So there seems like a bunch of alternatives for individuals that need medical treatment. Of course what I think most people are talking about is the need for Medical Insurance reform. Everyone assumes that you have to have Medical Insurance today. How would you ever live without it. Yeah I just don’t understand. When I was a kid, we had a doctor, but we didn’t have medical insurance. Most people I knew didn’t have medical insurance either. Now almost everyone I know has medical insurance, except people who have lost their job or just graduated from college or those people that work for themselves. It seems that most people get insurance through their work. Almost everyone has insurance. So what changed? When I was young almost noone had insurance, but now it seems like almost everyone has insurance. When I was a kid it cost like $20 to see your doctor, now that is just the co-pay.

Obama says that it is the uninsured that are causing the increase in cost in healthcare. That if everyone were covered and had medical health insurance the cost of healthcare would start to go down. However, there are so many other pressures on the cost of healthcare that are causing the overall cost to increase. Obama says that there are 50 million people that are uninsured in this country and that burden is unsustainable. When I was a kid, there were a lot more people uninsured in this country. As a matter of fact it was normal not to have insurance. It also cost so much less to see a doctor. So why is it so expensive to see a doctor today? Well, in order to get payment from large insurance companies, the doctor must negotiate a discounted rate for the insurance company. To become a member of the plan, the doctor has to agree to charge the insurance company a reduce rate for services performed. Therefore, their list price must be higher. The Insurance Company by definition does not pay list price, but you and I going into a Doctor’s Office, without insurance have to pay the list price. Therefore paying cash is much more expensive to us than it is for an insurance company paying for us to go to the doctor. As a result, the incentive is to get insurance to keep the cost down and not to be responsible for your own healthcare and manage the cost yourself. When I was a kid, my doctor charged less for cash. Therefore, one of the largest increase in the cost of healthcare is the need of doctors to charge reduced rates for individuals with insurance and charge more for those who do not have insurance.

So one might think that the answer is for everyone to get insurance. I actually might suggest that we would be better off if none of us had insurance. If none of us had insurance, Doctors would have to charge lower prices since there would be no discounts for insurance. In addition, the consumer might be more inclined to select a doctor based upon cost. Without insurance, perhaps we would all be more cost conscious and find doctors that were more reasonable and cost less. Without insurance, the consumer would question the cost of certain procedures and tests, because after all we had to pay for all of those tests.  The market would demand the cost of healthcare to go down and doctors couldn’t hide behind insurance companies by being in network, they would have to compete for patients like the good old days. We wouldn’t go to a doctor because he was in network, we would go to a doctor because he was a good doctor, kept us healthy and was affordable.

But we are all incented to buy insurance. So who are these people who do not have insurance? Where are all these 50 million uninsured that Obama keeps talking about? The uninsured basically are made up of 4 categories. The first category is illegal aliens. Illegal aliens should not get health insurance, heck, they shouldn’t even be allowed to stay in the country, they are illegal. However, if they were sick and went to the hospital Emergency Room, they would not be turned away. Therefore even illegal aliens have access to HealthCare, they just have no way to pay for it. So the argument is that this increases the overall cost of HealthCare. Well maybe the answer is to solve the illegal alien problem and that would resolve the problem of their inability to pay for HealthCare. Get rid of the illegal aliens, that wouldn’t be covered by any government option, you remove at least 1/3 of the uninsured in the country. That might sound a little cranky, but we can’t provide insurance for this population, so Universal Healthcare will not solve this problem and we need to look else where for solutions.

The next category of uninsured in this country is people who are owners of small business. It is very cost prohibitive and also difficult to get insurance for an individual in this country. For a small business to get insurance, they must have a minimum of 2 employees. There are many companies that don’t have a second employee and even if they do, the cost for such policies are thousands of dollars a month. Sometimes it is more cost effective to do without insurance and pay cash when you have to see a doctor, even with the inflated prices that doctors charge individuals, especially if you are relatively healthy. To make matters worse, our tax policy in this country provides a disincentive for small companies to buy health insurance. Health Insurance that is purchased for the owner or shareholder of a small business is not allowed as an expense of the business and therefore not tax deductible. Sure you can claim the cost of the insurance on your personal taxes, but that is subject to a limitation of a percentage of your Adjusted Gross Income. If we want more individuals and small companies to purchase health insurance, why don’t we do what is right and allow the expense to be deductible.

There are also a large number of individuals who are uninsured as a result of the fact that they are unemployed and con not afford individual insurance. Unemployed could mean that they just graduated school and have not found a job yet, but many of these can rely on their parents. Unemployed could mean that the individual is in the process of changing jobs and has a period in which they are not covered. This is a temporary condition which can be resolved once they get the new job. Then there are a percentage of the population that do not get insurance from any job that they would get and con not afford to purchase insurance on their own. This is truly the population that would benefit the most from government insurance but they still have access to HealthCare without such government insurance. They could go to the Emergency Room and get HealthCare with or without the ability to pay for such treatment.

The real issue is an alternative method of Emergency Care that is less expensive than the current Emergency Room at the Hospital. Why can’t we focus on alternate care to the Emergency Room at the Hospital that is more affordable instead of trying to figure out how to make sure that everyone gets insurance.That brings us back to the mini clinic at CVS. If I have Strep throat  or an ear infection it is much more cost effective to go to CVS instead of the Emergency Room. It saves me plenty of time and cost and it is an overall lower expense to the entire system. It also prevents me from getting pnuemonia because I went without treatment of my ear infection because I didn’t want to go to the Emergency Room.

Another reason that healthcare is so expensive today is that there are a shortage of healthcare providers. We need more doctors and healthcare providers which will drive the cost of seeing a doctor down. The problem is that medical professionals can control the numbers of new doctors by limiting the number of doctors that get certified and the number of students that get admitted into medical schools. By artificially keeping the population of doctors down and by the government institutionalizing this shortage by requiring certification, the cost of medical treatment has enormous upward pressure. The cost is going to keep going up as the number of doctors remains low. The CVS mini Clinic increases the supply of alternatives to seeing a doctor and therefore lowers the average cost of seeing a healthcare professional. A market based solution to bringing costs down.

Another reason that the prices doctors charge is high is a result of the cost of operating their practice. Doctors today have many costs that didn’t exist years ago. Most doctors spend a huge amount of money on Malpractice insurance which has become very expensive. The operating costs increase when a doctor can be sued for almost any reason and be forced to defend themselves. We need Tort Reform in this country to prevent frivilous lawsuits from costing so much. We need loser pays legislation and limitations on awards. A patient that has been wronged by a doctor need to be able to file a greivance and get restitution, but the rest of us need to be assured that a disgruntled patient doesn’t increase the cost for everyone else for any unwarrented reason.

