Hillary Clinton: “liar,” “dishonest” and “untrustworthy.”

I don't know when the summer leading up to a presidential election has ever been more interesting (read "strange") than this one. I think someday America will probably have a female president. There, I've said it. But this woman, who has been running for president most of her adult life, now faces the end of the trail.

Hillary Clinton

The smart money on the Democrat side got behind Hillary Clinton early. Then a radical socialist named Bernie Sanders started making headway and he began to nibble away at the Clinton lead. Strange that someone even more polarizing and radical than either Obama or Clinton could make that kind of headway.

Now comes news that her fund raisers are reporting less than enthusiastic support from traditionally reliable sources. Some are aching for Vice-President Joe Biden to get into the race, and even President Obama has reportedly "given his blessing" for another Biden run at the presidency. So much for forgotten pledges to Bill Clinton, who campaigned for Obama in exchange for a Hillary endorsement someday. The political calculus these days for me has become increasingly mystifying, and well, just strange. But some have suggested the Biden pick as VP was a cool political strategy on Obama's part because it insulated him from impeachment - no one would want Joe Biden as the replacement POTUS. Yes, strange.

Yesterday Hillary boasted that she already had 25% of the "super delegates" on the Democrat side already locked up, and she was certain the nomination would be hers. Well, time will tell on that one. Strange she could be so self-assured when her favorability ratings and her polling numbers keep dropping like a rock. She thinks the "fix" is in, but she may just sink her own ship that is beyond fixing.

On the Republican side all the air in the room is being sucked up by Donald Trump. He has been dissed, dismissed, and disassembled a thousand times piece by piece this summer by all the pundits who claim he has "no chance" of winning the nomination, much less the presidency in November 2016, and yet his ascendancy cannot be denied. Strange that someone so bombastic, arrogant and off-putting could somehow tantalize the electorate the way this man has.

Jeb Bush was the presumptive nominee a few weeks ago until Trump got into the race, and since that first debate Bush has been dropping. Three of his fund raisers have already abandoned the ship. That's very strange, given the inevitability of another Bush/Clinton match-up predicted by the political punditry earlier in the summer.

Someone I read yesterday on Twitter suggested to the DC establishment that if they want to stop Trump they should just endorse him. Strange that you've never heard that strategy enunciated in politics before this year. But these are not normal times. The disfavor into which the Republican establishment has dropped keeps finding new bottoms.

The Republican field is deep this year and filled with what one would presume is a talented field. One would think the GOP hierarchy would be licking its chops in glee. Experienced governors and ex-governors with tremendous accomplishments in the field this year would be a campaign organizer's dream come true. Talk about an embarrassment of riches! But this year things are different. Things are very strange this year.

Donald Trump

Topping the early primary polling, of course, is Mr. Trump, followed now by retired brain surgeon Ben Carson, and retired HP CEO Carly Fiorina. It depends of course on who's doing the polling, but the strange thing about the ascendancy of Trump, Carson and Fiorina is that they are political outsiders. It seems Republicans have forsaken their party champions and taken leave of their collective conservative and time-tested reasoning ability and their rational and measured sense of propriety. That's strange indeed to think Trump could be the standard bearer for conservatives.

But maybe, just maybe, what's happening is a collective disenchantment with leadership in the GOP. They made bold promises about standing up against Obama. Republicans swept control of both houses of Congress in 2014, with high hopes the promises made would be promises kept. But their perception seems to be that they got nothing of what they bargained for from either Boehner in the House or McConnell in the Senate. One senses the makings of an uprising in the base.

Maybe in part that's what might explain Trump's ascendancy. His scorched earth policies and rhetoric - maybe the best word is "hyperbole" - have swept across the land like a raging wildfire of pent up anger, especially over illegal immigration. Many are warning of what happened in pre-World War II Europe as millions promoted and embraced Adolph Hitler in the name of German nationalism. That idea, however, seems a little strange to me, since Obama would resemble more of a dictator than Trump. But I said this was a strange summer.

Nevertheless, there are those who see all the familiar earmarks of what's now happening in America in our desperate search for a savior who can deliver America. "Making America Great Again" has struck a responsive chord and Trump has found legs with his slogan this summer. Granted he's a little light on the specifics of HOW he's going to do that, but it seems a refreshing alternative to what Obama has given us in his "transformational change" of nearly everything in America.

People are saying they've had enough of politicians and their promises, period. Somehow, almost mystically it seems, Trump has managed to differentiate himself from lifelong politicians and their promises. He says outrageous things that would doom any other politician and he gets away with it as his poll numbers continue to soar! And that's very strange.

Here's the essence of all this: There was a poll last week that caught my attention. It was done by Quinnipiac, and summarized by Breitbart. The participants in the poll were asked to give the first word that came to their minds when Clinton, Trump and Bush were mentioned.

The top three words used to describe Hillary Clinton were "liar," "dishonest" and "untrustworthy."

And that might be the first thing I've read this summer that was not strange.

Thoughts on Independence, Moral Agency, SSM and Eternal Truth

I've been asked by more than a few followers of this page why I haven't posted anything about the recent ruling of the SCOTUS on same sex marriage. The short answer is that Patsy recently decided to exchange her bad knee for a cobalt steel replacement part, and her surgery and recovery have pre-occupied my free time. Now it's Independence Day weekend and I have a chance to reflect.

The Supreme Court of the United States of America

I find these latest developments in the LGBTQ (yes "Q" has been added - meaning "questioning" my sexuality) agenda to be so ironic. On the one hand we find advocates asserting their independence and exercising their moral agency to choose homosexuality. And on the other hand they could not be more anti-Christ than they are.

It was Christ in the pre-existence who championed our moral agency. We who walk the earth today were there as pre-mortal spirits. We sanctioned the plan of our Father in Heaven, the centerpiece of which was the ability to choose between right and wrong here in mortality. The consequences for our choices are not always immediately in evidence. Sometimes years go by before we reverse course and repent. Knowing there would be universal opposition to the truth, promoted and advocated by Satan and his minions, we accepted the offer of our Elder Brother, Jesus Christ, to come to earth, live the perfect life, and sacrifice Himself for all of us to satisfy all the demands of justice under the laws of God. There weren't "two plans" put forward - only one plan - and our Lord and Savior became the Chosen One to implement that plan.

So I find it sadly ironic, because there seems little more that I could offer at this point that I haven't already said on the matter. The plan of salvation, referred to as "the great plan of happiness" (see Alma 42) by Alma, has as the bedrock principle the creation of mortal bodies to house the spirits created by God. In order to bring to pass the immortality and the eternal life of man (see Moses 1:39), God's stated purpose for His existence, we must assist in His work by bringing to pass the mortality of man by providing the mortal bodies for those spirits. Gender identification is also imprinted as part of the plan. Males and females are distinctly unique in the creative process. Each contributes a piece to make a new human body. The two parts are joined together in a holy union, a holy matrimony, to complete the plan.

The perversions around human sexuality are no longer secret, nor spoken in hushed secret corners. In fact, those perversions which until a few years ago were against the laws of most states, are now freely available to all who would choose them. The SCOTUS, make that one justice of the SCOTUS in a 5-4 vote, who wrote the majority opinion, has chosen for the whole nation based upon the popular opinion of the electorate as registered in recent polling data about same sex marriage. I accept the ruling of the SCOTUS as the supreme law of the land in the highest court, even though I would side with those four justices who dissented.

