Also, the healthcare bills and their subsequent amendments seem to be driven not by reality and economics, but by anger and emotional class warfare. Take this amendment offered in December by Senator Blanche Lincoln (D-Arkansas):

Washington – U.S. Senator Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.) today unveiled her plan to cut the current $1 million tax shelter for insurance companies’ executive compensation.  Current law allows businesses to deduct up to $1 million annually per executive as a business expense.  Lincoln’s proposal would limit this amount to $400,000—the President’s salary—for health insurance companies that will profit as a result of health insurance reform.  

Compensation, even for executives, is a business expense. It should be included with all other expenses and deducted from income when filing taxes. Moreover, there is no credible reason why executive compensation should be at all considered when enacting any kind of healthcare reform legislation. Blaming insurance issues on executive compensation is like blaming the coach’s salary for a holding penalty.

It also shows that expansive entitlements and legislation will innevitably lead to more and more political control over our personal and professional lives.

There are plenty of other examples out there of these kind of class-warfare shenanigans (when we’re allowed to see what’s going on). The question I would have for voters is this: Do you want your healthcare being decided by politics, as this amendment suggests, or by reality between you and your doctor, and the applicable costs at hand? I would assume many would choose the latter. Unfortunately, however, the Democrat Party seems to be favoring the former.

It’s also important to point out that zoominac.com is my personal blog, and the opinions expressed here are mine alone and do not necessarily represent those of the RYPPC. ‘Ya mean?

And we’re being told all the time, Amy, that our options keep getting limited. We were told last year the only way people could get unemployment benefits is if Congress votes for war, the only way we can pass a hate crime is if Congress votes for war, the only way we can get housing is to give Wall Street a bailout. And that didn’t put people back in—most people back in their homes who lost them. You know, we’re going to get jobs by giving Wall Street a bailout; that didn’t work. Businesses are going to be helped by giving Wall Street a bailout; that didn’t work.

Obviously, Kucinich and I are on completely different ends of the political spectrum. However, I share his disappointment with the results of government action as opposed to what was promised by legislators when bills were passed.

What I don’t share is Kucinich’s continued faith in government to solve our problems. Many on the left and far left complain that Washington and the politicians who run it are “controlled” or “bought and paid for” by “corporate interests” and the like. Such influence shapes bills that come out of congress to the benefit of these special interests. My solution would be to greatly reduce the bills coming out of congress period. If the government is so corrupt and tainted by whatever boogeyman the Democrats are pointing out today, then wouldn’t the most prudent course of action be to let the government have as little control over our live as possible?

Kucinich and the liberals disagree. They believe that the problem  is not the system of government itself, but just the specific individuals that are currently in power. Just give ME a chance, and I’ll fix it, they say.

This time it will be different!

Faith in “reform” that amounts to nothing more than expanded government relies on your trust in politicians. The video below pretty much sums up my feeling here:

Trust me.

TALLAHASSEE - Gov. Charlie Crist is saying he did not endorse the $787 billion federal stimulus bill, a statement that might confuse some voters.  [Confuse is putting it mildly; irritate, astonish, infuriate, flabbergast, now those are more appropriate terms—Ed.]

Crist appeared with President Barack Obama in February to support the bill, asked Florida members of Congress to vote for it and previously told The Associated Press that he would have voted for it if he had been in the Senate.

But when the Republican governor talked about the bill Wednesday on CNN, he said he didn’t endorse it. Crist told CNN he understood that the bill was going to pass and wanted to use it for the benefit of Florida.

Crist has tried to distance himself from Obama and the stimulus bill since entering the 2010 Senate race in the spring.

Crist is a complete joke. He hugs the Spender in Chief at rallies and works to hamstring Florida’s economy in the name of the “environment” when it’s politically convenient. Then he runs deceptive radio ads to make him look like Mr. Conservative:

Florida’s airwaves are alive with the sound of Governor Charlie Crist’s radio advertisement trumpeting his grade of “A” on Cato’s “Fiscal Policy Report Card on America’s Governors.”