So I don’t believe in Universal Healthcare and the Government option. It will only cause more problems and make the existing problems worse. There will still be uninsured. There will still be illegal aliens that are not allowed to get the universal healthcare provided by the US government for US citizens. There would still be a shortage of Doctors and Helathcare professionals. There would still be frivilous lawsuits that Doctors would have to worry about. There would still be limited alternatives to the Emergency Room. There would still be a disincentive from the IRS for small business to purchase healthcare insurance.  The real solution is to go back to when nobody had healthcare insurance at all. Since that is not going to happen and insurance is here to stay, there are still things that we can do to reduce the cost of healthcare but creating a huge government mandated program will never work. So I say lets get rid of insurance or make small incremental changes that impact the real problems with our system. Let’s move away from Single Payer and instead let’s all take responsibility for paying for our own healthcare like we used to do.

Maybe that sounds a little Cranky, but that is because I am the Cranky Voter!

The first thing that I discovered was where I had heard that claim before. It was one of the main theme’s of Michael Moore’s documentary ‘Sicko’.  This is where he claimed that Americans spend more money than any other country on healthcare, but is ranked 37th in the world. The argument therefore goes that America is not getting a good return on it’s money. We spend more than anyone else, but there are 36 other countries that have a better healthcare system. So I wondered where he got his information. What I found was that he was referring to that same WHO ranking. So I decided that I needed to find out more about this ranking.

The first thing that I noticed about the WHO ranking, which is published on the internet here, has some very surprising countries ranked higher than the United States. San Marino, Andorra and Malta are ranked 3,4 and 5 respectively. Not necessarily the most well know countries in the world. If you were suffering from a rare disease, would you want to go to Andorra for treatment? Oman is listed as number 8, which is certainly known as the healthcare mecca in the desert, not! Iceland is ranked 15th, which is covered with Ice and submerged in darkness most of the year and most recently went bankrupt during the global financial crisis, but they have great Healthcare … really? Cyprus is ranked 24th, the small disputed island between Greece and Turkey. Dominica the poor impoverished island in the Caribbean is ranked 35th. If I had gone to Medical School I would have wanted to go to Dominica to learn the medical profession, wouldn’t you? More importantly, when I look for a doctor, I try to make sure that he graduated from a medical school in Dominica. And of course the thesis of Michael Moore’s documentary Cuba is ranked 39th.

So there are legitimate countries in the list that rank ahead of the United States like the UK and Germany and France which is actually ranked number 1. Yeah I am not sure if the author of the study was French. However, how could a country like Andorra or Oman or Dominica have a better health care system than the United States? The answer is in the details of the rankings. According to the WHO, the rankings are presented as an objective measure of the relative performance of the health care system within each country, however it seems the the rankings are far from objective. The rankings are based upon a series of underlying assumptions. By looking at these assumptions, one might question whether all of these criteria contribute to effective and efficient health care. I would even go as far as to say that some of the criteria are completely irrelevant as a measure of good health care.

The WHO rankings are based upon 8 weighted categories, which each have multiple criteria within each category. These categories are given arbitrary weightings based upon perceived performance, which in effect have a tendency to skew the results based upon their subject method of assessing the importance of the criteria. As we have already discussed, the United States spends more on Healthcare than any other country in the world. Considering that the WHO calculates their ranking using a 25% weight on a criteria that has to do with the total expenditure on Healthcare, the United States is by default already at a disadvantage within the ranking system.

We can look more into the rankings, but it is rather pointless. The entire basis of these rankings are skewed against the United States and is really not a fair measure of the quality of Healthcare. Let’s look at some other statistics. On a list of the best Hospitals in the world, 8 out of 10 Hospitals are in the United States. By the way, not one of the best hospitals are in France. Out of all the places in the world that conducts medical research, more medical discoveries have been made in the United States then in any other country in the world. More treatments for medical conditions have been discovered in the United States, then any other country. The country that has developed many of the medicines for the Aids Virus, that right, The United States. To add to that statistic, drug companies within the United States are the ones that donate the most medicine to under developed nations suffering with these deadly diseases. When was the last time that you heard Oman or Andora, discover a treatment for Aids let alone donate free medicine to Africa to help combat the Aids epidemic there? And Malaria in Indochina? And who do you think has the best plastic Surgeons in the world? And which country has the Jerry Lewis Telethon for Multiple Sclerosis? France might love Jerry Lewis, but only the United States gives him money to take care of his kids!

Another category that wasn’t properly evaluated in the WHO study was wait times for treatment. Countries with Socialized medicine and one payer systems, force patients to wait longer for treatment then patients in a multi-payer free market system like the one within the United States. As a matter of fact there was a study in the United Kingdom recently that said that the mortality rates resulting from Breast Cancer could be reduced over 60% if only women diagnosed with Breast Cancer could be treated within two months of diagnosis instead of the current 3 month wait. Canada has identified that outcomes would improve dramatically if the wait time for medical service was cut and yet despite all of their efforts, wait times have increased over the last few years. I don’t know about you, but if I was diagnosed with a disease I would rather not have to wait for treatment. In France and Germany, patients are not given a choice, unless they want to go get Healthcare in another country. By far, the other country of choice is the United States.

I am not saying that the health care system in the United States is perfect. I agree that the United States spends a lot of money on Healthcare, but that should suggest that we need to make minor adjustments to our system instead of spending even more money by the government to fix it, or decide to completely change our Healthcare system to mimic systems that are inefficient and eliminate choice. We should have a debate on how to reduce costs in the system like Tort Reform or increasing the number of doctors and eliminating the penalties in the tax code for individuals and small business to buy their own insurance. How about making it against the law to for Insurance Companies to drop your insurance, cap your insurance or eliminate you based upon pre-existing conditions. What about providing for catastrophic insurance just in case you get really sick. There are lots of things we could talk about, but spending a trillion dollars to give illegal aliens insurance? Everyone has access to Healthcare, even if you don’t have insurance. Of course maybe that is the reason that Healthcare costs more in this country. There are countries in this world where you can’t get treatment. Perhaps countries that are on the WHO list. So we could listen to the United Nations skewed definition of what makes efficient Health Care where Oman, Dominica, Andora and France are considered to have superior Healthcare systems than the United States, or we can rely on the country that has the best Hospitals, Medical Schools, Research Facilities and Doctors in the world. Don’t accept the statement that we are ranked 37th blindly without questioning that ranking. Look at the list and see for yourself which countries are ranked above the United States. Then go look for the list of the best hospitals in the world and then tell me if it makes sense. How can the best Healthcare system have none of the best hospitals? As a matter of fact, France doesn’t even show up on the list until Number 27 and I haven’t even found a Hospital from Cuba, Andora, Oman or any of the other countries mentioned on the WHO list. Who is WHO anyway? and how dare they criticize our Healthcare system? How did they come up with their subjective criteria? and why do they love Mediocrity?

