"The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out
of other people's money."

—Margaret Thatcher

With a projected $1.8 trillion deficit for 2009, several trillions more in deficits projected over the next decade, and with both Medicare and Social Security entitlement spending about to ratchet up several notches over the next 15 years as Baby Boomers become eligible for both, we are rapidly running out of other people's money. These deficits are simply not sustainable. They are either going to result in unprecedented new taxes and inflation, or they will bankrupt us.

While we clearly need health-care reform, the last thing our country needs is a massive new health-care entitlement that will create hundreds of billions of dollars of new unfunded deficits and move us much closer to a government takeover of our health-care system. Instead, we should be trying to achieve reforms by moving in the opposite direction—toward less government control and more individual empowerment. Here are eight reforms that would greatly lower the cost of health care for everyone:

• Remove the legal obstacles that slow the creation of high-deductible health insurance plans and health savings accounts (HSAs). The combination of high-deductible health insurance and HSAs is one solution that could solve many of our health-care problems. For example, Whole Foods Market pays 100% of the premiums for all our team members who work 30 hours or more per week (about 89% of all team members) for our high-deductible health-insurance plan. We also provide up to $1,800 per year in additional health-care dollars through deposits into employees' Personal Wellness Accounts to spend as they choose on their own health and wellness.

Money not spent in one year rolls over to the next and grows over time. Our team members therefore spend their own health-care dollars until the annual deductible is covered (about $2,500) and the insurance plan kicks in. This creates incentives to spend the first $2,500 more carefully. Our plan's costs are much lower than typical health insurance, while providing a very high degree of worker satisfaction.

• Equalize the tax laws so that employer-provided health insurance and individually owned health insurance have the same tax benefits. Now employer health insurance benefits are fully tax deductible, but individual health insurance is not. This is unfair.

• Repeal all state laws which prevent insurance companies from competing across state lines. We should all have the legal right to purchase health insurance from any insurance company in any state and we should be able use that insurance wherever we live. Health insurance should be portable.

• Repeal government mandates regarding what insurance companies must cover. These mandates have increased the cost of health insurance by billions of dollars. What is insured and what is not insured should be determined by individual customer preferences and not through special-interest lobbying.

• Enact tort reform to end the ruinous lawsuits that force doctors to pay insurance costs of hundreds of thousands of dollars per year. These costs are passed back to us through much higher prices for health care.

• Make costs transparent so that consumers understand what health-care treatments cost. How many people know the total cost of their last doctor's visit and how that total breaks down? What other goods or services do we buy without knowing how much they will cost us?

• Enact Medicare reform. We need to face up to the actuarial fact that Medicare is heading towards bankruptcy and enact reforms that create greater patient empowerment, choice and responsibility.

• Finally, revise tax forms to make it easier for individuals to make a voluntary, tax-deductible donation to help the millions of people who have no insurance and aren't covered by Medicare, Medicaid or the State Children's Health Insurance Program.

Many promoters of health-care reform believe that people have an intrinsic ethical right to health care—to equal access to doctors, medicines and hospitals. While all of us empathize with those who are sick, how can we say that all people have more of an intrinsic right to health care than they have to food or shelter?

Health care is a service that we all need, but just like food and shelter it is best provided through voluntary and mutually beneficial market exchanges. A careful reading of both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution will not reveal any intrinsic right to health care, food or shelter. That's because there isn't any. This "right" has never existed in America

Even in countries like Canada and the U.K., there is no intrinsic right to health care. Rather, citizens in these countries are told by government bureaucrats what health-care treatments they are eligible to receive and when they can receive them. All countries with socialized medicine ration health care by forcing their citizens to wait in lines to receive scarce treatments.

Although Canada has a population smaller than California, 830,000 Canadians are currently waiting to be admitted to a hospital or to get treatment, according to a report last month in Investor's Business Daily. In England, the waiting list is 1.8 million.

At Whole Foods we allow our team members to vote on what benefits they most want the company to fund. Our Canadian and British employees express their benefit preferences very clearly—they want supplemental health-care dollars that they can control and spend themselves without permission from their governments. Why would they want such additional health-care benefit dollars if they already have an "intrinsic right to health care"? The answer is clear—no such right truly exists in either Canada or the U.K.—or in any other country.

Rather than increase government spending and control, we need to address the root causes of poor health. This begins with the realization that every American adult is responsible for his or her own health.

Unfortunately many of our health-care problems are self-inflicted: two-thirds of Americans are now overweight and one-third are obese. Most of the diseases that kill us and account for about 70% of all health-care spending—heart disease, cancer, stroke, diabetes and obesity—are mostly preventable through proper diet, exercise, not smoking, minimal alcohol consumption and other healthy lifestyle choices.

