Medicare/Medicaid and Social Security - part one

This past week has provided more than sufficient evidence that there is a fundamental disconnect between the two political parties and specifically their presumptive nominees on the issue of funding Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid.

For reasons that escape the majority of the electorate, there is being presented two absolutely diametrically opposed realities of the financial health of these programs, both short term and for the future, despite the universally bipartisan accepted  truth that all of the programs are facing imminent financial distress.

President Obama claims that he has secured the future for the foreseeable future without changing the benefits provided for anyone.

Mr. Romney and Representative Ryan are presenting that their vision includes not changing it for today’s’ recipients, but if enacted, their policies will provide secure benefit options for all future recipients.

To clarify – both candidates claim that their respective solutions leave the present unaffected but the future secure and that their opponents are intent on throwing the elderly off of cliffs, under buses and generally leaving them destitute in the street.

This is not possible; both versions cannot be true.

One party is obfuscating the facts to a much greater degree than the other.

In short, someone is lying to the American electorate.

The principle charge against the President is that he has taken some seven hundred billion dollars from Medicare to fund the needs of the Affordable care Act, principally we are told by employing the granddaddy of all canards – “cutting waste fraud and abuse”.

The fact is that many a federal budget has been created by promising revenue from that particular source: this nation currently has a fourteen billion dollar debt with expectations of adding to that debt by one trillion dollars a year for the foreseeable future.

There cannot have been sufficient amounts of ‘waste, fraud and abuse’ in the history of man to provide sufficient revenue to address that level of fiduciary malfeasance.

Mr. Romney and congressman Ryan are presenting a scenario wherein those currently in the Social Security and Medicare programs will remain unencumbered by any changes, for they and those over the age of 55 are exempt from their plan. Those Americans aged 54 and under will have the option to remain in the programs as they exist or choose from a new slate of options, currently proposed to include the health care options afforded to all government employees. Their plan also calls for the repeal of the Affordable care Act and to return the seven hundred plus billions of dollars to Medicare that the President has accounted for in his plan.

As these two opposing concepts cannot coexist as a solution to the pressing issues, the Madison Conservative will attempt to provide factual context for both plans in upcoming blog posts.

As a matter of stated principle, the Madison Conservative is a proponent of smaller government, in the model envisioned for America by the framers and the founders, so it can be anticipated that there will be an objection based upon the supposition that ours will be a biased presentation of the two plans.

It is our intent to provide as much factual information as possible before providing an assessment of which plans adheres to the American sensibility of  freedom.

Paul Ryan

(ed. note – as a matter of policy, the Madison Conservative does not endorse any political party or specific candidate. The following discussion is intended to frame the 2012 presidential campaign now that Mr. Romney has selected his running mate)

The selection of Paul Ryan as the vice-presidential candidate for the Republican Party has been heralded by some as a ‘courageous’ choice, and lambasted as the selection of ‘an extreme right-wing ideologue’ by those who hold a contrarian political perspective.

Both attempted delineations are ridiculous – ‘courageous’ is more aptly reserved for those in the military, firefighters and by the folks working two jobs to support their families. ‘Extreme ideologue’ is more apropos for one in power who is looking to attain unilateral control of a nation – its use for a seven term member of Congress from Wisconsin would be comical if not so wildly imbecilic.

What the selection of Mr. Ryan does foreshadow however is the potential for a serious discussion on the economic future of this nation. That deliberation by the American people will resonate for generations in a way that previously promoted ‘elections of our lifetime’, as the political zealots trumpet every four years, have never actually attained as a status.

Mr. Ryan has done what the Obama administration and the Democratic Senate have failed to do for the past four years; he has presented a thorough budget plan. To be fair, the Presidents’ budget did garner a full floor vote in the Senate once – it failed 97-0. Congressman Ryan’s’ budget proposals have passed the House of Representatives twice, only to arrive at the Senates’ doorstep “DOA” – dead on arrival - unilaterally decided so by Majority leader Senator Harry Reid .

