The rules were simple, but effective, when we pre-boomers were growing up. "Yes," meant "yes." "No," meant "no." "I'll think about it" was a qualified "maybe" that leaned toward "no" but could be "yes," depending on your actions and attitude leading up to dad's final answer. And, pushing for an immediate decision resulted in a certain "no." Have politicians forgotten these basic childhood lessons?

The public, in general, has shown its lack of enthusiasm for continued spending and the consolidation of more parts of our economy to be under government control. This is because we realize, from experience, that this combination will result in higher taxes. The polls, Town Hall meetings and the growing number of signatures on an endless number of petitions clearly indicate the people are saying "no."

Party affiliation is being trumped by the concern citizens have for their own financial situation and personal wellbeing and what the rising national debt means to future generations. Yet the administration insists a health care bill be passed as quickly as possible. Congress used this panic approach on the stimulus package. But, while the House applied the same kind of pressure on the cap and trade bill, it's having troubling clearing the Senate. Do-it-fast legislation is tantamount to asking your father for the car keys next Saturday night, and when he says "I'll think about it" you push for an immediate decision even though the answer is invariably "no."

Maybe this kind of arrogance is exhibited by the politicians because they think seniors won't remember how our wishes were ignored. Or, they believe the mid-term elections are more than a year away, and the mood of the constituency will be better by then. Or, their power has corrupted them to the point were they think nothing can stop them now, forgetting the fact that we put them in office to serve the people. Why won't they listen to us when we say "no?" Don't they realize this flagrant snub of the electorate may result in them sitting at home when the next congress is sworn in?

Let's refresh their memories a bit. Tell them how you feel about the job they're doing, or not doing. Remind them how important the senior vote is, particularly in off year elections. We represented nearly 30 percent of the turnout in 2006. I suspect the new seniors, pre-boomers (born between 1930 and 1945), will have a disproportionate say in who goes to Washington next time. This is true with state and local elections as well.

So, stand up and be counted. If you don't do it now, chances are you never will. And there's too much at stake to let someone else make decisions for you. Get together with your pre-boomer friends, join groups and organizations that demonstrate an understanding of your needs and share your concerns. Together we can and will make a difference, now and in the years ahead. This is one more reason pre-boomers are called "the can-do generation." We can all say "yes" to that.

By: Don Potter
Don Potter, a Philadelphia native, was born in 1936 and is a 50 year veteran of the advertising agency business. Now living in Los Angeles, he has written two novels in retirement, frequently writes on marketing issues, and has a blog dedicated to pre-boomers (those born between 1930 and 1945).

Read more articles for and about pre-boomers with thoughts, comments and opinions designed to spark thinking, foster discussion, and stimulate debate by logging on to http://www.pre-boomermusings.com

Our inalienable rights, guaranteed by the United States Constitution, have steadily become alienable. The actions of Congress and the States are restricting our freedom.

Years ago, with the advent of the automobile, when codifying this new means of transportation, states decreed that having a driver's license was a right. Today, having a driver's license is a privilege. It would be awkward, if not impossible, for the courts to penalize individuals by taking away their right to drive a vehicle.

In many states, you can be ticketed for not having a seat belt fastened when driving a vehicle or not wearing a helmet operating a motorcycle and riding a bicycle.

There are federal and state laws preventing smoking in certain prescribed areas. There are a multitude of rules and regulations dictating how businesses, professions, and manufacturing can be managed.

Politically correct speech, though not a formal law, is an incursion on our vocabulary. A subtle control on how we express ourselves.

Undeniably, some of these laws, such as requiring seat belts and helmets, are logical measures to lessen injuries if there are accidents. Non-the-less, if some people are foolish enough not to take these precautions, it is their constitutional right to make those choices. This philosophy of "the government knows what is best for you" leads to complete control of our lives. Big Brother telling us what to do is a Dictatorship not a Democracy.

Some of these controls and restrictions may be unconstitutional. Yet, there is no uproar by the passive public, which results in the further removal of our rights. One feature in the proposed national health insurance plan calls for mandatory insurance for all citizens.

The appeal and success of our Republic is based largely upon the freedom its citizens enjoy, unrestricted by authority. Let's not squander anymore of our constitutional rights to our control-seeking, elected officials. Vote the incumbents out of office to re-establish that they are our servants, not our masters.

