-trust exemption has little or no impact on health care, so I did some research and provided an answer. I am reprinting that below. I also debunked comments suggesting Republicans are against capitalism - presumably because Republicans are in favor of the anti-trust exemption. Here is a shortened version of my answer: A summary of my answer is 1) insurance companies are exempt from anti-trust for valid reasons; 2) the exemption is not relevant to health insurance because coverage is not always been written by insurance companies; 3) historical facts say Republicans were the "good guys" and the Democrats were the "bad guys." 1. History of the Exemption In 1869, the US Supreme Court ruled that insurance was

First it was the federal take over of private industries, now it will be the federal takeover of our schools. President Bush started it - working with Congress to have Federal intervention into banks, financial institutions, AIG, and auto manufacturers. President Obama has taken those programs to a new level and wants to usurp state authority over health insurance. Now President Obama is targeting our schools. Has no one read the United States Constitution? Isn't there some point at which President Obama feels the Federal Government does not have authority over us? President Bush and Congress adopted laws and regulations, and provided funding, to begin a massive federal intervention into a variety of private industries - banks and financial institutions, automakers, and AIG - to name a few. Some banks were told they could not refuse to accept TARP funds. Other organizations were told they'd get no help, like Lehman, and they went bankrupt, leaving Goldman Sachs, who had

I've been good at criticizing what is wrong with the economy, let me take a moment and say what I would have done differently to try to prevent us from getting to where we are right now. The answer starts in the approach - I would have attacked the problem from the bottom up, not the top down. There are a number of steps that could have been taken back when all this started to isolate the economic harm and create a gradual downturn instead of what did happen, which resulted in the economy falling off a cliff. This would not have been without pain, but a lot of the pain would have been absorbed by the lender, borrowers, and investors who took agreed to the risk of pain in the hope of financial reward. However, I think the result would have been fewer foreclosures and less people out of work. Ironically, both the Bush Administration and the Obama Administration have talked about trying to reduce foreclosures, but neither has any significant accomplishments. That's because th

If it was not so tragic, I'd have to laugh at the people who are talking about a "jobless recovery" like it is a good thing. I've only seen one mainstream commentator - a former Clinton Administration official - come close to calling out the Obama Administration on the current economy. Instead you've got papers like the New York Times running articles saying that because there were not as many new people unemployed in the last reporting it is a sign of an improving economy. Why can't we call it like it is - all of the money the Government has spent over the last two years, under both President Bush and President Obama is only making the rich richer and it is not helping the little guys. Merrill Lynch, AIG, and Goldman Sachs pay out big bonuses to employees. Warren Buffet makes a mint off of investments he made into companies that got government support. People who can afford to invest a lot of money in the stock market are doing very well again. Chrysler

These are more random thoughts on health care reform Eliminate COBRA - This coverage is expensive - often too expensive for people laid off. Also, the only options for the individual are the coverage options that the group selected for its employees. These options may not be appropriate for that individual. If an active individual market is created then the individual does not need COBRA. Also, COBRA drives up costs for groups because the majority of people who pay for COBRA coverage are those who need benefits. The medical claims incurred by the COBRA beneficiary impact negatively on the group's rates. I'll add more here as I think of them

So I've listed what the problems are - cost, quality, extending coverage - and addressed each. There are still some random items I'd like to talk about and I'll do that here. Can the health care system handle 47 million new customers? The following story says no: http://news.yahoo.com/s/hsn/20090807/hl_hsn/expandinghealthcoveragemaynotimproveaccess The story says that our health care infrastructure - the number of doctors and hospitals - would be swamped if 47 million new customers entered the market. The experience in Massachusetts, where the state made health care universal confirms this to be true. You cannot just walk into an office and see a doctor in Massachusetts, you have to schedule a visit far in advance. Traditional means by which Government controls costs will make this worse - Okay, Massachusetts has a shortage of physicians and rising costs. So what does Massachusetts do? They talk about lowering how much they will pay doctors. So if you are a doctor

In previous posts, I have defined what I think the problems are - cost, quality, coverage. I have discussed what I think can and is being done about it. Now, I'll talk about the so-called Government health plan and, equally important, the health insurance exchange and why I think these are a bad idea. The Government Plan is a precursor to a government take over of the health care industry - at least the financing of it -- One night, there was a clip of President Obama denying this. The President said "No one is talking about a government takeover of health care." The very next film clip was of U.S. Representative Barney Frank saying that he supports the Government Plan idea because he wants to use it to push for a single payer system. So President Obama is misinformed, someone IS talking about a government takeover of health care (at least health care financing) and that someone is a very powerful member of his own party. And I think there are many others besides R

