Conservative Blog Reporting on Media Bias and the Liberal Agenda

It seems that none of the news media is focusing on two related issues that are undermining democratic capitalism in America. Certainly PeacockWatch understands why MSNBC isn’t touching on these intertwined subjects. That network is too networked with the current Washington establishment to want to contaminate its rice bowl. The mystery is why all other news networks aren’t jumping all over this problem which is independent of whatever political party is in power. And “power” is one of the operative words here.

“Potentates exist at every level of government and feather their nest at our expense”

Our government leaders at all levels have set themselves up as potentates with great privileges. These privileges have increased dramatically over the decades but so subtly that they are deemed by government leaders to be their right and perceived by citizens to be normal. However, it is neither right nor normal for municipal, state and federal leaders to have magnificent offices and salaries far above the average of the population they supposedly “serve” while creating record levels of debt. These are levels of debt that are bankrupting one after another of our cities and states and now our federal government. The government leaders gleefully incur this debt because through that excess of expenditure they guarantee their position of privilege.

This position of privilege is both figurative and literal. Walk into the city hall of most cities of a population of 30,000 or above. You will probably see carpeting, paneling, wallpaper and light fixtures far above what most of us can afford to put in our homes. Go into the council chambers of these cities and you will almost surely find raised daises behind which the mayors and council members look down on the population they are separating themselves from and which they “rule”. The effect is much more exaggerated at the state level and is carried to a ridiculous extreme at the federal government. Most notable is that as the chambers become more ostentatious (read expensive and paid for by the taxpayer) the more haughty the attitudes of the government leaders become. Walk into the offices of government leaders of medium to large cities, states and the federal government and you have a high probability of finding paneled offices, plush carpet, private offices for receptionists, marble, magnificent desks and a large staff all of which are paid for by a public that hasn’t been paying sufficient attention to this creeping transfer of control.

“Government leaders in privileged positions are guaranteeing their position and much above average office furnishings by acting as brokers of the redistribution of wealth…”

It is important to note that these government leaders in privileged positions are guaranteeing their position and much above average office furnishings by acting as brokers of the redistribution of wealth. These government leaders take a cut every time taxes are raised. And taxes go up on the average at a rate greater than our pay raise increase rates and faster than the rate of inflation! Why is that happening! Raising taxes is just a way for legislators to transfer wealth around. This is similar to the activities of brokers of stocks and bonds. Sometimes, as we have learned, brokers make larger commissions if they “push” certain equities. As the money involved in financial trades moves around each person who handles the money takes a cut. They get their cut no matter whether the transaction makes or loses money for the customer. By the same token government leaders get their cut in the form of increased salary and privileges every time they move tax money around. They also get their cut in the form of legal contributions as they pass laws that favor those making the contributions. These contributions may be to their reelection campaigns by ardent admirers who appreciate the elected official’s political position. However, one has to wonder if the contribution precedes or comes after that political position. The more tax money they move around the bigger their cut is because the more money there is available

The government leaders in the United States Congress push so much money around that they now feel they can pay themselves an average annual salary of over $170,000 per year; far above that of the average income of the taxpayer who pays their salaries. And that is just the salary for the legislator. Then there are the office expenses, the salaries of staffers, the expenses for their travel and all the benefits they receive. They also provide themselves with a great medical plan that, by a law they sponsored and passed over 50 years ago, is illegal for the rest of us to take part in. Not only do we taxpayers pay for their entire medical plan we also pay for medical professionals they have on staff for whatever they need to have taken care of. And we pay for major hospitalization for them at military hospitals. The more money they redistribute across our nation the more they feel like they can pay themselves, the bigger the cut they feel they can take, in the form of salary, benefits, privileges and staffers.

No wonder the government votes for bailouts of massive corporations and for a national health plan that is one-sixth of the nation’s economy. This gives them much more control over even more money. This is an even greater amount of wealth that they can redistribute in any manner they wish including to their own special interests who will then, in turn, contribute more to their campaigns. As they control even more massive amounts of wealth they will feel free to confer even more salary, luxury, staff and privilege on themselves.