By: A. Woodrow
Author, How to Make Your Vote Count
Founder, Democracy Conservator Foundation
"Preserving our democratic representative government through smart voting"
http://www.DemocracyConservator.org

The American people are showing up to town hall meetings all over the country in numbers never before seen in our history. Why? To send a strong message to Washington. Does anyone in Washington know what that message is? They don't. The administration along with it's supporters, including the majority of the main stream media, are too busy insulting American citizens with claims of Racism, Mobs, Nuts, Swastika wearing Nazi's, Astro turf organizations and many other claims. These kinds of derogatory remarks are just adding fuel to the fires of freedom loving Americans all over the country.

The opposition, including the Obama administration and the main steam media continue to disregard the messages of these grassroots movements with claims they have nothing to do with the Health care reform bill. What the opposition doesn't understand, doesn't get, or just plain ignores because they are blinded by their own socialist agenda, is that the American people are fed up with big Government invading our lives and telling us what we want rather than asking us what we want.

The American people have one simple message, just put in many different forms, if only those opposed would take the blinders off and ear plugs out, they would hear that simple message. Leave our freedoms alone.

All you hear from the media with exception of Fox News, is that these people don't want change or don't understand the necessity of Health care reform. What they don't understand about this uprising, is that it's not just about Health care anymore. The American people do want reform contrary to what the media says. Reform needs to come in the form of insurance companies finding ways to save their customers money and they need help by the Government.

Open up state borders to initiate stronger competition, put a cap on law suit claims, implement counter punishments to those who bring frivolous law suits to cut down on claims and court costs, mandate laws requiring acceptance of preexisting conditions, fix the current problems with medicare and medicaid. These are a few examples of what the people really want to see happen.

When the Government can't clearly explain how to pay for this new Health care bill, but in some cases says it won't cost anything while the CBO claims it will be well over a Trillion dollars. One claim is to stop fraud and waste in the current programs. Shouldn't that be done anyway? The fact that the cost estimate for the current Government programs were off by approximately nine times the amount and If history repeats itself, and it usually does, the cost could sky rocket to over thirteen trillion dollars in the next ten years.

It's very clear to those who who are responsible Americans trying to bring our country back to the level it was intended when we first declared our Independence from the British crown 233 years ago. We elected these people to act responsibly on out behalf and not fill their own agenda by voting on things they were told, was in our best interest. People do want change, they do want reform of the Health care, but not in the hand of a complete Government take over, masked with lies and deceit. Contrary to what the elected officials believe, the American people are not stupid, and will not tolerate insubordination any longer.

By: Michael Pomper
An American Citizen concerned for the very freedoms we have enjoyed for over 233 years and counting...
http://www.michaelpomper.com

Much has been written on this site and others, about the fallacy of a successfully run government healthcare delivery system in the United States.

Whether it is labeled single-payer, socialized medicine, national healthcare, etc., it is all the same and it will never work in America. In virtually every nation where the government runs the healthcare system, costs have risen well beyond expectations; long waits for treatment are commonplace; care is rationed and some treatments are denied; and taxes have increased to pay for the unexpected cost increases. There are no truly successful nationalized healthcare systems, when quality of care is compared to the gold standard: The U.S. healthcare system. By most measures however, the U.S. lags behind many other industrialized nations.

According to the World Health Organization, the U.S. ranks 24th in the world in life expectancy. This statistic alone should be cause for alarm, but upon further examination, we learn that the reasons have little to do with our healthcare system and more to do with the way we drive, what we eat, our violent behavior, our tobacco use, and our substance abuse.

The U.S. spends more on healthcare, per capita, than virtually every other industrialized country. But again, if we examine why, we find that this has much more to do with factors other than the actual cost of healthcare, like legal awards and fees, defensive medicine, malpractice insurance, the high cost of advanced technology, and certainly not least; the high cost that we all incur for the government mandates placed on health insurance companies.

We pay more for prescription drugs than any other country. However, the cost of drugs still remains only about 10% of our total cost of healthcare. Upon further examination, we can thank our own government for this. More on this later.

There is no arguing against significant reform of our healthcare system, but the prescription for the cure cannot be written by our current government. The Democrats in control of the U.S. government have only one fix; more government. They know no other way, it is in their DNA. But even putting aside politics, there is no way for a single payer system to work in America. Here is why...

Our Legal System: The American Bar Association would have us believe that litigation accounts for only 1% of total healthcare costs. This may be true for jury awards, but they are leaving out the biggest drivers of legal costs within the healthcare system. Things like legal fees for the defense, defensive medical practices, and malpractice insurance premiums are not factored in to the ABA figure.