So let me tell you something Mr. Michael Moore, if you like the Health Care in Andora so much, then go live there! If you want to live in a desert like Oman because you would get free Healthcare, but only if you were a citizen, then knock yourself out. But I am not going to sit here and take your biased, subjective and skewed rankings as gospel. That’s right, I am going to question your findings and when I do I am going to realize that the emperor is wearing no clothes. Where would your career be if you couldn’t bash America? Mr. one of the people, Michael Moore. You find biased anti-American surveys that help make your point and then publicize the information like it is fact. I will tell you it makes a great sound bite and is certainly hard to argue against, but this ranking is just like Michael Moore, just full of hot air. There is certainly room to improved Healthcare in the United States, but not by turning our nation into France. You like the French for their Healthcare, go live in Paris and deal with a 70% tax rate and work a 35 hour week and wonder why you can’t compete in the world. No wonder the French are so rude and hate Americans…

Ok, maybe that sounds a little cranky, and that is because I am cranky! I am the Cranky Voter!

Why so cautious? Why not come out in favor of freedom? Why not send a message to the protesters in the streets and the government crushing the protests, that the United States stands with those who support free and fair elections. That we are against those that seek to distort and repress the will of the people and corrupt the results of an election. That we believe in the right of assembly and the right to voice one’s opinion. That we believe in the free flow of information and find disgraceful the blockage of information sources whether it be newspapers and radio stations or websites and Twitter. We used to be a beacon of hope and freedom, and yet now we have failed to lead and provide support to those that were looking for solidarity.

Why can’t we offer our support to the protesters. Why can’t we send a message to those willing to fight for their rights, fight for freedom, that we support their effort. And perhaps, it is possible, that with the knowledge that the United States supports their effort, supports the will of the people, that the people could overcome the evil and repressive government that is attempting to suppress the expression of the people’s free will. Our disagreements have always been with the Iranian Government and the extremists within their society. It is not the Iranian people that are racing to develop Nuclear weapons. It is not the Iranian people that are funding Hezbollah and Hamas. It is not the Iranian people that have denied the Holocaust.

But then again it was the Iranian people that took over our embassy in Tehran and kept Americans hostage. Well maybe not all the Iranian people but there was a bunch of them. The Iranians refuse to recognize Israel and instigating much of the trouble in the Middle East and yet they are not even Arab, they are Persian. The point here is that regardless of whether we agree with the government or disagree, or if we have a problem with the people of Iran or just some of them, we should always be on the side of what is right and the pursuit of freedom. When any people’s right to a free and fair election is violated, when anyone’s right to voice disagreement and dissent is infringed upon, when anyone’s right to peaceful assembly and protest is prohibited or suppressed, we should be there on the side of what is right. We in America stand for freedom and democracy and the rights of the people to make their own decisions, and when any government interferes, suppresses or removes that right from the people, we should have our leader out in front saying that it is wrong.

Standing up for the masses even if they are asses. That is what we should be doing. We shouldn’t allow a repressive dictatorship intimidate us into not supporting what is right just because we think that we can negotiate with them if we are nice to them and we ignore all of their stuff. If someone is wrong we should say they are wrong because chance are they are going to keep being wrong. Does Obama think he is such a great guy that he can persuade a evil bunch of clerics to stop hating the US. He didn’t come out in front and say anything and they still blamed the US for interfering. And that is why we must always stand for what is right, and not politically expedient. The president should lead from strength not from political maneuvering. There are certain inalienable rights that all men and women should have whether they live in the United States or live in some distant land. If we don’t stand on our principles, if we don’t fight for what is right, if we don’t express our opinion based upon our principle then we cease being who we are. The last greatest nation on Earth.

Well that might sound a little cranky, but that is because I am cranky. I am the Cranky Voter!

The actor, playing the Secretary of the Treasury, was addressing the nation about the banking crisis. He talked about the fact that he just requested another obscene sum of money to help address the Banking Crisis. The punch line was that the money was for the person who could call in with the solution to the banking crisis, implying that he has no clue. That even though he is the Secretary of Treasury and was the head of the NY Fed before, that he worked with the previous administration on how to solve the problem, and should have been thinking about the problem for quite a while, he still doesn’t have the answer. So he was turning to callers from the nation that might have a good idea on how to solve the crises because obviously he doesn’t have a clue. As a viewer of SNL, as a Cranky Voter, as someone that follows politics and is observing the current administration’s attempt at stimulating the economy, as someone who is hoping things can be turned around, even though I don’t like what I hear, I can’t help but ask myself, is SNL right? Maybe Geithner doesn’t have a clue?

I don’t know about you, but I expected at least a plan already. I never bought into the first bail out when Bush and Paulson said it was critical, because they gave no details about why it was so critical. They also didn’t explain how they were going to use the money, when they were going to spend it and with whom. They never told us why that amount of money and how it was going to avert the crisis. They also never told us what would they do if their plan didn’t work. Well their plan has not worked so far, we still have no details and they are asking for more money. Tim Geithner was part of the brain trust back then as head of the NY Federal Reserve Bank. He was involved in the planning and advising. Paulson, Bernanke and Geithner all sitting around trying to figure out what to do. So you would think that Geithner would be very familiar with the problem and you would think that he has a while to think about a solution. So where is the solution? Paulson and Geithner have now both mentioned billions of dollars and the immediate need, they discussed these toxic assets being the root cause of all that is evil and referenced similarities to the Great Depression. That was about it and somehow they got the money. For a minute we thought the Republicans would rediscover their principles, their fiscal conservatism, like the Republicans from 1994 who insisted on balancing the budget with Bill Clinton, but in the end Paulson got his money. When the Democrats took ownership of the program although they talked about more transparency and accountability, they said many of the same things to get the rest of the money. And where did all this money go and why hasn’t it solved the problem?

All this money doesn’t seem to have made a difference, credit is still hard to come by and banks are still struggling, and most importantly, the toxic assets are still on the books. So what did the billions accomplish? The only thing that is known is that the government is now a part owner in these financial firms. Banks have been partially nationalized in the United States of America, by a Republican President and his secretary of Treasury. A man who used to be the chairman of Goldman Sachs and had decided to bail out and save every single financial firm except his old arch rival, Lehman Brothers. Why didn’t Paulson save Lehman Brothers? According to his reasoning for bailing out these financial firms, the failure of one firm would cause a ripple effect throughout the financial industry. So why not save Lehman? Could his personal distaste for his ex-rival have affected his judgment and caused him to act differently? If Paulson had saved Lehman Brothers, would things have been different? Would the financial crisis have been averted or lessened?