You can herald the triumph of so-called "equal rights" and "equal access" to marriage if you choose - that is your right as well - but this latest decision has little to do with a Constitutional right. This wasn't about the Constitution, observed Chief Justice Roberts, writing in his minority opinion. Roberts correctly observed the Court had overturned the voice of the people who had voted to retain the definition of traditional marriage in the several States through their elected representatives in the Republic established under the Constitution. Nowhere in the Constitution can an "equal right" to gay marriage be found. You won't even find a definition of traditional marriage there. Instead, the Founders wisely left to the States the definitions and resolutions of those kinds of issues. At the federal level, power of, by and through the people's voice has been trampled upon once again.

This was about advancing the anti-Christ agenda, nothing more, nothing less. He didn't say that, I did.

Why anti-Christ? Because the argument that "God made me this way and there's nothing I can do about it," is fundamentally flawed. Those who so assert also claim there is no need to repent of their perversion because God made them that way. "I'm not sinning because there's nothing I can do about the way I am." How convenient. Those of us who were also made by God, by the extension of that reasoning must also get a "free pass" for repentance. We truly live in a day of "live and let live" and "God will beat me with a few stripes in the end" (2 Nephi 28:8) but I'll eventually be saved in my sins because God loves me just as much as He does you. But as scripture reminds us, no one is saved in their sins. (Alma 11:34-37). The subtle rejection of the need for a Redeemer and the need for repentance is what is at the core of the LGBTQ agenda. However, you won't hear it expressed in those terms from them. Being "anti-Christ" isn't subtle enough for them. Instead, they seek to "normalize" the perversion so revulsion evaporates.

The perversions in the flesh are analogous to the perversions they make in the Word. A lawyer asked the Savior a question: "Master which is the great commandment in the law? Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets." (Matthew 22:35-40).

In the name of "loving our neighbor" tolerance reached its pinnacle under hashtag #lovewins on word of the SCOTUS decision. It may be "love" in the eyes of homosexuals, but it still classifies as perversion as it was in the days of Sodom and Gomorrah. The legal definition of love now having been defined by the courts notwithstanding, marriage between a man and a woman is God's law.

I find it nothing short of stunning how quickly this agenda has advanced in public opinion. Even among members of the Church there seems to be a "no big deal" attitude. "If gay people want to get married, that's fine with me, what's the big deal?" they seem to repeat among themselves, as though there will be no consequences for those who have chosen their perversions. The weakening of the moral fiber not only in America but world-wide, is well-documented and now continues without much resistance it seems. What was once the silent sin of Sodom and Gomorrah is now splashed boldly in rainbow colors illuminating the White House.

There is no other word than "stunning" to describe it. People forget that in both elections in 2008 and 2012, President Barack Hussein Obama was elected by stating his support for traditional marriage to avoid risking the alienation of voters in the Hispanic, Black and other religious communities who also favored traditional marriage. And now a rainbow colored White House in celebration of same sex marriage? Well, there you have it. . . that's stunning! You can ask yourselves why it happened so quickly, but the easy answers might be the influence of media, including television sitcoms and the attempts by advocates to "normalize" homosexual behavior. "We're just like you are," they will claim, and being the tolerant neighbor-loving and embracing people we are, and not wanting to be classed as "homophobic" we have come to the conclusion it can't be all that bad. That's how public opinion shifted so easily. One author called it "The Big Gay Lie."

The First Presidency

The Quorum of the Twelve Apostles

Either this week or the following week, congregations in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints will be discussing a lengthy letter produced by the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. We sustain these fifteen men as living prophets, seers and revelators. The topic of their letter to the Church will be the recent SCOTUS decision. Once again members of the Church will be given an opportunity to absorb, digest, discuss, and either support or oppose their leaders on this topic. It is not the first chance, nor will it be the last to weigh in.

The assaults on religious freedom will continue unabated. I would expect the Church to continue to be the bastion of eternal truth it has always been. They constantly warn against being "tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of [false] doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive." (See Ephesians 4:11-15). These fifteen men are the very reason Apostles were chosen and ordained in the meridian Church by Christ, and they are the modern-day counterparts.

I have read a lot, the ruling itself, all the dissents and much more while Patsy has been rehabbing her new knee. I have seen the comments of a lot of "good" members of the Church on forum boards and their social media postings. There are many who assert that like the question over Blacks receiving the priesthood and even longer ago with the rescission of plural marriage in the late 1800s, the Church will eventually come to its senses and bow to public opinion and political pressure on this issue too. They foresee a day when same sex marriages will be performed in the temples, just as Blacks were eventually granted equal access to all priesthood blessings.

But sadly, they will be wrong. Some say the Church will be on the wrong side of history unless it yields to public pressure. The passage of time will prove otherwise. Unless God has it in His mind to alter the bedrock doctrine of the great plan of happiness that has been revealed since the Creation without equivocation in Holy Writ, this question of "marriage equality" is nothing more than a cleverly crafted sophistry devised by Satan and his minions to separate the man from the woman. Since the plan was announced by our Father in Heaven and Satan opposed it in the pre-mortal council where we all upheld the plan, that has been his aim. (Moses 4:1-4). Don't forget that every single professed homosexual today is the product of the union of a man and a woman. Life is possible in no other way. If Satan succeeds in separating the man from the woman, if he undermines and erodes the underpinnings of traditional marriage, then the Father's announced purpose of His work and His glory can indeed be thwarted. That is Satan's aim, and he is making stunning progress toward achieving it. But in the end, he doesn't win if scripture is to be believed. (See a sampling in Revelation 19-22).

Don't seek to become an erudite so-called "Devil's Advocate". He has plenty of help already. Instead, seek to become a true disciple of Jesus Christ, not an anti-Christ who promotes and hails the LGBTQ agenda under the banner of political progress or equal rights. It is none of that. When you support and encourage their agenda you are in the ranks of the anti-Christs. You can't have this both ways any longer. The gulf between the two worlds is widening and can no longer be straddled comfortably as in the past.

I sound the warning voice here to those of you who are blindly advocating for something you don't fully understand - don't swallow the Kool-Aid by filling up your social media posts with exultation over what appears to be a "victory" for equal rights under the law. There are many examples of morally reprehensible behaviors that are legally protected. Abortion rights might be the most obvious example. This SCOTUS same sex marriage ruling is a short-term victory, like everything else that resembles a Satanic idea in opposition of eternal truth. Here's a sample from the Church's response:

"A family built on marriage of a man and a woman is the best setting for God’s plan of happiness to thrive. That is why communities and nations generally have encouraged and protected marriage between a man and a woman, and the family that results from their union, as privileged institutions. Sexual relations outside of such a marriage are contrary to the laws of God pertaining to morality.

"Changes in the civil law do not, indeed cannot, change the moral law that God has established. God expects us to uphold and keep His commandments regardless of divergent opinions or trends in society. His law of chastity is clear: sexual relations are proper only between a man and a woman who are legally and lawfully wedded as husband and wife. We invite all to review and understand the doctrine contained in 'The Family: A Proclamation to the World.'