In Part 1, I said there are three problems - cost, quality, and extending coverage to 47 million people. I then went on to talk about the coverage problem. Now to discuss the cost and quality issues. Quality - studies show that medical care in this country can be of poor quality. Hundreds of thousands die each year from mistakes. Others suffer prolonged illnesses due to poor quality care. This creates human misery and also contributes substantially to higher costs. A number of things that need to be done, have been done or are started Reporting medical errors - the federal government set up a process for hospitals to self-report medical errors. Many states have done the same thing. Promote e-prescribing - Medicare has done this and many providers are using it. E-prescribing means sending a prescription from a doctor to the pharmacy electronically. When this is done, medical management systems can review a person's prescription history and help identify when a prescription

This is the first in a series of articles on health care reform. I am trying to address this in a logical fashion not the attack mode that both sides seem to be taking in DC. What are the problems that need to be solved: Cost - The overall costs of healthcare are too high. There is a difference between the cost of healthcare and the cost of health insurance. There are also relationships between the two: the cost of healthcare drives the cost of insurance higher, the way insurance works drives healthcare costs higher. Quality - Studies show that hundreds of thousands of people die each year and many more suffer prolonged illness due due to poor care. Poor care that results in added treatment also drives up the cost of healthcare. Provide coverage to those who are uninsured - This is not the same as increasing benefits. We have 47 million people (according to reports) who have no benefits. We should find a way to enable them to get coverage. 2. Providing coverage to those who are

Would the situation in Iran - where people are protesting for free and fair elections - be happening today if not for President Bush? Some people praise President Obama for his restraint on this others are condemning him. However, I have yet to see anyone in the media speak to the role President Bush and the United States have played in making this possible. President Obama's comments on the situation in Iran can be called measured. He is trying to not to say anything that might give the Iranian regime ammunition to use in putting down the protesters. Some are criticizing the President for not saying more in support of the protesters. Others believe the President is doing the right thing. I agree with the idea that the President should not provide ammunition for the current regime. However, I recall the days of President Carter and President Reagan. President Carter spoke nicely to enemies and harshly or (at best) not at all to friends, and his Administration was a disaster for

The common result of a government spending more money than it earns is devaluation of its currency. The US government's deficit increased during the Bush Administration. The Democrats and the Obama Admiminstration lifted that deficit to an enormous new level. A common effect of currency devaluation is inflation. In a bad economy, that is going to be a real problem - just ask people who lived through the Jimmy Carter Administration. First of all, let's spread this blame in a non-partisan fashion. Republicans during the Bush Adminstration years controlled Congress and the White House and they showed no fiscal discipline. The Bush Administration capped this by spending a ton of money in 2008 to try to prevent or curtail the recession - first having a stimulus tax cut at the beginning of the year and then approving the TARP bailout funds - easily a trillion dollars spent last year to prevent the recession. Now, we have the Obama Administration spending another trillion dollars for

Interesting to see how President Obama is following in President Bush's footsteps on a number of important policies. For example President Obama is continuing: To bail out AIG The TARP program for Banks To bail out of GM and Chrysler The withdrawal from Iraq Not releasing photos of prisoner abuse Spending significantly more federal dollars than the amount of taxes collected There are others, but time does not permit me to research them all. It shows that President Bush's policies were not so horrible as was suggested by Democratic candidates on the campaign trail. At the same time, one must admit there are some things President Obama has done differently - environmental issues and cracking down on credit card companies would be two areas of difference that are notable and laudable. There are areas, such as rgulatory reform of mortgage lending or types of stock trading, where President Bush did not have a chance to offer solutions

Denials by President Obama to the contrary, I have some real questions about this Administration's micromanagement of the businesses to whom they are lending taxpayer dollars. Some things they are doing make sense and are consistent with the way business normally operates. But there are a number of things this Administration is doing which exceed the boundaries of normal operations and some are both scary and can create further economic calamity. Unfortunately, no one in the "main stream media" (e.g. not labeled conservatives) are challenging the President on this. Let's start by giving credit, where credit is due - President Bush started us down this path with the bailout of AIG, the $700 million for banks under TARP, and the decision to lend money to the auto makers. President Obama is carrying on programs that President Bush started. Second, if the government is going to provide money to companies then the Government, like any lender, has the right to try to p

Earlier some Republican Governors announced they would decline Federal Stimulus funds and the media and political opponents were highly critical. The State of PA is quietly considering whether to do the same thing. The Philadelphia Inquirer does a nice job of laying out the issues that point to why a state should consider rejecting "free money" to help unemployed workers. The gist of the Inquirer article (cited below) is essentially this - the PA Unemployment Fund is broke. The downturn in the economy has outstripped the funds available. A panel was appointed to figure out what to do. One of the things they were asked to consider is whether the state should accept $273 million in federal funds from the Stimulus package. Why would PA, or any state, reject free money from the federal government? Well primarily because it is not free. It will cost the Pennsylvania $300 million to get $273 million in federal funds. As the Inquirer article does a good job of describing, to