As PeacockWatch has pointed out before, massive amounts of money become massive amounts of power in our society. Power corrupts and massive power corrupts massively. Power generates a desire for even more power. As citizens we have already made the mistake of ever so gradually betraying the desires of our founding fathers by transferring control from “we the people” to the government. Are we going to totally give up our power to the gluttony of the potentates in Washington by allowing them to pass a public option health plan that gives them control over one-sixth more of our economy and, in-effect, sends on the average over one-half of our hard-earned salaries to the government in the form of taxes and fees? The “health plan problem” can easily be solved by giving all Americans the same health plan that our legislators have. But, that isn’t what the legislators really want. Their desire isn’t to solve the “health plan problem”. Their desire is to get more power and control over more of our economy and take their cut. Their desire is to fully transfer power from “We the People” to the potentates by giving themselves more control over the economy and the redistribution of wealth.

Keith Olbermann and MSNBC again showed on Thursday November 12, 2009 that they are simply the media arm of the Democratic Party. During the part of the program that focused on health care reform Olbermann showed that he, and the Democratic Party, have a non-negotiable position on the health care plan. This position is so solid that it became clear why the development of the House bill had to take place behind closed and locked doors even though Obama had declared a new era of openness. Without stating a position one way or the other on abortion PeacockWatch points out the following from Olbermann’s opinion hour. As Olbermann states:

“Right there on page 50 of the 2008 Democratic Party platform, the Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman‘s right to choose a safe and legal abortion, and regardless of ability to pay, and we oppose any and all efforts to weaken and undermine that right.”

Later in the program he goes on to comment:

“The Catholic bishops now say they can‘t support any health care plan that includes a provision for abortion.  Again, the alternative to that is: no provision, no plan, and another 44,000 Americans dying in the next year because of insufficient insurance and another 44,000 after that.

“How does that make sense in terms of, to use a phrase, ‘right to life’?”

The first comment makes it clear that any public health care option must contain “a woman’s right to a safe and legal abortion”. No compromise. No negotiation. No discussion at all. That partially explains the closed and locked door. It would be pointless to invite anyone to participate in the discussion who had a different opinion on that subject. Perhaps, in effect, that is also true about all major elements of the Democratic Party’s public option. So, perhaps the reason for the closed door was just to take the time to precisely wordsmith and strengthen the Democratic Party position without interference by anyone who might have had a differing opinion on any part of the plan.

Olbermann’s and the Democratic Party’s non-negotiable position is made undeniably clear when he says, “The Catholic bishops now say they can‘t support any health care plan that includes a provision for abortion.  Again, the alternative to that is: no provision, no plan . . ..” It is important to repeat the phrase by Olbermann which he makes on behalf of the Democratic Party “no provision, no plan”. Again, this is a crystal clear position by the MSNBC spokesperson for the Democratic Party. There is no alternative to a public option run by the federal government. No public option, no plan. No compromise. No negotiation. No discussion at all.

Did Olbermann fail every course in logic? What happened to the alternative that there does not have to be a public option? There are a variety of private options that could give people  abroad spectrum of choice of what to include and not include in a plan they would purchase from a wide variety of insurance companies. In fact, the Senate and the House today can make that choice from a broad spectrum of plans from health care companies from all across the country. And, every indication is that they intend to keep that choice while denying it to the rest of us!

As pointed out in the past by PeacockWatch the federal legislators made themselves privileged citizens when they passed McCarran-Ferguson act in 1945. This act restricts the access of citizens to health care provided only by a selected list of companies within their state but has given federal government employees almost unlimited access to any health care company in the entire country! Obama has even said in a televised interview that, at a minimum, he wants all Americans to have access to the kind of health care enjoyed by him and U.S. senators and representatives.

So, why doesn’t the government simply repeal the McCarran-Ferguson law and allow all Americans to select from the menu of all health care companies across the country just like Obama and our senators and representatives? Such a move would not require a thousand page health care bill, or a single-payer government-run health care system. It would also eliminate the need for a dogmatic position of “no provision, no plan”. It eliminates the contention over abortion. It also makes the federal legislators equal partners with the general population in the options they have available to them for health care. However, few seem to have noticed that Congress likes the public option plan they are trying to force on the public so little that they are working to exempt themselves from it and retain their privileged position under the McCarran-Ferguson law.

