Charlie Daniels - Democrats

"He was in a bind, coz' he was way behind: he was willing to make a deal."

This devil ... Beelzebama ... bet your soul that he could ram through health care. And since he cannot get 60 Senate votes and the House only passed their version 220-215, he is going to punt with reconciliation, and make a simple majority move. Johnny C, sits rosin'in up his bow.... "So if you'll sit down in that chair, right there ... I'll show you how its done."

The band of demons joining in making an evil hiss sound something like Pelosi and Reid. The real sticking point -- apart from "extending" coverage to everyone, including those who do not pay taxes, work or even belong in this country -- is the "pre-existing condition" problem. If insurance companies are forced to cover people that they know are going to cost a fortune to support and at a price no different than that which a healthy person might pay, they are going to: (a) have to expand the pool of paying healthy people; or (b) raise premiums. Or both. Or go broke.

Take note that when the Canadian premier needed heart surgery last month ... he came to the United States to get his procedure done.  And Obama and the Dems want us to look more like Canada. "This was my heart, my choice and my health." And this was a Canadian politician.



Back to the plot: Since insurance companies don't want to go broke (although that might be a long-term Beelzebama plan to institute government single plan health care), they are going to go with plan (a). Why? Well, plan (b) is the Wellpoint Death Spiral (google "California Wellpoint death spiral" -- written by leftie economist Paul Krugman) wherein raised premiums cause more healthy participants to drop out, further shrinking the pool necessary to support the costly pre-existing crowd, creating a need for further premium hikes.... And Beelzebama's and his demons have already told us in no uncertain terms that they will limit the amount anyone has to pay for coverage. Game over.

So Plan (a) it is.  So insurance companies, when faced with government action to force coverage will logically welcome laws forcing people to become their clients.


Isn't immoral to exclude people with pre-existing conditions? Yes. Without doubt. But we need to clarify something here. Conservatives are focused the prevention of excluding persons with prior coverage: as in, if the insurance company finds out you are sick, it cannot then deny you and drop coverage or prevent renewal of coverage.  Weirdly, that is exactly what the Demon-crat plan will do. By definition this pre-existing condition debate is about seniors. The number of people with disease under the age of 55 (to pick an AARP-based number) that the pre-existing condition issue applies to and which would pose crippling costs, is small enough to be ignored by the insurance companies.  Something crazy like 80%+ of your lifetime medical costs come in the final 5 years of life.

So, the Demon-crats plan to cut Medicare by $505 billion over the next 10 years, $150 billion to come from Medicare Advantage -- leading "many plans to limit the benefits they offer, raise premiums or withdraw from the program." -- Congressional Budget Office. Ironically, Medicare Advantage is the one spot in the entire scheme that actually works to provide affordable healthcare for seniors.  So, in some bizarre twist to provide "universal coverage," coverage will be stripped from the persons they seek to cover? And precisely the people that cost the most to insure?


But this poses the question ... what about coverage for those who decide they want it, don't already have any, but are already sick? Sticky question, ethically. It is also somewhat like the grasshopper and ant parable. The Demon-crats say the solution is to force everybody to have coverage -- so this question does not come up, eliminating free choice and the right of young healthy people to determine their budgetary needs. The GOPutzes really don't address this at all, preferring to hide behind "keep it as it is."  I'd prefer to see coverage available to those that want it at an affordable price, and let those that don't want it take the risks that they become sick later on. But if healthy people are forced to pay premium designed to subsidize the sick... it is no longer affordable.


That is, you can't smoke, drink and eat Cheetohs until you are 60, have a heart attack and suddenly decide that the people of the United States owe you coverage. Winter has arrived and there is nothing in the grasshopper larder. That is freedom and a fundamental difference between conservatives and liberals: liberals want to remove choice and self-responsibility and conservatives will let you do what you want with your life.