Countries that rank above us in healthcare, according to the W.H.O., all limit plaintiff awards and have nowhere near the medical litigation we have in the U.S. In fact, if we were to just copy the medical-legal reforms of France, we could bring down healthcare costs in a significant way. Healthcare reform without true tort reform is only a haphazard attempt.

Immigration Law Enforcement: Virtually none of the illegal immigrants in the U.S. have healthcare insurance, since one needs a valid Social Security number in order to obtain coverage. Knowing that emergency rooms cannot turn away patients, the illegals have turned so many emergency rooms across the country into their primary care providers and pay nothing. These costs must be paid, so they are shifted to paying customers, driving the cost of an emergency room visit up for everyone except of course, for those who do not pay.

Illegal immigrants get sick, they get pregnant, they get into auto accidents and work-related accidents, they are involved in violent crimes, etc. If one multiplies the likelihood of these events by the millions of illegal immigrants, the result is enormously costly to us all.

Until we take strong measures to secure our borders and rid the country of those here illegally, we will continue to incur these costs.

Drug and Alcohol Abuse: Drug abuse in the U.S. is higher, per capita, than in any other industrialized country. The insidious drug abuse crisis in this country is a major driver of healthcare costs. Emergency room visits, mental health treatment, counseling and rehabilitation, and criminal activity all place upward pressure on the cost of healthcare.

Alcohol abuse is also responsible for a large percentage of serious auto accidents, which puts tremendous pressure on the system.

Government Mandates on Insurance Coverage: When advocacy groups successfully lobby congress or state governments and pressure them to force insurance companies to cover certain illnesses, it affects us all in the form of higher premiums. Many of us pay for coverage we don't want or need, but they are forced upon us by our own government. One example is mental illness coverage. The National Alliance for the Mentally Ill, an advocacy group and lobbyist, successfully coerced government to consider mental illness on par (parody) with physical illness, resulting in the mandate that every health insurance policy must cover mental illness. However, the group didn't stop there; the scope of coverage was broadened over time to include such things as alcohol counseling, addiction counseling, and medication for shy people (now referred to as Social Anxiety Disorder). Severe mental illness can be catastrophic to the families of the mentally ill. Treating these patients can be very costly and coverage should be available in catastrophic insurance policies. But to mandate that every health insurance policy must cover the mildly depressed or shy or those who have difficulty paying attention drives premiums up for everyone.

The result of this is the expectation that every personality quirk must be treated by a doctor with expensive medicines. This puts a tremendous amount of pressure on the system. Drugs designed to treat even mild mental illness are some of the costliest and most widely prescribed medicines.

A married couple in their fifties should not be forced to pay for maternity coverage; they should be allowed to negotiate it out of their policy in exchange for a lower premium. Shouldn't we be able to choose which coverage we want based on our individual needs? Unfortunately, government usually forces onto the majority, what is demanded by the minority.

In a single payer system, could the government roll back some of these mandated coverages without a revolt? Or would it simply continue to treat these illnesses and pay for it with mammoth tax increases? Probably the latter.

The Great Melting Pot: As preposterous as it sounds to the educated among us, the diversity that makes America unique will also make it nearly impossible to implement a nationalized healthcare system. Let me explain.

The United States is the least homogeneous country in the industrialized world. This is not necessarily a bad thing, but when we fail to see ourselves as Americans first, we have no inherent vested interest in the country. America is perhaps the only country in the world that insists on hyphenated labels for everyone. We cannot simply be Americans of African descent, or of Asian descent. No, we must be African-American, or Asian-American. Are there African-Austrians or Asian-Canadians? I don't know, but I have not heard of any. My point is the great sense of nationalism and American pride that used to exist in America has been under assault for much of the last forty years. During this time, the tide has turned; instead of the U.S. Government playing the role of the great unifier to unite many groups into one great nation of Americans, it seeks to divide us along racial lines. The political Left has successfully segregated our society into a bunch of victim groups with their politically correct social engineering. In one of the greatest speeches of our time, John F. Kennedy implored us to ask not what our country can do for us- ask what we can do for our country. Over time, JFK's own party has completely turned his appeal to Americans around 180 degrees.

This has rapidly created an entitlement mentality among a large percentage of our population. Nowhere is this entitlement mentality more evident than in the realm of healthcare.