"Consistent with our fundamental beliefs, Church officers will not employ their ecclesiastical authority to perform marriages between two people of the same sex, and the Church does not permit its meetinghouses or other properties to be used for ceremonies, receptions, or other activities associated with same‐sex marriages. Nevertheless, all visitors are welcome to our chapels and premises so long as they respect our standards of conduct while there."

Just as I have exercised my freedom of speech rights here, those of you who oppose my point of view are also free to express your opinion. We are all independent and we are free to choose whatever position we would like. We can do so respectfully but vociferously in whatever forum we elect. Remember, the blessing of moral agency, the freedom to choose and the subsequent consequences that go with those rights are all part of the plan of salvation. All of it has a root in God our Heavenly Father and in His Only Begotten Son, Jesus Christ, who is our Redeemer. When you exult in choices outside the parameters of God's perfect plan, please stop to think twice before going further down that path.

I've had occasion recently to review every single entry in the personal journal of President Harold B. Lee. It has provided great insight into the inner workings among the men we sustain as prophets, seers and revelators. As part of that reading I also spent last Sunday re-reading the General Conference sermons of all the General Authorities during the 18-months tenure of President Lee. I discovered this statement in the General Priesthood Meeting of October 1972:

President Harold B. Lee, 1972

"I want to warn this great body of priesthood against that great sin of Sodom and Gomorrah, which has been labeled as a sin second only in seriousness to the sin of murder. I speak of the sin of adultery, which, as you know, was the name used by the Master as he referred to unlicensed sexual sins of fornication as well as adultery; and besides this, the equally grievous sin of homosexuality, which seems to be gaining momentum with social acceptance in the Babylon of the world, of which Church members must not be a part.

"While we are in the world, we must not be of the world. Any attempts being made by the schools or places of entertainment to flaunt sexual perversions, which can do nothing but excite to experimentation, must find among the priesthood in this church a vigorous and unrelenting defense through every lawful means that can be employed.

"The common judges of Israel, our bishops and stake presidents, must not stand by and fail to apply disciplinary measures within their jurisdiction, as set forth plainly in the laws of the Lord and procedures as set forth in plain and simple instructions that cannot be misunderstood. Never must we allow supposed mercy to the unrepentant sinner to rob the justice upon which true repentance from sinful practices is predicated."

Note in his statement, there is no "special class" that eludes the demands of justice because "I was born this way." As President Lee suggested way back then, "every lawful means" to oppose same sex marriage has been undertaken, and time and again the courts have struck down those attempts. Losing in the court of public opinion, however, is no new development the Church is seeing for the first time. It has been the unrelenting reality of the Church's existence since 1830. The Savior faced rejection daily during His mortal ministry. The rejection of the world is the inherent theme of walking the straight and narrow path leading to the tree of life, and those who mock today may find in their ranks the members of the Church who have been deceived even when they were once among "the very elect". (See 1 Nephi 11-14; D&C 45:57-59; Matthew 24:24; JST Matthew 22; 37; D&C 33:16-18).

One son asked me last week if this assault on religious liberty would force the Latter-day Saints into the seclusion of our religious practice in our homes. I reminded him of the Church's missionary mandate. We cannot invite the world to "come unto Christ" by living like cloistered monks behind the protection of the walls of our homes. We as Church members must vigorously defend eternal truth as only found in the revealed word of God. Anything outside that scope, while legal and politically progressive (even correct!), may not be, and often is not, moral.

Even the SCOTUS does not have the final word on the moral code as defined by our Creator.

If You Knew Then What You Know Now. . .

Coach Jerry Sloan

I watched more than a few post-game shows with Jerry Sloan, the legendary coach of the Utah Jazz. When he would get questions like what could the team have done better in that game just completed, his classic response was, "You can't play this game backward. We're getting ready for the next one."

When asked once what he needed to do to beat a certain team after losing badly to them that night, he answered wryly, "Score more points than they do." 

Recently, former Florida Governor, and probable presidential contender, Jeb Bush, younger brother of George W., was asked a dumb question. "Knowing what you know now, would you have gone to war in Iraq?"

Politics aside, and the media's tendency to ask "gotcha" questions in general, I'll bet everyone out there would be a lot smarter then if they knew what they know today.

I'm now 50 years removed from my high school graduation. A lot of water has passed under the bridge to my future I built back in 1965. Were there some bricks in that bridge that I would love to go back and reconstruct today, knowing what I know now? Of course.

Bush was criticized for his bungled answer to that hypothetical. I'm not here to defend Jeb Bush, only to point out what a stupid question it really is.

Knowing what Americans now know about the real Barack Hussein Obama, would we (if we could) go back and ask for a re-do on two presidential elections? TWO?

Knowing what we know now, is there anyone who would have allowed Muhammed Atta and his band of "freedom fighters" (or is it "terrorists"?) to fly hijacked airliners into the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001?

Knowing what we know now, would George Washington have ever taken on the might of the British Army and Navy?

Knowing what we know now, would anyone have allowed the door to the presidential box at Ford's Theatre to have gone unguarded that night on April 14, 1865, when Lincoln attended?

These are a few examples of decision making. When Presidents and their advisers make decisions, they have enormous consequences that are felt for generations yet to come. They cannot be reversed. We may boldly fly "Mission Accomplished" banners, only to learn our euphoria was premature and ill-advised.

America continues its interminable war against terror. The body count continues to rise. Leaders of the new ISIS (rhymes with "crisis") phenomenon in the Middle East are routinely hunted down and surgically removed in the name of homeland security lest their poisonous tentacles infiltrate America's borders. However, on a larger scale, the fall of Ramadi to ISIS begs the question, "Is there really an American strategy at this juncture?" Nothing changes in the trajectory of nations, it seems, except heightened threats of instability and the potential for nuclear proliferation. Robert Gates, former Defense Secretary under Obama, flatly stated, "There is no strategy in Iraq."

And, oh by the way, those were all existential threats 50 years ago in the "idyllic" times of my youth. We practiced hiding under our desks, and neighbors were building bomb shelters. The protests of the Sixties had all the familiar earmarks of those we witness today. The Vietnam War was the social springboard for anti-war protests, flower children, free love, and psychedelic drugs like LSD and marijuana.

All that seems tame indeed when today we are dealing with Islamic extremists among whom murder is common practice, legalization of marijuana, the infiltration of illegal aliens pouring through our porous borders and flaunting our laws, and those who have advocated "gay marriage" (in quotes because there really is no other way to express that oxymoron in my lexicon) seemingly on the brink of victory in all 50 states pending a POTUS decision that is weeks away. Even conservative Utah Governor Gary Herbert said this week he's keeping "an open mind" about legalizing medical marijuana in Utah.

Some call it "progress" under a "progressive" political agenda. Neanderthal Man that I am, I just call it sin. I know we live in a secular world, surrounded by human secularists on all fronts, but I'm still clinging to my guns and my Bible. I am such a cultural dullard, I guess.

I wonder if some dull-witted reporter in some future day will ask a presidential candidate, "Knowing what you know today, would you vote in favor of gay marriage?" When we put in place a broad and sweeping declaration for marriage equality, when there is nothing "equal" about it, we must imagine there will be consequences.

When we make personal decisions, they may not be as far-reaching in global politics, but in each case those decisions can only be made on the basis of what is known at the time. Imagine what a different life it would be for each of us if we could make a decision where we know the outcome at decision time plus X years out into the future! I know many who would crave that kind of certainty.