Recent scientific and medical evidence shows that a diet consisting of foods that are plant-based, nutrient dense and low-fat will help prevent and often reverse most degenerative diseases that kill us and are expensive to treat. We should be able to live largely disease-free lives until we are well into our 90s and even past 100 years of age.

Health-care reform is very important. Whatever reforms are enacted it is essential that they be financially responsible, and that we have the freedom to choose doctors and the health-care services that best suit our own unique set of lifestyle choices. We are all responsible for our own lives and our own health. We should take that responsibility very seriously and use our freedom to make wise lifestyle choices that will protect our health. Doing so will enrich our lives and will help create a vibrant and sustainable American society.

Mr. Mackey is co-founder and CEO of Whole Foods Market Inc.

New Yorkers are fleeing the state and city in alarming numbers -- and costing a fortune in lost tax dollars, a new study shows. More than 1.5 million state residents left for other parts of the United States from 2000 to 2008, according to the report from the Empire Center for New York State Policy. It was the biggest out-of-state migration in the country.

The vast majority of the migrants, 1.1 million, were former residents of New York City -- meaning one out of seven city taxpayers moved out. "The Empire State is being drained of an invaluable resource -- people," the report said. What's worse is that the families fleeing New York are being replaced by lower-income newcomers, who consequently pay less in taxes.

Overall, the ex-New Yorkers earn about 13 percent more than those who moved into the state, the study found. And it should be no surprise that the city -- and Manhattan in particular -- suffered the biggest loss in terms of taxable income.  The average Manhattan taxpayer who left the state earned $93,264 a year. The average newcomer to Manhattan earned only $72,726. That's a difference of $20,538, the highest for any county in the state. Staten Island was second, with a $20,066 difference.

It all adds up to staggering loss in taxable income. During 2006-2007, the "migration flow" out of New York to other states amounted to a loss of $4.3 billion. The study used annual US Census reports, which showed which states had increased population, combined with Internal Revenue Service data, which show which states, cities and counties had lost people.

While New York City and the state were the losers, the Sunshine and Garden States were winners. more than 250,000 New Yorkers who lived in and around the city fled to Florida. Another 172,000 city taxpayers ended up in New Jersey. Why all the moving vans?

The center, part of the conservative Manhattan Institute, blames the state's high cost of living and high taxes. The study also revealed surprising details about how city residents moved from borough to borough. Manhattan lost 64,480 taxpayers, and more than half -- 34,383 -- went to The Bronx. Brooklyn lost 68,951 taxpayers -- including 43,688 who went to Staten Island. The study also had some good news. The peak loss of New Yorkers was in 2005, when nearly 250,000 residents left the state. But last year, only 126,000 left, the lowest figure over the eight-year period.

Republican Representative Jack Kingston (GA) and 29 Republican co-sponsors filed legislation that would force Obama to actually be accountable by vetting his Czars.  This is probably one of the most needed pieces of legislation that we will see in our lifetimes.  Obama has a list of 34 Czars – some ‘positions’ that still need to be filled but of that number 27 have not been vetted by Congress.  In 6 months Obama has taken it upon himself to bypass Congress and the American people by appointing his very own ‘shadow government’.  The Czars report directly to him and are not held accountable to Congress; therefore, not held accountable to the American people – who pay their salaries.

From the United States Constitution - Article II, Section 2 :

“[The President] shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law: but the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments.”

This clearly states that what Obama is doing by appointing Czars left and right is a violation of the Constitution.  I realize that Obama doesn’t seem to think much of our Constitution but we, the people, DO.  The only government officials who can make policy are the members of Congress who WE nominate.  The ‘Pay Czar’ cannot tell anyone what their salaries or bonuses will be limited to, it has to be legislated by Congress.  Yet Obama seems to think that his Czars can do whatever they want and most people probably don’t understand that his ‘Yes we can’ is really our “Hell no you can’t”.  Finally someone is standing up for us against Obama’s outrageous appointments.  

I am currently researching Obama’s ‘Shadow government’ appointees and so far I am finding that some of these people are clearly radicals like Obama.  There is at least one Socialist (Carol Browner), a fellow ACORN organizer (Adolfo Carrion Jr.), a complete nut job who wrote a book about sterilizing people to quash the growing population (John Holdgren) and his latest appointment Cass Sustein who believes that animals should have the same rights as people, including bringing lawsuits against people.  These Czars are clearly not representative of America or Americans.  They should not be anywhere NEAR the White House or Capitol Hill other than to attend one of Obama’s Wednesday night soirees.

Presidents in the past have had Czars but they usually act as advisors and do not make policy.  Obama has specifically appointed these people to make policy.  The most Czars in any administration was during George Bush’s reign who appointed 14 Czars in 8 years.  Obama has appointed twice the amount of Czars in 6 months as Czarist Russia had in 300 years!  As Kingston points out on his website:  “At this rate, we will have:  272 czars in Obama’s fist term (48 months)  544 czars if he lasts two terms (96 months)”.   This is obviously Obama’s attempt to bypass Congress to further push his radical agenda by appointing radicals to make policy.