So how does Pelosi's Bill take care of the costs that will flow from coverage for all -- bearing in mind that the "big bills" are in the final few years of life? The Dems propose to create a "Comparative Effectiveness Research Commission" -- government employees who will decide which treatments are most effective ... and allowing the denial of treatment based on cost. The newly to be created "Health Benefits Advisory Committee" will decide on the categories of covered treatments and services with benefit classes.  Net of this garbage? Obama's folks get to decide what and how much treatment a patient will receive: "everyone will be covered, but we will decide how much coverage you will get." That does not sound like a very good deal to me, particularly if I was older or seriously sick.

Since when has the Government EVER done anything more efficiently at a lower cost than the private sector? Or at all. Name one thing. I dare you. Imagine a larger version of your Division of Motor Vehicles ... or IRS ... and you are applying to them for treatment coverage.... 'Nuff said.

Since they want "the rich" to pay for all this, taxes will have to increase. In fact, it starts to look like an entire economy  run to support a health system. Much in the way GM was a pension fund that sold cars to pay for itself. But taxes and premiums will certainly go through the roof -- as they have in every instance where the government has artificially shaped the market. Tried to insure cars in New Jersey or New York. Or get health insurance in Mass.? The people to tax are the unorganized, the small business people, individual and self-employed: they do not have a voice.

If individual people could band together to form large user groups, as do big business and unions, our rates would go down -- making healthcare more affordable. But the Democrats prevent this. If we could go across state lines to buy insurance in, say, Idaho, we could have real competition ... but Democrats prevent this. If we could stop insane malpractice lawsuits creating CYA medicine -- we could dramatically lower treatment costs -- but Democrats are in bed with the tort lawyers. If we allowed unfettered access to global pharmaceutical markets (and eliminate the BigPharma gold mine of U.S. prescriptions), we could dramatically lower costs -- particularly for the seniors, but Democrats have BigPharma well in hand (or is that other way around)?

Lastly, I am unaware of anything in the Constitution of the United States that gives the Federal Government power to mandate that the citizens of the United States purchase anything. Tax and provide, yes ... but that is really limited to defense and infrastructure for interstate commerce. The Interstate Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause have been tortured beyond belief -- but I cannot see how this proposal passes Constitutional muster. At the very least it should be a right reserved to the States under the 10th Amendment.

"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." That is the word of law.

I don't get it.

Well, actually, I do ... but for the sake of argument: why is everyone so upset at the Mossad?  I mean, why is France and England so bent out of shape that some Israeli hit men used fake French and UK passports to gain entry into Dubai to rub out some Hamas scumbag?

Seriously! What should Yossel and Moshe use Israeli passports to do a hit in Dubai? Get real.

France and the UK are up in arms that Israel should eliminate an undisputed terrorist, a man acknowledged to be behind the killings of perhaps dozens of Israelis -- or responsible for arming terrorists in the West Bank and Gaza with missiles and other weapons whose sole purpose is to kill Israelis. So the Israelis got him first ... or back for the hits Hamas is responsible for.

Let's face it Mohammed  Al Mabhouh was a very bad man. This was not your common psycho looking to enter paradise on the back of a bus bombing. This man wanted to arm an army of psycho bus-bombers. And probably already did. It is certain that he is responsible for the slaying of Israeli soldiers: he bragged about it. He was hidden and protected in Syria (not much chance to liquidate him there) so what was Israel to do? Just sit around and wait while its enemies partied around the world planning new murders of Israelis?

Why is France so concerned with portraying this piece of wet work as a "murder?" It was an assassination, an extermination of vermin.

What bothers me is the messiness of the Mossad. Dagan can do better than this. And Mossad is normally far tidier in conducting wet work. 18 persons now sought by the Keystone Cops of the Gulf? This leads me to something else: Mossad's M.O. is more likely poison in the soup or a suppressed 9mm in the head by a passer-by.  This sort of elaborate show is hard to stage ... and requires a lot of time. You just can't pull 18 people out of your heine, send them around Europe to build a legend and target them back to Dubai ... on the kind of notice they would have had.