The truth is that nothing is as powerful as market forces, and although the government thinks itself all powerful, it’s only real power is to interfere with the market forces. The market system has a way of dealing with inefficient companies that take on too much risk or are managed ineffectively. The financial system survived after the failure of Lehman Brothers and even many of the brokers that worked for Lehman are still all together working for another financial institution. The financial system would have survived the failure of AIG, CitiGroup or any other financial institution. It is the interference in the markets that causes a prolonged agony. The government’s role is to set monetary policy and allow the market to heal itself. Well that is what Milton Friedman would say, and it certainly has seemed that government interference in the market has not resolved the problem. Instead we have spent more and more money with no results, and we keep getting more executives coming with their hand out. What about a hand up instead of a hand out?

I am proud of Ford and their management team and my next car will be a Ford. I am going to vote with my wallet and buy a car from a company that has kept their dignity and acted for real change instead of whining for more money from the government and doing nothing to help themselves. Maybe proud sounds a little condescending, but I mean it with the best of intentions. They experienced the same pressures that GM and Chrysler have experienced but they didn’t take any government money. Ford didn’t ask for a handout, they decided to help themselves and do what was necessary to rescue themselves. We should reward them by purchasing their product, assuming they can produce cars and trucks that we want to buy.

So how is the Paulson/Geithner plan going to save the banking industry. Are we as taxpayers going to own banks and financial institutions through our government? I would assume the goal would be to get the toxic assets off the books of the financial institutions, but how are they going to do this. The toxic assets have no market value, but if held to maturity, they would be worth a lot closer to their face value, so how do you value such assets? The current rules called Mark to Market rules established and regulated by the SEC, state that all assets must be valuated based upon current market valuations. This means that the assets need to be carried on the books at the value that they could be sold for in the open market. Currently, the open market price for these toxic assets are 0 or at least close to 0. As opposed to a cost basis, which would be the original cost to buy the asset, or maturity value, the price that would be received if the asset was held to maturity. When the crisis first arose, or perhaps was identified and communicated by the brain trust, there were various people talking about Mark to Market rules, but we don’t hear much talk anymore about Mark to Market rules. If the government solution is to buy these toxic assets, they have to use an alternative valuation for these assets in order to establish a purchase price. So instead of taking these assets off the books, why not just change the Mark to Market rules that valuates the price of the toxic assets and only the toxic assets.

What I am suggesting is to change the Mark to Market rules for certain types of assets that the government is saying that they are willing to buy and put into a “bad bank” designed to hold those assets till maturity. Instead of actually selling those assets, you change the rules for holding and trading those assets. A financial firm is able to lend money based upon the rules established by the government that require a financial firm to maintain a certain level of capital to outstanding loans. When their capital balance is higher, they can lend more money, when their capital level is lower, they can lend less. So change the rules for these assets, to the price that the government is willing to purchase these assets and require the bank to hold the assets long term or sell them to the government if they need access to that capital. This will cost us taxpayers much less money than actually having to buy these assets, but will provide financial institutions the ability to leverage the new valuation of these assets to start lending again. In effect the government will be setting a price or establishing a market for these assets while providing a guarantee for these toxic assets. This would result in increasing the value of the assets on the books and thereby increasing the amount available for lending. The toxic assets get transformed into assets that are no longer toxic and we don’t have to nationalize banks, the markets become more stabilized and our crisis is averted. Does this sound too simplistic? Well it is based on economic theory, and it attacks the underlying problem with the economy without building bridges, windmills or instituting socialized medicine in the name of stimulating the economy. Perhaps I am missing something.

Tim Geithner is the expert, so I guess we will have to wait until he has enough time to develop a detailed plan. He hasn’t provided much detail so far. Rumors swirl about how Citibank will be the next government owned bank. Talk of creating the largest deficit in this nation’s history somehow seem to provide a solution as long as China and India keep buying our Treasury Bonds. Interfering in other industries like Health Care and Pharmaceuticals are discussed as a solution, but seem to be part of a political agenda and have nothing to do with the original economic problems. Spending money to build bridges over the Hudson or a sports arena in North Carolina will somehow fix our economy. Yeah I just don’t get it. How is spending all of this money going to fix our economy and when is Geithner going to lead us to the promised land. Can Geithner define the solution with empty Treasury offices and a continuation of the same policies he helped implement as head of the NY Fed?

Maybe all that sounds a bit cranky, but that is because I am cranky! I am the Cranky Voter!

Do you think that is harsh? Maybe a little cranky? We the American Tax Payers have contributed $180 Billion dollars to AIG in order to keep it from failing? $180 Billion is a lot of money. So maybe I just don’t understand. Perhaps I am missing it. Why did taxpayers have to give all this money to AIG to keep them from failing? Doesn’t it seem that they are failing anyway? How much more money do we have to give to AIG before we try something else? AIG has already failed and it has no chance of revival except perhaps one, and that is to let it die.  Does anyone believe that AIG is going to turn itself around if we just give them enough of our money? I don’t. Don’t you think that maybe AIG is just waiting for the next installment of government bail out money so there is no immediate need to make any changes? The time has come. I think the end of AIG is here!

So what about AIG is so important to rescue, to keep alive? Why can’t it just be allowed to die a graceful death instead of being hoisted on a stake for all to watch as it slowly withers away, but not before absorbing as much of our tax dollars as it possibly can? Are we that desperate to save the jobs of individuals that destroyed the company in the first place. The shame is that not all of AIG is in such bad shape and not all employees of AIG contributed to the death of AIG. It seems that AIG grew too big and too powerful and was able to get around certain regulations. It certainly helped that the SEC and other regulators were more concerned with their next job instead of regulating the market. The reason AIG keeps losing money is that it was illegally operating a Hedge Fund on top of a very successful and profitable Insurance Company. It is not the Insurance company that lost $60 Billion last period, it was this Hedge Fund that evaded the attention of our regulators and continue to cause huge losses.