There are very real issues that face our country today. The media does not serve the electorate well when they engage in such stupid parlor games with questions like "If you knew today what you didn't know then, would you have decided differently?"

I was thinking back on what my mindset was seven years ago in 2008, then 2010, then 2012, then 2014, when the political pot was boiling with what I thought were massive issues requiring immediate attention. Now, seven years removed from the heat of the battle for the White House in 2008, little has changed on immigration, the massive federal debt, the lack of a balanced budget, not to mention an executive branch usurping constitutional authority reserved to the legislative and the judiciary branches. In fact, much of that troubling agenda I thought about then has only gotten worse.

I was tempted to believe that when the House returned to GOP control there was hope for a brighter future. Then in 2014, the Senate was returned to Republicans as well. Even more cause for hope! But what has happened instead is I have grown older and more weary of the familiar rhetoric. I am heartened with the announcement that we will at least have a federal budget prepared and submitted to the Senate for consideration this year. But the rhetoric is all too familiar, and the results all too predictable.

It seems there are many who are willing to engage in one of life’s favorite fantasies, daydreaming about living one’s life over knowing what one knows now. If it's an idle speculation indulged in on occasions like your 50-year high school graduation, it's harmless enough I suppose. But I would advise against spending too much time on it. You can't have your yesterdays today and make them into something you wish they had been. But you can repent and move forward.

I teach and counsel young people today. I say essentially these same things to them. I counsel them to live well in their youth, to put the building blocks of a sure foundation in place in their lives today while they aren't even thinking about their future too much. Then, as I do now, they can look back without regrets (some, maybe, but not too many). I always treasure the counsel of Mark Twain, who noted: "Good friends, good books and a sleepy conscience: this is the ideal life." So I counsel my young friends to surround themselves with those three to prepare them for old age lived serenely.

My takeaway from Jerry Sloan is the bit of advice I pass along today - don't live your life in reverse, going backward to revisit what happened yesterday. If you learned from your past, and hopefully we have all done that, take the lessons learned and move forward. Life must always be lived into the future.

That's where true hope and happiness reside, as we look forward to our next great adventure, not backward on past events.

Election 2014 - The Aftermath

There are pundits galore, all over the political universe it seems, who will make meaning out of yesterday's election results. Be careful whom you choose to believe.

I have remained intentionally silent in the run up to this election, privately hoping for the results we observed, but not going public with those aspirations. Putting control of the Senate back into the hands of the Republicans has little to do with their superior agenda, in my opinion. Rather, this election was a stout repudiation of Barack Obama's misguided policies across the whole political waterfront. His much-ballyhooed base seemingly evaporated in this election. The vaunted Democratic election machine ground to an embarrassingly squeaky halt.

We are being told this morning the Democrats need to reinvent themselves in the wake of this stunning defeat for Barack Obama as leader of the party.

He won't see it that way, and in fact one of his aides was quoted this morning in the NY Times as saying exactly that: "He doesn't feel repudiated." And this from a man who boldly declared this election was about ALL his policies, "every single one."

It wasn't that long ago there were cries for the Republicans to reinvent themselves, allegations they were a divided party in search of unity, woefully unable to connect to the American people. Well, times change, people change their views, and the political pendulum swings back and forth. Now it is the Republicans who are trending upward. And that will change someday too.

Not only did Republicans win seven Democratic Senate seats (and counting), lost none, and took control of the Senate, but they did something far more significant for the long term health of the Republic by dislodging Harry Reid (D-NV) as the Senate Majority Leader. He has single-handedly and heavy-handedly, broken the Senate rules repeatedly to make new rules to suit his own political needs.

This morning, he sounded like a statesman: “I’d like to congratulate Senator McConnell (R-KY), who will be the new Senate Majority Leader. The message from voters is clear: they want us to work together. I look forward to working with Senator McConnell to get things done for the middle class.”

Based on what Harry Reid has done for the middle class over the last six years, no one should be holding their breath that Harry Reid will ever become anything but the obstructionist he has always been. But hope springs eternal, I suppose. History, I predict, will judge Harry Reid harshly as the author of chaos and divisiveness in the legislative process these last six years. I hope Republicans will model true leadership better, now that the reins are in their hands. I am, and will always be, optimistic about the future of America.

In addition, the Republicans added more governorships throughout the country. Democrats won only one and lost four, including bluer than blue Maryland. Even Illinois added a Republican governor! In the House, Democrats lost at least eight seats, probably more when the final results are in. There are now more House Republicans on Capitol Hill than have been seated since World War II.

Mia Love's family

Several firsts in the House include the election of Mia Love (R-UT), the first black Republican conservative woman, who is also a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. That is an historic "first" worth celebrating, and the citizens of the 4th Utah Congressional District are to be congratulated for their foresight.

Orrin Hatch (R-UT) finally is realizing his dream to become the Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, and as an added bonus he will be named the President Pro Tempore, now fourth in line to the presidency and the recipient of his own Secret Service security detail. For the uninitiated, that office is provided for in the Constitution (yes, we are still governed by it), and is the senior Senator in the majority party who sits (ceremoniously) in the seat of the President of the Senate, who is the Vice President, when the Vice President is not there (which is nearly always never).

There’s no reason to gloat this morning. You couldn't fairly call it a "wave" election. But it could be accurately characterized as the election where Democrats suffered worse than the mid-terms four years ago in 2010.

I hope I'm not stretching too far to think this might just be the end of the liberal progressive Democratic governance and all of Washington's gross spending excesses. My fear is that Republicans have been prone in the past to be the all too willing collaborators for the spending orgy.

Let's hope for some responsible budget setting governance to replace what we've witnessed in the last six years.

The Most Intelligent SOTU Speech

Call me stupid if you wish, but the most intelligent speech last night didn't come from the POTUS. I didn't even bother to tune in to any of it. This morning, I downloaded Senator Mike Lee's response, and I believe (without even referencing BHO's "official" SOTU speech) there couldn't be a more well-thought-out approach than Lee's.

The only question remains whether "lofty rhetoric" from an empty suit will continue to persuade Americans or not. I pray IT WILL NOT.

Update from the Utah Obamacare Exchange

Jon Goates

My brother, Jon, is in the trenches on Obamacare. He might even be considered the "canary in the mine shaft" as my early-warning device to monitor the impacts on small medical practices like the one he manages in Davis County (small town) Utah. In his latest installment he documents what is happening to his personal plan with his insurance carrier and what the implementation of Obamacare means to his business. Based upon reports that are now surfacing all across America, his story about Utah's health care exchange can be considered more typical than extraordinary.

* * *

Just a quick note to demonstrate why you don’t ever want to allow Washington to mandate your medical insurance coverage. Amid other considerations, the 1,500 new regulations I have to implement over the next 18 months will most assuredly result in an audit and fines for not doing it just the right way for the subjective enforcement according to the personal whims of the auditor. 

Last week I met with our insurance broker. He explained that because the insurance plan I pay for through the practice falls under Obama’s Federal mandate for “affordable” care, my personal premium (for one child, spouse and me) will go from $956 per month to $1,495.75 – a 55% increase! I already have a $2,500 individual and $3,750 family deductible and a qualified HSA card. I feel so good about BHO's assurances that “You can keep your current insurance if you want to.” This massive increase is what it takes the commercial insurance carriers to include the regulated Obamacare items into my coverage.

