Public Angst Grows

Recent polls indicate increasing disaffection with the economic and social policies being forced upon the American public by the controllers in Washington.   The American public thought that they voted for “change” but what we seem to be getting is micro management and obtrusive government interference into our  lives.

The imperial Washington power structure seems oblivious to the fact that most Americans do not trust their government and believe that their financial situation is being made worse, not better, by government policies.

Here are the results from the latest polls that are beginning to show a major disconnect between the average American and an out of control power elite in Washington who believe they know “what is best for us”.

Why Obama’s Ratings Are Sinking

Instead, Gallup reports that disapproval of the president’s economic policies has grown to 49% in July from 30% in February. Even among the president’s core supporters, young people in the 18-29 age group, his overall approval has dropped 11 points since January.

Dissatisfaction is spreading into open protest as members of Congress try to explain the president’s policies to the public. Angry voters have engaged in high-profile confrontations in town-hall meetings around the country over a proposed health-care overhaul that protesters complain is unaffordable, socialistic, incomprehensible, and which their representatives have not even read.

The president’s sinking approval ratings are due precisely to his administration’s free-spending ways. In a July 2009 Gallup poll, the No. 1 reason for disapproval of the president’s economic policies was, literally, “spending too much.” In second place was the worry that the president is “leading the nation toward socialism” through government takeovers and bailouts.

In January 2009, the Pew Research Center asked about 2,000 Americans, “Do you think the government does more to help or more to hurt people trying to move up the economic ladder?” Amid the most frightening economic crisis in decades, more Americans still said the government would hurt than the number who thought it would help (50% versus 39%). Independent surveys from roughly the same period found that only one in five Americans believed he or she could trust the government.

Citizens will put up with a lot—but not with anyone who imperils our future.

There is no evidence that more than a minority of Americans accept the idea that a $17 trillion national debt, greater reliance on government for jobs and health, and hyper-progressive taxation offer the hope they deserve for themselves and their children. The administration and Congress can deny these truths with charges of un-Americanism and implausible conspiracy theories about the current citizen demonstrations. But opinion polls deliver an honest expression of unhappiness over the direction our nation is taking.

The ruling elite in Washington seem to be oblivious to or ignoring the reality of America’s growing disaffection with the course the nation is taking.  The approval rating of Congress is at 30%.  Only one if five Americans trust their government.   Many Americans believe that government policies are financially bankrupting the country and the future of our children.   It’s almost as if our country was being run by overlords, appointed by a foreign power.  It’s time for change indeed - the problem is that the “changes” being forced upon us are not quite what we had in mind.

Postal Service Poor Analogy

Now we know why the President usually does not say much without the Teleprompter in front of him; why in the world would you mention the Post Office when trying to convince America that the government should take over the health care system?

The Post Office is a prime example of how a lack of competition leads to high prices.  Without competition, there is no need to worry about raising prices, providing good service or running an efficient organization - higher prices are simply passed on to the consumer.   Productivity has been growing in the private sector for decades, especially with the efficiencies gained through the Internet.  Yet year after year, the Post Office relentlessly raises rates far in excess of the consumer price index.

Cost Of A Stamp

Consider some of the other obnoxious results of a government run monopoly as detailed in a recent Wall Street Journal Opinion column:

Whatever possessed President Obama to mention the travails of the post office while discussing health care the other day, his timing was certainly apt. The Postal Service is headed toward a loss of $7 billion this year and another $7 billion in 2010.

Most mail today is delivered electronically via email. Traditional postal mail volume has fallen by nearly 20% since 2000, and the average household gets one-third fewer letters than a decade ago.

No private business in America could continually raise prices, lose billions of dollars and then hope to win back customers by promising poorer service.

Here’s a secret Washington doesn’t want to admit: That 14 cent per letter cost hike after inflation over the past 60 years imposes a $20 billion a year toll on the U.S. economy.

Most employees have no-layoff clauses, the starting salaries are about 25% to 30% higher than for comparably skilled private workers, and the fringe benefits are so expensive that the Government Accountability Office says $500 million a year could be saved merely by bringing health benefits into line with those of other federal workers.

The most overdue reform is to strip away the Post Service’s monopoly on first-class mail and bulk mail. Competition is the key ingredient to innovation, low prices and good service. This was Mr. Obama’s insight at his recent health-care town hall when he noted that “UPS and FedEx are doing just fine, right? No, they are. It’s the Post Office that’s always having problems.”

The argument has been made for 200 years that the postal monopoly is necessary to “bind the nation together.” Once that was at least plausible. But today the Internet delivers to the most remote corners of Alaska and the Badlands at one-one-hundredth the cost of snail mail. The sooner Congress requires the Postal Service to shrink and adapt to this reality, the smaller will be the losses imposed on taxpayers.