The fact that this was apparently such a big show leads me to believe whoever laid on this event had extensive notice, even up to a set up to lure Mabhouh to Dubai. That looks far more like a European show or even the Company down Langley way. Messy and overblown like one of their ops, too. Too easy to lay clumsy trails back to Israeli immigrants. Could be a double blind, but not a typical Mossad  show.

Euro-danger

The Emperor is being de-robed by the Germans. That is, after some fancy footwork in the G-20 ? Euro summit, it turns out that Merkel is not so keen after all to bail out the Greeks. Even if Papandreou's cuts were to be fully implemented, that would still leave a deficit of over 8% of GDP -- well over the maximum mandated by the Euro rules.

But the kicker is this: nobody believes for an instant that the Greeks can stick to it. The uproar on the streets would cause virtual civil war.  And I think that Merkel knows it. But she'd rather that than pay for the failure anyway. Why pay for failure when it will follow as sure as tomorrow? Greece cannot sustain Euro membership. Nor likely can Portugal and Spain. Ireland and Italy ... just maybe.

So what does this mean in the long term for the EU? Not much good. You might have a tighter core body that can retain monetary restraint, but that is predicated in the long term on the similarities of the people to produce the same efficiencies and output for a given input. You see, in the U.S. productivity is more or less the same whether you are in Boise, Idaho or Montgomery, Alabama. In Europe, Germans work hard and produce more than just about anyone else. They save, too. They don't spend what they do not have.

Contrast that with France.... The French worker is a slave to self-interest, to fleecing the government and evading taxes.  Overtime is not a French concept (nor is it popular in Italy, Spain, Greece, Portugal). Germans, by contrast will gladly work like dogs if the pay is right and they get a chance to spend in on a holiday where the sun shines.  Take that fundamental observation and extrapolate it: monetary union can only exist between these two if the harder working segment is willing to subsidize the other for ever.

And Germany may have just reached its limit.

Iraq Obama's Greatest Triumph

If you listen to Joe Biden, that is.

"I am very optimistic about -- about Iraq. I mean, this could be one of the great achievements of this administration. You're going to see 90,000 American troops come marching home by the end of the summer. You're going to see a stable government in Iraq that is actually moving toward a representative government. 
I spent -- I've been there 17 times now. I go about every two months -- three months. I know every one of the major players in all the segments of that society. It's impressed me. I've been impressed how they have been deciding to use the political process rather than guns to settle their differences."

 And that is the Spin from the West Wing.  The only trouble is GPAT Obama has a rather lengthy record of saying that the Boosh surge was all wrong.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_igpyewuzQ&feature=player_embedded

Note that here -- before becoming POTUS, he manages to look at the camera, though the message seems like a recital.

Which sort of brings us to his next greatest triumph ... a nuclear Iran. Let's talk with them! Let's meet with them!  Let's show them we are decent people!  Let's get the Russians involved. Let's get the Chinese involved. Let's apply sanctions!

Barry, you are so wet behind the ears, its embarrassing. It is Jimmy Carter all over again, except the stakes are higher. Ahmadinejad is a pathological liar, a member of the Al Quds branch of the fanatical Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps.  These are crazies who assembled human minefield clearance squads, the ones responsible for arming Hamas and Hezbollah. You think that he gives even a rat's fart for what GPAT Barry-O thinks?

Russians sell them gasoline. That make money, and lots of it. Nothing in the Russian makeup gives rise to the belief that various politicians in Moscow and the territories are adverse to making a few rubles. A nuclear Iran does not bother them. Nor does it bother the Chinese ... nuke a city or two and you provide a jobs program for a few hundred million.  Furthermore, the Chinese have their greasy paws on long term Iranian oil contracts.

The U.N.? Since when have U.N. sanctions worked anywhere? North Korea? The most heavily sanctioned country on Earth? They have a fine nuclear program, thank you.