This is ludicrous. HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius and her side-kick “the-buck-stops-with-me-Barack” are healthcare idiots who are both dumbfounded as to why it is so hard to attract the American public to the insurance plans they have so generously provided. Have you seen what their brand of “affordable care” is for the public? Sure, you can go shopping on the insurance exchanges for low monthly premiums for families of about $300-$450, but those same plans sport $7,500 to $9,000 annual deductibles. So if families were uninsured prior to BarackHealth, how will the same families ever begin to whittle down these massive deductibles before their co-insurance ever kicks in? Simply, they cannot afford to do so. Conundrum.

The result is that the same doctor’s office or Emergency Department will have to carry the same if not more debt from these now "insured" families as we were carrying before BarackHealth went into effect. The biggest difference will be that prior to BarackHealth’s mandated deductibles local medical clinics could openly discount the care to our patients by 20-30% as they paid cash for each visit, which was our own way of creating an "affordable care" solution for the uninsured. Did we get any credit for doing so? Nope. Now and going forward we cannot discount someone’s annual deductible, since every dollar they spend will “benefit them” at meeting their minimum coinsurance thresholds. 

The Utah insurance exchange has 5,000 visitors to the website each day. Only 1% actually sign-up for an insurance plan. And you wonder. . . why?

Thanks,

Jon Goates

Chief Executive,

Davis Family Physicians, PC

The WHOPPER King

In the realm of big WHOPPERS, we may never again see the likes of Barack Hussein Obama. Not only are his lies already garnering "famous" status, at least one observer here, Jonah Goldberg, maintains his lies will achieve INFAMOUS status. If you hadn't guessed, the topic is one dear to my heart - Obamacare. It's stunning now that there is simply nowhere to run and hide from the facts as they are emerging. Of course, that assumes there's anyone left who actually cares about FACTS anymore.



This POTUS may become a lame duck quicker than any two-term president in history.

Fixing the Blame for Obamacare's Train Wreck

Neil Cavuto at Fox News finally has the guts ON AIR to take it to Barack Obama and fix the blame squarely on his shoulders for this fiasco known as Obamacare. It's classic. . .



And. . . it's "fair and balanced." They report, you decide.

Tyranny and "Kick the Can Down the Road"

So last night, once again we hear the leaders of Congress use words like, "Masterful," "historic agreement," and the self-adulation seems to know no bounds. 

Instead, I ask you how this is anything different than the same ol' same ol' we've been seeing from our elected officials. There is nothing new here, nothing to be happy about. We have two polarized positions well-illustrated by the cartoon above. One contingent wants to raise the debt ceiling to avoid default on America's public debt (nothing more than a political red herring, I might add). The other polarized and continuously losing position is to turn off the spending faucet. And who wins? The status quo statists from both parties, who continue to "compromise" around spending more and more in perpetuity with seemingly no end in sight. 

We have not seen a long-term budget passed out of Congress since before Barack Obama took office over five years ago. The government is funded instead in a series of "continuing resolutions" to keep the doors open. The devastating result is that there is never a serious effort to confront and solve the automatic payments now baked into the budget for all the entitlement programs that have been escalating since The New Deal days of FDR. The progressives have partnered and compromised drop by drop, year by year, with Republicans only too anxious to perpetuate the government solutions as a way to solve everything.

Someone asked me last night, "So what do you think of Mike Lee now?" knowing I had supported him and worked diligently to get him elected. My response was, "I love the man for standing on his correct principles despite the fact he never had enough votes to swing anyone to his point of view."

We have a unique political reality in Utah. Because it's a one-party state (reddest in the nation), Lee has a unique opportunity to take a principled stand. My guess is he's a Republican in name only. In his heart of hearts he leans more libertarian, just like me, Ted Cruz and Rand Paul. He reflects my values, my hopes and dreams for America one day coming to her senses and putting to an end once and for all the unsustainable idiotic fiscal path we are running down at breakneck speed. I hope he succeeds. Like him, I say, "Damn the inbound political torpedoes, full speed ahead."

Warren Buffet minced no words this week in Washington: "We have spent 237 years since 1776 building a reputation as the most wonderful country on earth, and one that's entrusted with having the reserve currency of the world. . . That is being put in jeopardy now and it could be destroyed in a little while. A great reputation is like virginity. It can preserved, but it can't be restored."

"The whole idea of a debt limit is a terrible, terrible mistake. If you're going to spend more than you take in, what are you going to do except raise the debt limit? So it becomes this political weapon of mass destruction. It really is like a nuclear bomb. It's something that maybe you talk about but never dream of using."

Mike Lee, Ted Cruz and Rand Paul are scary smart. Politicians cut from the old cloth they are not, however. They will always and forever remain a marginalized minority voice in the U.S. Senate unless and until Americans recognize the alternative they are offering and embrace it. The imposition of fiscal discipline is not a popularly accepted position to advocate, however. Low information voters abound in America today. They would rather have their government-subsidized bread and circuses. And Mitt Romney was about right when he pegged that number at around 47% of the population in America.

We often lament about the political divisions in America today, but it is totally reminiscent of the debates that Americans were having for years in the run-up to the war no one in the Colonies wanted - the Revolutionary War. Check your history books. It was not popular to attack the tyranny of King George back then. It is not popular now either. How does America impeach the first POTUS of African-American heritage, though his excesses are egregious? That's a battle NO ONE wants, and so the degradation of America continues unabated on his multi-tasking agenda. Whenever the choice is between cleverly-disguised tyranny and freedom, one would think it would be an easy choice, right?

Thomas Paine

Instead, even before we were Americans, people then were concerned more about their own welfare, their crops in the ground that needed tending and cultivating. We need to be reminded every day how we began this great nation. The phrase, "These are the times that try men's souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands by it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman" originated with the pen of Thomas Paine. Those words first published as The Crisis that had followed his famous Common Sense served as an influential rallying cry against the British King. The debate raged in the Colonies for 17 long years in the run-up to putting the patriot rebels in one room who would affix their signatures to the Declaration of Independence.

Here's the practical reality: Nothing in our current crisis will change until there are enough votes in the Senate, and the veto-proof signature of a POTUS in the White House.

Even without the votes in their pockets, Cruz, Lee and Paul are to be commended for their principled stand. The statists, those who defend the status quo of big government solutions from both parties, who continue to compromise for more and more spending had better beware. Mitch McConnell (R-KY), the Senate Minority Leader, took home $2 Billion in funding for a dam in Kentucky, his home state, in this "historic deal" last night. He's up for re-election next year. That is a blatant confirmation of business as usual politics - "You give me this, I'll give you that." And neither side ever advocates for a serious debate about long-term consequences.

We DON'T need to cut off ALL spending at the pockets IMMEDIATELY. All we need is to develop a spending plan that creates a gradual downward slope in the debt-to-GDP ratio over the next 8 - 10 years. Does that really sound "radical" or "extremist?" NOT doing something like that is extremist.