We have already seen the havoc wreaked on our healthcare system when care is provided by the government. Studies of the Medicaid system have shown the average Medicaid patient accesses the healthcare system about ten times more than those on private plans or self-pays. In addition to free healthcare, we provide a cab ride to and from the provider's location.

The Cost of New Medicines: There is no disputing the fact that Americans pay more for their prescription drugs than any other nation. To change this, we must first examine the causes. A certain amount of greed does exist on the part of the pharmaceutical industry, but this greed is what has given us some of the most innovative advances in medicine. It is a fact that most of the life-saving and life-changing molecular compounds have been developed with the hope of a profitable return on the investment, and without the superior economic landscape of the United States since World War II, finding and creating these compounds would be less likely to be a profitable endeavor. We can thank greed for our current quality of life and the dramatic decrease in infant mortality.

The very government that seeks to find a cure for the rising cost of prescription drugs is mostly to blame for these costs. In most other countries, one can go to the local pharmacy and purchase many of our prescription medicines without a prescription. Like any other government agency, the FDA does not like to give up control. When it reluctantly does however, we see a dramatic drop in drug prices. A case in point is the drug, Prilosec. Prilosec was at one time, a $5 billion a year cash cow for its manufacturer, AstraZeneca. Has anything changed in the ingredients or strength of Prilosec since it became an over-the-counter medicine? No; other than the fact that people can afford it now, and a doctor visit is not required to obtain it, it is the same drug that required a prescription before its patent expired. There are several classes of medicines the FDA knows are relatively safe, but chooses to keep them classified as prescription drugs.

The approval process for prescription drugs is a costly and arduous one for pharmaceutical companies. It requires three phases of testing, and once a compound is submitted for approval, the patent protection clock begins. Although pharmaceutical companies make their best educated guess as to which discoveries to submit for approval, the FDA approves about one out of nine submittals, on average. $300-$900 million later, a drug may make it to market. This is the preponderant reason that a pill which costs ten cents to manufacture is priced at five dollars. The fact that many in Congress do not understand this should be troubling to all of us.

In a single payer system, will the government simply set the prices of prescription medicine? If so, we can forget about any more innovative advances in drug treatments. Of course one could argue that the pharmaceutical industry appears to support the public option, currently being debated. The reason is simple; a short-term revenue attitude is pervasive among the industry leaders, who are beholden to stockholders. If forty to sixty million new potential patients are being written new prescriptions, simple math shows a huge potential windfall for the industry. The same reason caused the industry to climb on board the Medicare Modernization Act, signed by President Bush; a whole new market opened up.

Race Baiting: There exists today, an entire industry of race baiting for financial and political gain. After watching Barak Obama's inauguration speech, I breathed a sigh of relief, believing that we now have overcome a giant racial hurdle by having as our president a black role model, who is a devout and educated family man. I refused to believe Rush Limbaugh's assertion that racial tension would increase, not decrease as a result of Obama's presidency. After all, how could we be a country of racists when 52% of the electorate voted for a black man for president? But this is why Mr. Limbaugh is smarter than I; he looked past the obvious and foresaw what the Liberal White Americans would resort to when their guy is backed into a corner. Now, the race card is dealt to any American who publically opposes the current administration's policies. Dissent was patriotic under Bush, but it is racist under Obama.

Now imagine a healthcare system that does not provide immediate and superior care to minorities. Never mind that we would all have to put up with slow and inferior care in a government healthcare system, there would be cries of institutional racism from the race pimps who depend on racism for their living. Just like a whole new market would open up for pharmaceutical companies, the new market for the race industry would be enormous.

Crime: violent crime accounts for a large percentage of costly, emergency trauma treatment in urban areas. Will we be required to pay for this treatment in a government-run system? Of course we will. With our current rate of violent crime, this could easily break the bank.

Liberal Sacred Cows: Congress has already begun taxing certain behaviors that may place a financial burden on the healthcare system, like tobacco, and will not stop there. We are sure to see tax increases on sugary soft drinks, food with high fat content, alcohol, etc. Will we see a tax on homosexuality? HIV is a significant burden on the system, especially in certain areas of the country. What is a major cause of HIV in America? Unprotected gay male sex. What about abortion? Will all Americans be forced to pick up the tab for a procedure most are morally against? We all know the answers to these questions.