So what are you going to do Barry, now that the gig is up? You have told us that the concept of a nuclear Iran is "intolerable." Really? "It will not stand." Really? And if the truth be told, there is not a hell of a lot you can do.  It is time to lead, Barry ... so put up or shut up.

BiPartisanship

POTUS (that's Obama) seems to feel that the GOP is responsible for the lack of bipartisanship in the Congress (House and Senate). He complains to the media (who are, after all, his lapdogs) that those nasty Republicans won't let him get on with his dream of bipartisan negotiations on health care, etc.

And to be fair to POTUS, the Republicans really have little incentive to cooperate: in a Democrat controlled Congress, any screw-ups will, correctly, be laid at the door of the Dems. If something passes, it is because the Dems voted for it. The GOP couldn't pass gas in the House or Senate with Dem approval and assistance. And the continuing failure of the Dems to pass anything cannot be the GOP's fault ... unless you are Obama.

GPAT (Greatest President of All Time), feels that bipartisanship ought to be thriving ... all the Republicans have to do is agree with him. See? Now that is bipartisanship!! GOP'ers have said time and again that if Obama wants to have the GOP involved in any legislation, he has to agree to go back to the beginning and together make decisions that make financial and societal sense. After all,  absolutely none of the legislation the GPAT wants the GOP to agree to had ANY meaningful GOP input. It was all done behind closed doors. GPAT doesn't see it that way -- or at least will not admit this to be the case.  Somehow, 20,000 page bills to be passed in the dead of night with 48 hours to read and comment does make sense to GPAT. The GOP is understandably confused.

While I am on the topic of being confused ... the fact that Mme Palin uses scribbles on her palm seems to drive Liberals crazy. I don't understand why?  I mean, GPAT Maximus needs a teleprompter to give a speech to elementary school children ... that is a fact and well documented.  So if He needs such aides de memoir, why can't Palin scribble a few things on her palm? Oh, I get it ... the smartest President we have ever had is beyond reproach in the memory department and a "moron" like Palin only does it because she has to. And that's the difference.

Have you Liberal GPAT worshipers ever listened to him when the teleprompter goes down? Have you ever noticed that he simply won't start a speech unless the teleprompter is rev'd up? Rather than GPAT, he appears to me to be the best news anchor / reader yet in office. Without his verbal crutch GPAT makes Bush sound articulate.

Watch GPAT next time he gives a speech: his head swivels from left to right ... the camera is right in front of him. He never really looks at the camera when he speaks ... because he can't and still read the teleprompter. If there is a teleprompter under the camera, so that it "sort of" looks like his actually addressing the audience, you will see that his eyes are never on the lens, always below or to the side. But it is the swivel from left to right and back again that really gets me ... and reminds me of Il Duce (who did it to posture as opposed to the necessity of reading a pre-prepared propaganda messages).

In my last blog I opined that Obama was not Sauron ... reflecting on this, I am more convinced of that now than ever.  Who is feeding him the lines? Who writes all that stuff (480 speeches in 1st 365 days in office)?  We go from a mixed race child born to Kenyan father, Kansas white mom (who knows where?) => growing up in Indonesia, going to a madrassa => to high school in Hawaii, cared for by mom's parents => to Barry the student at Occidental College (really third rate, sorry and what grades?) => Barack the Columbia student (very first rate, grades please?) =>  the leftist Harvard student (who had to "write onto" Review as grades not good enough ... that we do know) => Chicago community organizer => friends with Jeremiah Wright, Bill Ayers, Daley => constitutional law professor (given his statement at the SoU address, absolutely clueless on the subject) => State Senator (notable for lack of votes or legislation) => keynote speaker at Kerry convention (who was that guy?) => U.S. Senator (for all of 140 days before announcing candidacy) => official Dem candidate having defeated Clinton machine => POTUS / GPAT => ???  Does this sound like the American dream or a carefully conceived long term plan?

