I have to admit, Obama is an amazing speaker. In a short period of time, he can both capture the correct answer to Health Care Reform, and then immediately after, show that he has it completely wrong. Very few people have the ability to do such a thing in such a short period of time, let alone a single speech. Take for instance his speech last week where he attempted to once again, "Breathe New Life" into his dying bill:

So I don't believe we should give government bureaucrats or insurance company bureaucrats more control over health care in America.  I believe it's time to give the American people more control over their health care and their health insurance.  I don't believe we can afford to leave life-and-death decisions about health care to the discretion of insurance company executives alone.  I believe that doctors and nurses and physician assistants like the ones in this room should be free to decide what's best for their patients.

This is fantastic... and is the basic answer to reform. Patients... individuals... need to be in control. He hits it almost perfectly here. My only small quibble with this was the last statement... that "doctors and nurses and physician assistants like the ones in this room should be free to decide what's best for their patients."  Actually, patients should have the right to decide for themselves what is best, based on the consultation from doctors, nurses, etc.  Doctors shouldn't just be able to force their will on a patient.  At the end of the day, the patient is in ultimate control.

But after he says this, the very next thing he says is:

Now, the proposal I put forward gives Americans more control over their health insurance and their health care by holding insurance companies more accountable.  It builds on the current system where most Americans get their health insurance from their employer.  If you like your plan, you can keep your plan.

There are two problems with this. First, it takes control away from the American people and gives that control to bureaucrats and insurance companies, in direct contradiction to what he said earlier.  As I've said before in many posts, the only way to give the American people more control over their health care and their insurance is to decouple insurance as an employment benefit.  By creating "exchanges" where insurance companies get to offer up their policies, it also gives control to bureaucrats to control what plans are "acceptable" for the exchange.  This is also in direct contradiction to what Obama said.  As for his statement that I'd get to keep my plan if I like it... I wouldn't.  I have an HSA, which would most likely get scrapped by the exchange system.  Any exchange created by the government would include all sorts of mandatory riders, which are the exact reason why health insurance is now so expensive.

Of course, these were not the only things wrong with Obama's speech.  Almost every assertion he made defies economic logic, and has been proven to not work in states like Massachusetts and New York where they have been tried.  However, what I found most amazing was his logic... that somehow by taking control away from the American People, he was in fact somehow actually giving us more control.

Back in the 1970's, President Nixon (in all his brilliance) decided to tackle the issue of "escalating oil prices" by simply saying you can't raise the price.  Soon rationing followed in various states, and we were left the "Odd-Even" days at the gas pump.  Your license plate determined whether you could even buy gas on a specific day.

Now Obama is proposing we fix prices on insurance. Anyone want to bet that doctor's offices will start enacting "Odd-Even" days based on your Social Security card? Isn't it convenient that each citizen now carries the equivalent of a license plate in their wallet?

In keeping with my promise to cover each of the candidates equally when examining an issue, today I'll take a look at the companies (and more specifically the locations of the companies) who have designed each of the campaign web sites for the governor's race.

Scott Walker:

WISN has already covered the fact that Scott Walker's site was designed by a firm in Ohio.  It's a nice site, though I have some minor issues with it. For one, the site improperly asks Twitter users for both their Twitter name and password in order to "Tweet for Scott Walker". This is highly insecure, and nobody should use this. The proper method would be to use OAuth, which allows users to Login into Twitter, and then authorize the campaign site to publish to Twitter with their name. The myscottspot.org site also has users create user names and passwords, but has no SSL option. This is also insecure.

Tom Barrett:

Tom has just revealed his new website design. And guess what... it was designed by a firm in Boston! Kind of puts a little wrinkle in Tom's entire section he devotes to creating jobs in Wisconsin doesn't it?  What's the matter Tom, aren't there any qualified Wisconsin companies who can do website work for you?  Ironically enough, Liberty Concepts also lists the Wisconsin Democratic Party on it's portfolio as well. Apparently the entire Wisconsin Democratic block would rather create jobs out of state too.  I'm sure my friend Chris (Capper) will be sure to equally criticize Barrett for sending jobs out of Wisconsin.*

Mark Nuemann:

Mark Nuemann's website interesting enough says "Made in Wisconsin", although I couldn't easily find any details about which firm created the site. If you happen to know, be sure to drop a comment.