We all must push for this Act to be brought to a vote and passed.  This is for our present and our future.  We cannot let the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee sit on this.  After reviewing some of the representatives who are on the Committee, it is clear that this may be a battle as it is filled with partisan party-line-voting Democrats -Tierney, Maloney, Kennedy, Kucinich - are some examples.  Email, call, write, fax every member of the Committee to let it be known that WE, THE PEOPLE, are aware of the Act and fully support it.  The Republicans have brought this Act forward, it is now up to us to tell Obama “Hell no you can’t”.

Hat tip from listener Caroline.

David McArthur had it last Friday when Rep. Russ Carnahan and other Missouri reps SOLD OUT Missouri workers and small business owners by voting for the Waxman – Markey bill, otherwise known as cap-and-trade. McArthur also happens to operate the long-loved McArthur’s Bakery, which has been adding to the St. Louis area tax base and providing jobs for St. Louisans for years. Of course now, with cap-and-trade moving to the senate, McArthur is ticked. He realizes that his business costs are going to increase exponentially due to the major spike in energy prices which will occur if this bill passes senate. He knows that this is going to affect how he does business and who knows? It could result in less output and loss of jobs, two things we need less of, not more.

McArthur isn’t one to play it silent. He fired off a letter to Carnahan informing him that he put the official’s name in lights, probably not in the sort of way that Russ Carnahan has always hoped:

Congressman Russ Carnahan

Fax:202-225-7452

Dear Congressman,

Many of us have had it. You are a follower not a leader. Nancy says Jump boy, you say, How high?

You do not represent the interest of your constituents on the cap and trade issue. So you now have your name in lights for 40,000 cars a week to enjoy.

You sir are not good for small business. And we are letting all of our customers and neighbors know it.

David McArthur

May I suggest that you order your July 4th goodies from McArthur’s, along with your upcoming birthday, wedding cakes, et al. 

March 23 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. Senate last month passed a measure limiting “luxury” spending for corporate travel by recipients of federal bailout funds. Two weeks later, about two dozen senators of both parties left town for political meetings on the Florida coast. Hotel-industry leaders are seizing on those trips as ammunition in a campaign to get lawmakers and Obama administration to tone down the rhetoric against business travel, which they say is adding to their economic difficulties. “It’s just the hypocrisy,” said Frank Fahrenkopf, a former chairman of the Republican National Committee who is president of the Washington-based American Gaming Association, one of the groups urging politicians to moderate the criticism. “We’ve got to have Washington stop beating up on us.”

On March 11, hotel executives including Jonathan M. Tisch, chairman of New York-based Loews Corp., which operates a chain of 18 hotels in North America, Bill Marriott, chairman of Bethesda, Maryland-based Marriott International Inc., the biggest U.S. lodging chain, and Jay Rasulo, chairman of Walt Disney Parks and Resorts, a unit of Burbank, California-based Walt Disney Co. that operates its theme parks, met with President Barack Obama and three Democratic senators to express their concern.

Cancellations

The executives said the political attacks are having a broad effect on their business, even though the restrictions are intended to apply only to recipients of federal bailout money, and cancellations have been increasing as the rhetoric heats up. “We’ve seen companies cancel meetings last minute, leaving 100 percent on the table just to avoid criticism and ridicule,” said Frits van Paasschen, president and chief executive of White Plains, New York-based Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide Inc., the third-largest U.S. lodging company, who attended the White House meeting.  “We’ve also seen meeting planners move meetings from resort locations to city locations, at a greater cost to their companies, again, for optics’ sake,” he said. A preliminary survey by the U.S. Travel Association, a Washington trade group, suggests the hotel industry suffered about $1 billion in cancellations in January and February. Las Vegas has been hit especially hard, losing more than $131 million in non-gambling revenue in recent months. On March 18, the U.S. Commerce Department reported that spending on travel and tourism fell 0.4 percent in 2008, the first yearly decline since 2001. Spending on accommodations fell 10.1 percent in the fourth quarter of 2008.

‘Sense of McCarthyism’

The political rhetoric “has a terrible sense of McCarthyism about it,” said Laurence Geller, president and chief executive of Chicago-based Strategic Hotels & Resorts Inc., which owns 19 properties, including the Hotel Del Coronado in San Diego. Geller didn’t attend the Washington meetings. Christopher Dodd, a Connecticut Democrat who heads the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs, sponsored the amendment to the $787 billion stimulus package that requires companies receiving funds from the Troubled Assets Recovery Plan to curb “excessive or luxury expenditures,” including spending on events and private jets. Over the weekend of Feb. 27, two weeks after the Senate passed the measure, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee and the National Republican Senatorial Committee, the party fundraising arms for Senate candidates, each held their annual winter meetings in Florida.