Something happened to Barry Obama between Occidental and Columbia. Somebody or group took an interest, activated a long-shot plan. Perhaps Obama was selected from a group of long-term projects. Maybe there are more out there. But this is not happenstance. Not by a long margin.

Most that know me would say that I am as cynical and analytical as they come. Perhaps that is why this smells to high heaven. Its the duck deal ... it quacks, it waddles, it has feathers, craps in ponds ... so don't tell me it is really a unicorn ... that's a fairytale.

Tea Party rationale

Weird, but bear with me. I was watching the Lord of the Rings recently and could not help but think of the Democrats as Mordor's minions ... which is unfair to a lot of Democrats, no doubt. But something about the anger of the orcs, goblins and gremlins reminded me of the insensate anger of Liberals in Berkeley and Cambridge and the desire for "revenge." Revenge for what? The highest living standard on Earth? The best health care on the planet? The ability to speak your mind without reprisals (well, not so much anymore given "hate speech" legislation)? Are they so angry and bent on "change" because we have it too good? Is some force responsible for mass psychosis?

The Liberals want to disarm us in the literal and figurative senses, notwithstanding the very obvious intent of the second article of our Bill of Rights and the plain meaning throughout the rest of the Constitution. This disarming is not merely about weapons -- it is about the disembowelment of everything that makes our country great. Arms are just a paradigm about our rights in the larger sense.

Rights mattered so much to Americans that a bunch of "old dudes" a long time ago felt that the Constitution did not go far enough, as it was then drafted, in making clear what Americans can and cannot do to each other. So they went through the trouble of amending our Constitution to include what they termed "the Bill of Rights." The leading "old dude" was a gent by the name of James Madison. Madison's series of Articles were strongly supported by another "old dude" Thomas Jefferson.  Alexander Hamilton, no mean intellect, was against the Bill of Rights essentially on the premise that these rights were so obvious in the first place, that to enshrine them would be to imply that other rights that Americans assumed were naturally theirs might be infringed. Hamilton would be aghast at the Liberal-progressive assault on the basic liberties that are enshrined, let alone the gradual chipping away at rights so fundamental that not even Madison thought it necessary to enumerate them.

What am I driving at? It is this: Obama's Liberal-socialist agenda of regulating our lives is destroying the essence of our country and the very real considerations on which it was founded -- the preservation and exercise of our inalienable rights.  It is precisely the sudden recognition of Obama's goals which has led to the urgency which is driving the Tea Party movement. It is a movement about our rights as free men and women, rights which are so blindingly obvious that when taken in isolation only an idiot would argue against their exercise.

Take self-defense ... the right to protect yourself and those you love. Dershowitz (leftie Harvard Law scholar -- but one seriously brilliant mind) posed the conundrum -- broadly paraphrased: your child has been hidden underground somewhere by a kidnapper, the box in which your child has been placed has only 1/2 hour of air left and you have managed to capture the kidnapper ... what do you do? Politely ask the kidnapper where the child is -- worry about that vermin's "rights," or take a Black & Decker to the bastard's kneecaps to find out what you need to know?

Change it up a bit, now the scenario is a terrorist and a dirty bomb somewhere in your city due to go off in 30 minutes .... Mssrs Hamilton, Jefferson, Madison, Washington ... JFK, Roosevelt, Truman and Reagan would have waited about 3 nanoseconds before reaching for the toolbox. BUT, crazies that you hear on NPR routinely will tell you that two wrongs don't make a right and that they would let the bomb go off or their children die. Seriously, I have heard this from Liberal friends -- although I must  need to have my head examined to consider them as "friends,"yet on the other hand, living in Boston means that if I use that sort of craziness as a criteria, I'd soon have very few friends. Hmmm.

