Tuesday, November 25, 2014

Whatever happened to integrity and honor in public service?

The Affordable Care Act (ACA), Obamacare: the gift that keeps on giving … headaches, cramps, nausea, and economic insecurity. The list goes on.

From its unseemly beginnings as a one-party creation in smoky back rooms that passed a Congress dominated in both houses by Democrats, without being read and debated by anyone, with only Democrats voting for it and with few Americans supporting it, the ACA is a vast array of failings. 

It’s not an absolute and total failure; nothing is perfect. 

But nearly all of its promises were broken, as many had predicted: you most likely can’t keep your doctor or your insurance plan if you like them; you probably aren’t going to save $2,500 a year in premium payments; and if you see more choice, more competition, and lower costs in healthcare, you will be among an infinitesimally small minority to do so.

Jonathon Gruber has now told the world in a series of recently discovered videos how, in designing the ACA, Congressional Democrats and their staffs employed deception and opaqueness to sneak the law past the American public.

He is an MIT economics professor, the architect of the Massachusetts healthcare plan known as Romneycare that was the model for Obamacare, and who also helped the Democrats create their version of a national healthcare system that most Americans didn’t want. 

In a video from October of 2013 Dr. Gruber admits that a “lack of transparency” was a blessing for the Obama administration and congressional Democrats in passing the ACA. “Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage,” he said. “And basically, call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever, but basically that was really, really critical for the thing to pass.”

In another video, he said, “So it's written to do that. In terms of risk-rated subsidies, if you had a law which said healthy people are going to pay in — you made explicit that healthy people pay in and sick people get money — it would not have passed.” … “That was really, really critical for the thing to pass,” he said. “But I’d rather have this law than not.”

In effect he was saying: “I’d rather not have mugged that old lady and stolen her groceries, but I’d rather have had food to eat than not.”

Efforts by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Cal.) and President Obama to distance themselves from the good professor fell well short of the mark: videos, you know.

Of course, all of this under-handedness was for our own good, you know, and if we just weren’t so stupid they wouldn’t have had to deceive us to give us what they insist we need.

But, however, we aren’t all stupid. Some of us knew all along that this bill was a sham and the promises couldn’t be kept, and that at its base Obamacare really is nothing more than a system to control the people and a huge redistribution of wealth from the young and healthy to the old and unhealthy. 

And then there is Barack Obama, himself; President of the United States, leader of the free world, who not only made many promises for the ACA that didn’t come true (did he lie to the people, or just not know what he was talking about?), and over the years said twenty or more times that he can’t act alone on immigration. “That’s not how democracy works.” “That’s not how our Constitution is written.” “I can’t solve this problem by myself.” What he didn’t say, in so many words, is: “Unless I have to act alone because Congress won’t give me the bill that I want, and so I will just do whatever I please.”

And last week he did act alone to circumvent both Congress and the existing laws on immigration and illegal alien deportation to order ICE to ignore up to 5 million illegal aliens in the country, all the while falsely claiming he was doing nothing more than any other president in the last 50 years. Except that he was. The presidential acts alluded to were in response to Congressional action, not because of a lack thereof.

The process of writing and passing the ACA was one devoid of honesty and integrity. Mr. Obama’s issuing of an Executive Order countermanding existing laws on immigration because Congress won’t obey his “orders” is an exercise in petulance, arrogance and overstepping his Constitutional bounds.

Both of these situations reflect the idea that Congressional Democrats and the president think they know better than the people that elected them, and that they are paid to serve what is good for them and for the country, and they have yet again shown that they will do whatever is necessary to achieve their narrow goals, and legal and moral processes be damned. This the-ends-justify-the-means tactic reflects a level of arrogance and hubris that would make the Founders nauseous. 

Our Constitution lays out a framework for doing things in our government that worked very well until we started changing it. 

Allowing any president to unilaterally extend the power of the executive is dangerous and foolish. Every true American in Congress must oppose this.