I am pleased that Gov. Crist values Cato’s ratings because we work hard to make them accurate and nonpartisan. But the radio ad is making many fiscally conservative Floridians scratch their heads because of the governor’s recent policy actions.

The governor earned his Cato grade in last year’s report mainly because of his large property tax cuts and moderate spending approach. The grade was based purely on quantitative data on revenues, general fund spending, and tax rate changes.

However, since I wrote the report in mid-2008, the governor seems to have fallen off the fiscal responsibility horse.

In particular, Crist approved a huge $2.2 billion tax increase for the fiscal 2010 budget, even though he had promised that $12 billion in federal “stimulus” money showered on Florida over three years would obviate the need for tax increases.

Crist is a spender, a central planner, and a nanny-statist. Marco Rubio better pull this thing out.

AOSHQ had some thoughts on the future of the Republican party and the supposed conflict between conservatives and moderates:

I do not think these two camps are as far apart as their proponents seem to think. It is often the case that maximalists accuse, or suggest, that pragmatists aren’t interested in electing more conservative candidates, or of supporting more conservative primary challengers to confirmed RINOs. And it often the case that pragmatists (including myself) seem to talk as if the maximalists are unaware that a Tom Coburn type candidate wouldn’t fare so well in liberal New Jersey or arch-Democratic Maryland.

For what it’s worth, I agree with Mike Flynn at Big Government that fiscal, and not social conservatism will be the real divining rod in the politics of the future (emphasis mine):

This year, the Washington Post—the most effective arm of the Virginia Democrat Party—thought it found the silver bullet to kill the gubernatorial campaign of republican Bob McDonnell. They unearthed a 20-year old thesis McDonnell wrote in college that contained some pretty embarrassing statements–at least by today’s standards—about whether, for example, families are better off if the wife doesn’t work outside the home. The Democrats based almost their entire campaign, and the Post based most of its coverage, on McDonnell’s thesis. It must chill them to the bone that McDonnell is set to win by one of the larger margins in state history. It isn’t that the public, or even McDonnell today, agrees with what’s in the thesis; they just don’t care.

Conservatives, independents, and libertarian-leaning Republicans like myself will often be determining their support on fiscal issues, and I think that fiscal conservatism is something that can win nearly everywhere. I will not, however, join the chorus of bashing the “religious right” and looking to cast out a very important segment of the party. Nor will I, as Ace warned in his post, push my unorthodox positions (pro drug legalization and pro gay rights) as electoral winners. They are my positions, and I can try to persuade others to agree with me to the full extent of my ability, but I will not claim that they are viable political tools. As the Maine results showed, support for traditional marriage is still popular, even in liberal leaning states. And many who take an individualist or libertarian view on the issues are pro-life, which is where I stand.

I understand that there will need to be varying degrees of political positions for Republicans throughout the country. However, there must be a brand that voters can identify and count on in our party. We must stand for something, but we cannot stand for anything. Arlen Specterand Dede Scozzafava have no place on our side.

So where do we draw the line? We needn’t be open to everything, essentially political whores who see our next John in every voting block. Nor must we be the extremist caricature that the media paints conservatives to be. I think there are certain principles that every Republican in the country can and should support, which give voters a clear and consistent choice in contrast with the socialist Democrats, while still inclusive enough to win elections and, ya know, actually do something. Every Republican candidate in the country should believe that:

1. The size of government should not be increased - We may disagree with what the ideal size of government should be. Some believe it is a hedge that needs trimming. I think it is a pit viper that should be strangled. However, we can agree that the whole thing is too damn big as it is, and no more should be added. That means no to Obamacare and the stimulus. Republicans can disagree to a lot of things while still holding to this maxim.
2. All things being equal, the people who earn the money should be the ones to spend it and will do so better than the government can.
3. Whatever path society follows in the future, government should be neutral. Government should be reffing the game, not calling the plays.
4. The three branches of government should stick to their roles prescribed by the founders, especially in regards to the judiciary.
5. The United States should have the most powerful military in the world, as deterrence through strength is the surest path to peace. Liberal democracies have a natural bond that should not be shunned in international relations. The United States is not perfect, but overall has played a positive and liberating role in history. The United States was a victim on September 11, 2001, not a perpetrator. There is NO excuse for terrorism, nor any apology necessary for our self defense. The 9/11 attacks were not meant to be a solitary event - they were not the beginning of Al-Quaeda’s war on the United States, and they were not the end (can you hear me Ron Paul?).

In addition, with Obama’s clowns in office, this period will present a great oppurtunity to the GOP to pick off the low hanging fruit - things like transparency, honesty, ethics, and competence. All around winners.

To borrow from our Dear Leader, let me be clear. The stakes of losing elections, even for the sake of purity, are very high. However, we can not elect RINO candidates whose only accomplishment is to put GOP fingerprints on legislative clusterfucks like Medicare Part D, NCLB, TARP and Obamacare, allowing us to be indicted when these things inevitably blow up in America’s face. There can be room for dissent on issues, but we must offer a choice, not an echo.

TBO - Jessica Lunsford’s killer, John Couey, dies of cancer:

HOMOSASSA - News of the death of John Evander Couey, condemned to die for killing 9-year-old Jessica Lunsford in a case that sparked legislation across the nation clamping down on sex offenders, was met with mixed - but strong - emotions Wednesday.

“God done this in his own time,” said Ruthie Lunsford, Jessica’s grandmother, who said Couey’s death Wednesday morning from anal cancer came as a surprise. “I am not crying.”

…

According to prosecutors, Jessica - her parents always called her Jessie - was abducted from her home in the middle of the night in February 2005.

Couey kept her in the closet of his nearby mobile home and sexually molested her before binding her wrists and ankles with speaker wire, stuffing her inside two black plastic garbage bags and burying her alive in a 4-foot-deep hole.

Couey, 51, was on death row at the Florida State Prison near Starke until Aug. 12, when medical personnel there sent him to Jacksonville Memorial Hospital, which has a contract with the Florida Department of Corrections to treat inmates when prison doctors can’t. He died at 11:15 a.m. Wednesday, corrections spokeswoman Gretl Plessinger said.

John Couey was probably the most vile creature to ever crawl out of the swamps of Central Florida. He was a perverted animal whose soul was as dark and black as the tomb he burried his victim alive in. The case was also a stunning example of the failures of the modern judicial system. Couey was arrested 24 times before he met Jessica Lunsford, yet was still a free man. If society shares any blame in this tradgedy, it is from our failure to let people face the consequences of their actions, and on the state’s obsessions with endevours that do not protect against force and fraud.

I’m not a religious person, but for people like John Couey, I hope there’s a hell.

Excuse me? He is more than merely “accused” of unlawful sex with a minor. He pled guilty to it. And, moving on the teaser on the right for Patrick Goldstein’s piece, it will not cost the L.A. District Attorney (for whom I work but do not speak) much to “prosecute” Polanski — because we don’t have to “prosecute” him. We need only represent the People at the sentencing for the charge to which Polanski pled guilty.

The online version of the article is here. One can expect the minions of liberal Hollywood types making excuses and apologies for Polanski, as covered by CNN. However, like the L.A. Times, the professional media is also more than happy to gloss over what happened. As the CNN article reported:

The filmmaker pleaded guilty in 1977 to having unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor but fled before he could be sentenced. He settled in France, where he holds citizenship. Investigators in the United States say Polanski, then 43, drugged and raped a 13-year-old girl

Glossing over the serious and largely accepted charges of drugging and rape by writing “investigators say” is weak. Really weak.