The Tea Party movement is about getting back to sanity - away from idiotic ideals that do not reflect reality. If nobody had handguns ... then they would not be used for crime. That is true. But somehow criminals will always manage to get hold of guns of their own. If everyone paid their taxes and there was no underground economy, we'd not have a budget deficit. If people only hired documented and legal persons, we'd have no illegal immigration problem -- with its attendant burdens on housing, schooling, welfare and medical care. If everybody loved peace, there'd be no war. If everyone told the truth and kept their promises, there'd be no divorce. But this is clearly nonsense. All of it. And goodness knows how much more.

Truth is, people steal because it is easier than working. People bully others because they like power. Countries bully others for their own gain. People cheat on taxes because then they have more money to spend on themselves. Guns make people afraid ... easier to get them to hand over their wallets -- no different than Ahmadinejad knowing that a nuclear bomb makes him a "playah" and not merely some psycho terrorist. If you care very little about quality of life, it is easier to sit on the couch and watch Oprah than to put in 10 hours at a McJob. The Tea Party movement recognizes these truths and wants our government to address them.

The Tea Party movement includes Democrats, Republicans and Independents -- which is why we cannot let the GOP hi-jack this: the GOP is filled with narrow-minded zealots and in this way is little different from the Dems. My issue with Huckabee? He believes in the tooth fairy (literal word of the Bible) and would impose that belief on Americans at large.

One last reflection ... if Liberals are the orcs and goblins, etc. ... who is Saruman and who is Sauron? I used to think that Obama is Sauron ... but the guy simply doesn't learn. He just does not have the intellectual horsepower required, ergo he must be something like Saruman. Sauron ... hmmm.  The Witch King of Angmar -- easy: Pelosi and her 8 other ring wraiths, including Reid, Emmanuel, etc. But who is Sauron?  It implies some greater malevolence, greater skill and ability to influence. It this some character yet to hit the stage? Is it someone like George Soros -- the money, the skill, the intelligence, ambition and desire for progressive change? Or is he, too, some sophisticated agent?

Think I am paranoid? If you consider the whole progress of socialism in the United States since 1960, manifesting itself in the crop of 2008, the harvest of leftist, socialist thought that now controls our legislatures, universities and news media ... it is too perfect. Almost seamless. Yet, by some miracle -- as happened when some patriots decided that "enough was enough" in some sleepy rural field near Boston in the 1770's, American people have suddenly woken up to the erosion of their freedoms.

Excelsior, America.

Michelle Obama's boondoggle

We all know by know that Michelle Obama is interested in cutting obesity among school children -- so she likes to take small trips to the local farmer's market, using up tens of thousands of dollars in security and tying up D.C. so that she can stroll amongst the organic carrots.

We sort of laugh at the folly of these expeditions, but she is sort of right that we need to foster a different attitude towards diet, right? Sort of ... but look under any rock in Obama's D.C., and you will find a leftist cause blinking in the unwelcome sunlight.

You see, Michelle is hiding a far left (and I mean essentially commie, not merely socialist) bomb in that bouquet of natural holistic flowers: the SEIU in the form of Andy Stern. Hmmm.. Andy Stern is the ultimate representative of backroom Chicago-style politics that Obama likes so much. And Obama likes Stern, too.  In fact, between inauguration and July 2009, Stern visited the Whitehouse 22 times, meeting with the President seven times. More than anybody.

Who is Andy Stern? President of the SEIU (Service Employees International Uniono), and the pocketbook that handed out $65 million to the 2004 Kerry campaign and $85 million to Democrat candidates in 2008 -- at least $60 million of which went to the Obama campaign by various means. Really. So does he get face-time at the Whitehouse? You betcha.  Who else does the SEIU support? ACORN got more than $6 million since 2006 ... though the SEIU claim to have severed all ties to ACORN after the child prostitution scandal, ACORN received $250,000 in 2009. The figures are from the US Dept of Labor and the SEIU's own disclosure statements -- how much more was back-doored?  The SEIU and ACORN have joint bank accounts at Wells Fargo Bank.