Naples Fundraiser

About a dozen Democrats, including Dodd, 64, gathered at the Marriott-operated Ritz-Carlton resort in Naples, Florida. Donors who gave at least $15,000 were invited and offered a “coastal view” room at the group rate of $469, according to the Democrats’ invitation. At least 11 Republican senators held a similar retreat at The Breakers resort in Palm Beach. Rooms could be had for $475 a night. For another $292, participants could play in a golf tournament. The invitation urged guests to make reservations for the resort’s spa “indulgences.” Dodd spokeswoman Kate Szostak didn’t return phone calls and emails seeking comment. Afshin Mohamadi, a spokesman for Senator Robert Menendez of New Jersey, the chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, didn’t return a call seeking comment. Democratic committee spokesman Eric Schultz said the group doesn’t comment on its fundraising.

Republican Response

Brian Walsh, spokesman for the Republican Senate Committee, which is led by Senator John Cornyn of Texas, said the spending for the congressional meetings in no way resembles the actions of financial institutions that accepted billions of dollars in taxpayer bailouts and then spent money on sales meetings and conventions. “This was not paid for by taxpayers or the government,” Walsh said. “It’s private donations from contributors,”  Hotel executives said their business began to suffer after Obama, 47, warned Feb. 9 during a town-hall meeting in Elkhart, Indiana, that companies receiving bailout money “can’t go take a trip to Las Vegas or go down to the Super Bowl on the taxpayers’ dime.”  Soon after, Northern Trust Corp. was criticized for organizing a conference and golf tournament in Beverly Hills, California. The Chicago-based bank received $1.6 billion in federal bailout money.

‘Frittered Away’

House Financial Services Chairman Barney Frank, a Massachusetts Democrat, and 17 other lawmakers on Feb. 24 demanded that the company return what it “frittered away on these lavish events.”  The day the senators boarded the planes for Florida, San Francisco-based Wells Fargo & Co. -- which received $25 billion in bailout funds -- canceled a four-day event in Las Vegas, saying the trip may send mixed signals to the public.  “We can only shake our heads at the cynical behavior of our politicians,” Geller said. “It is political rhetoric to fan the fuel of fear.” Van Paasschen of Starwood said the senators’ Florida trip sends another message. It “speaks to the point that getting out and traveling is important,” he said. “I would encourage the members of our government to get out and travel.”  David Burke, vice president of sales and marketing at the Breakers, welcomed the debate -- and the business. “Regardless of the nature of a meeting, conference or event -- including this Republican senators group -- all business is important to us at The Breakers,” Burke said in an e-mail. “The rhetoric from Washington has clearly impacted the hotel and travel sector as a whole.”

That’s Intel Corp.’s argument against new taxes on overseas income. It’s Overstock.com Inc.’s objection to making unions easier to form. Ditto Lockheed Martin Corp.’s case against scrapping production of the F-22 jet. U.S. companies are stepping up their fight against President Barack Obama’s proposals not aimed squarely at reviving the economy. They say Obama is trying to do too much, taking the focus off fixing credit markets and proposing ideas that may hurt rather than help. “There are so many priorities that there is no priority,” said Bruce Josten, the chief lobbyist for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the largest business lobbying group. “There is nothing more important than fixing the housing and financial markets.” Obama “is saying we can do it all at once.”

Making an issue of an economy that shrank 6.2 percent last quarter, the steepest plunge in 27 years, is a potent strategy that may derail Obama’s agenda on issues from taxes to climate change, said Jeffrey Berry, a professor of political science who specializes in lobbying at Tufts University in Medford, Massachusetts.  “It’s a strategic argument, well-designed and well- timed,” Berry said. While companies typically say the timing is bad as they try to stall proposals, “it’s much more effective now in the depths of this recession.”

Tackle It All

Obama argued for tackling his entire agenda even amid a crisis in a speech to business executives in Washington on March 12. “Problems in the financial markets, as acute and urgent as they are, are only a part of what threatens our economy,” Obama said. “We must not use the need to confront them as an excuse to keep ignoring the long-term threats to our prosperity.” Semiconductor makers including Santa Clara, California- based Intel, the world’s largest chipmaker, sent executives to Washington last week to press Democratic lawmakers and the administration to drop plans to end the deferral of U.S. taxes on overseas earnings. The companies call it a tax hike.

“If you want to decrease our competitiveness, then increasing our tax rate is exactly the right thing to do,” Intel Chairman Craig Barrett told reporters on March 11. The tax “actually works the opposite of the way the Obama administration is describing,” said John Daane, chief executive officer of Altera Corp., the world’s second-largest maker of programmable chips. “Our profits would go down,” and the company would have to cut jobs, adding to unemployment, he said.