Wednesday, November 19, 2014

Baltimore: A City on Edge

Baltimore: A City on Edge


Murder, rape and other violent crimes have caused Baltimore to be listed as one of the most violent cities in the World. Recently Baltimore was found to be 36th on the planet in terms of killings with 38 deaths per 100,000 residents. Few other cities in America have received this distinction. Ironically Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake and her minions have done little to stem the tide of violence occurring daily within the confines of Baltimore. Sadly this Mayor is at war with her own police department. She requested the United States Attorney General’s Office to investigate her police department for brutality towards civilians. With respect for police ebbing to new lows these brave warriors must confront the predatory population daily. Body cameras would be an excellent addition to the armaments of the local police. Yet the Mayor will not allow a body camera bill, passed in the City Council, to become law.http://baltimore.cbslocal.com/2014/11/18/baltimore-body-cameras-passed-despite-mayors-veto-vow/  Mayor Rawlings-Blake worries the information collected by the cameras may be used improperly. She plans to form an investigatory group to study the issue. Behind her nonsensical rejection of body cameras lies the real reason for her vow to defeat this issue. Body cameras would enable the police to prove within a degree of certainty how a crime was committed. Additionally cameras would display who is brutalizing whom during an arrest. Mayor Rawlings-Blake’s disingenuous motivations on this issue will not make the public safer. Instead police will continue to confront brutality claims with little recourse to prove otherwise.


Baltimore residents and those who visit the city are in constant fear of victimization. Crime that used to be hidden in the shadows is now blatantly occurring in broad daylight. Violence has spread to every neighborhood in the city. Daily police reports indicate an array of crimes, some so hideous their description is beyond comprehension. Social decay, perpetuated by an entitlement mentality, is at the nidus of many negative issues in Baltimore. Attempts to rectify the crime problem over the last decade have been challenged on every level. When police made efforts to stem the blood flow the Department’s leaders would be either be fired or declared an enemies of the city. Schools cannot discipline children on their way to crime ridden lives because some lawyer somewhere will shout Civil Rights. Government officials curry favor with City’s residents for votes so status quo not change is inevitable from this arrangement. From the City Council to the present Governor’s Office it is to their advantage to prevent Baltimore from moving forward. The long term answer is leadership which is sorely lacking at the city and state levels. Without leadership Baltimore will continue to be immersed in the criminal quagmire for which it has become known.


Mark Davis MD, President of Davis Writing Services. Author of the recent book, Obamacare: Dead on Arrival, A Prescription for Disaster. www.daviswritingservices.com  For media requests please contact Dr. Davis at:

Tuesday, November 18, 2014

Taking a look at how green energy is working in Europe and America

As the United States grapples with conflicting ideas about whether and to what extent man causes global climate change, the zealous movement to do away with using fossil fuels like coal, oil and natural gas to produce electricity and switch to “green” sources like wind and solar energy goes forward, full speed ahead.

Far ahead of the U.S. in this campaign are some nations in Europe that some policymakers tout as having adopted smart energy policy. They think the U.S. should follow the lead of countries like Germany and Spain and more heavily subsidize renewable energies like wind, solar, biomass, etc. and tax fossil fuel users more heavily.

Now that Europe’s green energy policies have been in place for several years, a look to see how they have worked might help us decide whether this is a good plan for the U.S. to follow.

From Canadafreepress,com comes information about Germany’s energy policies. The news here is not so good; green energy policies are driving up energy prices and forcing hundreds of thousands of people into energy poverty. Specifically, a study of Germany’s experiences found:
  • Residential German electricity prices are nearly three times higher than electricity prices in the U.S. 
  • As many as 800,000 Germans have had their power cut off because of an inability to pay for rising energy costs. 
  • Germany’s feed-in tariff scheme provides lavish subsidies to renewable energy producers. 
  • On-shore wind has required feed-in tariffs that are in excess of 300 percent higher than market prices. 
  • Germany’s Renewable Energy Levy, which subsidizes renewable energy production, cost German households $9.6 billion in 2013. 
  • The cost to expand transmission networks to integrate renewables stands at $33.6 billion, which grid operators say accounts “for only a fraction of the cost of the energy transition.”

Information from the Institute for Energy Research produced some data on the effects of Spain’s push for green energy that began in 1994. The program involved tariffs, quotas and subsidies, and has earned kudos from international leaders, including President Barack Obama.