To expect a government health care monopoly to be run efficiently defies common sense and the American public knows it.  The attempt to quickly ramrod massive health care legislation into law before allowing public discussion is an outrage against democracy.

The haste to force health care legislation upon the American public implies that those pushing for  “quick” legislation knew that in the light of day, the American public would reject it or demand further information on the cost/benefits of proposed changes.  Elected representatives are supposed to represent the public view rather than arrogantly assume that they know what is best.  The uncontrollable, unaccountable  and free spending mob now running the country needs a course in basic democracy.

Senator Dodd’s Denials An Insult To The Citizens

Most people refinancing their mortgage go to a bank and then get whatever  prevailing mortgage rate they qualify for.  When you are a Senator with vast powers over the financial industry, things are different - the bank comes to you and you get a special rate.

Does anyone really believe that Senator Dodd did not think he was being given special treatment?  If the Senator is really that naive, it must be extremely easy for special interests groups to take advantage of him at the expense of the American public.

Testimony: Sens. Conrad, Dodd Told They Were Getting VIP Loans

Washington (AP) - Two influential Senate committee chairmen were told they were getting special VIP deals when they applied for mortgages, an official who handled their loans told Congress in closed-door testimony.

Democratic Sens. Christopher Dodd and Kent Conrad had denied knowing they were getting discounts when they negotiated their loan terms.

Robert Feinberg, who worked in the VIP section of Countrywide Financial Corp., testified about the loan terms before the Senate Ethics Committee, and provided the same information in an interview with Republican investigators of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. He could be prosecuted for making false statements.

Both senators have said that at the time the mortgages were being written they didn’t know they were getting unique deals from Countrywide, a company that lost billions of dollars on bad loans and since has been purchased by Bank of America.

Dodd, D-Conn., who is chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, still maintains that he got no preferential treatment. Conrad, D-N.D., who leads the Senate Budget Committee, took that position initially, but later acknowledged he did get a special deal.

Senator Dodd, no reasonably intelligent person believes that you did not know you were getting very special treatment.   You have been dishonest with the public before when caught in special deals with special interest groups.  Your plea of ignorance defies common sense and is an insult to the people you represent.

Countrywide VIPs, Feinberg told the committees, received discounts on rates, fees and points. Dodd received a break when Countrywide counted both his Connecticut and Washington homes as primary owner-occupied residences — a fiction, according to Feinberg. Conrad received a type of commercial loan that he was told Countrywide didn’t offer.

“The simple fact that Angelo Mozilo and other high-ranking executives at Countrywide were personally making sure Mr. Feinberg handled their loans right is proof in itself that the senators knew they were getting sweetheart deals,” said Feinberg’s principal attorney, Anthony Salerno.

Conrad initially said in June 2008, “If they did me a favor, they did it without my knowledge and without my requesting it.”

The next day, Conrad changed course after reviewing documents showing he got special treatment and said he was donating $10,500 to charity and refinancing the loan on the apartment building with another lender. He also said then it appeared Countrywide had waived 1 point at closing on the beach house.

At least Senator Conrad had the courage (after being exposed) to admit accepting special favors that would never be available to the average borrower.

Disturbing Pattern of Lies, Corruption And Special Interests

Senator Dodd’s re-election campaign seems to be based on the following strategy:

“Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it”.

Senator Dodd is running ads that try to portray him as Joe Six Pack, always ready to pitch in and help working class Connecticut citizens that he claims to have so much in common with.   The average Connecticut worker, of course, can only dream about leading the specially privileged and wealthy lifestyle that Mr Dodd enjoys.  Dodd has as much in common with the average Connecticut citizen as a $1 a day Chinese laborer has in common with the Chinese President.

Lobbyists Love Dodd

Senator Dodd publicly advertises himself as the man who stands up against the special interests while at the same time accepting large donations and special gifts from them.  Election campaigns are not cheap and the Senator has gladly accepted money from special interests and lobbyists.  The same parties enriching the Senator expect and have received special treatment in return.

In return for contributions from AIG, Senator Dodd tried to exempt AIG executives from receiving bonuses.  His first reaction as a politician when exposed by the press, was to deny the truth and later blame it on “his staff”.

Wealthy Senator Needs More

The Senator, a very wealthy man, saw fit to take a special low cost low rate mortgage from none other than Countrywide Mortgage, a company responsible for ruining millions of lives.  When exposed by the press, he offered the usual denial and ignorance of his special treatment.  How exactly, Senator, do you define someone accepting a special financial favor based on a position of power?

While denying ties  special interests in the health care industry, Mr Dodd’s wife is paid $80,000 a year as a member of the board of directors at Cardiome Pharma.  Board members usually work a few days a year and are typically appointed  based on their connections to powerful members of government.   The typical Connecticut working person can only dream about a no nothing board position paying $80,000 per year.

