In defense of the ACA’s individual mandate/tax … sort of

Now that the Supreme Court has ruled on the constitutionality of the individual mandate – which it repackaged as a tax rather than a penalty – conservatives are going wild. 

They are going after the wrong bait. They shouldn't attack the mandate; they should try to broaden it to make everybody in the country -- legally or illegally -- responsible for paying into it.  No exceptions.  No exemptions.  And start charging everybody without insurance immediately.   

There are so many other egregious parts of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) that will bloat government even more, and drive costs up, that are much more worthy of attack. 

Honestly, within reason, it makes sense for everybody to be paying something to have health insurance.  If everybody was paying something for insurance – the healthy as well as the sick – it would help lighten the burden on those of us that have been paying for health insurance for years.  As it stands now, the payers are already supporting the large number of non-payers who use the emergency room as a free clinic for even minor ailments like the sniffles. 

If you think that’s not the case with our current system – where anyone, anytime can get treated in an ER with or without any insurance – you’re wrong.

That’s where everybody without insurance goes.  The poor, the not-so-poor, and illegal aliens; anybody without insurance, citizen or non-citizen, can go to any hospital in the U.S. and get treated for free.  It’s a Federal law that no one, really no one, can be turned away for financial reasons.

That’s why a lot of the ACA propaganda was pure BS.  People without insurance get a lot of healthcare for free now.  Do they get exhaustive tests?  Probably not.  But do they get life-saving care whenever they need it?  That’s a certainty.  And there are a lot of free clinics that supplement the healthcare needs of the non-insured, including those that provide free prenatal care and contraceptives, free screenings, etc., among other services. 

Who is paying for all that now?  People who pay insurance premiums already and Uncle Sam. 

Maybe that’s why Republicans originally proposed individual insurance coverage mandates to reduce healthcare costs overall, long before the Democrats.  You can look that up – Republicans started this.    

It just makes sense that if everyone – really everyone – were paying something toward their potential health issues, the premium burden would be spread more equally.  More people in the pool – the healthy as well as the less healthy, and the young as well as the old – would mean the financial exposure risks for insurance carriers would also average out more. 

In a perfect world that would be a win/win for everyone. 

However, we don’t live in a perfect world.  Most of our politicians preach equality, but only truly believe in Orwell’s Animal Farm equality (where some animals are more equal than others – particularly special interest groups) so that’s not what we are going to get.

The ACA is not going to make everyone pay for healthcare insurance.  Or the healthcare they consume.  Only the people already paying for it will continue to pay in full for it.  Special groups will get it for free, or will get subsidies to effectively get it for free. 

Which is how it works now, anyway, for all practical purposes. 

People who could afford insurance but don’t buy it will be assessed a penalty – sorry, it’s now a “tax.”  But it’s likely these are the same people not paying any Federal taxes already – the 49 percenters if you like – who are going to find a way to not pay that tax either; the gutless in Congress will find a way to exempt them, too. 

Presuming more people are added to the free/subsidized coverage, one way or another, which is apparently the goal, who pays for that?  Ah, there’s the question … not really answered.    

Businesses that don’t provide insurance for their employees will pay a tax instead – which, from personal experience, will be a fraction of the cost of providing traditional insurance benefits.  (There is a credit for small businesses that provide insurance to their employees which is meaningless; you can’t pay decent wages and qualify.)    

So a lot of businesses will probably drop the coverage they provide now – the tax will be so much cheaper – which will push more people into the “exchanges” the ACA is so fond of.

Businesses that do provide company-paid insurance will probably lose the ability to write that expense off as they do now.  Another incentive to drop insurance altogether. 

Oh, and employees who now get healthcare insurance provided by their company as a benefit will have to pay taxes on the value of that benefit.

We’re not just talking about those in the really rich plans – the oft-derided “Cadillac” plans (unless you’re a union) – but most likely those in all employer-paid plans eventually … which some politicians have longed to tax for years.

Clearly the goal is to get healthcare to a single-payer (government, of course) structure.  And eliminate any competition to that single-payer plan. 

