This is How to Support Our Friends

It has been said by Obama's critics that he has become our apologizer-in-chief oversees.  No doubt geopolitics and foreign policy can be complex, and there has to be a continual review of our nation's relationships and interactions with nations and people around the world.  History is an important part of these relationships, and of course should be taken into account as we seek to both protect our own nation, and be a force for good in the world.  But Obama seems to act as though apologizing for America, criticizing or failing to support our best allies, and befriending or accommodating our enemies will somehow lead to a greater American influence in the world.

As Mitt Romney has chosen his visits and messages in his current trip abroad, he stands in great contrast to President Obama.  His first visit was to Great Britain, which had the advantages of showing support for our most important ally and highlighting Romney's great work for the 2002 Winter Olympics of Salt Lake City.  That some mild language of criticism of London's preparation for the Games was turned into a fuss I think is more a reflection of Britain's oversensitive and leftist politicians and press than any "mistake" by Romney, who said nothing more than honest people will admit is true and in a rather mild way in response to a direct question.  

His second visit - where he is now - is to Israel, our important ally and best democracy in the Middle East. Where Obama has been critical and offish to Israel and accommodating to its enemies, Romney has shown what it means to be a true friend and ally.  Watch this powerful speech below, and read a short report on it here.

Next will be his trip to Poland - in what may be the most meaningful and emotional of the three stops. Poland - one of our most important new allies in the post Cold Ward world.  Poland - who stands boldly and independently in support of freedom and democracy and against tyranny right in the shadow of Russia.  Poland - who has been neglected and left in the cold by the Obama administration - which has sought to coddle Russia despite its attempts to dominate and control those nations in its region which it formerly brutalized as part of the Soviet Union.

Poland and the U.S. should be the best and strongest of allies, and yet Obama has left them in the dust.

Watch the video above of his speech in Israel - it gives me the greatest confidence that Mitt Romney can lead us effectively to greatness in the world.  America is ready for a comeback with Romney in the White House.

It's OK to Make a Change

Powerful messages to those who voted for Obama last time, but are uneasy or discouraged about him today:

More on 'Who Built That'

Since Barack Obama and his supporters seem determined to pretend that he said something different than what he said, let me share two items that relate: the first is a recent comment about it from Charles Krauthammer on Fox News; the second is to watch for yourself the entire video of the speech put out by the Obama team itself.  Decide for yourself what he meant.

From Special Report with Bret Baier | Wednesday, July 25, 2012

On whether Republicans can still make use of President Obama’s “you didn’t build that” remark:

"Yes, because it was the ultimate gaffe. It betrayed what he really believes. And in context you can see [it] because he elaborates on this. It isn’t one thing that slipped out. I think the RNC, Romney ought to run… the whole context, run the whole thing in an endless loop until the end of time or at least until the election, which seems about the same length of time.

But it is so damming. For Obama to go in that [new] ad and say: what I meant is we have to support — we have to get behind — success. I would play that and then just show him beginning his ["you didn't build that"] remarks [by] mocking success and saying: “You think you’re so smart, that it was your intelligence? You think it was your hard work?”

In other words, he was saying — in introducing the whole ["you didn't build that"] idea — that if you succeed, it wasn’t your brains or your sweat. It was what? It was government.

That’s what he believes. It’s the essence of his philosophy of society — that it is government centered, whereas the conservative, Republican idea essentially is individual-centered. It is a contrast that is… very clear. And because it’s so revealing, Obama has to keep pretending he said something else.

He didn’t. All you have to do is watch the tape, read the transcript."

And here it is:



And from Jay Nordlinger of National Review Online comes this to put a point on it:

A reader whose father-in-law was a dissident in the Soviet Union makes the following observation:

“When the Soviets denied people the right to emigrate to America or Israel, they often said, ‘The State has educated you, so your know-how is State property. It does not belong to you.’ These people had not built themselves, so to speak. The State, in its benevolence, had built them, and it had a right to all they produced.”