Andy Stern followed the classic leftist path -- student activist in the '60's, he trained at the "Midwest Academy" -- an institute formed by Students for a Democratic Society to teach leftist community organizers how to promote "social change and infiltrate the labor movement." Is this starting to sound Obama-esque? Unsurprisingly, he started as a welfare case officer at the SEIU in 1973. By 1984, he led their organizing efforts -- Stern is today a big fan of the "Employee Free Choice Act" -- better know as the card check effort -- to promote easier unionization.  We know this as "vote for us or will break your knee caps." If you think that this is hyperbole, then you simply know nothing of labor organization. Stern himself boats that he advocates the "power of persuasion, and if that fails, the persuasion of power." His book, A Country That Works is a socialist manifesto, preaching taxation of the wealthy and universal healthcare. He advocates that unions be the means of social reform ... sort of Marxist-Leninist approach, isn't it? But in true Politburo style, he managed to negotiate an exemption for SEIU members from Obama's proposed Cadillac-healthcare tax. Frequent visitor to the Whitehouse, indeed.

OK, so now we understand Stern a bit. What is the gig with Michelle -- I'd like to call her the Black Widow for her venom, ambush tactics and preference for hidden places (like her agenda), but I am afraid that the use of word "Black" would brand me a racist. I can't call her a Brown Recluse, either for the same reasons. Tarantula? The Funnel Web (a really nasty aggressive spider found in Australia that actively seeks to hurt "bite first, see if it is edible later")? Anyhow, the Spider has an agenda with Stern. You see, Spider's hubby Barry-O, has to pay back his loyal bag-man. Chicago politics.

How does this fit in? Back to history ... remember the LBJ "Child Nutrition Act?" That is, school lunches? Itself an outgrowth of the plan to get rid of food surpluses after World War 2, this became an unwieldy entitlement in the '60's. The GOP tried to get rid of it during the Clinton years, but Democrats called it "starving the children." What this Federally subsidized program did was to relieve the responsibility of parents to take care of their children's nutrition.  And it costs insane amounts to support -- as with all Federal programs, that meal on their cafeteria tray costs many multiples of the mere cost of the food. It take a vast supply and administrative system, and most importantly for the SEIU, workers to prepare, cook, serve and clean up after it. Anybody with a grain of sense could see that responsible parents could do this far more efficiently than the vast bureaucracy set up to achieve this. If people are too poor, let's give them get extra food stamps. And the system apparently does not work too well: 1/3 of American children are obese. Any guess where these "starving" children live? This costs $15 Billion a year in direct Federal costs -- and many multiples on the indirect costs to municipalities than must bear this burden. Say $50 billion in total?

SEIU steps in here, along with Department of Agriculture, and food service companies subcontracted to make this happen: a huge and powerful lobby dedicated to this Federal handout. What do they want? A vastly expanded system -- the "GOAL" is better diets for our children.  Do you believe for one second that anyone involved in this unstoppable swindle gives one poop about their diets? Really? There are 400,000 people directly employed by this system and the SEIU wants to increase their numbers dramatically -- that's about power, about ability to promote social change -- their ultimate political goal. And the Spider, if anything, sees her job as changing America no less than her husband does.

This is not about the children -- a moron could see that there are easier and better ways to achieve better nutrition and diets than this. This is about social-progressive change. The SEIU is advocating expanding school lunches to create the "universal dietary safety net" breakfast, lunch and dinner for all school-aged children, courtesy of the State. Not only is that a communist ideal, it is a hammerlock for the SEIU, the removal of the parent from the job of child rearing, and creating an attitude of entitlement masked as concern. It will also blow apart any notion of fiscal responsibility anywhere -- and create loyal Democrat voters from indoctrinated children, largely urban "minorities." If you do not have to care for your children or take any responsibility for them, what are you teaching them? What sort of person results from this system?  Just look to American slums and prisons for the answer.

And somebody will have to pay for this. And that is you ... and me.