The mid-term elections in 2014 shape up as a chance to garner more votes for the people's representatives in government who can begin to address the long-term funding problems we face as a nation. The current participants who remain at the throttles must be deposed at the ballot box. Will it happen? Another poll last week declared 60% were ready to toss out their current representatives. That number came in at 78% in a similar Rasmussen poll.How will that public opinion shift between now and then? Recently, 51% of those polled consider themselves "moderate" and "in the middle" of politics, none of whom say they identify with EITHER political party.

Let's conclude with more from Thomas Paine: "Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph. What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly: it is dearness only that gives every thing its value. Heaven knows how to put a proper price upon its goods; and it would be strange indeed if so celestial an article as FREEDOM should not be highly rated. Britain [insert Obama as the despised tyrant], with an army to enforce her tyranny [insert IRS, NSA], has declared that she has a right (not only to TAX) but 'to BIND us in ALL CASES WHATSOEVER' and if being bound in that manner, is not slavery, then is there not such a thing as slavery upon earth. Even the expression is impious; for so unlimited a power can belong only to God."

Senator Mike Lee (R-UT)

In an e-mail blast to his subscribers this morning, Mike Lee wrote: "The media keeps asking, was it worth it?  My answer is that it is always worth it to do the right thing.  Fighting against an abusive government in defense of protecting our individual rights and freedoms is always the right thing.

"Some say we shouldn’t have fought because we couldn’t win.  But this country wasn’t built by fighting only when victory was certain.  In fact, some of the most important victories in our history were the result of fighting battles against significant odds.

"And even if victory seemed difficult or impossible, that wouldn’t excuse me or anyone else from doing the right thing.  Avoiding difficult battles is how we ended up in this mess – $17 trillion in debt, out-of-control spending, a broken entitlement system, a tax code no one understands – all because Washington is willing to act only when there is guaranteed political gain.

"When the avoidance of political risk becomes our dominant motivation, only the Washington establishment wins.  And the American people lose."

Ask yourself, "Who fought honorably for liberty?" I suspect deep in the heart of Mike Lee beats a rhythm in unison with Thomas Paine. All other pretenders should be banished forever from the public trust. If only American voters had the history lessons before them. . .

IF ONLY

Putin or Obama as World Champion for Peace and Freedom? Vote Here

In this past week where we witnessed the observance of the 12th anniversary of the events of 9/11/01, many other tangential stories were also grabbing headlines. On the eighth anniversary, I recorded my thoughts about what has happened since that day. Today's post continues to reflect on the aftermath that has changed our national psyche perhaps forever.

President Barack Obama, September 10, 2013

Not the least of these tangential stories was a "bizarre" address to the nation from our current resident of the White House, President Barack Obama on September 10th, 2013. Only a skilled politician like him could have threaded such a delicate needle as Mr. Obama attempted to do. In essence, his message seemed to be we need to rush to bomb Syria to punish their use of chemical weapons, but we don't really want to go to war, and we're going to wait to see if Russia and Syria can agree on a plan to destroy Assad's stockpile of weapons, but we don't know if it's really viable, so we'll wait on Congress taking a vote on it until we can see if diplomacy will work. Oh, and we might even go to the U.N. Security Council for a vote for good measure, but since I think I have the authority to do anything I want anytime of my own choosing, I'll leave my cruise missile laden carriers in the region just in case. "Bizarre" messaging doesn't even begin to describe the scene today.

Wow, this last week was confusing, because it felt more like watching a tennis match at the recently concluded U.S. Open in New York than international intrigue. Every morning this week there has been a new twist on the story line. John Kerry is now in Switzerland apparently trying to take credit for what has now evolved into a "grand strategy" after tossing off a one-liner Putin seized upon to call his bluff. Watching Obama and Kerry is more like watching an episode of the old Keystone Cops, while the world waits breathlessly to see the outcome. One wonders after assessing the reactions to his performance if his best days of speech making are behind Obama. I lost interest in his soaring rhetoric a long time ago, don't know about you. Honestly, looking back on it, does anyone yet understand or know what he really intends to do? Is it bumbling amateurism at work here, or part of some diabolical plot against stability in the world?

Sensing accurately there is a gaping void in leadership in America these days, Vladimir Putin has inserted himself into our politics with an op/ed piece that appeared in the unofficial propaganda arm of the new Russia, The New York Times. In it he takes exception with Mr. Obama's characterization of America as "exceptional". How ironic that it was Obama himself during his election campaigns who routinely attacked his opponents on the political right for using such a phrase, and now as recently as his speech to the nation this week he seems to have embraced it again. These are, indeed, strange days. It appears Putin the Communist has the better of Obama the Marxist. Certainly, the body of the text of Putin's piece is much better thought out than Obama's rambling incoherent "call to action" to the nation other night. Here's the concluding paragraph that has given rise to an immediate reaction within the Beltway from both sides:

President Vladimir Putin

"My working and personal relationship with President Obama is marked by growing trust. I appreciate this. I carefully studied his address to the nation on Tuesday. And I would rather disagree with a case he made on American exceptionalism, stating that the United States’ policy is 'what makes America different. It’s what makes us exceptional.' It is extremely dangerous to encourage people to see themselves as exceptional, whatever the motivation. There are big countries and small countries, rich and poor, those with long democratic traditions and those still finding their way to democracy. Their policies differ, too. We are all different, but when we ask for the Lord’s blessings, we must not forget that God created us equal."

Imagine a Communist leader (I know, you think the Communist Party is dead, but is it?) invoking the name of God, when for 70 years the regime did everything in its power to advance by brute force the cause of atheism! Ask yourself if Putin can now take center stage as the leader for the nations "still finding their way to democracy". May God grant that we may yet be able to find a leader in America who champions democracy and freedom. One may ask rightly if we have such a leader in Obama, but I would assert the world would not be well-served by looking to Putin for that leadership. We live under an "exceptional" form of government, not because we are "better than", but because we are collectively free and continue to oppose tyranny and despotism.

Peggy Noonan, one of my favorite commentators, summed it up this way in yesterday's column at The Wall Street Journal:

"Clearly he [Putin] is looking at President Obama and seeing weakness, lostness, lack of popularity. His essay is intended to exploit this and make some larger points, often sanctimoniously, about how the U.S. should conduct itself in the world. And so he chided American leadership, implicitly challenged its position as world leader, posited the U.N. Security Council, where Russia has done so much mischief, as the only appropriate decision-making body for international military action, and worried the U.N. will 'suffer the fate' of the League of Nations if 'influential countries' continue to take action without authorization.

"He does not doubt chemical weapons were used in Syria but doubts it was the government that used them. It was probably the rebels, he asserts, in an attempt to 'provoke intervention by their powerful foreign patrons.'

"Still, in general, Mr. Putin made a better case in the piece against a U.S. military strike than the American president has for it. And he did so, in a way, by getting to the left of the president, who he implies is insufficiently respectful to international bodies. Mr. Putin was candid about his primary anxiety — a spillover from Syria that could threaten Russian stability."

As we remember those who fell with the twin towers in the tragedy of 9/11, victims of a savage attack using jet planes and innocent passengers as missiles, may we never forget our resolve on that day to oppose the evil that attacked us. May we never deny the enormity of the problem of evil we still confront. There is little we can do to change hearts and minds determined to destroy us, but we must oppose it and resist it when it comes knocking at the door.