Often times, a new product is test marketed on a small scale prior to a national rollout. Government-paid healthcare has been test marketed already, and it has failed everywhere it has been tried in the United States. Medicare is always on the verge of insolvency, until taxes are raised to pay for shortfalls. Medicaid is on life support in nearly every state in the nation; only tax increases keep it afloat. Our Veteran's Administration healthcare system is a perfect example of a U.S. Government run system which fails its members on almost every level. In Tennessee, Tenncare, a program which sought to expand state coverage to an additional 500,000 people using managed care organizations, eventually the program ran out of money, was ripe with fraud and abuse, and was completely revamped on a much smaller scale. In Massachusetts, the shortfall is so great that the state may have to end its state healthcare system or raise taxes in an already heavily taxed state.

The sales pitch usually begins with slick politicians promoting a "pay-as-you-go" or "revenue neutral" plan. Remember, to liberal Democrats, every program is revenue-neutral when they are using Monopoly money to pay for it. There will never be cuts in any budget other than defense. If costs rise, which they will, tax increases and care rationing will rule they day.

The Democrats know a single-payer system will not work but clearly, implementing a successful program is not their goal. It is evident that total government control is the endgame for the Liberals in Congress and President Obama. Government already controls about half of all healthcare expenditures with the efficiency of...well, insert any government agency name here.

A single payer healthcare system in the U.S. would be a disaster by any measure and must be vigorously opposed . The current plan being promoted by Democrats is another step toward an incremental takeover of the healthcare industry

By: Adam Nardone
http://www.theplanetbuzz.com
Adam Nardone, Senior Editor, Director of Research -Tax Policy. Mr. Nardone is a policy analyst, specializing in tax and economic studies. He holds a B.A. from University of Nebraska, and a M.A. from American University.

• The Correlation of Fiscal Policy and the Business Cycle
• The Cost of High Cronyism
• Recklessness Cloaked in Righteousness
• Obama Vs. America

Politically, Adam Nardone is closest to Libertarian. He extols the wonders and advances of Free Market Capitalism and subscribes to laissez-faire doctrine. Other interests include Politics and Pop Culture. An avid College Football and Baseball fan, Mr. Nardone has written articles for various sports websites and pens a weekly sports blog for The Planet Buzz, as well.Mr. Nardone resides in the Arizona with his wife and children.

The debate over national healthcare is being discussed throughout the country in town hall meetings from coast to coast this month of August, as congress is in summer recess. It made me think of a personal comparison I have between our healthcare system and what we can find in Canada.

Sometime in mid-October of 2008, I managed to injure my left shoulder in an accident while doing some work at home. I was moving some boxes that I had stored in my garage and I stumbled over something. In the process I managed to catch my fall by stretching my left hand out to the wall. My hand grasped the wall, but the momentum kept my body moving forward. The result was very painful as I forced my arm and shoulder back into an unnatural position.

Now, I'm not the type person that runs to the doctor whenever I get a headache or upset stomach. I did some self-administered first-aid immediately and returned to work on Monday. Luckily, for me it had happened early on Saturday morning, so I had the week-end to take it easy. I thought, that if I just took it easy I would heal in time, you know - body heal thyself. Needless to say, that didn't happen. I called for a doctor's appointment.

When I was examined by my doctor, he decided to send me to a specialist. He thought it might be a torn rotator cuff. After having an MRI scan a few days later, I returned to the specialist and he advised me I could have surgery or do some physical therapy that might help. I decided that therapy was the route to take. I had therapy 2-3 times a week for several weeks then was left on my own to continue the therapy exercises I had been taught. To this day I haven't had any surgery.

Unknown to me at the time and not for about a month after my injury had occurred , I learned that a Canadian , I'll call him Bill, working for the same company as myself, had suffered the same injury about the same time as mine. When I asked about him and what he was doing about it, his supervisor told me that he was on the waiting list for an MRI test. He told me that it wasn't scheduled until mid-January 2009. To make a long story short, the essence of this story is: by the time Bill had his MRI test, I had seen my regular doctor, been to a specialist (an orthopedic), had an MRI test, back to the specialist and started on and was about half way or more through my physical therapy sessions at the doctor's office.

Recently, I ran into a coworker of Bill's and asked him about Bill. He told me that Bill finally returned to work about the end of this June or first part of July. Also, that he had hated every minute of the time off. I had expressed to my doctor that I didn't want any restrictions placed on me and continued working after the injury. I don't believe that was a choice for Bill.