Hear From Those Who DID 'Build That'

"You Didn't Build That" Obama

Since we're talking about free markets and the dramatically different views Romney and Obama take of free markets, Obama gave some revealing statements at a recent campaign speech.  Paraphrasing, he said that the successful business owners are not due special credit for their success, because they couldn't have done it alone, and - apparently - "because there are other smart people and hard workers out there."

This does not seem hard for me, but apparently it is for Mr. Obama, so let's spell it out.  While of course it's true that none of us are totally "self made" and we benefit and learn from others - that is, we all contribute to one another's lives - it clearly is not true that all people take equal advantage of the opportunities afforded them.

Obama used the example of bridges and other public infrastructure that may be necessary for a particular business and business owner to thrive and succeed.  And yet, other businesses and individuals have access to the same bridges and roads but may not take advantage of this or succeed to the same degree - for various reasons, true, but the fact remains.

The harsh truth is that if you take Obama's reasoning to its logical conclusion, he's demeaning individual effort and innovation.  One business owner is motivated and outworks and outthinks his competitor and therefore succeeds - along with his employees and their families - but Obama gives no extra credit there because "maybe they had a teacher who taught them well" in the past, etc.

Consider a society which demeans any extraordinary individual effort and creativity - does that not start to look and feel like socialism, even communism?  This is critical because it reflects Obama's worldview.  Is it a worldview that will lead America to rise again as it has in the past?

Paul Ryan, in a Facebook post, says it well:

"The President recently suggested that a central government – not individuals – deserves the credit for building successful businesses. This sentiment makes for terrible economics, but also reveals a confused morality. In a free community, everyone co-operates by voluntarily offering unique gifts: some invent, some invest, others labor, or sell while customers reward the best producers and providers by buying their products and services. Government has a critical role to play in this process: establishing rules that enable open competition and securing peace and order with courts, defense forces, first responders, teachers, infrastructure, and a safety net for the most vulnerable. Government helps create the space for innovation and prosperity, but government does not fill that space – and it should not try to, as the last few years have shown us. Only free citizens create things that improve our lives. A free economy and strong communities are the best means to reward effort with justice, to promote upward mobility, and to build solidarity among citizens. The President’s vision of a government-centered society – reflected in both his troubling rhetoric and his failed policies – belittles fair rewards for labor and enterprise. To renew prosperity and rebuild our communities, we must recommit to the American Idea of freedom and justice for all."

And hear this from Mr. Romney today:



I'm going with Mitt Romney on this one.  You?

UPDATE: More great thoughts on the topic in this interview of Mark Levin.  Excellent.

Amazing Bain Capital Job Creation

Somehow Obama's disingenuous attacks on Mitt Romney for his work at Bain Capital back in the day manages to be simultaneously maddening, pathetic, and hilarious.  [By the way, Mr. Obama, we all know you are just trying to avoid talking about the painful economy under your watch - you're not fooling anyone.]

That said, these attacks do represent a nice opportunity for discussion about how free markets actually function, and the incredible benefits that can come from free markets and the drive of individuals and groups of personally motivated individuals to create success (not just monetary success, by the way, but many other kinds of success that these individuals are motivated to achieve).

Consider just a few thoughts on this:
(1) Consumers (whether individuals or organizations) look to purchase goods/services at the lowest price still consistent with adequate quality.  Businesses that provide adequate quality at a lower price tend to succeed.  Aiming for this can, in the short term, sometimes mean cutting jobs that do not contribute efficiently to the company's production of goods and services.  But in the long run, if sales go up then the company grows and hires more people.
(2) There is an even greater impact beyond an individual company on whole sectors of the economy and the economy as a whole.  Because of competition in a free market, if one company is succeeding, other companies watch and start to copy.  This puts downward pressure on prices and upward pressure on quality.  This frees up more money of consumers to look for other places to spend their money.  Many jobs are created and many people benefit from this process.

Read more about this and how it happened at Bain Capital under Mitt Romney's watch here.  It's well worth the read.

Doing Your Research...