Reality:

* I really don't give two figs about which design firm created the campaign's websites... except that this should expose a little hypocrisy among those who criticized Walker for going out of state. While I think there are plenty of quality design firms in the area (and I've worked with several), there are many reasons to go with one company over another.  These include cost, staff who may have worked with a company previously and have a relationship with them already, as well as a pre-existing platform that others may not offer.  In fact, the entire concept of laws that require that a certain amount of work, or products, be made in state, or in this country, goes against the very concepts of free markets and optimal utilization of resources... you know... good economics.

During the Bush Administration, MoveOn started an impressive grassroots movement, not only against that President, but also to help drive the Democratic minority (at the time) into what it thought would be a successful position for later elections. Some would argue how much of that later Democratic success could be attributable to them, and other groups like them, but it is hard to say that there was no influence.  Now, during the Obama Administration, there is a similar movement afoot... the "Tea Party Movement".  But does anyone know what that movement is really about?

First of all, there are just way too many Tea Parties. There are semi-national groups like Tea Party Patriots, Tea Party Nation, and the Tea Party Express to name just a few. Then there are smaller regional groups as well, some of which are loosely affiliated with the national groups, and some of which are affiliated with nobody in particular.  Some of them are fairly independent, and even leaning libertarian, while others are closely coupled with GOP Political Action Committees.

Two weeks ago was the Tea Party Nation convention.  It was a national event held in Tennessee that featured $500+ ticket prices, $10,000 speaker fees (if you have runner's legs and can say "You Betcha") and conspiracy theorists.  For a movement that was about individual anger and the common person, it was surprising and somewhat disappointing to see a for-profit event which was inaccessible to the common person.  Sadly, the worst part was the often ignored primetime speaking platform that was offered to Joseph Farah from World Net Daily.  He chose to use his national speaking time to push his often disproved theory that President Obama is not an American Citizen, getting applause the entire time. It also didn't help that Tom Trancedo was there, suggesting that requiring a literacy test prior to voting would have prevented Obama from being elected.

Many smaller scale Tea Party protests have featured fringe folks holding signs and saying some very crazy stuff.  While Democrats may have wanted to showcase them as being an integral part of the movement, their numbers were in fact very small.  The worst part of the Tea Party Nation convention was that those very fringe people were given primetime speaking platforms.  In effect, they owned up to the crazy folks, as long as they were Anti-Obama.  No matter which Tea Party you choose to go to, you can now be associated with the likes of Farah and other conspiracy theorists.

Glenn Reynolds (of Instapundit fame) seemed more hopeful of the movement coming out of Nashville, even as he largely ignored the Farah and Trancedo remarks.  Of course, if you followed the events preceding the convention, Pajamas Media (who Reynolds now blogs for) was not invited, then was, then wasn't, then finally was.  In fact, Pajamas Media rarely has anything bad to say about the movement, so much so that I question their independence.  In a recent post, Reynolds had this say about a Tea Party Candidate running against Harry Reid:

RETTY SURE THIS IS A BAD IDEA: Tea Party to run 3d party candidate against Harry Reid. I think it's smarter for Tea Party activists to target primary races, rather than starting their own party as seems to be happening in Nevada. Two words: "Ross Perot." Two more: "Ralph Nader."

There is also talk of "Tea Party" activists attempting to start at the ground level in GOP strong holds and get elected into the party as precinct leaders in order to change the platform.  It would seem that there is a basic fight going on... one between the "I'm a Conservative, Not a Republican" crowd to remake the GOP, the Libertarians who are looking for a larger audience, and the Republicans (like Palin) who are trying to use the Tea Parties to bring back the old GOP.  It's important not to ignore the libertarians, as the number of people who fit the "small-l" libertarian mold is probably larger than people realize.

The problem is, mostly people aren't all that politically active, and so they really only know two old parties.  But while they may generally choose one or the other if they have to, that doesn't mean they ascribe to the entire platform of one party or the other... not even by a long shot.  Polls like this show that many, if not most Americans, really just want to be left alone and do what they do, without being troubled by the government.  Unfortunately, given the right media, and the right scare tactics, politicians have been able to scare them into giving up that liberty for some false protection of things they cherish, like their families and their children.