Really?  Well, they are also working on driving insurance agencies that market health plans out of business, too; in 2014 they’ll be eliminating broker fees and commissions on healthcare policies, so there will be no income from selling these.

The major healthcare insurance carriers may not realize it yet – much like the frog being brought to a boil a little bit at a time – but they are in danger as well.  They may think they will benefit from a mass influx of new insureds through the enforced mandate, and they might in the very short term, but it will be brief.  They are simply too attractive of a target; too easy to demonize; and potentially too logical of a competitor to a government-run plan. 

By eliminating access to alternative insurance plans, by driving businesses out of providing coverage, by incenting businesses to drop the plans they now offer, and by penalizing employees who get company-paid benefits, it’s almost a slam dunk for single-payer.   

For the present, however, nothing’s really going to change for those of us already providing healthcare insurance to our employees or for those getting essentially free healthcare now. 

Only now there are greater incentives than ever before to drop employer-paid coverage. 

An unintended consequence?  Don’t think so …

Plus, now there will be more IRS agents to enforce the mandate/tax, more bureaucrats to make sure there are more regulations to be administered, more people getting more stuff for free, and more people more dependent on the government to keep the goodies coming.   

In short, more people on the government payroll; and more free-stuff addicts on the public tit.    

It’s some politicians’ wet dream. 

If everybody had skin in the game – if the mandate/tax were applied equally and everyone had to pay something for healthcare every time they used it – costs would probably go down. 

Unfortunately, we are setting up an all-you-can-eat buffet of healthcare where consumption will absolutely go up because someone else is footing the bill. 

You.      

The criticism of the SCOTUS is unwarranted

Yes, the Supreme Court has made some questionable rulings over the years.  But in the end, there’s usually commonsense in how they rule.

Mostly, they try to determine whether a law or regulation – or an edict issued by the President – is acceptable under their interpretation of the Constitution.  Public opinion is frankly irrelevant to their decisions.  As it should be.

If we let public opinion alone be their guide, or allow pressure from the legislative branch or the executive branch to sway them, we might as well be Venezuela under Hugo Chavez.  We might as well ignore the Bill of Rights and the Constitution altogether and have a monarchy. 

Or mob rule. 

That’s not how our government is supposed to work.  There’s a balance of power for all the right reasons.  It prevents a strong-man President from running roughshod over the rights of others – including the rights of states reserved for them by the Constitution.  It keeps Congress and states from enacting laws that can at times be arbitrary, capricious and based solely on ever-changing public whims, instead of with a longer-term view to what is essentially right or wrong, or even permitted under the Constitution. 

Because the SCOTUS may or may not invalidate one or more parts of ObamaCare this week, proponents of this overreaching legislation – conceived in secrecy and enacted in ignorance – have launched a pre-emptive strike on the Supreme Court.  They claim that if this convoluted pile of crap is struck down, it will only be because of conservative judges acting against the will of Congress, the President, and the will of the people. 

No, if they strike down all or parts of the law, it will be because it failed to pass muster under the Constitution.  Nothing more, nothing less.  And if they rule in favor of the law, it will be because a majority of justices feel it did pass that test. 

The Supreme Court is also expected to rule on Arizona’s immigration law this week as well.  The same rules will apply: if they find it to be constitutional, they’ll let it stand; if they find it to be unconstitutional, they will invalidate it. 

There’s no great mystery on either case.  No conservative nor liberal cabal at work.  

It’s true that some justices think the Constitution alone is the be-all, end-all, with clearly enumerated powers and restrictions; other justices think the Constitution is more of a “guideline” and implies powers not written there; still others think it all depends on the situation. 

There’s no overwhelming consensus, which is why the court works, despite the efforts of politicians and special interest groups to pack the court one way or another. 

A curious thing happens when someone is appointed to the Supreme Court.  In many cases, the ideologue someone thought they were appointing for life becomes much different over time.  Maybe it’s the lifetime appointment, maybe it’s the interaction with others on the court, but for whatever the reason, an arch conservative may become somewhat or aggressively liberal, a hard-core liberal can become more moderate and even pretty conservative at times.

There’s no way of knowing exactly how someone will turn out.   