To me, the Reuters article by Jason Rhodes takes the cake:

ZURICH/LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - Director Roman Polanski, whose work on films like “Chinatown” has often been overshadowed by his tumultuous life, was arrested in Zurich on a 1978 U.S. warrant for having sex with a 13-year-old girl.

Again, the serious implications of the case are glossed over. Only once, and briefly at that, is the drugging issue raised, and the word “rape” does not appear once in the article. Disgusting.

Kate Harding at Salon takes the proper tone (also via the Hot Air post), reminding us that Roman Polanski Raped A Child:

 Roman Polanski raped a child. Let’s just start right there, because that’s the detail that tends to get neglected when we start discussing whether it was fair for the bail-jumping director to be arrested at age 76, after 32 years in “exile” (which in this case means owning multiple homes in Europe, continuing to work as a director, marrying and fathering two children, even winning an Oscar, but never — poor baby — being able to return to the U.S.). Let’s keep in mind that Roman Polanski gave a 13-year-old girl a Quaalude and champagne, then raped her, before we start discussing whether the victim looked older than her 13 years, or that she now says she’d rather not see him prosecuted because she can’t stand the media attention.

Harding pretty much sums it up. A certain documentary may have brought some legitimate concerns to light about the original trial, but Polanski didn’t stay to fight. He ran off to Europe, his career in touch. As the Reuters article states, “But after his plea, Polanski fled the United States because he believed a judge might overrule his agreement and put him in jail for years.” He should have been in jail for years. The fact that someone who drugged, raped, and sodomized a 13 year old was free this long is an affront to the victim, society, and the rule of law itself.

TAMPA - As key political factors fall in place, Tampa, Lakeland and Orlando are leading contenders to launch the nation’s first true high-speed rail corridor, with 150 mph trains running by 2014.

On Friday, 40 states will file detailed high-speed rail project applications with the Federal Railroad Administration. In December, President Barack Obama will announce which will get money from the $787 billion federal stimulus plan to generate jobs.

If Florida gets the $2.5 billion it seeks, it will represent a stunning reversal of political fortunes - after 25 years of promise and setbacks - that will provide thousands of new jobs as early as 2011, when construction on the 95-mile Tampa-Orlando segment could begin.

…

Potential drawbacks - including construction and operations costs and how much demand there might be to pay $30 for a 64-minute ride from Tampa to Orlando International Airport - appear to have been relegated to the background.

Why? The prospects of jobs - at a time when it’s common for hundreds of people to vie for a handful of positions.

“High-speed rail will bring an unprecedented number of new jobs to Florida, with the overriding goal of supporting the federal recovery plan,” said U.S. Rep. Kathy Castor, D-Tampa, who has participated in several White House discussions on the topic this year.

The fact that a government boondoggle may employ people does not necessarily mean that it will “create jobs,” a fact that escapes the Obama Administration, Rep. Castor, and those who would prefer the landscape and transportation options of Floridians be planned by their superiors. How many jobs are lost when the government diverts dollars away from productive business and into things like high speed rail? Many proponents of such largess tout what a great “investment” such projects are, yet are inexplicably quiet when asked why private capital has not swarmed on such opportunities.

But perhaps “investments” and “jobs” are not the motivating factor behind the billions of dollars in subsidized trips to Disney World that are on queue:

Construction could begin as early as 2011, providing the Obama administration with potential political gains in an important presidential election swing state.

The I-4 corridor, as the inter Tampa-Orlando area is known, is the swing area of one of the major electoral swing states. The fact that President Obama will be trying to buy off the votes of Lakeland, Bartow, and Kissimmee should be disquieting. Many in Florida, and especially at the Trib, are more than happy to take billions of dollars in transportation welfare. However, one would wonder if such cheerleaders will be so supportive when Florida is sufficiently bought and paid for by the Democrat party, and Floridians’ tax dollars are sent to bribe some other state.