The Sanchez Report

The Libya Quagmire

So here we go again! The US has initiated another Middle East war in the name of democracy and national self interest. The stench of hypocrisy stinks to high heaven! It's been a week since we launched attacks against Libya and I'm still waiting for the mainstream media and liberals to rise up against this Administration. I know, excuse my english, but it ain't going to happen! This Administration and its media allies have ben selling this as a military conflict needed to support freedom fighters and that unlike the Iraq War, this war has broad international support with the backing of the UN and Arab League. What a crock! Let's begin with President Obama's justification for taking action.

President Obama on Libya:

Now, here’s why this matters to us. Left unchecked, we have every reason to believe that Qadhafi would commit atrocities against his people. Many thousands could die. A humanitarian crisis would ensue.
The entire region could be destabilized, endangering many of our allies and partners.
The calls of the Libyan people for help would go unanswered. The democratic values that we stand for would be overrun.
Moreover, the words of the international community would be rendered hollow.

President Bush on Iraq:

Earlier today, I ordered Americas armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraqs nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.
Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world.
Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons.
Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one big difference He has used them. Not once, but repeatedly. Unleashing chemical weapons against Iranian troops during a decade long war. Not only against soldiers, but against civilians, firing Scud missiles at the citizens of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Iran. And not only against a foreign enemy, but even against his own people, gassing Kurdish civilians in Northern Iraq.
The international community had little doubt then, and I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again.

Sound familiar? The fact is we have no national interest in Libya other than oil. Muammar Qaddafi poses no threat to the United States. Unlike Saddam Hussein, he actually welcomed the UN and the US into his country to oversee the dismantling of his WMD program several years ago. This led President Bush to restore official diplomatic relations with the Libyan government.

So now that we've started this war we need to ask ourselves some important questions.

Why did we wait almost 30 days to offer military support to the rebels? Was this done to gain the support of the UN, Arab League and Europeans? Great, we go their support after one month of trying, but in the meantime, the rebels have lost their momentum and will not succeed without our help in providing ground troops.

Why does the President feel that he didn't need the support of Congress? He waited on the UN and Arab League, but yet he has refused to go to Congress to get their approval. It wasn't long ago that VP Biden, while a Senator, suggested that President Bush could be impeached if he launched an attack against Iran without Congressional approval.

Why is it okay to bomb Libya, but not Iran? We have a much more compelling vested interest to help the opposition forces in Iran.

What is the mission? Are we looking to remove Qaddafi? Are we trying to help protect the civilians or help the rebel ground forces? Who are the rebels? Are they pro-US? Are there any Al-Qaeda influences within their ranks? Are we prepared to impose a no fly zone for the next 12 years like Iraq? What's the end game?

Who is in charge?The UN, NATO, French or British? Where are the coalition forces that have been promised? We 122 of the 124 Cruise Missiles during the opening night of the war. The British fired 2. We have supplied almost all of the aircraft thus far. For all of the criticism of President Bush's coalition during the Iraq War, this effort looks much more unilateral than anything we saw during the Iraq War.

 

The Welfare State Is Back

It seems like it was just yesterday that Bill Clinton and Newt Gingrich proclaimed they had "ended welfare as we know it." In 2000, near the end of the Clinton presidency, social welfare benefits made up just 21 percent of salaries and wages in the United States. While that number had doubled from 10 percent in 1960, it nevertheless was fairly small compared to most European economies that have operated under a socialist economic model since the end of World War II. It was this historical understanding that led to my shock as I stumbled upon an article yesterday on CNBC. The title " Welfare State: Handouts Make Up One-Third of U.S. Wages", certainly caught my attention.

In 2011, social welfare benefits now make up 35 percent of all salaries and wages, according to TrimTabs Investment Research using Bureau of Economic Analysis data. This is staggering! To think that our economy has become so dependent on governement stimulus is alarming. From CNBC:

“The U.S. economy has become alarmingly dependent on government stimulus,” said Madeline Schnapp, director of Macroeconomic Research at TrimTabs, in a note to clients. “Consumption supported by wages and salaries is a much stronger foundation for economic growth than consumption based on social welfare benefits.”

The economist gives the country two stark choices. In order to get welfare back to its pre-recession ratio of 26 percent of pay, “either wages and salaries would have to increase $2.3 trillion, or 35 percent, to $8.8 trillion, or social welfare benefits would have to decline $500 billion, or 23 percent, to $1.7 trillion,” she said.