But do these Tea Parties do anything to serve those basic wants of the general population?  What started out well as a simple anti-bureaucracy and anti-tax movement (Taxed Enough Already) has transformed into something else.  While Sarah Palin did well to talk about the need for small government, she also concentrated a strange amount of time to terrorism and foreign policy.  She spoke glowingly about the Constitution, only to say it should be ignored when inconvenient in the fight on terrorism.  It was difficult to distinguish her talk from one you might hear at a GOP convention.  But the Tea Party movement started out not as a red-meat Republican movement, but as an anti-government movement. Foreign Policy had nothing to do with it.

While it has been nice to see so many people get off their couches and become active, it seems that they are becoming active in the wrong ways.  The Tea Party movement is shifting away from its small government roots to "use the big government to do the things I want"... which is how the Republican Party got in trouble in the first place.  Scott Brown, for all the Tea Party fan fare he got, supports Massachusetts Health Care (and voted for it as a state legislator).  That plan, is essentially the same one Democrats had proposed, but on a smaller scale.  Supporting him was nothing but an opportunistic way to stop Obama Care.  And yet, many Tea Party folks still support him as a Tea Partier despite the fact that he really doesn't believe in small government.  The reality is, his usefulness to the Tea Partiers is over.  They should really just drop him.

But it seems that the movement is trying to capture as many people as possible with as large of a tent as possible.  The problem is, many of the ideas being thrown around under that tent simply don't mix, or don't help anyone's cause.  While many Libertarians are happy to see people fight for small government, we're much less inclined to support those who want to refuse Constitutional Rights to people, or fight even more foreign wars.  Anti-Tax is fine, but being a birther (or a truther for that matter) isn't.  And what about immigration policy?  There seems to be a wide rift there as well.

It's hard to see exactly what the Tea Party movement is all about, except as a way for various people to vent their frustrations over whatever happens to be bothering them about government right now.  For my part, I will continue to vent my frustrations here.  I don't need a party to do that.

Answer: Which Paul Ryan?

Paul Ryan is back in the news again with an updated version of his Roadmap For America's Future.  He's even given it a 2.0 moniker to make it seem oh so very modern, like Web 2.0, but with money! Color me less than impressed. Don't get me wrong, the plan itself is bold and goes at the heart of our nation's budget problems... entitlement spending.  As Ezra Klein said:

Ryan’s budget is a radical document that takes current policy and rolls a live grenade underneath it.

Talking Points Memo on the other hand wonders if this is going to be part of a Republican Bait and Switch, and wants to know if Ryan is out in the wilderness on this, or if the rest of the GOP is going to back him.  I on the other hand want to know if this is yet another Paul Ryan Bait and Switch.  To put it bluntly, Paul Ryan suffers from multiple politician disorder... better known as being a two-face. 

He writes opinion articles in local newspapers talking about how fiscally conservative he is, and how we need to reign in spending, and rework the budget, and then votes on massive entitlements, bailouts which result in the nationalization of industries, and then comes back to his home district and pretends he didn't do any of those things.  I've come to the conclusion that there must be two Paul Ryans.  There is the one who shadow writes his op-eds, and the other one who actually casts votes in Washington.  Frankly, I'd like to know who writes his op-eds for him, so I can tell him to run against Paul Ryan in the Republican primary.

I've blogged about this many times before, and Michelle Malkin has had her doubts for a while as well.  Finally, some others are finally catching on, including Matt Lewis at the Daily Caller:

Though he talks like Nobel Prize-winning economist Milton Friedman, some of Ryan’s most high-profile votes seem closer to Keynes than to Adam Smith. For example, in the span of about a year, Ryan committed fiscal conservative apostasy on three high-profile votes: The Troubled Asset Relief Program, or  TARP (whereby the government purchased assets and equity from financial institutions), the auto-bailout (which essentially implied he agrees car companies – especially the ones with an auto plant in his district—are too big to fail), and for a confiscatory tax on CEO bonuses (which essentially says the government has the right to take away private property—if it doesn’t like you).
...
Though Ryan has downplayed his bad votes, what is more interesting is that few conservatives seem to hold them against him. His many defenders (and trust me, I’ve encountered them) cavalierly dismiss his voting record as mere pragmatism, or an easily forgiven mistake, like, 'Oops, I voted for $700 billion! My bad…'

You can read more about Paul Ryan's history on the auto bailout here, and about how it harms the rule of law here.  You can read about how he mismanaged TARP here, and then tried to recover from it poorly here.  You can also read about the many economic contradictions he believes in here. Of course, let's not forget that Paul Ryan also voted for one of the largest entitlement increases in the past decade... Medicare Part D.  In most of those previous blog posts, I have quoted Paul Ryan's own op-eds that show how he tries to look fiscally conservative while at the same time voting for an increase in government spending.  And while he was voting for these increased entitlements and bailouts, he was still pushing "The Roadmap to America's Future 1.0".