Mr. Romney’s’ theory on the basis for his candidacy is his acknowledged business acumen. There is little debate that he does indeed “know how to make a buck”. He is a true capitalist and understands the basic premises behind a free market economy. His choice of Mr. Ryan demonstrates that he believes that the financial health of the country is the paramount campaign issue. Mr. Ryan has demonstrated a unique ability to master the almost indecipherable national budget process and to clearly describe same.

There are many who may disagree with the choices made in what is now labeled as the “Ryan Budget”. What has been previously lacking is a serious discussion on what those choices are and the hard choices they will mandate as the nation struggles to regain its firm financial footing.

The selection of Mr. Ryan will now necessitate that all parties face the real challenges to America and understand the almost farcical nature of making the campaign about tax returns.

We applaud any substantive act that brings serious discussion to the forefront of the body politic. The sycophantic mass media will now need to understand the bigger issues and that such issues will never translate into ridiculous and trite sound bites.

The American electorate has been presented with the opportunity to engage all serious participants with a voice in the direction of the greatest nation the world has ever known in a true national debate on the meaning and purpose of America.

It must be grabbed on with both hands and not allowed to be distracted by the political cowardice and intellectual dishonesty that the process has previously been subjected to – for ourselves and our posterity.

Freedom of Speech Under Assault

The adage used to be that you might disagree with every fiber of your being what someone else might say, but you would defend with your life their right to say it.

The freedom of speech guaranteed under the United States Constitution is amongst the most precious gifts entrusted to us by the founders and the framers.

This past week has shown two glaring examples of how that right is under assault under the guise of what is euphemistically called by its proponents as ‘hate speech’ in one instance and by the Majority leader of the United States Senate as a political gaming chip in the other.

The first event was the assault on Chik-Fil-A. The first fact that must be established and fully understood is that there is absolutely not one shred of evidence that the corporation has ever discriminated against anyone, at any time, for any reason. Ever. While many on the political left and their accompanying media sycophants have tried to frame the entire Chik-Fil-A situation as an example of hate speech, as a gay rights/homophobia event, the facts to not hold true to that belief.

It is none of those, try as they may to construct an argument around it.

To wit:

At the core of this nonsense is that the chairman of the company expressed his view that marriage was a traditional institution that applied solely to one man and one woman. That was what he believes; it is part of his deeply held religious faith. He runs his company based upon that belief system – the Chik-Fil-A restaurants are not open on Sunday, in deference to that religious tenet of resting on the seventh day.

That is the issue – what the chairman said, spoke, announced, stated, and pronounced as his belief.

It is key to remember that the organization has never discriminated against anyone, ever, based upon the personally held beliefs of the chairman.

So the hue and cry of Chik-Fil-A being somehow discriminatory and homophobic are utter nonsense. This is nothing more than attempting to persecute someone for exercising his freedom of speech, speech which has no deleterious effect on anyone, anywhere.

The American people must en masse understand the potential damage in allowing these attacks to continue unabated. There cannot be freedom of speech with the applied condition that it be acceptable to some type of politically correct media monitors. The disgrace that was the mass media covering this truly non-event was shameful, for the other adage is equally true – the moment one persons freedom is trod upon we all become enslaved at the hands of tyranny.

It is also worthy of note that mayors in two major cities- Boston & Chicago – have made veiled threats to thwart the expansion of Chik-Fil-A in their cities, noting that the company not share their cities’ ‘values’. This is more dangerous than many may think. Government in America is designed to protect the legal affairs of it’s citizens and business’ – to put some manner of ‘morality’ on the free exercise of legitimate commerce of Americans is a dangerous game that must not be allowed to continue.

The second event is the pathetic attempt made by Majority Leader Harry Reid in a sick and twisted political gambit to goad presumptive Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney to release tax returns for the previous ten years. Senator Reid stated that ‘someone’ had told him Mr. Romney had not paid taxes for the last ten years. Amidst the resulting media firestorm, Senator Reid stated that if Mr. Romney was innocent of the charge, then let him prove it.

This is beyond scandalous – it is beyond an affront to American democracy.

For Senator Reid’s’ edification, here is the summation of the relevant parts of the United States Constitution, a document he has sworn to protect and defend.