Cost to Companies

The tax on overseas income, proposed in Obama’s budget submission last month, might cost companies such as General Electric Co., Exxon Mobil Corp., Caterpillar Inc. and Ford Motor Co. a total of $362 billion, according to an analysis by Height Analytics, a Washington-based investors’ advisory group. “This is going to be a very big fight,” said William Reinsch, president of the National Foreign Trade Council, which is leading the lobbying against the tax on behalf of companies. Wal-Mart Stores Inc., Burger King Holdings Inc., Home Depot Inc. and Overstock.com are trying to stop so-called card check legislation, which would make it easier for employees to approve unions. Labor groups, which spent $100 million in the 2008 campaign to elect Democrats, have made it their top priority this year.

Not the Time

Companies say the plan would increase labor costs. “Card check is a misguided proposal -- especially right now,” said Jonathan Johnson, president of Salt Lake City-based Overstock.com, the Internet seller of discounted name-brand goods. Arkansas Senator Mark Pryor, a Democrat who co-sponsored the measure in 2007, expressed reservations about the rule change this year. “It is a different time, and the economy is in a much different situation,” Pryor said in an interview this month in Washington. Bethesda, Maryland-based Lockheed Martin is trying to continue production of the F-22 fighter jet, the most expensive aircraft in U.S. history, as the Obama administration reviews weapons programs for possible cuts. During the past three weeks, Lockheed bought daily newspaper advertisements that focused on 1,000 companies and 95,000 workers dependent on the project. “If you’re looking for stimulus and to stop the bleeding and job losses, step one is to stabilize the current situation,” Larry Lawson, Lockheed’s F-22 program manager, said in an interview. Cutting the F-22 would mean Lockheed and its suppliers “would start laying people off,” he said.

Seeking, Opposing

Drugmakers Eli Lilly & Co. and AstraZeneca Plc said on Feb. 26 they would lose “several hundred million” dollars from Obama’s proposal to mandate deeper discounts for drugs they sell to Medicaid, the health plan for the poor. Health-care stocks, led by Humana Inc., slid after the Obama’s budget plan called for stripping insurers of $175 billion over 10 years by forcing them to compete for Medicare contracts. The shares have since recovered. Some companies are simultaneously seeking government aid while opposing the administration’s initiatives. General Motors Corp. is trying to get as much as $16.6 billion in U.S. help to avoid bankruptcy as it seeks to persuade Obama to abandon his campaign pledge to let California set stricter auto emissions standards. Lobbyists for U.S. Steel Corp., the largest U.S. steelmaker by sales, are asking for U.S. help to prevent a surge of imports from China while fighting Obama’s plans to establish new limits on carbon dioxide emissions to slow global warming.

‘Business as Usual’

“The whole point of a climate bill is to make energy more expensive,” said Thomas Gibson, president of the American Iron and Steel Institute, which represents U.S. Steel. “This is a first-order issue for us, and it’s an issue made even stronger given what’s going on now in the economy.” Obama is right to act on multiple fronts, said Christian Weller, an analyst at the Center for American Progress, a Washington public policy research group in Washington that advises Democrats. “Businesses wants business as usual,” Weller said. “But there are massive challenges to the economy, not just now but over the next few years. We have to rethink the way we run the economy.”

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Republican lawmakers from more than 20 states across the country are willing to take federal funding, but only on their terms. From Montana to South Carolina, lawmakers in mostly red states have pushed ahead with measures calling for state sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment, saying the federal government has overstepped its bounds with the stimulus package. The states are calling for the right to ignore laws they deem unconstitutional.

Oklahoma state Sen. Randy Brogdon, a Republican and the first to introduce this type of legislation last year, originally pursued it because he thought then-President Bush and Congress exceeded their authority with the Real ID Act, which required states to include certain information on driver's licenses. He called the stimulus package "immoral and unconscionable" and said it was "the final straw that broke the financial back of America."

Brogdon's bill passed the state Senate on Wednesday and the state House approved a similar measure. The office of lead House sponsor Republican Rep. Charles Key said it is confident a joint resolution will get through. The legislation would be binding. So, if the governor signs it, it theoreticallly would allow Oklahoma to ignore laws that are not "enumerated and granted to the federal government by the Constitution," as stated in the Tenth Amendment.

"I'm sick and tired of Congress overreaching and underachieving," Brogdon said. He added, "If we have an opportunity to salvage freedom and protect sovereignty, it has to be done at the state level." Similar legislation is moving along in South Carolina. The bill already passed in the state House and a state Senate panel approved it on Tuesday. Republican state Rep. Lee Bright said he chose to sponsor the South Carolina measure because he thinks the stimulus package grants the federal government more power than the Constitution allows.

"The federal government is living beyond the scope that the Constitution grants it and states should put it on notice," Bright said. "I haven't been pleased for some time with what the federal government gets involved in, but it came to a head with the stimulus bill." The Republican lead sponsor of the bill in Virginia, state Rep. Christopher Peace, said his state has used only a small portion of the money allocated in the stimulus package. He said local officials are the best managers of Virginia's budget and the federal government shouldn't interfere with how the state chooses to spend its money.