President Obama did a very good thing yesterday. He took executives of credit card companies to the woodshed in a private meeting with them. The President then outlined a list of practices he wants to see credit card companies implement. Congratulations to President Obama for doing a very good thing. Credit card companies have long used scads of small print to mislead consumers and to be able to change terms at a whim from those the consumer agreed to at the time of entering into the contract to borrow. These have included shortening payment cycles, raising interest rates, and imposing penalties. The result is that some Americans are deeper in debt merely because of these changes and not because of their borrowing habits. There is a proper use for government regulation and this is it. President Obama has called for clear disclosure of credit card terms, ending the unilateral ability of credit card companies to change the contract terms with little or no notice and, most important

I was moved to post my thoughts on President Obama's economic policies in order to, in some small way, counter the comments of pro-Obama media persons. Specifically, Janeane Garofalo ranted (I believe on MSNBC) that everyone who opposed President Obama is a racist. She said a lot of other things derogatory about such opponents too -- tea-bagging, rednecks I think was another term used. Paul Begala, a CNN commentator, said on the Don Imus radio show that everyone who opposed President Obama's tax policies were unpatriotic. He added a variety of other derogatory comments as well. Well, if not wanting to see a return to the economic conditions that existed during the period of 1979 to 1982 makes me a racist or unpatriotic, then so be it. Unfortunately, pro-Obama commentators don't seem to want to discuss rational arguments, they just want to resort to name calling. p.s. Page back to my discussion of what is a conservative point of view if you wonder why I say "Pro-Obama

I am very concerned that the President's policies are going to lead this country into more serious economic problems than we have today. This is not to say that all aspects of the Obama Administration's policies are wrong. However, the fundamental premise of these policies is wrong. I have not heard anyone in the Obama Administration admit the difficult truth that the economy is changing nor does it seem that the goals they are pursuing reflect that. If the economy does not recover along the lines they project, then the massive expenditures being made will come home to roost in the former of significant inflation. The Obama Administration has called for spending massive amounts of money over the next few years. These amounts will raise the national debt to staggering new levels. Some of the things they are spending on are good ideas -- green technology, improving the environment, more mass transit, supporting Amtrak. All of these are good ideas. However these are merely

If you look over the last 9 years, you'll see that the liberals have come to dislike Great Britain - probably because of their support for George Bush in the War in Iraq. They prefer France, Germany, and Russia - countries that have never provided any significant support for the U.S. This disdain culminated in the past week with the shabby treatment of Great Britain's Prime Minister by the Obama administration. During the run up to the War in Iraq and throughout the War, liberals have repeatedly said the US lacked the support of "World Opinion" for what we were doing. What they meant was that we lacked the support of France, Germany, Russia, and China. The fact that we had the support of other countries, most notably Great Britain - not just support in words but with troops - was given short shrift. I don't think the liberals in the U.S. have forgiven Great Britain for helping us. You'll recall John Kerry's references to testing world opinion before acting

One good aspect of the proposed Obama budget is that Amtrak will get a significant increase in funding. If we truly want to reduce use the of gasoline, we need to make a significant commitment to rail travel. Amtrak can be a significant alternative to driving and air travel if it received proper support. The underfunding of Amtrak by the Bush Administration, and other administrations before it going back to the Reagan Administration, has been a sin. To get people to drive less and still travel, we need to give them an alternative. Trains can be that alternative. We should be promoting Faster trains between major cities - Chicago to St. Louis or Seattle, LA to Las Vegas, are just some routes that come to mind. If people felt the train could be reasonably close in travel time to flying, the comfort, easier security, and fact that trains deliver them downtown, would win over converts. More "car train" routes - trains would be significantly more attractive if the riders kno

I find the controversy with Rush Limbaugh and President Obama to be ridiculous. All sides are wrong on this. First, President Obama is wrong to allow his staff to focus the public's attention on this. Rush is wrong because his statements opposing the President's policies are too broad. Republicans are wrong for not speaking their minds on the issues when Rush calls them out. None of this is really helping the current situation. Commentators are starting to point out that President Obama's staff are wrong for focusing the public's attention on the controversy with Rush Limbaugh when there are more important issues - like the economy and health care. Ari Fleischer, former Press Secretary under President Bush, also challenged President Obama on the fact that he has repeatedly said - during the campaign and during his inaugural address - that his Administration would put politics aside. Yet his staff's focusing attention on Rush Limbaugh and the Republicans is completel

A lot of people don’t get time to watch TV and are unaware of some of the really good shows on TV. I happened across some really fun shows through a variety of means. I thought I’d list the shows I like. I have sort of an eclectic taste. As a general rule the shows I like have to have both a sense of humor and are dramatic, and they should have characters that capture my interest – although there are exceptions to the rule. There are not too many shows but I do go out of my way to watch them when they are on TV. The shows are, in no particular order: -- NCIS, Tuesday night at 8:00 p.m. on CBS: This probably is in fact my favorite show. The show caught my interest one night when I was flipping through channels because Charles Durning was on the episode. They kept my interest because, at a time when people were criticizing the military due to Iraq, NCIS treats the military with great respect and dignity. They really understand, for example, what the Marines are all about. The cast member