So what is a Hedge Fund? Can they cut my grass while they are trimming my hedge? No, this is a different kind of hedge. It is all about risk and trying to avoid it. The problem is that like a gambling addict at the racetrack, after going on a winning streak, they made huge bets on the wrong horse and instead of stopping, they bet again, on that same wrong horse or an equally bad horse. What these hedge funds do is illogical and I think immoral. They take an underlying asset like a group of mortgages and split it up into pieces. They then make a bet based upon some very complex environmental conditions like interest rates, inflation and rate of default on the underlying mortgages. These all get priced out and individuals and companies buy and sell these wagers. To make matters worse they buy and sell based on margin, which means they borrow the money to place their bets. Everything is fine and people make tons of money as long as the economy is still growing and the underlying assets, in this example the mortgages, still either appreciate and have a high rate of return as the ARM get reset and the interest rate increases or at least the underlying mortgages don’t default. When the real estate market crashes so do these wagers. So basically we are giving money to a gambler that broke the rules and gambled despite being told not to and is on a losing streak. The reason it is immoral, is that it creates a degree of separation between the actual financial instrument and the investor and therefore eliminates the accountability and traceability. In addition, these financial instruments make the people that create them very wealthy (or very poor) but they do not create or destroy any real wealth. They have nothing to do with building, buying, lending, generating jobs, or adding any real capital or value to the economy. Therefore, I consider these investments to be immoral.

Regardless of why AIG is continuing to lose buckets of money, the fact remains by continuing to give it loans that will never be paid back, we are making the situation worse. Nothing is being done to change the structure or operating principles of AIG, and nothing really can be done. Forget giving them more money, let them fail. Let someone take some drastic action to fix AIG once and for all and what will emerge will be better for the economy, better for the taxpayers and yes better for the remnants of AIG. My question is what happened to the Carl Ichan’s of the world? The private scavengers that come along and split up a company into it’s pieces, liquidate or get rid of the unprofitable parts and make a ton of money in the process? OK, perhaps some people at AIG will lose their jobs, but maybe they should lose their jobs if they are the ones responsible for making such bad decisions and generating such loses. Do we really think everyone would lose their job? Lehman Brothers failed and many of these employees are now working for Nomura, so who says everyone will be unemployed? Why not take AIG and split it up between it’s profitable parts and it’s  unprofitable parts? Do we care who does it? Either the government or private venture capitalists? Well I would prefer it to be done privately, especially because I don’t think the government would ever do it, let alone make a profit doing it. When was the last year that Amtrak or the Post Office made a profit?

Did you know that the government owns just less than 80% of AIG, because mandated by law, if they owned more, then all of AIG’s employees would become government employees and therefore be entitled to government benefits? Government benefits that are significantly better than the majority of individuals working at most companies. So the government takes care of themselves, and they tell us that they are concerned about AIG, but not concerned enough to make them all government employees.

I know people who have left AIG to find other jobs and I also know people who are still “stuck” working at AIG and they all tell me the same stories. Yeah AIG is like the walking dead. Everyone has worked on their resume and is looking for a job, even if they were told that they were safe. There is no direction in the company and many people are just going through the motions. Someone even told me that AIG is so big that there are people who are employed in the company that just sit around and don’t do anything. They aren’t fired or laid off. They aren’t questioned about what they are accomplishing or what they are doing. They just go through the motions, show up every day and collect a paycheck. Then he admitted that he had been one of those people just sitting around not doing anything for three months before he left to get a new job.

Do us all a favor, President Obama. Don’t give AIG any more money and instead let it die. Or better yet kill AIG and split this monster up into smaller pieces. Let the car insurance company be a car insurance company. Let the Life Insurance Company be a Life Insurance Company. If spun off as independent companies or purchased by competitors it doesn’t much matter. Let’s spend no more billions to keep this monstrosity afloat! Throw no more good money after bad. Let’s do the right thing for America and for AIG. Let’s kill this beast and put it out of all our misery! Can you hear the chant … Death to AIG!!! Death to AIG!!!

OK, maybe that sounds a little cranky, but that is because I am cranky! I am the cranky voter!

If you think about it, it makes sense, visiting Asia. Our President spent a lot of time in Asia as a child. He grew up in Indonesia and went to school there, although I am not sure it is acceptable to mention his schooling in Indonesia without being called a racist or a “religist” or anti-Islamist or something really bad. Anyway, they also have the most populated countries in the world and it sounds like they are the biggest investors in our debt, so we owe them a lot of money. Trillions of dollars and Billions of people … huddled masses yearning .. yearning to work in or for America, so they can earn our dollars and lend it back to us.

I am referring to India and China, of course. I am not trying to be mean, I am sure somebody wants to stay in India and China and work on domestic activities, build toys for Chinese children, or make steel for Indian buildings, instead of coming to America and striking it rich. India and China, a place where if you are one in a million, there are a thousand people just like you. Oh yes, we are exporting the American Dream to the millions and billions of Asia, where young and adventurous students can learn the skills necessary to make it rich at America’s expense while keeping us borrowing.

The one thing India, and China to a lesser extent, has invested in. is a school system that teaches their citizens the skills necessary to get a job. In India NIIT is a state school that is very hard to get into and does an excellent job training very smart students the skills they need to come to America. That is thanks to the American H1B program, which has helped India send their best and brightest, some very hard working, soon to be consultants, to America. They have been trained in various high tech skills using software such as Informatica, Data Stage, Business Objects, Cognos, Java and CSharp. The H1B program was set up to allow skilled and inexpensive labor to enter the country and to help business manage their costs of IT development. Basically to reduce the salaries and rates of American workers that have the same skills but might be in short supply. The program was supposed to only allow immigration when such highly desirable skills could not be found in America, however that is not always the case. The program was supposed to only allow highly skilled workers into the country, but that is not always the case either. The program has created a whole subculture of firms that specialize in H1B visas and importing the best and the brightest but sometimes the mediocre and inexperienced to America. Instead of bringing in someone to fit a required skill, this infrastructure brings in skilled resouces and searches for a fit.

When any skill is in short supply, the cost of finding and hiring that skill goes up. When a flood of resources enter a job market with the required skill, the cost of finding and hiring that skill goes down. When demand for that skill is reduced by market factors, the cost of finding and hiring that skill goes way down especially when all those imported resources don’t return to their country of origin. H1B is intended to be a temporary visa program, but in reality it is a path to a green card and citizenship. People who enter the country on an H1B visa don’t usually leave the country when their initial assignment is completed or ever.

I don’t blame the Technology Workers for coming into this country and looking for work. I don’t really blame the firms that have created the H1B subculture. I don’t even blame these workers for living in inexpensive houses with 3 families in a house, and sending most of their money back to India to help their families. I don’t blame these workers for never leaving America once they have entered the country. I blame the H1B law, I blame the US Government and especially I blame big business for not investing in our citizens right here in America. We talk about wanting to create high paying jobs and investing in education, but yet instead of making the hard decisions and making the investment for our future, we use our trillions to build roads and bridges which may at best create temporary low paying jobs. We throw our money at education in name only and in effect use that money to raise teacher’s salaries and reducing the length of the school day, (as they did in Chicago) instead of creating innovative programs that will train our citizens to create the right kind of higher paying jobs.