"I'm not saying we don't benefit from some of the money, but it's important to question what are the roles and boundaries, and ask if Congress is exceeding them," Peace said. "Our representatives in the federal government represent the same people we do and they need to work to keep the government small and limited and efficient." All the bills invoke the Tenth Amendment, which states that "the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

Most are symbolic measures and none have passed yet, but local officials are hoping to send a message to Washington to back off.  Many states are criticizing the stimulus package, while others are trying to assert authority over other issues, like abortion in Missouri and exempting firearms from federal regulations in Montana. Many of the bills include a provision that once the bill is passed, a copy will be sent to President Obama and Congress. "It's time to send a message to Congress that we're sovereign," said state Rep. Judy Burges, an Arizona Republican. "We have many states doing this and if you have enough sending the same message, they're going to have to step back and take a look at what they're doing."

"The government is promoting bad behavior."

White House objects to 'rant' on its housing plan

WASHINGTON (AP) - The White House on Friday dismissed a cable television reporter's criticism of President Barack Obama's housing bailout plan as the ranting of an individual who "doesn't know what he's talking about."  In a report on CNBC on Thursday, Rick Santelli animatedly accused the Obama administration of "promoting bad behavior" with its $75 billion lifeline to millions of Americans on the brink of foreclosure.

White House press secretary Robert Gibbs poked fun at Santelli by inviting him to come to the White House to read the details of Obama's plan. "I'd be happy to buy him a cup of coffee," Gibbs said. In a nod to Santelli's caffeinated style, Gibbs then wryly added: "Decaf." Santelli took the critique in stride, saying Gibbs had hardly offered tough words.

"I think this is terrific that this has been opened up to national debate," Santelli said in an MSNBC interview shortly after Gibbs' daily briefing wrapped up. "I think it's wonderful he invited to me to the White House. I'm really not big on decaf, though. I think I'd prefer tea."

The episode underscores how closely the Obama White House, like others before it, monitors how media coverage may be shaping public opinion. In particular, the constant chatter of cable television news shows has at times gotten under the skin of White House aides, and they have made no effort to hide their displeasure. 

Since I started writing speeches more than ten years ago, I have always believed in the Democratic Party. Not anymore. Not after the election of 2008. This transformation has been swift and complete and since I’m a woman writing in the election of 2008, “very emotional.”

When I entered this campaign, it was at the 2006 Edwards staff Christmas party. My nametag read “Millie Worker.” When former Senator John Edwards read it, he laughed and said, “That makes you like my parent.” He went on to say, “Would you please come down to Chapel Hill so we can talk about what’s coming up.” I sat in John and Elizabeth’s living room for two and half hours. I left North Carolina, energized about politics for the first time in months.

Not only has this party belittled working people in this campaign, it has also been part of tearing down two female candidates.

I didn’t hear from anyone for three weeks.

When I finally received the official offer, it was the kind of political offer that said, “Go away.” That happens. It’s their campaign and I just assumed that I had been pushed out. The problem was that I had canceled a number of freelance writing jobs because I had assumed that when John said, “Start right away” I would. I needed a job right away and so I took the one in front of me with Senator Barack Obama.

When we first met, Obama and I had a nice conversation about speeches and writing, and at the end of the meeting I handed him a pocket-sized bottle of Grey Poupon mustard so he wouldn’t have to ask staff if it was okay to put it on his hamburger. At the bottom of the bottle was the logo for “The South Beach Diet” and he snapped, “Oh so you read People magazine.” He seemed to think that I was commenting on his bathing suit picture.

I helped with his announcement speech and others. I worked in the Senate when he was in D.C. One day after a hearing on Darfur, we were walking back to the office. I was still hobbling from a very bad ankle injury and in a very kind and gentle way he offered his arm when we approached the stairs. But later in debate preps and phone conversations and meetings, I realized that I had made a mistake. I didn’t belong. No matter how hard I tried, my heart wasn’t in it anymore.

See campaigns get complicated when you’ve written for so many Democrats. Not only had I written for Senator Edwards, but I had also been Senator Hillary Clinton’s speechwriter. Senator Joe Biden is a “good looking” man and his care after my father almost died from an aneurysm is the kind of kindness you never forget. When I saw Edwards at a traffic light in D.C. about a year after our meeting, he asked for help and I did and it was an honor to help him with his concession speech. And when the primary ended, it was a privilege to help Michelle Obama with a stump speech, be considered as a speechwriter for the V.P. nominee again, and send friends in Chicago ideas until the financial crisis hit. This is what the Democratic Party has been for me; it’s family. Now, it doesn’t even feel like a distant cousin.