The Spaniards have seen increases in electricity rates from 2005 to 2011 of 92 percent for domestic users and 78 percent for industrial users, while during that same period the U.S. saw rate increases of 24 percent for domestic users and19 percent for industrial users from fossil fuel produced electricity.

Here is a comparison of Spanish and American rates per kilowatt-hour:
  • Spain – Domestic $29.46 and Industrial $14.84 
  • U.S. - Domestic $11.69 and Industrial $6.81.

While prices were increasing in Spain the level of carbon dioxide actually rose, rather than declining, increasing 34.5 percent from 1994 to 2011. As a result of this the Spanish government confessed in 2012 that it can’t afford to continue subsidizing green energy.

Meanwhile, the French energy and environment minister, Segolene Royal, who was appointed to the position last spring, plans to create 100,000 jobs by 2017 with her green energy growth initiative. She wants to reduce France’s 75 percent reliance on nuclear energy for electricity production to 50 percent by 2025 by investing in wind, solar, biomass and marine energy sources. She also plans to help 500,000 low-income families add insulation to their homes.

Writing on HotAir.com Erika Johnsen points out that to accomplish these high-minded goals France will have to throw “gobs and gobs of money” into the mix through subsidies, tax credits and/or consumer quotas, which inevitably end up being paid by consumers through higher prices, higher taxes, or increasing France’s national debt, which is already a serious problem. The French economy is weak, much weaker than Germany’s, and we have already seen what happened in that grand green experiment.

In apparent ignorance of these horrid experiences from our European brothers and sisters, the ideologically blinded Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is driving the U.S. toward green energy use. The EPA does this not through the natural evolution of increased efficiency and value of green energies that gradually supplant older and dirtier fuels, but by punishing the existing producers of the major fuel sources of coal and natural gas that account for 66 percent of our electricity production.

This approach is responsible for killing jobs and harming local economies, and producing higher prices for consumers as the EPA goes merrily along, oblivious to the destruction in its wake, and to the misery the thoughtless drive for green energy has produced for Spain and Germany.

The administration’s “feel-good” emotional support for three risky green companies cost three-quarters of a billion taxpayer dollars. Solar energy companies Solyndra and Abound Solar wasted $529 million and $70 million respectively, and last December hybrid carmaker Fisker Automotive filed for bankruptcy adding another $139 million to the tab.

And now climatologist John L. Casey warns of a shift in global climate, a cold spell to last 30 years, and it has absolutely nothing to do with carbon dioxide emissions. It’s due to the sun. “All you have to do is trust natural cycles, and follow the facts; and that leads you to the inevitable conclusion that the sun controls the climate, and that a new cold era has begun," he said.

Perhaps the EPA will forsake the “green fantasy” in favor of reality.

Saturday, November 15, 2014

Showdown at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue

Showdown at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue


President Obama has set up a confrontation with Congress that he cannot win. His intention to use Executive Orders to repair perceived inequities in immigration goes far beyond the powers granted to the Executive Branch. There is no section in the Constitution or in statute that permits Executive Orders. Executive power is noted in Article II, Section 1, Clause 1 of the Constitution which merely refers to the President as the Executive. The President is directed to “take care that the Laws be faithfully executed” as explicitly stated in Article II, Section 3, Clause 5 or else would face impeachment. Prior Presidents used “Executive Authority” to carry out duties delegated to their branch of government in the normal course of its functions. Failing to fulfill these requirements could be a cause for removal from office. In the case of President Obama his planned Executive Order on immigration would circumvent the legislative process hence making a new law which he is not empowered to do. This is the conundrum Congress and the American public face.


Days after the 2014 election a defiant President Obama misread the will of the people claiming he was going ahead with his plans to resolve “the immigration crisis.” A rapid rebuke to Obama’s plans came from the new Majority Leader of the Senate Mitch McConnell and the current House Speaker John Boehner. In no uncertain terms, Speaker Boehner noted, circumventing Congress would jeopardize immigration reform for the rest of Obama’s term. http://www.politico.com/story/2014/11/john-boehner-obama-immigration-112861.html?amp The President seemed oblivious to the remarks from these leaders as his closeted plans leaked to the media. Expectations are Obama will proceed with his immigration agenda which will be met by an immediate judicial review or worse, an impeachment hearing. Quiet rumblings of impeachment by the more youthful members of Congress is not off the table. Excluding the latter