And that’s the beauty of the court.  You have to have faith that the Supreme Court as a whole is doing their job as apolitically and dispassionately as possible.  They prove that all the time. 

Attacking the court because you don’t agree with their decisions is unwarranted.  It’s disingenuous to think they’re great when you agree, and political lackeys when you don’t.

More to the point, it’s outrageous for special interest groups – and especially unseemly for Congress and the President – to huff and puff about what the court should or shouldn’t do.  It is, candidly, none of their business how the court reaches its decisions, on what merits, or even the end result, once their case has been heard by the court.

Pressuring the court one way or another has been tried many times before.  The court always stands up to the challenge.  Haranguing the court – whether that’s in the press, or by publicly calling their integrity into question during the State of the Union address – is embarrassing to us as a nation.  It accomplishes nothing in the end, save further minimizing the prestige of Congress and the Oval Office. 

The court will do what they see fit, regardless of the political theater, or perhaps despite it.  That’s why we can count on them 

Welcome to los Estados Unidos

The Obama Administration has just announced – on June 15, 2012 – that it will no longer deport illegal immigrants if they arrived here before they were16 and are now younger than 30 and have been in this country at least 5 continuous years, have no criminal record, and have graduated from high school, obtained their GED, or served in the military.

Instead of deportation, they will now be eligible for work visas.

It’s expected that this will affect about 800,000 people currently here illegally.   

It will likely make it more attractive than ever before to enter the U.S. illegally.    

It’s also expected to help Obama get more of the Latino vote this year.

Once again, he’s using the power he thinks he has to bypass Congress, thwart existing Federal law he is required to uphold by way of his oath of office, and doing so all to get more votes. 

Whatever your opinion of our immigration policies, this is just wrong.  This is not the way government – and the balance of power – was ever intended to work.

Presidents are not kings.   

Presidents must follow the rules, even if they personally don’t like them.  They are sworn to uphold the Constitution and the laws of the United States – that’s an essential part of their job description.  If they don’t like a particular law, they need to get Congress to change it, because Presidents don’t have the authority to make – or discard – laws entirely on their own. 

Congress alone makes laws.  That’s the deal.  And only Congress can repeal a law.  The Supreme Court can invalidate a law, or uphold a law.  That’s their deal.  And the President is required to execute the law.  Period. 

Right now, this President is acting like this is some banana republic where he can decide what laws he cares to enforce, and what laws he chooses to ignore.  It’s not, and he can’t. 

In fairness, it’s not unreasonable to recognize the obvious and give immigrants who had no part in choosing to be here illegally an opportunity to become citizens; most Americans would agree with something that does that.    

But this isn’t the way to do it.  It smacks of an abuse of perceived Executive power, a disregard for his oath of office, and a naked attempt to bypass all the rules simply to get re-elected. 

Marijuana’s going to be decriminalized

Hell, it pretty much already is.  Just ask the folks in California. 

Do you really think all the “medical marijuana” prescribed out there is being used solely by glaucoma sufferers?  Come on now …

It’s only a matter of time – probably not a long time – that pot becomes legal, with all the restrictions on use and distribution that apply to beer, wine and hard liquor.

And of course, with healthy Federal, state and local taxes, too. 

Several powerful forces are going to unite to make this happen:  the Feds – for the tax dollars; law enforcement – because they have more pressing issues;  and, yes, the Baby Boomers – because we remember the good old days, plus we are starting to get those little aches and pains that we think a hit or two might take away.

And it’s about damn time. 

Nobody’s ever been able to stop people in this country from smoking weed.  It’s never been proven to be a “gateway drug” to harder stuff.  It’s as much of a gateway drug as milk and cookies; most hard-core addicts probably “used” those at some time in their life as well.  

But what about little Sue and Johnny? Won’t they be increasingly susceptible to the wiles of weed when it becomes legal?  With the same rules and restrictions as alcohol, there won’t be widespread legal access to kids. 

That doesn’t mean kids won’t get their hands on a joint or two, any more than you can prevent them from sneaking a nip from your liquor cabinet now.    