This drift started on a personal level with the fall of former Senator John Edwards. It got stronger during the Democratic National Convention when I counted the substantive mentions of poverty on one hand and a whole bunch of bad canned partisan lines against Senator John McCain. Some faith was lifted after Senator Hillary Clinton’s grace during a difficult hour. But that faith was dashed when I saw that someone had raided the Caligula set and planted the old columns at Invesco Field.

The final straw came the other week when Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher (a.k.a Joe the Plumber) asked a question about higher taxes for small businesses. Instead of celebrating his aspirations, they were mocked. He wasn’t “a real plumber,” and “They’re fighting for Joe the Hedge-Fund manager,” and the patronizing, “I’ve got nothing but love for Joe the Plumber.”

Having worked in politics, I know that absolutely none of this is on the level. This back and forth is posturing, a charade, and a political game. These lines are what I refer to as “hooker lines”—a sure thing to get applause and the press to scribble as if they’re reporting meaningful news.

As the nation slouches toward disaster, the level of political discourse is unworthy of this moment in history. We have Republicans raising Ayers and Democrats fostering ageism with “erratic” and jokes about Depends. Sexism. Racism. Ageism and maybe some Socialism have all made their ugly cameos in election 2008. It’s not inspiring. Perhaps this is why I found the initial mocking of Joe so offensive and I realized an old line applied: “I didn’t leave the Democratic Party; the Democratic Party left me.”

The party I believed in wouldn’t look down on working people under any circumstance. And Joe the Plumber is right. This is the absolutely worst time to raise taxes on anyone: the rich, the middle class, the poor, small businesses and corporations.

Our economy is in the tank for many complicated reasons, especially because people don’t have enough money. So let them keep it. Let businesses keep it so they can create jobs and stay here and weather this storm. And yet, the Democratic ideology remains the same. Our approach to problems—big government solutions paid for by taxing the rich and big and smaller companies—is just as tired and out of date as trickle down economics. How about a novel approach that simply finds a sane way to stop the bleeding?

That’s not exactly the philosophy of a Democrat. Not only has this party belittled working people in this campaign from Joe the Plumber to the bitter comments, it has also been part of tearing down two female candidates. At first, certain Democrats and the press called Senator Clinton “dishonest.” They went after her cleavage. They said her experience as First Lady consisted of having tea parties. There was no outrage over “Bros before Hoes” or “Iron My Shirt.” Did Senator Clinton make mistakes? Of course. She’s human.

But here we are about a week out and it’s déjà vu all over again. Really, front-page news is how the Republican National Committee paid for Governor Sarah Palin’s wardrobe? Where’s the op-ed about how Obama tucks in his shirt when he plays basketball or how Senator Biden buttons the top button on his golf shirt?

Oh right, this story goes to the sincerity of her Hockey Mom persona. What planet am I living on? Everyone knows that when it comes to appearance, there’s a double standard for women politicians. Remember the speech Speaker Pelosi gave on the floor the day of the bailout vote? Check out how many stories commented on her hair that day and how many mentioned Congressman Barney Frank’s.

Here we are discussing Governor Palin’s clothes—oh wait, now we’re on to the make-up—not what either man is going to do to save our economy. This isn’t an accident. It is part of a manufactured narrative that she is stupid.

Governor Palin and I don’t agree on a lot of things, mostly social issues. But I have grown to appreciate the Governor. I was one of those initial skeptics and would laugh at the pictures. Not anymore. When someone takes on a corrupt political machine and a sitting governor, that is not done by someone with a low I.Q. or a moral core made of tissue paper. When someone fights her way to get scholarships and work her way through college even in a jagged line, that shows determination and humility you can’t learn from reading Reinhold Niebuhr. When a mother brings her son with special needs onto the national stage with love, honesty, and pride, that gives hope to families like mine as my older brother lives with a mental disability. And when someone can sit on a stage during the Sarah Palin rap on Saturday Night Live, put her hands in the air and watch someone in a moose costume get shot—that’s a sign of both humor and humanity.

Has she made mistakes? Of course, she’s human too. But the attention paid to her mistakes has been unprecedented compared to Senator Obama’s “57 states” remarks or Senator Biden using a version of the Samuel Johnson quote, “There’s nothing like a hanging in the morning to focus a man’s thoughts.”

But thank God for election 2008. We can talk about the wardrobe and make-up even though most people don’t understand the details about Senator Obama’s plan with Iraq. When he says, “all combat troops,” he’s not talking about all troops—it leaves a residual force of as large as 55,000 indefinitely. That’s not ending the war; that’s half a war.

I was dead wrong about the surge and thought it would be a disaster. Senator John McCain led when many of us were ready to quit. Yet we march on as if nothing has changed, wedded to an old plan, and that too is a long way from the Democratic Party.