To wit:

One is innocent UNLESS proven guilty – the state must prove guilt, not the other way around. Senator Reid has the right to say what he will, but that right is limited by basic intelligence. Demanding someone to prove their innocence is anathema to America; to subject a citizen to proving innocence is akin to the McCarthy hearings where citizens were forced to reveal names of their friends, if indeed they were ‘true and patriotic Americans’.

Freedom of speech is clearly under assault and must be protected at any and all cost.

This is not hyperbole – attempting to undo a basic tenet of freedom is always a serious threat and must be addressed as such. Specious claims of homophobia and hate speech coupled with calls to prove ones’ innocence is not the America that has been entrusted to us by our ancestors and must not be the legacy we pass on to out posterity.

For those looking for clarification on several basic issues facing the electorate in the 2012 election, these two instances should give every member of the electorate pasue to consider the future path of America.

The Colorado Shootings

It is apparent that events are occurring that require opinionated observation. To that point, we will be deferring the restart of our platform creation to discuss the Colorado shootings on two key tiers: gun laws and the media as a whole as it reported on this tragic event.

As to gun control, The Madison Conservative still believes, as was discussed after the Arizona shootings, that there can be limits on magazines with 100 bullets and still respect the full integrity of the second amendment. The Madison Conservative is heartened by Supreme Court Justice Scalias’ recent comments that there can be certain limitations on arms, but that the issue first needs to be addressed at the state level.

In the absence of true leadership, it seems that there is a simple answer to the immediate concerns on the issue of gun control. The solution would avoid the infringement on the constitutional guarantees of the second amendment and simultaneously allow Congress to do what it enjoys doing most – creating tax legislation in search of money from any source.

To wit:

Do not attempt to regulate assault weapons at this time, but put a fifty dollar tax on the ammunition needed for said weapons. This will protect that portion of the citizenry who employ firearms for sport or security, as those arms do not utilize assault weapon munitions, but the tax would allow the government an easier way to track purchases of the assault weapon magazines.

It is understood that such an idea is simplistic and perhaps unrealistic in that simplicity, but the debate must be had and the full constitutionality of assault weapon bans must be addressed. The tax would follow constitutional protocols that require a tax to be paid before it can be addressed through the judicial process.

The media seems to be of late an easy target for individuals and blog posts to criticize and critique for the woes of the nation and for perceived predispositions to one slice of the political spectrum. The Madison Conservative avoids that save for specific instances that require an exploration of the decision process employed by a media outlets editorial theology.

To wit:

In the immediate aftermath of the shootings, while specifics were unclear and details ambiguous at best, ABC News, at the national network level, opted to pronounce that they had found an individual with the name of the assailant appearing on the Colorado Tea Party list.

The question demands to be asked:

Why on earth was ABC News looking for a Tea Party connection first, and without properly vetting the information at all proceed to present that information, quickly proven absolutely wrong, to the nation? Many may protest that the mass media has a political agenda, but attempting to associate a deranged murderer with a political party is much more than a political agenda and ABC News must be held accountable. Imagine the hue and cry if ABC News had reported that the killer was a donor to the Obama campaign, and then that information was found to be false.

Secondly, and more importantly, a father of one of the victims challenged CNN, live, on air, to cease providing the name and photo of the killer, pointing out that it was merely feeding the need for similar individuals to attain the fame they are seeking. It has been a low point indeed for the media as a whole not to follow this suggestion. Many years ago it was considered comedic to race onto a baseball field during the game to garner some television attention. Major League Baseball quickly understood the goal of such imbeciles and implemented a protocol that any such individual would never again be on camera, hence the rare ‘on field delay’ provided by the sportscasters. And this is for just a baseball game; why do the media not understand this and merely report on the facts without providing personal information and mug shots.

The American people must demand responsibility from their free press.

Finally, amidst all of the convoluted rationale provided by all corners, here is the official transcript of President Obama’s remarks relative to ‘you didn’t build that’ fiasco. Taken in context, as many have stated, it appears worse than what is being shown on endless  loops on cable news.

To wit:

There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me -- because they want to give something back. They know they didn’t -- look, if you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own. You didn’t get there on your own.