(Okay, bad example for you parents out there.  But if you are honest with yourself – and remember what you were like as a kid – you know that’s going to happen anyway.) 

On the plus side, an awful lot of new revenue will flow into Federal and state coffers on sales in the billions that are currently untaxed and unregulated.  Estimates vary from $40 billion to $100 billion annually in new tax revenue, if the street price of pot remained exactly the same as now, but real manufacturing and distribution costs became more like tobacco.   

It's an economic transfer from organized crime to the government.  Talk about a win/win situation. 

  

When pot is regulated, quality-controlled and mass produced, that alone will push a lot of bad guys out of business (along with some fairly decent folks, too, unfortunately). 

Think about it:  how many times do you hear about someone illegally making cigarettes or booze, for that matter?  Who is going to buy weird stuff of doubtful provenance when they can go to their local government-run store and pick up a pristine two-joint pack of Mr. Zig-Zags or Marlboro Highs? 

Law enforcement will be able to reduce the time and expense now wasted on chasing down and prosecuting growers, dealers and distributors – they’ll all be licensed and easily found; probably dues-paying members of the local Chamber of Commerce before long.

Local farm economies will boom as well. 

Screw ethanol production.  It gave us lower gas mileage and higher food prices.  We can stop those subsidies as well – pot won’t need them – so there’s another budget cut.

Plus, growing our own pot will be a real poke in the eye to the Mexican cartels and Columbians.   (Take that Jose and Pepe – don’t need you or your mules anymore; we got our own stash.   Pretty soon, you’ll be smuggling our stuff over to your side of the border for a change.)

That’s got to help us with trade deficits. 

Look, millions of Americans have smoked pot with no ill effects … well, beyond acting stupid, laughing at dumb things and eating too much.  But the same could be said for alcohol and reality TV.  (Except almost nobody gets into fights when they’re stoned, unlike alcohol and on reality TV.)

Certainly, other drugs routinely induce violent tendencies in users, but usually not pot.  Keep those as tightly controlled and criminalized as you want – that’s warranted.   

Marijuana’s in a different class altogether.  More like alcohol, without the long-term damaging effects on your liver.    

For those opposed to legalization, please remember the lessons of Prohibition when America tried to banish alcohol.  They apply equally to the current prohibition on marijuana today. 

During Prohibition, people still found ways to get alcohol.  People still drank.  Organized crime had a field day supplying alcohol.  Bootleggers made millions off the books smuggling whisky. Violent crimes soared as gangs fought for control of the liquor trade.  The government spent a fortune trying to control the uncontrollable.

Meanwhile widespread corruption plagued law enforcement, because bootleggers paid better than a cop’s salary, starting what many sociologists still believe was a general decline in public respect for law and order. 

People still drank.  And then it was over.  The Volstead Act was repealed.  The world didn’t end.   

Now, making and selling alcoholic beverages are legitimate and respected businesses.  Quality -- and access -- is regulated.  Federal, state and local taxes on liquor amount to about $16 billion a year.

Legalized marijuana could bring in a lot, lot more, and cut government spending and trade deficits at the same time. 

It’s time to give it a shot.  It’s going to happen sooner or later anyway. 

Liberals really believe most Americans are stupid

It’s time for liberals to accept the stark realization that not everybody agrees with you. 

And those who disagree with you are not all stupid, bigoted, racist and mean-spirited, despite what you and your supporters think. 

Many people simply don’t like your agenda. Or the paternalistic, condescending attitude you all seem to share toward Americans of all races, ethnicities, religions, and income levels.  You obviously believe we are all helpless to make our own decisions and can’t be trusted – on our own – to make the right decisions for ourselves, our families, or our future. 

You clearly think you know better what we need and what we want.  We should just let you run things the way you see fit, because you are so much smarter than the rest of us.   

It’s that arrogance that really turns a lot of folks off.  That feeling many of us get that you truly believe we are too stupid to understand the brilliance and “rightness” of your ideas. 

You think we aren’t listening closely enough.  Or have the mental capacity to comprehend.  You couldn’t be more wrong; your problem is that we’ve listened very closely and we still don’t want what you want, no matter how often you repackage it.  Or repeat it. 

