Obama’s message at Town Hall conflicts with his past statements

In a spirited town hall in Grand Junction, Colorado, Zach Lane, a political science and marketing major at the University of Colorado in Boulder, CO. asked President Obama the following question:

How in the world can a private organization, providing insurance, compete with an entity that does not have to worry about making a profit, does not have to pay local property taxes… they are not subject to local regulations.  How can a company compete with that?

President Obama, quick to point out that he had previously answered part of the question, jumped right and acknowledged that this situation is a possibility.  The President said, “Certainly they can’t compete if the tax payer is standing behind the public option just shoveling more and more money in…right?  That’s certainly not fair.”  While the President said that he agreed that this would be unfair competition, he failed to mention that ultimately, the public option would be paid for by the taxpayer. 

Recent statements by the President back up his current stance.  On June 15, 2009, the President addressed the American Medical Association.  During his address, the president said, “let me address an ILLEGITIMATE concern that is being put forward by those who are claiming a public option is somehow a Trojan horse for a single-payer system.”  The President’s “facts”, which he has not been able to back up, tend to suggest otherwise.

 

To put this into perspective, The President’s health care plan includes a health care exchange in which private companies, under the control of the government per provisions in the bill, would be able to offer insurance to all American citizens.  However, the public option will be competing in the plan too, operating without the worries of making a profit, or having to pay taxes.  As a result, the competition provided by the public option would ultimately force out the competition, leaving only the public option available and creating a single-payer system. 

The President has made conflicting statements, not only regarding the public option and a single-payer system, but his stance on the issue as well.  In 2003, President Obama stated “I happen to be a proponent of a single-payer system”.  He went on to spell out his plan to make it happen by taking control of both houses of Congress, as well as the White House.  He has achieved that aspect of his agenda.

While addressing SEIU during a Health Care Forum on March 24, 2007, President Obama (then Senator Obama) cemented his stance on a public option and a single-payer system by saying:

my commitment is to make sure that we’ve got universal health care for all Americans by the end of my first term as President…I would hope that we set up a system that allows those who can’t go thru their employer, to access a federal system or a state pool of some sort…but I don’t think we are going to be able to eliminate employer coverage immediately.  There’s going to be potentially some transition process.  I can envision a decade out or 15 years out or 20 years out.

Once again, the President’s goal is on its way to becoming reality.  The current health care bill being proposed by both the house and the senate, addresses universal health care for all, described as the Health Care Exchange.  Both proposals also address a “federal system” for individuals who cannot get health care thru their employer, otherwise known as the Public Option.  These two aspects will eventually “eliminate employer coverage” and transition into a single-payer system. 

While addressing Mr. Lane at the Colorado Town Hall, the President replied:

I have already said, I would not be in favor of a public option of that sort…I think that we can craft a system in which you’ve got a public option that has to operate, independently, not subsidized by tax payers.

The president continues to say “I think we can” when referring to creating a public option that will not force out the private sector.  He has yet to detail a plan that the Congressional Budget Office can validate, as to operate independent of subsidization by tax payers, which by the President’s omission, is “certainly not fair.”

Never Waste a Crisis: How The Obama Administration is Creating an Auto Crisis

Remember the sentiments expressed by Obama’s Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel?  He warned President Obama to never let a good crisis go to waste.  I think it’s fair to say that Obama is a good listener and has taken those words to heart.  Not only does he seize every opportunity to label each and every issue as a crisis to conveniently avoid his promise of transparency to the American people, but now he’s well on his way to creating his very own genuine crisis.  This is no accidental crisis, ladies and gentlemen.  We’re now in the business of creating them on purpose.  Almost as if the administration has written a play book after studying exactly what took place in the housing crisis, it has set out to get the ball rolling on the “next big thing.”

My husband, Mr. 1conservativemomma, has done a great job of explaining how the current administration’s “Cash for Clunkers” plan is digging America a deep, dark hole.  His words are below:

How did the housing crisis start?  To fully understand the nature of this question, and to accurately answer it as well, we have to turn the clock back several years to the start of the sub-prime mortgage frenzy.  In short, political pressure, led by ACORN, was put on banks to offer housing options for low income families.  Credit standards were lowered, and creative mortgage plans such as the Adjustable Rate Mortgage (ARM) and “interest only” mortgages soon became the under-qualified and even unqualified applicants’ best friend.  Unfortunately, these were the ingredients for the recipe for disaster that eventually led to the housing crisis that ballooned near the end of 2008.

People often want what they cannot have, or in this case afford.  It’s only human nature to desire bigger and better things.  So when something, or someone, comes along and shows the masses an easier or quicker way to obtain that what they desire, all logic seems to go out the window.  Millions of people bought homes with mortgages they could not afford, or could afford initially, but had no logical plan or means to keep up with future payments when payments started to rise, as stated in the fine print of their mortgage contracts which they probably did not read.  The result was inevitable, but those who pushed for this type of “creative lending” failed to acknowledge this, even though the signs were there for all to see.  As people started to fall behind on their mortgages, the banks started taking action.  Foreclosures rose, and home values quickly fell.  Eventually, this affected the responsible homeowners who only bought homes they could afford and paid their bills on time because the historical foreclosure rate soon caused even their homes to decrease in value too.

You would think that the administration would learn from the housing catastrophe and never again willfully entice people to buy what they cannot afford.

Fast forward less than one year later and the government introduced its “Cash-for-Clunkers” brain-child.

The premise of this plan is that you take your gas-guzzling vehicle to your local dealer and you will get up to a $4500 credit towards the purchase of a new fuel-efficient vehicle, such as a Toyota Camry.  This is in addition to the “scrap value price” of your newly traded-in clunker.

Sounds like a pretty good deal, right?   Of course it does.  In fact, it is too good of a deal. 

Just like all the under-qualified, low-income citizens who bought homes that they could not afford, “Cash-for-Clunkers” is enticing millions of people to purchase new cars that they cannot afford.  I am not saying this is the case for all buyers who take advantage of this program, but it is for a rather large portion of them.  We have to ask the question:  why are they driving these old clunkers in the first place?  Probably because they can’t afford a $600 car payment, in which the clunker allowance would only save approximately $90.00 a month on a 5-year finance deal.  In addition, I highly doubt that the gas that is saved on a monthly basis will be enough to cover the difference either.

Mark my words, within the next year, you are going to see a large portion of these people falling behind on their payments and auto repossession will again rise.  In addition, it will have a negative effect on those who purchased these cars without the Cash-for-Clunkers program, as it will start to decrease the value of their cars as well, just like the decline of home values in the housing crisis.  Once again, the auto industry will be in trouble because buyers, those who still have jobs, will be purchasing the one year old cars at bargain prices, instead of buying new cars.

Do these clowns in government ever learn?  Where is the common sense?  Sure, it looks good on the books in the short term, but we will pay for it down the road.  And remember, when you borrow from Peter to pay Paul, Peter will eventually come back to collect…with interest!