Now what jumped out at me was the two options that this economist offerd up as a solution. There's not a chance in hell that Congress and the President will cut social welfare benefits by $1.7 trillion. This leaves us with the nearly impossible task of increasing wages by 35 perecent. This economy does not have the firepower to generate that level of growth. The housing market has a long way to go before stabilizing and corporate america is not ready to put to work the trillions of dollars sitting on the sidelines. It's a catch 22 situation. Demand for goods fuels companies to hire workers, but when workers are unemployed, they have no desire to purchase goods. Therein lies the problem my friends. I would argue that the greatest damage done by this level of government stimulus is the way it changes behavior in people. I know there are millions of good, honest, hard working peoople who have been forced to rely on government support in this recession. There are several of my own relatives who fall into this category, but there are also millions who have developed a sense of entitlement which has been passed down to their offspring. It destroys work ethic and ambition and can become a cancer that can destroy families and ensure a culture of poverty for generations to come. I've seen it happen with my own eyes. This is NOT the American dream.

Something needs to be done to address welfare spending. We are staring at 78 million baby boomers who are close to retirement. I don't know the numbers, but I would imagine that an overwhelming majority have not saved enough for retirement. They are going to rely on the government to survive throughout their retirement years. With life expectancies reaching well into the 80's these days, people are living longer and will require more assistance for a longer period of time. This future crisis will make 9/11 and the 2008 meltdown look like a walk in the park. Our only hope is to get this country firing on all cylinders and to allow the private sector to explode and create the jobs needed to compete on the global stage. Government is not the answer!

 

Real Healthcare Reform

It's no secret that I've been a staunch critic of President Obama's domestic policy agenda. His attempt to shove Obamacare down the throats of the American people tops my list of reasons to oppose him. I'm amazed that he and the Democrats have been successful in their attempts to fabricate a health care crisis. How can we have a crisis when most polls show that 85% of the American people are happy with their health care? There's no doubt that something should be done to control the cost of health care. The question is whether or not he should have made this his top priority when unemployment is at 9.7%.

The card has been dealt and so where do we go from here. I've often been asked why would the Democrats move forward in the face of strong public opposition to Obamacare? They see this as a once in a lifetime opportunity to move closer to the liberal utopia of universal, single payer health care. They have longed for the day when the federal government would take over health care and move it from the private sector to government control.

The Democrats have combined the need for reform with their desire to provide universal coverage. These are two separate issues. This debate started in during the 2008 campaign and we were led to believe that there were 46 million Americans uninsured. According to Blue Cross, approximately 14 million qualify for an existing government program such as Medicare and Medicaid but have chosen not to enroll. Another 13 million have incomes above $50,000 and could probably afford some type of coverage on their own. In addition, there are 6 million who are considered "short term uninsured" or people who are in between jobs. That leaves around 6-8 million people who are chronically uninsured. That's a far cry from 46 million. Nevertheless, the question we need to answer as a nation is whether we should blow up our entire health care system in order to insure those who fall into the chronically uninsured category? The President's allies have accused their critics as obstructionists with no real ideas or alternatives. Nothing could be further from the truth. I'm no expert in this public policy area, but even I have a plan that makes more sense.

Several of my friends have asked me to step up and give my vision of health care reform and so I’ve taken them up on the challenge.  Here you go:

1) Health insurance should be easy, flexible and accessible like purchasing your car insurance. There should be plenty of competition across state lines. Your employee should provide a credit that YOU can use to purchase your own plan online. We shouldn't be forced to choose from just a few plans through our HR department. You should be able to customize your own plan, just like car insurance based on your family's needs. This would drive efficiencies in the delivery supply chain, which would lower costs.

2) Tort Reform- We should reform the laws concerning frivolous lawsuits. One of the reasons costs are out of control is because of the cost of malpractice insurance. Your doctor pays tens of thousands of dollars each year for insurance. They need to make up the cost by charging inflated rates for some services. This reform would lead to the biggest reduction in costs.

3) Young people in their 20's, who are relatively healthy do not need a traditional managed care health plan. They should have access to cheap catastrophic plans that they can tap into in case of an emergency. This would immediately cover most of the 6 million short-term uninsured who are in school or between jobs.

4) We need to change the law as it pertains to pre-existing conditions. People should not be prevented from purchasing health insurance or have their policy canceled because of a change in their status. This would lead to higher premiums, but those are costs that I'm sure some families would pay if they were just given the opportunity.

5) You would be left with 3-5 million families that truly need the government to pay their way. If that's the case, it would be far cheaper for the govt to provide a debit card with $300-400 per month to temporarily pay for their plan. That would amount to no more than $25-30 billion per year. Much cheaper than what President Obama is trying to push through!