Have you noticed that when liberals try to convince you of something – and you’re obviously not buying it – they start speaking louder, like you’re deaf?  Or they repeat the same stuff over and over, as if you didn’t grasp it the first time?  Then there’s the “of course you know” conspiracy theory – usually something that’s already been debunked – they try again to assert as fact.

Face it … they don’t think you’re that smart.  You may have a Ph.D. while they’re still working on a GED, but because you don’t agree with them you must not be as smart as they are. 

Here’s a rare personal story to illustrate all that: 

On vacation not long ago, I had the misfortune of being cornered at the pool by some truck driver and his wife from Chicago who started a conversation that quickly mutated into a diatribe about how Scott Walker was a monster intent on breaking all unions.  (It was months before the recall election.)

He claimed it was all a plot by the Koch brothers to destroy unions everywhere.  This, in turn, was part of a larger plot by Republicans to drive down wages across the nation, especially among the working class, while they gave tax breaks to their wealthy friends (the 1%) and by doing so shifted the tax burden on to the backs of the poor and middle class. 

The rich weren’t paying their fair share as a result, and that was hurting the economic recovery.   Democrats were valiantly trying to accelerate the recovery, while being blocked at every turn by selfish Republicans.  The Republicans were holding up passage of vital jobs bills just so they could get more tax breaks for big corporations who – as everybody smart (liberal)  knew – owned the Republican party lock, stock and barrel, hated unions, and used the tax breaks to send jobs to non-union sweatshops overseas where workers were paid slave wages.    

Of course, he added, we wouldn’t have the current economic problems in the first place if George Bush hadn’t lied to us and dragged us so deeply in debt by invading Iraq and Afghanistan just to give billions to Cheney’s Halliburton buddies. 

His wife chimed in that she had gotten – and lost – about 11 clerical jobs in the past 14 years in part because of George Bush’s destruction of the economy.  Another problem, she said, might be – just might be – that those firms didn’t realize how much smarter she was than her bosses.  

Oh, and the truck driver said that he was offered Mensa membership when he graduated from high school but declined.  After dropping out of community college, and then working on the floor at a retail electronics store, he decided to become a truck driver.  And like his wife, he was so much smarter than his bosses. 

Whew.  Where do you begin? 

I tried to escape.  When I couldn’t do that I tried to gently talk them down from the crazy place they were in and move the discussion/lecture away from politics.  Nothing worked.  Even "look ... it's Halley's Comet!" or "Oh my God, did you see those space aliens?" would have failed to move them off topic

There was no reasoning with them.  No logic to what they were saying.  No facts either; it was all pure emotional drivel.  Nutso-crazy crap they just kept repeating.  What was weird was that I'd heard this all before in press conferences, from Democrats, and from the Obama administration and its supporters.  Maybe a bit more eloquently in other venues, unless it was Maxine Waters, but all the talking points were certainly there.  It was the liberal dogma.  

Also strange was that this couple didn't even have skin in the game – neither one was in a union, nor wanted to be, and all this vitriol about Scott Walker and his "attack" on Wisconsin public sector unions was coming from two apparently pretty well off people in the private sector who lived in Chicago.  Go figure.  

The net experience was like having insane people try to convince you the world was indeed flat.  You could show them NASA pictures from space that proved it was round; they’d have some hare-brained counter argument that those pictures weren’t real.  Or it was a conspiracy cooked up by George Bush, the Koch brothers and the religious right to hurt the unions and the working class, and reward the rich

(You know how that is.  You’ve had the same experience with your liberal friends and even family members.  You know they are nuts; but good manners keeps you from telling them the obvious – they’re nuts. )   

I was finally saved because they had to be someplace else. 

But before they left, they did try to talk my wife and me into going to a presentation about resort time shares.  Oh, and if we bought one, please mention that they had referred us so they would get a $500 credit on their own annual time-share membership fee.   

How apropos.  From liberal lunacy to shilling a time-share pitch for a kickback …

And liberals think everybody else is stupid?  

Yeah, I want liberals who believe this kind of crap running things, don't you?  