Now, one could say, but his healthcare was provided by the government and therefore free, mine wasn't free. Oh really? It's true, I had to pay a copay each time I went to see a doctor and each time I had a physical therapy session. However, the copay was reasonable and affordable and worth the cost to me. Is his healthcare really free? Wonder what he pays in income taxes compared to me. All the waiting time he had to experience, was amazing to me.

Some questions that could be considered when discussing national healthcare might be the following:

If something is working why change it?

If something has some things that need to be reformed, then why not address those places for reform instead of establishing a whole new national healthcare system run by the government?

If there is so many millions of people without healthcare, why not establish some form of national healthcare for them and leave the majority of people who are satisfied with their healthcare alone?

If government takes over with national healthcare, one might ask, when has government ever ran anything that has ever worked?

Has government monopoly on anything ever proved to be cost efficient?

Can the healthcare insurance industry compete against government?

If a national healthcare system, Obamacare, is so great, then why has congress, Democrats, voted that they do not have to participate in a national healthcare system?

Do you want another federal bureau run by another czar or czarina, unanswerable to "we the people", making healthcare decisions about you and your family?

Or

Do you want to have the power with your chosen doctor/doctors concerning decisions about your health and not have some government bureaucrat getting between you and your doctor?

Do you want to have a loved one turned down by a government bureaucracy for treatment, because they are too old for that treatment, because the government figures it's not cost efficient?

What about the possibility of rationing with national healthcare?

What about the issue of research and development? Would there be any incentives for research and development by the medical profession or by pharmaceutical companies if the federal government was running national healthcare?

Do you trust the government to take care of your healthcare needs?

Can we really afford a trillion dollars or more in government spending on national healthcare?

Do we really want government to take care of us from cradle to grave? Or do we want government to leave us alone and let us take care of ourselves?

These are some questions that might be pondered on and some that might be asked at town hall meetings that are taking place this month throughout the country.

I'm no expert on this issue of national healthcare. I don't have all the answers to the questions. I do listen and read as much as I can to the debate. I believe in limited government and personal responsibility. I don't believe that government should be the answer to all the problems we as Americans face. I don't want my government to turn into the nanny state. I have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, however I define that to be. I want government to protect these things for me, not define what they are for me.

Perhaps national healthcare is not about national healthcare. Instead, maybe, it's more about more government power, what do you think? I think, the more powerful government becomes the more liberty and freedom "we the people" lose, do you agree? If you agree with that, then would you agree that once lost, it would be almost impossible to regain that liberty and freedom? Perhaps establishing national healthcare is another step by the Obama Administration in changing this country into The U.S.S.A. - The United Socialist States of America - "...change we can believe in..." Right!?

By: Thomas Noffsinger
I invite you to view my blog at: http://www.politicalthoughts-libertytom.blogspot.com
Tom Noffsinger aka Liberty Tom.

Do you ever get the feeling that this country is always in the shop being "fixed"? I mean, every year like clockwork a group of 535 mechanics trot off to Washington to tweak and tune our system with new laws and more regulatory agencies as if what we have just isn't working right. My question is this: will there ever come a time when we have all the laws and government we need and we can just let the country run?

As with an automobile it seems rather pointless to always be fixing and never driving. But that is what we are mostly about in America today - fixing problems. And boy, do we have problems - just ask the 535 mechanics. No jobs, bad jobs, unsafe jobs? They're on it. No gas, expensive gas? Got you covered. Offended, profiled, hurt feelings? Just make the call. It's amazing how many problems you can find when you advertise your services under "victims wanted". But is this what our congress is supposed to be about? Sure, the constitution directs the legislature to coin money and raise armies and even to promote the arts and sciences but decide how much money corporate executives can make or tell you what kind of car you can drive? Seems a little pushy don't you think?

The problem is this legislative leviathan we've created has found an endless source of food in the growing group of Americans who now look to government to make their lives better. The last election showed clearly that Americans can now be won over solely on the promise of more government - that is, more "fixing". What I want to know is this: after all the years of fixing that apparently haven't fixed the problems has anyone stopped to consider the possibility that it is the fixing that might be causing the problems in the first place?

The job of government is to run the country not to provide fulfillment in the lives of it's citizens. How about you 535 mechanics take some time off and just let us drive our car for awhile? I don't know about you but I would rather drive a rusty car than sit in a shiny one that's up on blocks any day.

By: Alan Corbett