We stifle competition in Education and instead of investing in training that works, we continue to fund the same old broken system of failed schools and overly compromised standards. We try to manage a massive education system at the Federal level when each community knows best how to educate their children. The losers are our children, the next generation, who are not being taught the required skills to be competitive and live a life better than their parents. If they only lived in India, they would be able to get the education they need. Of course, only if they could compete with the Billion people and be lucky enough to get into the state schools. However, the great irony is that they would be motivated to come to America or at least work for America in order to take advantage of their education and live the American Dream.

For those people that don’t want to come to America, there is the additional opportunity to work right there in their country for the United States. Everything from answering phones, building software, writing code and even manufacturing toys or producing food that all used to be done right here in the United States. Corporations have several names for this movement offshore. They call it outsourcing, right-sizing, downsizing, cost cutting or even global optimization. I call it a logical response to inappropriate incentives provided by the government of the United States and America’s Labor Unions. I also call it the outsourcing of the American Dream to India and China.

Indian firms have huge operation centers that can handle multiple clients. China has factories just waiting for products to manufacture. Not only are labor cost low, but there are not the levels of taxation on that labor. Health Care costs have not doubled the cost of that labor. Unions have not required employment for life, heck, these people are happy to have jobs and make as much money as we are willing to pay them. I have heard stories about how workers who earn $25 per hour can afford two cars, 8 bedroom houses, paid house servants and luxuries that most in their country can’t afford. That is the American Dream in India.

In India, there are so many people that they can treat slumdogs as dirt. In China they can allow the murder of female first born babies. Censorship and intolerance are common. I remember the massacre at Tiananmen Square.  However when Hillary went to Asia, there was little talk of human rights. There was no talk of Free Speech. There was no talk of Religious tolerance. There was no talk of Democracy and Freedom. However, there was talk about the Great American Debt. They were reminded how intertwined our economies were and how we are dependent on each other. America, like an out of work drug addict, buys stuff from Walmart that comes from China and India and they in turn keep lending us the moeny to buy more stuff. Like any drug dealer they are hooked on our addiction. Like any Pimp, they must feed and put clothes on our backs so that we can keep earning them money.

Hillary didn’t even try to be subtle. She hit them over the head with it and emphasized her point. China and India must continue to buy our debt. They must continue to fund our irresponsible spending and fiscal mismanagement. It is a dysfunctional codependent relationship that must continue in order for us to stay in our land of make believe. Living in the land of monetary delussion, we need someone to continue to feed us hallucinogens and at the same time they need us to buy all the crap they are manufacturing and outsourcing. So the command went out, almost like a blackmail threat, buy our stuff … or else. She didn’t talk of human rights or freedom, but instead spoke of their need to keep this thing going. We need them to keep lending us money and the cost is our freedom, our society, our cost of living and our future. It is the transfer of our wealth to Asia, the outsourcing of our American Dream. As our standard of living decreases and as our economy is dessimated by well intentioned but purely evil government spending policies designed to eliminate both the upper and middle class in this country, our benefactors, our mortgage holders, are gaining more and more leverage over our destiny. The more cheap labor we import, the more infrastructure that we outsource, the more money we borrow and the more cheap toys we import and purchase, the deeper America sinks into an irreversable morrass of debt and poverty.

Don’t get me wrong, I am not for protectionism and I am not in favor of limiting legal immigration, but I don’t like short cuts that are meant to get around the immigration laws. I understand the reasons for lowering the cost of labor, and I understand the value of going offshore for resources. But investing in America is not mutually exclusive to a global economy and is not an excuse to spend trillions of dollars on socialism disguised as a stimulus plan. I don’t like people talking about creating jobs and what they are realy doing is throwing money at short term low paying jobs instead of investing in high tech semi-permanent, higher paying jobs. I don’t like providing incentives to Corporate America to destroy our manufacturing infrastructure in order to help struggling third world countries.  If we want to lower our cost basis in this country then we should be willing to accept a lower standard of living. If we keep importing cheap labor and outsourcing manufacturing and services, we will eventually lower our standard of living anyway. If we want to talk about education, we should invest in the right kinds of education which will help America the most, not just throw money at teachers to increase their salaries. I appreciate the work of teachers, it is a thankless job, but you also get the summer off, a short work day and tenure provides you a guaranteed job. So stop complaining and teach our kids. If you want to be a teacher, accept the salary and the additional perks and if you are asked to work a longer day, by gosh, what is wrong with working it.

So thank goodness we have Hillary as the Secretary of State. She has said things that we have all been thinking and she got away with it. Those Asians need us and they better keep buying our debt. It is not like the have a choice. We might still keep buying their crap and sending jobs overseas, but at the very least they better keep lending us money. Or else. Hillary said they have to. After all, we might not buy as much of their crap anymore.

Now it might sound like I am just cranky, well maybe that is because I am. I am the Cranky Voter.

Look at the man! Look at the celebration! 2 Million people showed up to see the King get anointed. I don’t remember this much excitement generated by any other President in recent memory. The overwhelming emotion that he generates is amazing. He speaks so eloquently and with such wonderful platitudes and although it is true that he can’t do it all himself, as he has said, Government is the Answer! I remember a President by the name of Ronald Reagan tell us all that Government is not the Answer, but it is the problem! Well I guess that is Change we can Believe in!

I was watching TV, and as hard as it is to believe I was watching coverage of the Anointing, not like there was anything else on TV, and I saw a child interviewed on the subject of Obama. He was asked what was so special about Obama, and the answer was that he was such a great man and that he had accomplished so much. What exactly has the man accomplished? He just became President the other day. What has he done to make my life any better? He hasn’t fixed the economy yet, has he? He hasn’t gotten us out of Iraq or Afghanistan yet, has he? He hasn’t raised his arms and declared peace in the Middle East yet, has he? He hasn’t single handedly fixed General Motors yet, has he? He hasn’t fixed our immigration and smuggling problem on the border of Mexico yet, has he? He hasn’t closed Guantanamo yet, has he? He hasn’t captured Osama Bin Laden yet, has he? Has he put America back to work or reduced the unemployment rate? Has he helped negotiate peace between Pakistan and India? Has he eliminated our dependence on fossil fuels yet? Or maybe solved the Global Warming Issues? And yet, not just that kid has talked about the great accomplishments of the man! King President Obama, he has accomplished so much!

Nope, I haven’t seen any great accomplishments yet, after all, he has just been Anointed yesterday. A woman I work with was talking on the phone and she speaks in a rather loud, squeaky voice that makes me want to rip my ears off my head, so it is rather hard not to hear what she is saying. She was talking to her friend on the phone. She said that she had watched the whole anointing yesterday on the computer (at work) and she was so impressed. It is just amazing to see a young, fit, black man, stand there and look so presidential. She talked about how well he spoke and how inspirational he was and how good he made her feel. She reflected on the fact that she can’t remember ever wanting to see the inauguration of any other president, but she really wanted to see what this one had to say, and how good he made her feel and she thinks most people feel this way as well. Well, I finally figured out one thing that Obama has already accomplished as President, he has reduced productivity in our work force as everyone is obsessively focused on the anointing.

