Blame Bush Part Infinity

Anybody else tired of hearing our current sitting President blame the last one?

The GSA (General Services Administration) apparently went crazy on a conference in 2010 -- spending over $800,000 on their good times near Vegas. Obama's reaction? "Don't look at me... look at what Bush did!" Seriously. Very much like our national debt... his response to the current issues with spending and the national debt? "Bush did it, too!"

I'm not kidding. Their argument was literally that the cost of the conference increased mightily under George W. Bush. Here are the facts: Conference in 2004: $93,000. In 2006: $323,855. In 2008: $655,025. (Is your blood boiling yet? Should be... George W. Bush's administration sure loved to spend our money...) Obama's administration in 2010? $840,616.

Obama's argument is a little like a small child who was caught eating the chocolate cake out of the cupboard. He was just going at it... and he points to his brother who also has chocolate on his face and says, "He ate some, too!!!"

Yes, Bush did it. It made us mad. Bailouts and high spending irritate the tar out of me, no matter who is responsible. But stop pointing your dirty fingers at the Bush administration as a way to justify your own bad behavior. It's juvenile, it's unattractive, and it's stupid.

Short rant today -- but there's really not much else to say on that.

Up Is Down, Black Is White, Wrong Is Right

Sometimes the news makes me tired. Tired, I tell you! Okay, and maybe a little bit riled up. Maybe if I didn't get so worked up, I would have some energy left when I finished reading.

Seriously, though... where to begin?

There is, of course, the news about health care and the Supreme Court. The mainstream news media are working hard to work it so that whatever happens, somehow they can turn it to Obama's favor. The NYT appears to be somewhat irritated that the court even took the case, citing all the cases the court is hearing in the next few weeks followed by the statement, "It can seem that the court is prepared to decide every major controversy in American life."

Also in the New York Times, there is an article by Gina Kolata (published April 2, 2012 "The ABC's of the Health Care Law and Its Future") which "defines" the law as:

It's a series of policies and regulations and subsidies and mandates. That's the reason it's so complex. It builds on an incoherent medical system with all kinds of public and private insurance and tries to patch the holes. And it affects different groups of americans in different ways at different times.

But it is transformative. If it is implemented, it would be the most important health care law since the enactment of Medicaid and Medicare in 1965. It brings us closer to the ideal that all Americans should have access to care regardless of income or health status.

If I may pick this apart on a separate rant for just a moment... Why in the world would we want to "build on" something that's incoherent? The definition of incoherent, as relates to a system, is "internally inconsistent; illogical." Well, HEY. Let's build on that, shall we?? Actually, sounds like something the government would typically do, which is why everything they touch turns to something nasty.

Also, I have to point out that all Americans DO have access to care (and even many non-Americans living in America). Because the other argument that is continually put forward is that it's not "fair" for some people to simply go to the ER and receive their health care and force others to pay for it.

President Obama climbed up on his high horse to squeak out some "stern language" to the Supreme Court on Monday afternoon. Ha! Stern language... that's funny. President Obama doesn't (shouldn't) have any influence over court proceedings. And yet there he is... saying that his health care law will be "over.... UPHELD." Yes, he seriously did almost offer up "overturned" before he self corrected.

He also claimed that overturning this law would be "unprecedented" and an "extraordinary step." Funny stuff, coming from someone who prides himself on being a professor of constitutional law... Roe V. Wade, anyone? Of course, he would have been remiss to not point out that judges are not elected (no... they're appointed by the President -- two on the bench were appointed by his highness himself). The dude's got some chutzpa, I'll give him that... not a lot of wisdom in what he says and does -- but the stupid things he says are usually full of gall.

And speaking of gall... here we go, again on Monday (Obama had a very busy Monday):

"It's worth noting that I first arrived on the national stage with a speech at the Democratic convention that was entirely about American exceptionalism and that my entire career has been a testimony to American exceptionalism."

Woot Woot!!

Of course, he also sort of entered the national stage with a speech on how his entrance was going to turn back the tides and reverse global warming, etc... It's too bad he limits himself so much.

And now I see that this post has been just a long-winded rant, aimlessly floating from one topic to the next. Sigh. I had better stop before it gets any worse.