So exactly why should I believe him now?  Why should any of us?  The reality is... Paul Ryan is nothing but a standard, big government Republican.  When Republicans were in complete control of the whole shooting match, did Paul flex his supposed "small government fiscal responsibility" and try to make change? No, he voted for Medicare Part D. When GM and Chrysler were finally paying the consequences of their mismanagement and about to go under, did Paul let them?  No, he voted to nationalize them.  Time and time again he has either used his party's majority status to pass whatever they wanted, or used the excuse of "once in a lifetime emergency" to push us further and further into debt.

That debt, by the way, is the very reason why Ryan said he needed to update the Roadmap from 1.0 to 2.0.  He needed to account for the new spending that has gone on.  That new spending, like $700 billion in TARP funding he voted for.  That new spending like the GM bailout he voted for. The new entitlement guarantees that Medicare Part D put upon us, which he voted for.  Only now... now that his party is not in control does he come forth as a "rising star" and suggest blowing up the budget and starting over again.  And if, spearheaded by Paul Ryan's budget ideas, Republicans come back to power... why should we believe that they simply won't shelve the Roadmap and start spending? How many times do the voters have to get slapped around before they learn that their politicians don't love them, no matter how many times they apologize?

I'm sick of op-eds Paul. I want votes dammit.

Congratulations to Integrated Mail Industries for successfully strong arming land from Bee Bus Lines:

Land on Milwaukee's north side will become available for an adjacent company to expand under the pending settlement of a two-year-old eminent domain dispute.

The parcels are owned by Bee Bus Line Inc., which operates at 4330 N. 35th St., just north of the site.

The Redevelopment Authority in December 2007 began eminent domain proceedings to force a sale of the parcels. City officials said the land is needed for a 60,000-square-foot expansion of Integrated Mail Industries Ltd., 3450 W. Hopkins St.

Bee's properties are adjacent to Integrated Mail, a direct-marketing company, which says it might leave Milwaukee if it cannot expand its 167,000-square-foot facility. Integrated Mail, with 120 employees, expects to create 50 full-time jobs by expanding.

The Common Council authorized eminent domain proceedings after land sale negotiations between Integrated Mail and Bee broke down. The Redevelopment Authority would use eminent domain to buy the land and then resell it to Intergrated Mail.

Bee objected, saying the sale should be negotiated between the two companies without the city's intervention. Integrated wanted to buy the parcels for much less than what Bee paid, the bus company said. Bee also said Integrated Mail would not negotiate in good faith because of the eminent domain proceedings.

Of course, the way the article is written, it seems so wonderful.  After all... jobs will be created with this new land!  But let's look at what really happened here.  IMI went to Bee and asked to buy the property for a price.  Bee said it wanted moren (actually they just wanted at least what they paid for it), and IMI, instead of continuing to negotiate in good faith, went to the city and demand they use eminent domain to take the property at a lower price and resell it to them.  This is nothing but government sponsored theft.

If property rights meant anything, then a property owner (Bee Bus Lines) ought to be allowed to ask whatever they wanted for that property.  If their price is too high, than no sale will be made and they'll be stuck.  But just because IMI didn't want to pay a price doesn't mean that they ought be allowed to go the city to "force a sale".  That is like suggesting that if a woman declines a man at a bar, he ought to be able to go the police and have a cop hold her down while he rapes her... to force the completion of a "transaction" he demanded of her.  Having a right to something means nothing if it does not include the right to refuse sale of that item, for whatever reason.  This isn't the God Father... you have the right to refuse an offer.

The framers of our Constitution thought the same thing when they drafted the 5th Amendment:

... nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

When the Kelo decision was handed down, so many states objected to the poor decision that they passed laws strengthening property owner's rights against eminent domain.  One of the dangers of course is that someone who is politically well connected can use Eminent Domain against private property owners who are less well connected.  It should come as no surprise to anyone that this is probably happening in this case.