I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there.

It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something -- there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there.

“If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business -- you didn’t build that.

Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.”

Mr. President – this is not referring to merely ‘roads and bridges’.

The comments have not been taken out of context – incorrectly edited, perhaps, but not out of context.

The smart, hard working American electorate deserve better.

Vacation 2

A minor sojourn has postponed the blog post. The Madison Conservative will return next week.

Bits & Pieces - July 15th, 2012

Given the level of activity within the body politic during the Madison Conservatives’ minor summer sojourn, a quick assessment of several more notable events is in order before we return next week to our platform construction and analysis.

First and foremost was the Supreme Courts’ ruling on the Affordable care Act (ACA). It is the belief of the Madison Conservative that while the Supreme Court is the final and decisive voice in all such issues, on this particular ruling the court was in egregious error.

To wit:

It is not the courts’ responsibility to alter legislation. This is in effect what Chief Roberts did by deeming the legislation constitutional within the framework of Congress’ ability to tax. The ACA does not include within its funding mechanisms any accommodation for new legislation taxing the American people; the mandate was deemed to be just that – a requirement based upon a person being alive. The proponents of the ACA repeatedly asserted that the funding was not and would never be a ‘tax’. While the court held by a majority that the attempt to justify the ACA within the Commerce Clause was unconstitutional, the Madison Conservative believes that this decision was the extent of the courts jurisdiction on the matter. Chief Justice John Roberts created the constitutionality under the taxing authority out of essentially whole cloth. It has now established a dangerous precedent that Congress can force an individual to buy anything – or forbid the purchase thereof – by using their power to create taxes as they arbitrarily may choose.

In a strange twist, the current debate on voter ID laws is almost comically tied to the ACA.

To wit:

The political class that believes that any and all Voter ID laws are discriminatory, racist and are part of a much greater nefarious plan to subjugate portions of the electorate seem to be equally vocal in their support for the Affordable Care Act.

The arguments made against the ID laws is that it is unfair and too great a burden to require an individual to attain a valid state issued photo ID; the apparent applied  intent is to create a de facto poll tax.

The twist is that these voices seem to feel no encumbrance on requiring individuals to acquire valid ID to gain access to health care under the ACA. The hypocrisy seems to be lost on those who decry the voter ID laws. The question needs to be asked – why is it acceptable to require a valid ID for health care but not required in order to provide a voice in the direction of the nation?  To follow the logic, there should be no ID required to either vote or receive medical attention.

Both topics come with a myriad of substantial tangential issues that the Madison Conservative will address in greater detail as the weeks progress, but it was felt a brief commentary on them was needed.

The last subject that must be addressed is Mitt Romney’s speech to the NAACP.

It was reprehensible the way the speech was covered by self professed liberal leaning media outlets. The true nature of intolerance was brought out into the open and yet went amazingly silent by those media outlets that tend to a more politically rightward slant.

Consider this: the common denominator in the media that while Mr. Romney was received politely and respectfully and even garnered a standing ovation at the conclusion of his remarks, the only sound bite presented were the boos when Mr. Romney announced he would work to repeal the ACA.  The commentators were of one voice questioning why Mr. Romney would even dare to show up – he obviously had no real right to address the NAACP convention.

No quarter asked the most pertinent question; why not? Mr. Romney did not pander to his audience – he presented his view of how he perceived the nature of the upcoming election. He treated his audience as fellow Americans; he told them his truth as he saw it.

The theory that he had no right to address the NAACP is disgusting on its face – a president SHOULD be the president of ALL Americans, not merely those who share his political beliefs. Imagine the hue and cry from the liberal media had Mr. Romney opted to ignore the invitation issued by the NAACP to address their convention. There seemed to be little note that the sitting president did NOT attend the convention – addressing it as he did by video is disrespectful at least.

As the campaign season winds through the nation, the Madison Conservative will continue to present a platform that speaks to the American people in a way that addresses fundamental issues for the health of the body politic.

Gone missing

Cloud hidden; whereabouts unknown.

Enjoying a brief summer vacation. Be right back, more or less.