Adding more Federal, state and local government jobs is not the answer

It was stunning to hear the President say on national TV the other day that this was the answer to the unemployment problem.   Oh, and the private sector was doing just fine; the problem was with government jobs – apparently not “saved” after all, despite stimulus money.

He’s either a complete idiot, or …

Scratch that.  He is a complete idiot.

He’s an idiot with many clearly idiotic supporters, nonetheless.  Recently, David Letterman said of Obama – “What more do we want this man to do for us, honest to God?” 

Here’s an answer: resign.   Or announce that he’s decided not to seek a second term. 

He’d be doing us all a huge favor by taking one for the team.  He should take Biden with him.  Right now our country is being led by a tandem that’s truly dumb and dumberer.  It has to end.

Obama’s in way over his head. Has been and will be.  There’s really no hope for him.  Biden’s worse. 

Obama’s clueless about how the economy works.  Saying the private sector is doing fine only proves he has no idea what’s going on in the U.S. economy.  More government jobs will not solve anything; he proved that by pumping billions of “stimulus” money into “saving” government jobs – that  was a short-term fix at best, and more likely a complete waste of our tax dollars. 

When the stimulus money ran out most of those “saved” jobs ended because the state and local governments that couldn’t afford them before, still couldn’t afford them.

The answer to fixing the economy  – as always – has to come from the private sector.  He can’t control or mandate what the private sector does.  He can’t force them to hire more people.  No President has that power.  So in a desperate last-ditch effort to jack up employment numbers before November, he’s trying to push the only button he thinks he can control – add more government jobs.

He doesn’t care what those government jobs are, or even if they are necessary, or how to pay for them. He sees the net gain in employment they might produce as a silver bullet that will help him get re-elected.  And that’s really his only focus – getting re-elected, regardless of the cost to the country. 

He’s oblivious to the real reason businesses aren’t hiring – it’s certainly not because there aren’t enough government jobs.  It’s because businesses have no idea what the Obama Administration has up its collective sleeve.  What loony-tune rules and regulations may be coming.  What impact ObamaCare may have on business.  What new taxes or penalties the administration and liberals in Congress will try to push through.  Even what “Wag the Dog” events – or leaks designed to portray Obama as a tough “git ‘er done” leader – might  be engineered to try to buff up Obama’s stature.   

Businesses hate instability and unpredictably.   Obama offers both, along with a profound disdain for those of us who run small businesses.  He sees us as hamsters on a treadmill who will just inexorably keep running and running no matter what he throws at us.  He can tax us, chastise us, attack us, and make us the villain, and we’ll just keep running on those treadmills as if nothing else matters.  He honestly believes that; everything he does bears witness to that

He is so wrong. 

He needs to read Atlas Shrugged, by Ayn Rand.   It might reveal to him the future he’s creating.  And it might give him a clue as to what millions of small business owners could do:  simply give up.  

Obama keeps clinging to the mistaken belief that government is the answer – more government jobs, more unfunded entitlements, more onerous regulations, more bread and circuses to appease the population, more spending – all the things he admires about Europe. 

Look how well Europe has done by following the same path … as Herman Cain once said:  “How’s that workin’ out for you?”

Only the private sector can turn the economy around.  Not government hiring.

But the private sector will sit on its hands until Obama and Biden are out of office and there’s more stability and predictability in the marketplace as a result.   

There is no “war on women” (or on any other Americans for that matter)

When a hyperbolic term is used too often and applied too broadly – like “war,” “Nazi,” or “racist,” for that matter – it starts to lose its shock value.  It becomes meaningless. 

That doesn’t stop anyone.  But they should remember that overuse diminishes impact.  When your local car dealer “declares war on high prices,” or a big-city mayor declares “war on childhood obesity” it’s not the same as declaring war on the Axis powers. 

So it is with the new “war on women.”  Catchy phrase, but meaningless.  And this case, untrue, which further erodes the meaning of a “war.” 

The war on women theme is a purely manufactured outrage.  Most of us know this, but that doesn’t stop the constant drumbeat in the media that Republicans are misogynists. 

But it’s easy to see how politicians and the media think this is so. 