What was left out of the article above is that Integrated Mail Industries is owned by the AB Data Group.  Among many of the companies under the AB Data umbrella is the AB Data Consulting Group.  Their home page lists this as their mission (emphasis mine):

Our clients are working hard to change the world – and A.B. Data is helping them do it. For over 25 years, the AB Data Consulting Group has fostered dedicated partnerships with nonprofit charitable and progressive advocacy organizations, pushing the boundaries of direct response fundraising and securing the resources they need to fulfill their critical missions. AB Data's long record of integrated programs and cutting edge direct response fundraising solutions pave the way for success.

They were the major direct major consulting firm for the Obama campaign, and the owners of AB Data are major political movers in Milwaukee.  During the 2008 election cycle, between the three owners (Jerry Benjamin, Chuck Pruitt and Bruce Arbit) more than $10,000 was personally given to the Obama campaign alone according to a record search on OpenSecrets.org (along with various other Senate and Congressional campaigns).  A similar search on the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign showed smaller amounts given to dozens of state candidates over the years.  Unfortunately, Tom Barrett is not required to report on his campaign contributions for his gubernatorial run until the end of the month, but his mayoral contributions show Benjamin gave $1000 during the last mayoral campaign and the Arbit family donated less.  It's a bit hard to tell if that is all because the data is not combined anywhere in a single report.

Did any of this have to do with this recent decision? It's hard to tell.  However, the fear over these very questions was the reason why the prohibition against government taking property for private benefit was placed in the Constitution in the first place. And even if the reasons for the eminent domain proceedings had nothing to do with any contributions, Bee Bus Lines still had their lands stolen for IMI's profit.

Update 02/02/2010: It should also be noted that in the January Continuing 2010 report for Tom Barrett's Governor's campaign (searchable here) both Pruitt and Arbit gave $1,000. Jerry Benjamin did not donate as far as I can tell at this point.

JSOnline notes that there will be a ceremony welcoming Archbishop Jerome Listecki to Milwaukee:

Archbishop Jerome Listecki will be the guest of honor for an hourlong program that begins at 10:30 a.m. in the first floor rotunda.

Expected to attend are several state and local politicians, some of whom are seeking higher offices, including gubernatorial candidates Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett and County Executive Scott Walker.

The Syrena Polish Folk Dance Ensemble of Milwaukee will perform in honor of the Milwaukee Archdiocese's first Polish prelate.

Listecki, 60, was installed as archbishop of the 10-county archdiocese on Monday. He succeeds the Most Rev. Timothy M. Dolan, now archbishop of New York, as the spiritual leader of southeastern Wisconsin's nearly 650,000 Roman Catholics.

Friday's event is being recorded by City Channel 25 and will be shown at 10 p.m. Friday and 9 p.m. Sunday in Milwaukee on Channel 25 on Time Warner Cable and on AT&T U-Verse Channel 99.

My question is why?  The City of Milwaukee is already short on funds... so why is it spending money to have a lavish ceremony complete with Polish Dancers for a man who does not represent the entire population of Milwaukee?  After all, the Catholic churches in this area are doing a fine job at honoring their new archbishop, as they should.  There was a long ceremony at St. John's (which both Tom Barrett and Scott Walker attended), which was televised on local stations.  There will also be numerous other ceremonies at other churches as well.  The Catholic church should honor their new leader in the Catholic tradition.  The City of Milwaukee should continue in the business of running city business, which does not include Catholic worship.

The 1st Amendment of the United States Constitution states:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Milwaukee is not officially Catholic.  When choosing only to honor the leadership of one particular religion, they are choosing one over the other.  There are Jews, Protestants, Hindus and many other groups here.  You can't even argue that Listecki somehow represents all Christians in Milwaukee.  He does not represent all Christians... he only represents Catholics.  Either way, the city of Milwaukee has no business honoring or recognizing a new leader of a religious group.  When the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod has a new member in the Council of Presidents, is he invited to city hall to be honored?  Of course not.  And who knew that Congregation Churches everywhere were going to be left in the cold by the city because they don't have a royal hierarchy.

Catholics love their pomp and circumstance. Catholic leadership enjoys being looked upon as royalty. Our forefathers fought a war rejecting royalty in this nation, and there was a Protestant Reformation rejecting it in the church as well.  They city should consider these things when it chooses to only honor a single religion.  Keep Catholic ceremonies where they belong... in Catholic churches.