Unfortunately, it looks like the Democrats are hellbent on ramming through their plan. If they were to take a step back and truly seek compromise, they would find that it is much wiser to fix health care in incremental steps. We still have the best health care system in the world. Leave it in the hands of the private sector.

Obama Refuses To Change Course

So here we are, one day later, digesting the State of the Union and my opinion hasn't changed. The President has essentially told the American people that he's going to stay the course and try harder to ram through his policies. It's disheartening to listen to the President give a speech that is drowning in denial. The White House has caved in to the far left view that the Massachusetts Senate race was in some way an endorsement of their policies. The spending will continue and the attacks on the private sector will only intensify as the President tries to convince voters that he is a populist. Mr. President, please hire some adults who know a thing or two about the economy. You've surrounded yourself with academics and politicians who don't have a clue about how the real world operates. God help us!

From the Wall Street Journal:

So much for all of that Washington talk about a midcourse change of political direction. If President Obama took any lesson from his party's recent drubbing in Massachusetts, and its decline in the polls, it seems to be that he should keep doing what he's been doing, only with a little more humility, and a touch more bipartisanship.

Mr. Obama's economic pitch also differed little from last year, when the jobless rate was 7.2%. He offered a spirited defense of the stimulus, though the jobless rate is now 10%, and he promised more of the same this year, especially on "green jobs." He also offered some minor if welcome tax cuts for small business, and $30 billion in handouts for "community banks" to be able to lend more.

Yet at the same time, he couldn't resist more banker baiting, and he promised that he's determined to see tax rates rise for millions of Americans next year when the Bush rates are set to expire. He also pushed more exports while saying he'll raise taxes on some of our biggest exporters, otherwise known as multinationals that "ship our jobs overseas." Mr. Obama believes he can conjure jobs and a durable expansion from the private sector while waging political war on its animal spirits. It can't be done.

This reflects a larger problem, which is his belief that economic growth springs mainly from the genius of government. Thus Mr. Obama presented a vision of an economy soaring to new heights on "high-speed railroad" and "clean energy facilities" and 1,000 people making solar panels in California. He seems not to appreciate that what really drives growth are the millions of risks taken each day by millions of individuals, far from the politicking and earmarks of Congress or the Department of Energy.

Obama Feeling The Heat: "You're Going To Destroy My Presidency"

President Obama is starting to feel the heat. I suspect the President has never experienced push back in any way shape or form. He has been accustomed to getting his way throughout his brief public career. His adoring fans and media have hung onto his every word, but this love affair has been disrupted. Not only are his poll numbers falling, but he doesn't even have the support of his own party in Congress. Just six months into his presidency and he is already concerned about his legacy. In a recent meeting with a Democrat Congressman, he was candid in expressing his concern about the lack of support of his healthcare plan by stating " You're going to destroy my presidency."

From Congress Daily:

A telling episode recounted by Senate Finance ranking member Charles Grassleyreveals the Obama administration might be more worried than they are letting on that a Republican senator's comparison of the healthcare overhaul to Waterloo might be dangerously close to the truth.

Grassley said he spoke with a Democratic House member last week who shared Obama's bleak reaction during a private meeting to reports that some factions of House Democrats were lining up to stall or even take down the overhaul unless leaders made major changes.

"Let's just lay everything on the table," Grassley said. "A Democrat congressman last week told me after a conversation with the president that the president had trouble in the House of Representatives, and it wasn't going to pass if there weren't some changes made ... and the president says, 'You're going to destroy my presidency.' "

The White House did not respond to requests for comment.

Read article here

Latest NJ Governor's Poll: Christie (R) 51% leads Corzine (D) 38%

The upcoming New Jersey Governor's race could be the start of a turnaround for the GOP. The latest Rasmussen Reports poll indicates that the the GOP nominee, Chris Christie, leads the incumbent Governor, Jon Corzine by a margin of 51%-38%. You better believe that President Obama will be pouring resources into this race in order to prevent the GOP from establishing momentum leading up to the 2010 midterm elections. Stay tuned!

From the Rasmussen Reports:

Fresh from his primary victory over Steve Lonegan, Republican Chris Christie enjoys a double-digit lead over Democrat Jon Corzine in the New Jersey Governor’s race.

The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey in the state shows Christie with 51% of the vote while Corzine is supported by 38%. Last month, before the primary, it was Christie with 47% of the vote and Corzine with 38%. The slight increase in support for Christie may reflect a temporary bounce from his primary victory.