To continue thinking, however, we can embroil ourselves in the foreign intrigues of other nations, and unilaterally install democracy in the far-flung corners of the globe, particularly in the Middle East, now seems fool hearty at best. Remember the dictoms of the "neo-conservatives" with Dick Cheney at the helm? We now have some experience with those forays, as well-intentioned as they seemed. Now, we must ask, will we ever come to the end of the "tit for tat" mentality that says we must intervene whenever we are abhorred with bad behavior from dictators?

We should learn from what has transpired, not repeat it in yet another experiment with overthrowing Assad. To embroil ourselves in a brutal civil war in Syria that has killed over a hundred thousand in the last two years, is insane. At this writing it is anything but clear about who actually used those weapons against their own people.

Here again, Obama and Putin tell a different story - was it Assad and his military, or was it the rebels attempting to frame the government? So far I haven't seen a definitive answer. And where everyone in Syria involved in the fighting seems to be equally culpable, how does America presume to pick and back a winner from half a world away? One need look no further than the installation of the Shah of Iran for an example of failed policy.

If Putin can succeed in putting our current POTUS back in his box where his political opponents here at home have failed to, I'm asking how would that be a bad thing?

Noonan concludes her piece with this sobering assessment: We're not in a hot war or a cold war with Russians, but there's a definite chill in the air. Since its exceptional founding, America has always led the cause of freedom.

But that was yesterday, and even as I am writing this post, word has come there is a deal in place to rid Syria of its chemical weapons. Assad has one week in which to account for them, with an agreement they will be destroyed under international supervision by mid-2014. The deal was conceived and brokered by Russia with Assad's government. And now Putin is headed to Iran at the invitation of the mullahs there to see if he can intercede with America and blunt the U.S. opposition to their nuclear program.

I told you it was a strange world.

The "Random Audit" Power of Obamacare Enforcers

These pages have documented my disdain and abhorrence of Obamacare since its inception, all to no avail. Today's guest blogger is my brother, Jon, who wrote in November 2012 on election eve about his concerns for the implementation of Obamacare and its impact on the small family group practice where he is the Chief Executive. 

Today he updates us with another real-life example of the impact of the enforcement arm of Obamacare and what seems to be the Obama administration's scheme to extract penalties through audits from the healthcare practitioners who have complied in good faith.  

He writes:

The double standard of the current administration is all too obvious… the business of healthcare has become dirty politics.

Dr. Obama knows all

Whether we know it or not thousands of doctor’s offices throughout America are now considered corrupt institutions according to the Obama administration. Recently, I was made aware that a local medical group of about 15 dedicated physicians were notified that an audit of their corporate books is in their immediate future. This medical group is a reputable institution with an excellent reputation for appropriate medical care to their patients. 

Like many of their peer organizations they qualified for Meaningful Use incentive payments for the proper use and configuration of their electronic medical record (EMR) system. The incentive performance payments are directly tied to quality standards and regulations as dictated by the administration (who know nothing about dispensing medical care) as a way to streamline, automate and create quality benchmarks – all in an effort to lower the cost and improve the quality of healthcare. 

These incentives are offered to physicians during a four-year period. The original intent was to put enough incentive money in the hands of physicians to facilitate the purchase of new servers, networking, printers, scanners, laptops or iPads and to pay IT professionals to configure the new systems. No doubt many of the classic medical group activities are improved through the adoption of an EMR as a direct result of the annual payments to each physician that can range from $5,000 to $18,000.  

There are severe financial penalties beginning in 2015 for physicians who do not adopt an EMR. One of those major penalties that could be imposed is an exclusion from the Medicare program at a time when, according to AARP, nearly 8,000 new people per day qualify for Medicare.

In addition to the Meaningful Use incentives, Medicare has a similar approach in that they will incentivize physicians to adopt new ways of reporting (e-file claims instead of faxing or mail) and transmitting secure prescriptions (known as e-prescribing) directly to your pharmacy. In Medicare’s incentive package they structured it to be a 2% add-on to the claim reimbursement for the first year; 1.5% the second year; and in subsequent years Medicare would deduct up to 2% if physicians could not demonstrate that they had fully adopted the new transmission technique. Essentially, if you don’t adopt the only way we have given you to participate, you will be penalized.

Back to the medical group of 15 physicians. After having worked hard to navigate through the numerous and stringent Meaningful Use regulations, carefully measuring their hourly compliance to the mandated quality standards, logging hours of analysis of performance reports by physicians, changing daily behaviors in how and when the physicians treat their patients, they submitted their results to the administration and expected payment for their compliance. 

Payments were received within six weeks. Fast-forward about six months from receipt of payments, and this same medical group has now received a certified letter from a local regulatory agency with the news they have been selected for a “random” audit. They were selected as part of their 10% compliance requirement from the current administration. 

Healthcare insiders have come to understand the word “random” in these types of letters is really bureaucratic doublespeak for the real meaning of “show me the money” and, “did you do what we think you ought to do with it?”

The incentive payments had been received and funds disbursed to the physicians, IT professionals, hardware vendors and staff. All the appropriate payroll and income taxes were paid on the incentive funds. When the monies were placed in the bank account of the medical group there was no mention or stipulation that Uncle Sam would be lurking about to see what they would do with the money, nor were there any rules that stated the funds received must be funneled through only authorized ledger line items of the private corporations who met all the criteria. 

In similar instances to the receipt of the audit notice of the 15 physician medical group, regulatory auditors will often times arrive with a scope of work in mind and they draw their own subjective conclusions to a medical group’s compliance that may be much different to the understanding that the EMR software vendor had when they created the code for the often ambiguous regulation and/or the understanding that a physician uses to measure his compliance to new behaviors during the attestation periods. 

A medical group being audited has no appeal against the mandate of the old adage: “He who owns the purse strings makes the rules… according to his own desires.” 

While the final chapter has yet to be written in the case of the group of 15 physicians who have received their notice of “random” audit selection, many other similar groups, ours included, have been examined under the “random audit” nomenclature and been required to refund to regulatory agencies cash that was rightfully and honestly earned.

The overreach of these “random” audits are routinely conducted under the justification that the administration holds the right to enter any private corporation in America with the intent that we all “follow the rules” according to those who preside over and pay for mandated compliance. How many times do we hear from Mr. Obama’s lips that everyone has to follow the same set of (his) rules in order for (his) plan to work – and then when our vote against (his) rules does not match-up to his we must suffer his scorn at the bully pulpit? 

Once inside the doors of Main Street businesses like your doctor’s office, regulatory compliance auditors will often jump the fence of the original scope of their audit to request additional records and therein find other subjective infractions of the “rules” that may or may not apply to the initial audit scope. Refusal is a futile effort, since the physicians who received incentive funds with honorable intent did their best to comply to the often-shifting regulatory definitions of Meaningful Use as defined by the current administration. 

The obdurate juggernaut of social policy-making from inside the beltway has now spilled over into the exam rooms of our local doctor’s office, whether we like it or not.

While the final chapter of the audit has yet to be written for the medical group of 15 physicians even though they reported to the regulatory agency their honest effort at full compliance to Meaningful Use regulations, they are certain they will be forced to forfeit some of the funds they earned under the guise of an incentive payment from the government for what once purported to be a "cost-reduction" piece of legislation now known derisively as "Obamacare." Once those funds were dangled in front of them to become more automated and efficient and they complied in a good faith effort, the threat now exists they will be reclaimed through a regulatory power play. All in the name of decreasing medical costs and improving quality. Yikes!