It seems that deception and sleight-of-hand are too often a part of politics.  Unfortunately, the Obama administration seems to be practicing this "ancient art" heavily in this campaign.  In 2008, Obama was a relatively new and untested quantity, and could paint an uncrowded "hopeful" landscape uncluttered by reality.  Now, of course, he has four years of reality he has to deal with, and it is unflattering at best - horrifying at worst in some areas.  So, he and his campaign are trying constantly to deflect attention from his record by distracting and trying to point fingers at Romney for many small and old and even made-up issues.  Our job as educated voters, I think, is to learn enough not to get suckered by all this.

Below are a couple of sound bites and links to information that can give you a quick reminder or update in some of these areas.  A couple are from the RNC; they've done a nice job collecting and presenting this information.  Enjoy!

A timeline "History of Obamacare" as a reminder of the tortured way it was presented, passed, and defended by Obama and his team, and the fact that it has been unpopular before, during, and since the debate and remains unpopular with the American people.

And here is a banner-link to a resource that shows how many of the jobs from Obama's government-funded stimulus have gone oversees.  In an integrated world economy, you would expect some of this to happen, but this has some calling Obama our "Outsourcer-in-Chief" - and it highlights Obama's hypocrisy in trying to falsely accuse Romney's former company, Bain, of outsourcing jobs overseas:

Click here to see where all the money and jobs have gone under Obama.

The Obama campaign's false ads and statements about Romney and Bain Capital led Romney supporter, John Sununu, to this in an interview with Andrea Mitchell:

Sununu: “The outsourcing issue really causes two problems for President Obama. One: It underscores his dishonesty. The ad they were running – which all the independent fact-checking groups have said is dishonest – ends with President Obama saying “I’m President Obama and I approve this message.“ It should say, “I’m President Obama and I approve this dishonest message.” And the second problem he has with outsourcing is that there is a huge amount of outsourcing which was driven by Obama policy. The money – the $500 million they gave to FISKAR – created jobs in Finland. The solar energy grants they gave created jobs in Mexico. The wind turbine grants they gave created jobs in Denmark. So, the point that I think is really interesting is that the outsourcing issue underscores how few smarts there are in this White House and in this Obama campaign – that they expose themselves to the response criticism that I think – unlike what Mr. Cilliza said – is going to end up making this a winning issue for Mitt Romney."

 We need to keep our eye on the ball in this campaign and be able to see through the Obama team distractions.  We can do this...

Romney Speech to NAACP

What an excellent speech and so well handled in a challenging - and potentially hostile - environment as a Republican presidential candidate speaking to the NAACP.  Makes me very proud to support Romney in his campaign for the presidency.  I was also impressed by the audience.  They seemed genuinely and sincerely respectful based on the audio.  One of my favorite conservative writers, Kathryn Jean Lopez, had a nice review of the speech here.

What's Up with Obamacare? From a Doc...

First, let me dispense with one issue: there are a couple of probably-decent ideas embedded in the "Obamacare" legislation.  It's unrealistic to think that government won't have a hand in our healthcare business, but at least it should be limited and smart/helpful.  There are numerous problems with the healthcare insurance market (many of which are caused or made worse by government regulation), but the worst in some ways is the way "pre-existing" conditions can prevent people from obtaining insurance at all or at anything like an affordable rate.  Another is the fact that insurance is tied to an employer rather than chosen by and tied to an employee (individual/family).  And all of this is more complex because insurance companies operate within each state's laws rather than being able to function across state borders (thus unnecessarily limiting options for consumers/patients and decreasing competition that can lower costs to those consumers/patients).

These issues can (and probably should) be dealt with after Obamacare is killed.

Which brings us to this: why should Obamacare be killed?

There are many reasons, but let's focus on these four:
(1) It will increasingly reduce what personal freedoms we still retain over time.
(2) It will be a financial disaster for our nation.
(3) It will end up reducing the quality, level of service and convenience, and the innovation of our healthcare system.
(4) Government has a terrible track record of running any large enterprise well, and this would be larger than anything previously managed by the federal government.