The Far Left Is Beginning To Sour On Obama

It looks like the honeymoon is officially over between the far left and President Obama. On issue after issue, Obama has validated the Bush administration and the left is not happy. This disappointment has been kept under wraps for most of the past hundred days, but now they're beginning to voice their displeasure openly. These strains are not gaining much attention with the media, but this development could make it easier for the GOP to pick up seats in the 2010 elections. The President will need to excite his base in order to build upon their majorities in Congress next year, but with each tack to the center, he runs the risk of dampening that same energy that propelled him into the White House.

From Politico.com:

Barely four months into his presidency, Obama is confronting growing dissatisfaction among members of his liberal base, who feel spurned by a series of his early decisions on issues ranging from guns to torture to immigration

to gay rights.

The list got longer last week as Obama reversed his earlier decision to release photos of detaineesmilitary

A few, like MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow, have even hurled the left’s ultimate epithet – suggesting that Obama’s turning into George W. Bush.

The building anger comes at a critical moment – just as Obama’s about to announce his choice for the Supreme Court. Fulfill their dreams of a “liberal Scalia,” a firebrand from the left, and much would be forgiven.

But if Obama opts instead for a decidedly centrist nominee aimed at winning a large number of Republican votes in the Senate, the growing concern could develop into something more politically dangerous.

Is Hoyer Throwing Pelosi Under the Bus?

Don't look now, but it looks like House Majority Leader, Rep. Steny Hoyer-D, is keeping some distance from Nancy Pelosi and WaterBoardGate. He has yet to come out and offer a strong defense of Speaker Pelosi and instead has maintained that any Truth Commission established should investigate Speaker Pelosi as well.

From Hot Air :

Granted, he wasn’t at the briefing in 2002 so he can’t say which side is right, but it speaks volumes that he’s unwilling to offer even a pro forma “I’ve never known Nancy to be untruthful” in her defense. Combine this with him telling reporters a few days ago that any torture truth commission should investigate Pelosi too and it’s pretty clear that even her own number two’s not betting on her version of events. And why would he? She’s a terrible liar. No sense in letting the sinking ship take him down too.

Surprise, Surprise! Obama Set To Revive Military Commissions At Gitmo

Surprise, Surprise! The Obama Administration is set to reinstate Military Commissions as a way to prosecute terrorism suspects.  According to the Washington Post, the administration will propose changes that will grant the terrorists greater legal protections. This system was heavily criticized by the Democrats and members of the mainstream media for most of the presidential campaign. "By any measure, our system of trying detainees has been an enormous failure," then-candidate Barack Obama said in June 2008. This hypocrisy stinks to high heaven and I can't wait to see how the media spins this story.

From the Washington Post:

In one of its first acts, the Obama administration obtained a 120-day suspension of the military commissions; that will expire May 20. Human rights groups had interpreted the suspension as the death knell for military commissions and expected the transfer of cases to military courts martial or federal courts.

Officials said yesterday that the Obama administration will seek a 90-day extension of the suspension as early as next week. It would subsequently restart the commissions on American soil, probably at military bases, according to a lawyer briefed on the plan. 

The Obama administration's plan to reinstate the commissions with modifications reflects the fear that some cases would fail in federal courts or in standard military legal settings.

"It looks a lot more difficult now than it did on Jan. 20," said one government official.

Civil liberties advocates, who insist that federal courts can handle terrorism cases, vowed to challenge any new process.

What Did She Know And When Did She Know It?... The Evidence Is Mounting

The evidence continues to mount that Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi (D), was lying when she claimed that she was never told about waterboarding. This time, the evidence comes from someone on the Democratic side of the aisle. According to a Washington Post article, a top aide to Pelosi attended a classified CIA briefing in which waterboarding was discussed in 2003. I just can't imagine that this aide would have kept quiet and not discussed the contents of the briefing with Pelosi. On top of that, GOP Congressman Pete Hoekstra was present at those meetings and has requested that detailed notes of the briefings be released to the public. I'm not so sure this is what the White House had in mind when they decided to selectively release some of the CIA interrogation memos.

From the Hot Air blog:

Nancy Pelosi’s attempt to evade responsibility for her role in approving the use of waterboarding and other enhanced interrogation techniques took another hit today in the Washington Post — and this time the fire comes from her side of the aisle.  Pete Hoekstra upped the ante as well, demanding the release of precise minutes of Congressional briefings, and Leon Panetta has promised to make them available, at least to Capitol Hill.

Pelosi’s attempt to weasel onto Harman’s objection fails when one looks at the briefing notes.  Both Pelosi and Sheehy attended a briefing on September 4, 2002, five months before Harman attended her first briefing.  That 9/02 briefing specifically covered EITs and their use on Abu Zubaydah.  Harman raised her objection in 2003, not in 2002, as she had yet to attend one of the EIT briefings.