Repealing the McCarran-Ferguson law and putting all Americans on an equal footing with respect to health plans would eliminate months long negotiations, closed-door sessions and the take-over by a clearly brain-dead, corrupt government of one-sixth of our economy. The health plan could be a one-page bill that simply says all Americans can participate in the same health plan offered to Congress and the President. This broad spectrum of choice would change the dogmatic position of “no provision, no plan” to essentially “any provision, any plan”. That sounds like capitalism and freedom rather than government imposed restrictions and a corrupt and inept government’s take over of one-sixth of our economy.

As we debate the largest takeover of the private economy by the Federal government in the history of our country, we are also facing a pandemic, accompanied by what has become almost a chronic shortage of vaccines to deal with this situation. Could there be threads connecting these two events? Yes, there are very relevant threads, but you will not hear about these threads from our Fifth Estate (the so-called Main Stream Media).

So, let’s go with the obvious first: Why is there a shortage of vaccines?

The reason for this vaccine shortage is the same as it has been for ten or twelve previous shortages: there are only five vaccine makers that are certified to sell vaccines into the U.S. market. Only one of these companies resides in the U.S.

That much has been reported by the media, but Peacock has always been trained to ask the question “why” three times.

So our second of three whys is: Why are there only five vaccine makers qualified to sell vaccines to the U.S.?

The reason that there are only five vaccine makers is because, thanks to our government, the production of vaccines is no longer a profitable business.

Thirty years ago, there were no fewer than 25 companies that produced vaccines for the U.S. market, but only five remain today since they could not make an economic return on the production and sale of vaccines.

So, what about that nagging third question: Why could these companies not make a profit?

The answer to the third “why”, as you might have guessed, has to do with government involvement in the market. The National Academy of Science’s Institute of Medicine has pinned much of the blame on a federal vaccine-buying program.

The origins of the program go back to 1993, when Hillary Clinton’s “Vaccines for Children” program was first implemented. The big idea was to use the power of the federal government to ensure universal immunization. The government agreed to purchase a third of the national vaccine supply at a forced discount of half price, then it was distributed to the poor and un-insured. This resulted in not only a declining financial incentive to develop and produce new vaccines, but also a decline in investment into newer technologies to manufacture these vaccines more rapidly.

The irony of the program is that, at the time it was implemented, the U.S. had one of the highest vaccination rates in the world. After implementation, vaccination rates barely improved. As a capper, Mrs. Clinton had the gall to attack President Bush for shortages of vaccine that occurred during his administration! Talk about lack of accountability.

So, does any of this sound familiar? A worthy goal, to insure universal vaccination by using the power of the government to reduce prices, resulting in shortages and rationing of the product in question.

At the risk of emphasizing the obvious, or for those not familiar with how commercial enterprise works, Hillary’s bill that reduced the price of vaccines to one-half did nothing to reduce the cost of production to one-half. Her bill therefore wiped out the profit involved in making vaccines in the U.S. When you don’t make a profit you can’t pay employees. If you can’t pay employees then you can’t find anyone who will work for you to make a product. If you don’t have people to make a product you go out of business. When you go out of business the unemployment rate goes up. Clearly, Hilary, like many others in government either doesn’t understand the basics of the free enterprise system or is just playing for votes to feed her addiction to political power.

To paraphrase an old saw: For want of a profit an employee was lost. For want of an employee a vaccine was lost. For want of a vaccine a life was lost

Regardless of how noble the cause, government fails spectacularly at everything it does, yet it has an inexhaustible appetite to do more.

With this history, there is actually a fourth why that everyone needs to ask themselves: Why would any person in their right mind want government to do more?

Shortly after the narrow partisan passage of the house health bill, Nancy Pelosi proclaimed that it was a historic moment for America.

The only historic moment about the event was that the Democrats officially went on record as being economic terrorists as they continue to recklessly promote an additional $1.2 trillion in spending in a failing economy with 16 million Americans out of work, thus creating more debt that can only be supported by irrational borrowing at higher and higher interest rates.

Despite the favorable numbers being reported by MSNBC, according to the latest Rasmussen survey, only 45% of American favor the health care plan proposed by President Obama and congressional Democrats while a whopping majority of 52% remain opposed to it.

Deeper in the numbers, Rassmussen reports that only 25% Strongly Support the plan while an overwhelming 42% are Strongly Opposed.

The opposition to the Democratic plan is not purely partisan either. Clearly the Democrats are losing support of the independents who are a critical segment of the 2010 and 2012 elections — the latest Rasmussen numbers show the plan is opposed by 58% of unaffiliated voters.