I can no longer justify what this party has done and can’t dismiss the treatment of women and working people as just part of the new kind of politics. It’s wrong and someone has to say that. And also say that the Democratic Party’s talking points—that Senator John McCain is just four more years of the same and that he’s President Bush—are now just hooker lines that fit a very effective and perhaps wave-winning political argument…doesn’t mean they’re true. After all, he is the only one who’s worked in a bipartisan way on big challenges.

Before I cast my vote, I will correct my party affiliation and change it to No Party or Independent. Then, in the spirit of election 2008, I’ll get a manicure, pedicure, and my hair done. Might as well look pretty when I am unemployed in a city swimming with “D’s.”

Whatever inspiration I had in Chapel Hill two years ago is gone. When people say how excited they are about this election, I can now say, “Maybe for you. But I lost my home.”

Ten days to election, and they are pouring millions into ads, canvassing neighborhoods, making calls, getting out the vote, enraging Democrats -- all in an effort to turn around a dire political situation. The Republican National Committee? No. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

The business community is back in politics. After years of contented political gridlock, American companies are now officially horrified at what an all-Democratic Washington intends to inflict on the U.S. economy. The Chamber is throwing its extensive resources at denying the left a filibuster-proof Senate. In doing so, it has stuck its finger in the Democratic leadership's beehive, and is facing retribution.

It says something about the momentousness of this race that the Chamber doesn't care. While the trade group has always been a force, over this decade many businesses have inched back from in-your-face politics. They felt comfortable with Republicans in charge. They felt comfortable with Democrats running Congress, since divided government rarely brings change. They felt comfortable not offending either political party, and not inviting attack by liberal activists.

They do not feel comfortable now. The Democratic Party once respected the need for a healthy U.S. business community. That was in part because business was ferocious enough to demand respect. But a resurgent labor movement has asserted control over the party. And business has been more concerned with PR than principle. This, and the recent financial crisis, has emboldened Democrats to pursue a pure antimarket agenda.

Their "card check" legislation means thuggish unionism. Their tax policies would squelch American capital. They'll reverse tort reform. Their antidote for today's financial mess is a super-Sarbanes-Oxley. Trade? What's that? Energy? What's that? Henry Waxman will start so many witch hunts, he'll need a lottery to see who goes first.

This agenda has inspired what Bill Miller, who runs the Chamber's political shop, describes as an "unprecedented" rallying of the business community around the Chamber's political efforts. Under the feisty leadership of Tom Donohue, the association understood early on that -- sexy presidential election aside -- the real worry was a liberal, antibusiness supermajority in Congress.

It has, for months, been defending the 60-vote wall, fully engaged in nearly every competitive Senate race. It may well spend $40 million this cycle, or double its 2006 effort. In many Senate races, the Chamber is proving the only outside help to underfunded Republicans.

In Kentucky, the group has blasted Democratic candidate Bruce Lunsford for his antienergy stance. In Minnesota, it is beating on Al Franken for failing to carry workers' comp coverage for his employees. It has tagged New Hampshire Democrat Jeanne Shaheen as a "taxing machine." It has praised Oregon Republican Gordon Smith for his work on health care.

It also unveiled the season's most humorous ad, entitled "Meet Bill." It features real-life union boss, Bill, caught assaulting a cameraman ("I'm gonna' take this camera and stick it somewhere you don't want it!"). It points out that it would be Bill who, under card check, would get to monitor votes in a union drive.

This is brave stuff, especially given Democratic admiration for Bill-like tactics. Chuck Schumer, who is leading the Senate effort to turn Democrats into masters of the universe, is livid. All the more so, given he's spent the past year threatening the business community with dire retribution if it doesn't support his party. (Weren't they listening?) He recently ripped the group as nothing more than a "wing" of the GOP, and has made clear he'll remember the slights.

Truth is, the Chamber is nonpartisan. It makes endorsements based on which candidate will do the most for the business community. If Mr. Schumer wants those endorsements, he could always try fielding candidates that deserve them. As it happens, the Chamber in 2006 went all out for three vulnerable House Democrats who'd been targeted for their free-trade votes. This year it is going to bat for Louisiana's Mary Landrieu and Virginia's Mark Warner -- both of whom it believes will work with business.

Mr. Miller doesn't apologize for supporting members' interests: "What if we became lambs instead of lions? Would the legislative agenda be less beholden to trial lawyers and labor unions? Maybe this is a shot at K Street, but the lobbying mentality of too many is to go up and be solicitous, and hope to get some crumbs from the table. That is not our deal. Our deal is to be the last line of defense for the business community. And while we always work collaboratively, that's what we'll continue to be."

Which is another way of saying the Chamber's real work starts Nov. 5. Senate supermajority or no, Democrats will be in control. The fights coming will demand that business take sides. If one outcome of this year's election is that the business community becomes the loudest voice in Washington for freer markets, so much the better. The Chamber is showing the way. LINK