With my eyes wide open that I may be next for a “random” audit …

* * *

Let's hope the NSA isn't reading The Goates Notes, Jon - we'll see if free speech in America is still a valid 1st Amendment right or if you're pushing the envelope of freedom a little too far.

NJ Flood Damage, Inflation, National Debt and Politicians

From this morning's edition of American Thinker:

Hurricane damages and the national debt

Lee DeCovnick

The headline from philly.com boldly proclaimed, "Christie pegs New Jersey's Sandy damage at $29.4 billion."  The article went on to explain: 

"Gov. Christie estimates that Sandy cost New Jersey $29.4 billion in damage and economic losses, from washed-out roadways and waterlogged homes to manning storm shelters.

"This preliminary number is based on the best available data, field observations, and geographical mapping," Christie said in a statement released Friday evening. "I will spare no effort and waste no time to rebuild and restore our tourism industry, our transportation and utilities infrastructure, and the lives of our citizens for the long term."

$29.4 billion is a supertanker load of money, especially when we consider the amount of damage Sandy caused in the space of just a couple of days. But fear not, Governor, that much money is just a drop in a fifty-five gallon drum when it comes to Federal spending.

Let's look at the rampaging increases in our national debt since the election, according to the US Treasury. On November 14^th, 2012 our national debt was $16.244 trillion. Twenty-four hours later the national debt stood at $16.278 trillion.  This increase of over $34 billion dollars in a single day could easily pay for the rebuilding of thousands of houses, plus billions more for transportation, electrical and water infrastructure mitigation for the entire state of New Jersey.

New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Virginia, Maryland are hungrily anticipating having all their "Sandy costs" reimbursed for less than weeks' worth of Federal borrowing.  No doubt these state's congressional delegations are itching to get paws on all this "free" money. After all the current Administration's unspoken policy assumes our children and grandchildren will inherit this mountain range of debt.  Why else would the US Treasury borrow $34 billion dollars a in a single day unless they never actually planned to pay it back?

* * *

The article caught my attention because it helps to put into perspective what we are up against as a nation. It would be naive to assert we got here solely because of Barack Obama. The reason there was such a steady drumbeat about the fact that it was all GWB's fault is because that line tested so well among focus groups. Americans in the majority actually believe the financial condition of this nation is the fault of the previous administration. Even that is simplistic.

We got here over the course of almost a century of slowly boiling in our own juices. As the water temperature has slowly climbed we are now at the point of peril - socialism has fouled the pistons of the engine of free enterprise, and all that remains is determining whether or not we can clear the mechanisms to once again be profitable.

Economists are still divided. "The dark science" of economics instructs some practitioners that the traditional Keynesian response - borrow to create stimulus - is still working and must be employed again and again until the economy jump starts. We are borrowing 40 cents of every dollar the federal government is spending. Does that sound like a taxation problem or a spending problem to you? Others worry that the growth potential of the GDP may never again rise above 1.5 percent annually, where historically it has averaged 4 percent growth per year. All our problems go away if the growth engine gets revved up again and we grow our way out of debt. Every year that goes by now sees just the opposite result. Instead of a proven winner at the throttles, Mitt Romney, we settled for a rank amateur with absolutely no economic track record except his last four years. God help us all with that choice, because we will need all the help we can get.

The idea that politicians may actually be thinking to themselves that there will never be a day of reckoning on the national debt, that we will never have to pay back the national debt now held by our own Treasury, is the only logical conclusion one can draw from their dithering and lack of willingness to address the obvious issues before us as a nation. Instead of curbing spending they are poised once again to do what Congress always does best when they get in a bind - increase taxes, and not just by closing loopholes for deductions. Now they are discussing increasing tax rates on the wealthy, defined as those making more than $250,000 per year.

I have had discussions with those who supported Barack Obama. Stupidly, they will tell me, "A tax increase on the wealthy doesn't really affect me, so what's the big deal?" What they are not being told is a whopping tax increase is coming their way too. The truth is THAT tax increase has already arrived - I call it the "economy tax" in the form of inflation. It's the cruelest tax of all, but it is felt most acutely by those who are struggling the most in this economy. A liberal friend of mine tried to convince me there was no inflation except on things like gasoline and food, where he had noticed an increase in prices but asserted, "Other than those two areas there doesn't seem to be any inflation." Ask yourselves, are there any two areas that affect the average American citizen more than food and gasoline? My biggest concern for folks who talk this way is they don't even recognize the water temperature in the pot has reached boiling. There is no sense of urgency and a willingness to sustain the status quo. I would maintain the status quo is unsustainable.

There are many who argue every day in cyberspace that we have already gone over the fiscal cliff and there is no way back from that reality. Perhaps they are right. Unless another midnight madness deal of some kind is hammered out in Washington to avert it, taxes will increase dramatically across the board on January 1, 2013. Payroll tax withholdings will return to their normal level, meaning an increase in each paycheck of 2 percent, reducing take home pay for all wage earners. The dreaded AMT will be re-introduced to lower-level taxpayers. Tax credits for students will be eliminated. Taxes on Obamacare will begin to take effect on employers who fail to provide health insurance for their employees. Income tax rates on the small business owners whose incomes exceed $250,000 (families) and $200,000 (individuals) will increase. And let's not forget the estate tax, or "death tax," will automatically reset in 2013. Estates valued at $5 million or more which are now taxed at 35 percent, will be taxed beginning at $1 million in value at a rate of 55 percent.

This is just a partial list of horribles that awaits us if Congress fails to act. The last time around in its infinite brilliance, Congress agree on something no one had ever heard of before - "sequestration." The idea was they would put a bicameral super committee from both houses together in a room to work out the details of who, what and how everything in America would be taxed to avoid default on the national debt. Failing to come up with a solution would mean automatic drastic cuts in military spending and other programs would begin to take effect. In it all there has never been one serious proposal, except those put forward by Congressman Paul Ryan, to reduce spending in the automatic payments generated by Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and now Obamacare. THAT's where all the big spending is happening, but absolutely no serious proposals to adjust them have been advanced, except by one man - Paul Ryan.

The political wisdom has always been to leave the social spending programs alone. Americans love their entitlements. It would be political suicide to begin even tinkering around the edges, much less threatening to begin gutting them. Spending on entitlements, it is argued by their proponents, has a stimulative effect and they are providing for the social welfare of our citizens. So goes the line of reasoning that put Barack Obama back in the White House for another four years. Unless this administration can somehow "see the light" and begin working to constructively address these critical needs with Congress, we will continue to see our credit worthiness as a nation deteriorate.

Addressing these pressing fiscal issues, of course, presumes that Congress and the White House are in agreement that the national debt needs addressing and that we are running out of time. If they are thinking, as the author cited above, Lee DeCovnick, suspects, we may have entered the twilight zone where no one in Washington actually believes they must be making plans to pay it all back.

The fact that our borrowing rates as a nation are so low and interest on the national debt is so "cheap" (ONLY $34 Billion per day), what we may see in upcoming weeks from the lame duck session of the 112th Congress is nothing more than another joint press conference announcing yet another historic bipartisan agreement for continuation of the status quo.

And that would be yet another signal there are no adults working on the problems we face.