REDUCTION OF PERSONAL FREEDOMS

If anything should get our blood boiling as Americans, it's further government intrusion on our freedom as individuals to live as we would live.  How will Obamacare restrict our personal freedom?  It comes down to two simple facts: if the government pays for something, it will increasingly attempt to control that thing simply in an attempt to control costs; also, if we give government bureaucrats the power to control aspects of our life that affect our health, they will increasingly wield that power.  And what decisions that you make on a daily basis do not impact on your health?  Suddenly, it gives government a powerful interest in controlling what you eat, what you drink, what physical activities you do or do not do, what hours you can work, what kind of work you can do, every aspect of your interaction with the environment, how much noise you can make and where...it can become quite exhaustive if you think about it.  And believe me, the government will think about it sooner or later.  Think Mayor Bloomberg of New York just randomly came up with his idea to pass a law restricting the amount of soda you can order at a restaurant in New York City?  No...it's because New York pays for much of the health care of its citizens and thus the expanding waistline of New Yorkers becomes a budget issue.  So, he wants to control that.  And what else will he want to control at the end of the day?

The second simple fact here is that incredible power over our lives will be placed in the hands of 15 bureaucrats in Washington if Obamacare fully comes into effect.  They are unelected and yet will have more power than Mayor Bloomberg to control what health care you can and cannot get, and every other aspect of our health as the federal government becomes increasingly in control of the whole system.

Is this what you want?  If not, you have one option at this point...and only one...help get Romney and the Republicans elected in November.  Otherwise, there is no obstacle to Obamacare taking this control of our lives.  Obama himself certainly won't overturn it if he is re-elected...he will just take it even further...that's one thing we can be sure of.

FINANCIAL DISASTER

When Obamacare was passed, we were told it would be at least close to "budget neutral" over the first ten years.  Of course, we knew even then that this could only be said because the Obama administration and Democrats in Congress pulled a series of Enronesque account tricks, "cooked the books" and forced the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) to make certain assumptions that were laughable on their face.

Then come to find out that even with all those accounting tricks and political games, the cost of Obamacare is ALREADY being increased significantly in the estimates of the CBO.  Well, anyone paying any attention to this stuff can't be surprised by that.

Not being surprised by the massive and increasing costs involved in Obamacare, though, does not change the reality that just at a time of great national peril with a massive and increasing budget deficit - and with even bigger outlays ahead with "promised" benefits of social security, medicare, and other "entitlements" - Obama has inserted another program with tremendous costs going forward.

To me, this is fiscal mismanagement of horrifying degree.  I don't know how they feel they can get away with it.  Maybe they think we will somehow "grow our way" out of the problem with our economy galloping forward for years?  Anyone who really thinks our economy is going to grow fast enough to pay for all this - I just don't get it.

The worst part is...if you've noticed...Obama and the Democrats have NOT PUT FORWARD ANY SERIOUS PROPOSAL to handle this mounting crisis.  No proposal to cut back on anything significant.  No proposal for serious reform of any entitlement spending.  Nothing.

It's a simple question: do you trust Obama on these matters at this point?  Or Mitt Romney, with his track record in business, as head man over the Salt Lake Olympics, and as governor of Massachusetts?

REDUCING THE RESPONSIVENESS OF OUR HEALTH CARE SYSTEM

There are some things the government can be effective at with health care.  When they want to, they can put an awful lot of pressure on people to get certain treatments deemed best for society.  This can often be a good thing for individuals as well in terms of health issues.  The classic example is immunizations.  The government can impact your schooling and employment options, travel, etc. in order to get people immunized.

I'm a proponent of our vaccines recommendations and think the CDC is responsible in its approach, but my point is that government has ways to get such things done when it is considered in the public interest to do so.

What the government has a long history of being terrible at is running complex service-oriented enterprises.  There are so many variables and complexities in such enterprises that it seems to stymie sclerotic bureaucracies.

When a problem can perhaps be handled with gentle use of a scalpel, government tends to bring a sledge hammer.  Or a drill.  And it takes them far to long to realize they've used perhaps the wrong tool.