The Senator may say that he has been working hard for the citizens during his 28 years in office, but he seems to be working even harder for himself.    Connecticut deserves better than Dodd.

Dodd’s Uneasy Dance With Drug Lobbyists

For Mr. Dodd, the support provided by the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, or PhRMA, the industry’s lobbying arm, comes at a politically sensitive, if not awkward, time. He is trying to combat a perception that he has become too close to powerful interest groups in Washington after 28 years in the Senate.

But even as Mr. Dodd attempts to distance himself from these special interests, he is clearly relying on their help as he prepares for his re-election, a reality seized upon by his Republican critics.

He has not only benefited from the hundreds of thousands of dollars in advertisement courtesy of the pharmaceutical industry and Families U.S.A., a health-care advocacy group the industry teamed up with. But a few weeks ago, Mr. Dodd attended a $1,500-a-plate campaign fund-raiser sponsored by lobbyists representing U.S. Oncology, a provider of cancer drugs and services.

The support Mr. Dodd has received from PhRMA comes at a crucial time politically for him, with polls showing voters in his home state disapproving of his performance.

Mr. Dodd’s problems stem in part from the view among some voters that he has developed cozy ties with the corporations he is supposed to oversee in his capacity as a senior member of several committees with jurisdiction over the financial, health care and other industries.

In some ways, he is to blame for this perception.

In March he faced a firestorm over his support for a measure that would serve to exempt American International Group, a big campaign contributor of his, from Congressional efforts to limit some executive compensation packages to Wall Street firms that received federal bailout money. After initially denying that he was behind the measure, he acknowledged that his staff introduced it at the urging of the Obama administration.

That came only months after he was accused of receiving preferential treatment from Countrywide Financial Corporation, which assigned him to a V.I.P. program in 2003 when he refinanced mortgages on his homes in Connecticut and Washington. Mr. Dodd said that he did not believe that he received preferential rates, however.

Over his decades in Congress Mr. Dodd has raised more than $550,000 from drug company representatives, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

In addition, Mr. Dodd’s wife, Jackie Clegg, was paid nearly $80,000 as a member of the board of Cardiome Pharma Corporation, according to the documents most recently filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Ms. Clegg also holds more than 200,000 shares in Javelin Pharmaceuticals, where she is also a board member.

Power Mad Officials Go To Far

The Supreme Court recently found that the constitutional rights of a 13 year old female child had been violated by an overzealous Arizona school administration that forced the child to submit to a humiliating strip search.  Although not prohibiting schools from conducting future strip searches of children, the Court held that school officials must have “specific suspicions” before conducting a full body search.

Washington Post - A SUPREME COURT majority ruled yesterday that the 2003 in-school strip search of a 13-year-old student violated her constitutional rights against unreasonable search or seizure. As in many cases, how the justices got to this result is as important as the result itself; in this matter, a six-justice majority correctly balanced the privacy interests of the student with the need to preserve school officials’ flexibility to maintain order and safety.

Savana Redding was in middle school in Arizona when a classmate told school officials that she had gotten over-the-counter naproxen, an anti-inflammatory pill, and prescription-strength ibuprofen from Savana. The school had a no-tolerance policy on drugs and banned the possession even of nonprescription pain relievers without explicit permission. Although law enforcement officials must have “probable cause” to conduct a warrantless search, school officials are required only to have “reasonable suspicion.”

The Supreme Court agreed that the strip search violated the Constitution but wisely refused to embrace the 9th Circuit’s logic. Instead, the justices reaffirmed their earlier analysis that a search “will be permissible in its scope when the measures adopted are reasonably related to the objectives of the search and not excessively intrusive in light of the age and sex of the student and the nature of the infraction.” The invasiveness of a strip search, wrote Justice David Souter for the majority, requires that school officials have “specific suspicions” that the student is hiding contraband in undergarments.

It seems to me that when you giving a public official the power to detain and strip search someone based on “specific suspicions” (whatever that means) you will have situations where that power is abused.

We can all agree that schools should be drug free.  That being said, it seems absurd to treat school children like criminals if they are caught in possession of common aspirin or other harmless over the counter medications that all of us use without thinking twice. Perhaps our schools should be equally concerned with graduating high school  students who can read and write properly.

No where, in any of the press coverage on this Court decision, have I seen any mention of the role that parents should play in contributing to a safe school environment.  Sorry, but public employees should not and will not ever properly substitute for the role of responsible  parents in establishing proper conduct guidelines for their children. Prior to subjecting the child in question to a strip search, why were the parents not contacted to discuss the situation?    Let’ s hope the reason was not due to the hubris of school officials thinking that they can raise children better than the parents.