She talked about how great it was that he is the first black man and how he is living Martin Luther King’s dream. She was an older White Woman. Yeah, so not to take anything away from the historic blackness of the day, and the accomplishment of electing a black man to be President, but Martin Luther King’s dream was that we wouldn’t notice the color of his skin. That we would celebrate the best candidate, because he was the best candidate not because he was the best black candidate. I realize that there was a big fuss made when a Catholic was elected President, but I think it is sad that we view people based upon these labels. There has never been an Asian, or a Jew or a Latino, or a Muslim elected President either, but I would hope if presented with the best candidate, that this country would elect the best candidate as President. But instead of celebrating the label, the thing that makes him different, let’s celebrate the hope that we have the best person to lead this great nation.

I am not ready to celebrate the man and his great accomplishments yet. I don’t care about the color of his skin, or where he comes from, or even what he says in his speeches. I want to see him actually do something. Translate those great words into action and make my life better! I want to give him a chance, and I truly hope he is successful, for if he is successful, we will all be better off. I want to be proud of my President, not because he is the first black president, or because he speaks so well, or he is so inspirational, but because he is my President and he is doing a good job. So go .. Obama .. get started .. you have a lot of work to do and I want to be proud of my President.

Maybe that sounds a little cranky! That is because I am cranky! I am the Cranky Voter!

It is not about quality any more. It is about the cost of production. It is about the unions that are selfishly taking care of themselves and killing the companies that have taken care of them for so long. We all scream and yell when factory jobs leave the United States to go overseas to find a lower cost structure, yet these unions of workers refuse to work with their benefactors to ensure the long term survival of their company. Do they feel no responsibility to ensure the survival of their company? Do they have no pride in their work? Do they feel no remorse for causing their company to become inefficient and unproductive? As an employee of a car company, shouldn’t they be willing to make concessions so that they can help ensure the survival of their company?

So instead, we the people are supposed to provide these car companies with money? It doesn’t matter if it is loans or a gift, the whole idea is anti-American, especially when the jobs we are saving are these greedy union members that won’t help their companies survive. But there is a better way, a more American way .. if we want to kick start the economy and provide relief to these car companies, fix the economy and get relief to Americans while we get Americans to start spending money again .. there is a better way.

Instead of lending money to General Motors, Chrysler and Ford, why not offer cash rebates from the government directly to the car buyer, for people that buy American Cars. It could be a percentage of the MSRP or a fixed amount, but give it not to the car dealers, not the car manufacturers, not the union members, but directly to the car purchasers. That should deal with the problem in a much more American and efficient way. It will get Americans to start spending money on cars, but only American cars, and it will help the companies move their inventory and get the cash flow going again. This will give them an opportunity to fix themselves and produce cars that can be profitable that can compete with foreign cars.

Just imagine, make the best deal you can with the dealer, and then get an additional $7500 cash back from the government not from the dealer. It will provide an incentive to buy American cars. It will help the big 3 sell cars and be much more competitive vs. the foreign car makers. It will remove the need for the big 3 to get these loans as their cash flow will instantly improve as people start buying cars. It will stimulate the economy in a completely non-regressive manner. Anyone would get the rebate if they buy an American Car. Perhaps the incentives could vary based upon the type of car so that cars with better gas mileage had a higher incentive and a bigger cash rebate.

You want a stimulus .. here is your stimulus. You want a bailout .. here is something better .. a boost to car sales.

Maybe that sounds a little cranky! That is because I am cranky! I am the Cranky Voter!

And the most important point she makes is that she is running because she is hot! Check out the video commercial:

Paris Hilton Video

So who wins the debate? Obama? McCain? No the real winner is Paris Hilton. She is going to get tons of positive attention from this internet ad and generate lots of positive buzz.

Obama, “the other one who just wants change”, doesn’t want to drill offshore, doesn’t want to drill in the Mountains of the Midwest and doesn’t want to drill in Alaska. The governor of Alaska has gone on record saying that she wants to allow dilling in her state, that she feels it is safe and good for Alaska. However, Obama knows best and won’t even entertain the idea. Obama also does not want to invest in Nuclear energy. I am not usually a big fan of the French, but they provide 80% of their power needs from safe, clean effective Nuclear Power. The technology has improved greatly over the years and yet Obama is against any Nuclear Power in the United States. We have some of the largest deposits of Coal in the world and yet Obama is against investing in technology to make coal cleaner and more environmentally safe. His idea is to invest in alternate technology like wind, solar and battery power, which is great but which might not make a difference to our cost of energy for years. In addition, he plans on funding this investment in new technologies on a windfall profit tax on oil companies. It sounds good to tax the oil companies that are making record profits, but the problem is that we tried to implement a Windfall Profits Tax before. It didn’t result in yielding the expected revenue, as a matter of fact it only pulled in 25% of the expected revenue and actually caused the oil companies to cut back on production which limited the supply and raised prices even further. It also resulted in long lines at gas stations because in addition to high prices, there were also shortages of supply.

McCain, “the old wrinkly white haired dude”, is in favor of offshore drilling, drilling in Anwar and Nuclear Power, investing in Coal Technology right now, but although he seems to be in favor of wind, solar and battery technology but is certainly not effective in communicating these priorities. The fact is noone has really put forward a realistic way to get gas prices back down to $3 a gallon. McCain advocates a gas tax holiday in order to reduce the price of gas, the problem is that it would only save 18 cents a gallon, would create a revenue shortfall, and is a short term fix that might not really reduce the price of gas, since we can not ensure that gas stations and oil companies will pass the savings on to the consumer. Instead a Gas Tax holiday is a political and financial shell game at best. McCain also doesn’t talk about the environmental controls that Paris describes in her energy policy.

The truth is that neither candidate has an extensive, detailed energy policy that sounds like it will work. We haven’t heard anything that will impact the cost of gas at the pump in the short term for sure. We have to rely on either economic forces and a greater supply to make a short term difference or the miracles of advanced technological advancement. Neither candidate has talked about how to fund all of this effectively. So if you ask me, Paris Hilton has the best plan for Energy Independence for our country. So my vote is Paris Hilton for President. Mostly because … she’s hot!

Maybe that sounds a little cranky! That is because I am cranky! I am the Cranky Voter!