A few simple examples:
- Through Obamacare, the estimates were that some 30+ million more people would get insurance through government and other programs and therefore be able to get more regular health care at doctors offices and other care centers.  Access to health care services is generally a helpful and good thing with potential benefits.  But in a practical sense, consider 30 million more people suddenly hitting the nation's existing medical clinics.  Are there suddenly more doctors to see them?  If there are more people trying to see the same number of providers, doesn't that start to equate to longer waiting times, less time with the doctor, or having to see a less trained provider?

Did you hear anything during the Obamacare debate about this issue?  I sure didn't and I was following I think very closely.  Why?  Maybe I'm jaded, but I suspect it's because government pays for a good part of the training of medical providers, so if they included expanded training programs for more providers, they would have had to include those costs in the estimates for Obamacare, which would have made the fiscal impact picture look much worse.  Wouldn't want to be honest about the real costs involved, now, would we?  Leave that to later when the costs can be buried in other programs in other budgets.  Apparently.

- Many services currently provided through medical clinics are organized and ordered by physicians but run through nurses and other health professionals.  They can include additional education and health coaching, etc.  As financial pressures mount under Obamacare, the pressure will be to reimburse providers less.  Do that and the funds that pay for these extra services dry up.  There are many similar ways in which the quality of service and the responsiveness of the medical system will be impaired under Obamacare as it rolls out.  Think you've had problems with "the system" as it is now?  Let's just say you'll come to expect much less eventually under Obamacare.  Don't mean to be a downer, but I think it's inevitable given the realities of how the system would be directed and financed.

- Read more about a New York doctor's concerns about how Obamacare will hurt patients and doctors and the quality of our system here.

GOVERNMENT MISMANAGEMENT

I always like to ask friends who consider themselves to be liberal or "progressive" to give me an example of a large, complex, sustained, public service oriented program that the government has run successfully.  It's an awfully difficult question to answer.

There are reasons for this, and it's not that government workers are bad or want to provide bad service or bloated, inefficient services.

But, the reality still exists and must be recognized.  My own opinion on this may be summed up in saying that anytime the people managing the system do not have much or any "skin in the game," they tend to overreach and try to do more than they can effectively do.  Any time these people are sitting ensconced on high in their towers in the District of Coumbia and are not "in the game themselves" on a daily basis, they tend not to understand the "little" daily realities that complicate the efficient delivery of goods and services.  And similar issues exist on the side of the "customer" or receiver of services.  A distant government bureaucrat is impersonal and so there is no sense of balance or negotiation but just of "milking the system" for whatever one can get.  The more local the organization and control, there more there is a natural interpersonal pressure to have conversation, back-and-forth negotiation and questions and answers.  In a practical sense I think these kinds of things are what lead to so much government waste and inefficiency.

The complexities of the health care system - with which I am very familiar, I think, as a practicing physician - are immense.  I think the odds of Obamacare government being able to handle these effectively and efficiently are...to put it kindly...remote.

SUMMARY

This has been long, but I hope a helpful perspective.  What I may not have been able to convey given the length of this post is this: I truly believe we get ONE AND ONLY ONE chance to reverse this process, and it comes on the first Tuesday of November on Election Day.  Mitt Romney said it best on Thursday. “If we want to get rid of Obamacare, we’re going to have to replace President Obama.”  More than that: If he [Romney] does not win - and, critically - if the Republicans do not retake the Senate and hold onto the House - then Obamacare and its attendant consequences will become a fixture in government so integrated that I don't think it could ever be fully extricated.

If you care about the issues above, you must help in this effort or we will all suffer the consequences if we fail.  It's that important, and our only chance is NOW.  The Supreme Court - and Justice Roberts in particular - has declined to protect us against this erosion of our freedom when that should be their main job.  But beyond that, it was not the Court's job to protect us from the other unwise, even dangerous, effects of this legislation.  Only the President and the Congress can do that.  Let's not let up until we get that President - and that Congress - who can help us avert this coming disaster.