See, it’s really simple:  if you disagree with any legislation – loony, pandering or otherwise – put forth by the Democrats, or agree with anything – no matter how rational – Republicans offer, you’re at war with somebody.  Automatically.  Plus, you’re a racist, a bigot, a sexist, a xenophobe, an enemy of the poor and the “working class” … and that’s just for starters. 

A lot of people have legitimate concerns, not solely on religious or moral grounds, over the ObamaCare provision that contraceptives must be free for women through all health plans – like who is paying for those, and where do the freebies end?  Or the Lilly Ledbetter Act – which might as well be titled “Another Trial Lawyers Relief Act.” 

Or the very recent “Equal Pay” proposal that would make all businesses ensure – and document extensively – that they are providing equal pay to women for “equal work.”  Whatever that is. 

[Defining “equal” work will be like some twisted SAT question:  If a firefighter is to a bank teller as an aardvark is to a Kaiser roll, then a filing clerk  should be paid as much as a) an airline pilot; b) a steelworker; c) a high-school math teacher; d) an auto mechanic.]

How do you possibly compare the value of truly disparate jobs?

Real jobs – as opposed to government jobs – are only worth what someone is willing to pay and what someone is willing to accept.  It’s a free country.  So if you don’t like the offer, don’t accept it.  And if you think you’re underpaid, you always have the right to quit and try to find someone willing to pay you what you think you’re worth.  It’s the same deal for men and women.   

Now, no one wants to appear cynical here, God forbid, but these prepackaged “women’s issues” have become hot topics in an election year … just a coincidence? 

As we all know, the Democrats are the party of women and women’s rights, because they’ve told us that time and again. 

They’re also the self-proclaimed party of all self-described minorities and victims, the poor, the working class, the middle class, anybody who is not “rich” (unless they are a celebrity, then it’s okay to be rich),  the unemployed, the employed but not really happy, the employed but don’t want to work, the 99 percenters, the old, the young, the middle-aged, the disabled, the disabled-in-name-only (DINOs), the LGBT, married people,  cohabitating straight people, single people, gay couples who would like to be married, gay couples that don’t want to be married but want to be treated as if they were, immigrants, the children of immigrants, the parents of immigrants who simply misplaced some documents, people who can’t speak English, people who can’t speak English anyone can understand, people who can’t read or write in any language, unions, people not in unions (but would be if they had the good sense God gave a sweet potato), farmers, teachers, firefighters, police, nurses, other caregivers, the disenfranchised, the franchised who feel guilty about the disenfranchised, African Americans, Hispanic Americans, Native Americans, plain vanilla Americans, soccer moms, divorced moms, single moms, teen moms, all other “moms” with or without kids, gay couples that want to adopt kids, gay couples that want to have their own kids, straight couples having trouble having kids, parents with ADD or ADHD kids, parents with autistic kids, parents with kids having “self-esteem” or other issues, drug-addicted parents who don’t know who or where their kids are, grandparents supporting their kids’ kids, parents still supporting their adult children, adults that want to keep being supported by their parents, people who want free stuff,  people who want to give away free stuff as long as someone else is paying  – did we leave anybody out?

It’s a mighty big tent, those Democrats have …

So if Democrats propose something – regardless of whatever it is, or how completely daffy it appears – if you disagree you’re rejecting their constituency. 

You are at war with _______ (fill in the blank).  And that’s that.  End of discussion … 

Oh, and you’re a heartless, mean-spirited, sexist, racist, son of a bitch as well.  So you know. 

Is there a war on women?  Of course not.  It’s manufactured, like most of the other issues brought up by the Democrats and the loony left in this election year.

It’s desperation.  The economy sucks, and everyone knows it’s not going to turn around until the current administration is ousted, and incumbents from both parties are voted out. As the party in control of the White House and the Senate, the Democrats have the most to lose – so they are pulling out all the stops: class warfare, gender warfare, race-baiting, you name it.   

The only “war” going on internally in the U.S. is between politicians and the people of all genders, races, creeds, colors and sexual orientations they ostensibly serve, but don’t.   

Re-elect no one.  This is the war that matters.