So let’s look at John McCain the War Hero and Prisoner of War. Is he a leader? According to some Democratic surrogates his military experience should not count since he was not really in charge of anything and as a prisoner of war he didn’t get much of a chance to lead. I would say that is a rude statement by General Clark, but if you think about it, perhaps he has a point. If he was such a good leader, then how did he allow himself to get captured in the first place? Don’t you think a good leader could have avoided capture. Then once they found out who he was and that his father was a a VIP in the armed services, they gave him the opportunity to be released. John McCain decided to stay with his fellow troops instead of being released. Definitely a noble act but did the volunteering to stay a prisoner of war show leadership or stupidity? How was he going to lead his men while a prisoner? How was he going to support the war effort by volunteering to be held prisoner and tortured for years to the point where he can no longer raise his hands to comb his hair?

I am sorry, I might see altruism and perhaps a twisted sense of loyalty but no leadership. If you ask me it shows stupidity to stay imprisoned without the ability to add anything further to the war effort. Perhaps it shows some character strength and weakness all at the same time. If he was such a great leader, why didn’t he figure out a way to lead his fellow troops to freedom? If he was such a great leader, why didn’t he figure out a way to mislead the enemy and cause their defeat from behind enemy lines? What kind of moron decides to stay with the enemy and be tortured? Was he like the captain going down with his ship? No one does that anymore, who stays on his ship while it is sinking? I guess the same guy who stays in the prisoner of war camp. Of course maybe that sounds a little cranky.

As for a community organizer, what the heck does a community organizer do? Was Obama a rabble rouser or did he bring people together? Did Obama help cause unrest among the populace or keep the peace? Did Obama get people out to vote? I guess he helped organize the community but did Obama organize any great event that he got the community to come to? Did he fight for some great cause that he got everyone in Chicago behind? Did he do anything but help organize the community based upon someone else’s words and ideas? He was no Martin Luther King or even Louis Farrakhan (a leader, although I would say a crazy racist leader). He had no followers or disciples but was instead was a follower, a mere cog in the great Chicago political machine. He learned how to speak well just like he was giving a church sermon. He learned how to say nothing while it seamed he was saying something. Tell me, what did Obama do? What did he organize? What cause did he fight for? How many other organizers worked with him to organize? What was the result of all this community organization?

I am sorry but community organizer sounds like a bunch of crap and it certainly doesn’t sound like leadership. If anything it might sound like management, but I don’t know if we can judge how effective a manager he was. Do we all understand the difference between leadership and management? A leader tells us where to go while a manager helps us get there. These are two very different concepts both important in a President, but they are not interchangeable. We all say that we are looking for a leader. Someone who has vision and insight. A person that can understand the right thing to do and get everyone motivated on how to do it. Someone who can reach across party lines to effectively work with all parties to do the right thing for the country, not just the easy or popular thing for your career. A speech is only words if they don’t inspire you to action and if they are not actionable. Change just for change sake is not always the best thing for the country. Hitler made changes in pre-WWII Germany, but I don’t think anyone would say that those changes were good. You can manage your way in circles if you don’t have a direction. OK, maybe that sounds a little Cranky.

So perhaps we should look at other experiences of these two candidates. John McCain spent 35 years in the Senate of the United States. While in the Senate he was not considered a partisan Republican but instead he was considered a Maverick that crossed party lines and did what he believed was the right thing instead of always what his party wanted. Love him or hate him, John McCain governed based upon his principles and did what he thought was right even if he alienated members of his own party while doing it. McCain was critical of his own party and his President about the mismanagement of the war in Iraq among other things. He was one of the strongest and earliest voices in favor of Rumsfeld’s replacement as Secretary of Defense and a change in strategy in Iraq. It was his voice that stood alone amongst the candidates for President as the proponent for the Surge which has definitely appeared to have worked and made Iraq a safer place. McCain also stood up for Campaign Finance Reform with Democratic partners (Fiengold) and has never been afraid to partner with Ted Kennedy on Education Reform or just give his opinion whether asked for it or not. McCain might not have shown leadership as a Prisoner of War, although he did show patriotism, but he has shown leadership in his experience in the Senate.

Obama has very limited experience in the US Senate. He made a very eloquent speech opposing the war in Iraq in which he had no ability to affect. At the time, everyone believed that there was WMD in Iraq and if we had found nuclear devices in Iraq, there certainly wouldn’t have been as much opposition to the war. I thought that the war was poorly planned and I thought that the original authorization for the war was going to be used as leverage in negotiation instead of as the validation by congress to invade Iraq. If Obama had been in the Senate, would he have voted along with most of the Democrats to authorize the use of force or would he have remained consistent with his principles? We will never know, but once in the Senate he did nothing that the majority of Democrats didn’t do and voted the same as Hillary and others to support the war in Iraq. Once in the Senate, was he able to provide leadership to convince everyone to stop funding the war in Iraq and get the administration to bring our troops home? Was he able to articulate any different strategy that was actionable and make his case to the American people and his fellow Democrats? What legislation did he author that made any significant difference in our lives? What had he accomplished in the Senate that he can point to and demostrate his leadership abilities?

Even now, Obama goes overseas and meets with world leaders to demonstrate his ability to lead our nation and work with our European Allies. Obama meets with them behind closed doors and then says the meetings were good and assures us that he can work with them. Didn’t George Bush look into Putin’s eye and say his viewed his soul and confirmed to us all that his intentions were good and that we can work with the Russians. All that meeting stuff is crap. What is the Prime Minister of France or Germany going to say, your candidate is an idiot? Besides, why would France and Germany hate Obama when he plans to turn America into a Socialist state very similar to their own countries in Europe with higher taxes on everyone, and Socialized Medicine. Could you imagine the PM of France coming out and saying .. that is it, Obama is full of crap, I can not work with him. America come to your senses and do not elect this utter fool! The world doesn’t work that way. Just because Obama met with these world leaders does not mean he understands foreign policy or has any experience on the world scene.

If you ask me, both candidates don’t have all of the experience you would need to become President. They have experience as a Senator, Prisoner, Community Organizer and whatever else, but they have never run anything - no company, no city, no state, no Executive experience. You think because someone talks about change that they are going to be able to implement that change? What makes you think anyone can make change for change sake? What are the details of the plan? Who do you think has a track record of working with all sorts of individuals in order to implement change? Who is most non-partisan? Who talks about change that is actionable? Who can lead this nation forward? Maybe we should start all over again. Maybe the method we have to pick our candidates is fundamentally flawed? Maybe people want to believe in fairy dust and make believe and aren’t concerned with electing a President that can lead us back to greatness. After all nobody is perfect, everyone makes mistakes. We just don’t want to make mistakes when electing the President of the United States.

OK, Maybe that sounds a little cranky! That is because I am cranky! I am a cranky voter!