blocking funds for enforcement of Obama’s stated goals is another mechanism to stop his illicit acts. Ramifications of President Obama’s planned actions are numerous including a cost to implement in the tens of billions. As these people are legitimatized by Obama’s edicts rest assured more legal Americans will be edged out of work and onto entitlement programs. Boehner and McConnell are aging fossils who were very silent as Obama trampled on the Constitution in the past. They need to be replaced with more youthful members of the conservative caucus who want to act quickly to contain the President. Obama has drawn a proverbial line in the sand, which he plans to cross, daring Congress to act against him. Lame duck presidency will take on new meaning this January as the Republicans take control of the Senate. The question is: Do they have the cojones to act or will this be a replay of the Reid tenure? Most likely the former will occur, if not the Republicans will find their majority will dwindle next election cycle.


Mark Davis MD, President of Davis Writing Services  www.daviswritingservices.com Author of the popular book, Obamacare: Dead on Arrival, A Prescription for Disaster. For interview requests: platomd@gmail.com

Tuesday, November 11, 2014

The election of 2014 is over. What did we learn? Where do we go?

Last week’s mid-term election results surprised almost everyone in some way. Republicans won control of the US Senate, increased their majority in the House of Representatives by 13 seats, and won a number of other victories, as summarized here by The Washington Post:

  • Net gain of 8 legislative chambers, increasing from 59 to 67 out of a total of 98 (Nebraska is technically unicameral, but it is dominated by Republicans as well).
  • This sets a record for the modern era, breaking the one in 2012.
  • Republicans now have total control of 24 states, controlling legislative chambers as well as the governor’s office.
  • Republicans have supermajority status in 8 states.
  • Control is split in 17 states (3 of whose governors flipped from Democrat to Republican).
  • Republicans now have four lieutenant governorships due to defeating Democrat incumbents.
  • Democrats have total control in 6 states.

Given the broad and deep defeat of Democrats across the nation it is apparent that the country disapproves of what liberal Democrats have been doing. Those who voted elected Republicans in big numbers, and those that didn’t vote made a strong statement of non-support for the radical policies of liberal Democrats.

A day after the election, President Barack Obama was defiant, showing no inkling that he understood that his policies and the direction he and his fellow liberals had set were to blame for what happened the previous day.

“What we’ve seen now for a number of cycles is that the American people just want to see work done here in Washington,” he said. “They’re frustrated by the gridlock. They’d like to see more cooperation, and I think all of us have a responsibility, me in particular, to try to make that happen.”

That sounds promising, but no more had he sounded the trumpet of cooperation than he committed to going around Congress with a plan to stop deportations and allow as many as 5 million illegal aliens to stay in the United States, at least temporarily. Given that he did nothing on immigration for the first six years of his tenure, except weaken border security, why is this so important now?

His position not only is a slap in the face of Congressional leaders, but also of the American people. Seventy-four percent of voters said in an exit poll by The Polling Company that President Obama should work with Congress rather than go around Congress on immigration.

The Polling Company results showed that "majorities of men (75 percent), women (74 percent), whites (79 percent), blacks (59 percent), and Hispanics (54 percent)," oppose an executive amnesty, and that opinion was shared by Republicans (92 percent) and Independents (80 percent), and even by a majority of Democrats (51 percent).

He is also on the wrong side of the Obamacare issue. The Real Clear Politics Average of polls conducted in October shows that nearly 52 percent of those polled are opposed to Obamacare, while only 38 percent favor it.

Nevertheless, "On healthcare, there are certainly some lines I'm going to draw," Mr. Obama said on Wednesday. "Repeal of the law I won't sign," and he will resist efforts to improve the bill, such as by getting rid of the individual mandate.

This election was certainly not a mandate for Congress and the president to work together to pass the same kinds of legislation that liberal Democrats favored before the election. The people want change.

The mission statement for the new Republican majority should be “First, do no harm.” That means no amnesty, and fix or repeal Obamacare, among other things.

The federal government is too big, too expensive, too intrusive; it is out of control and a danger to the freedom of the American people: Government must be reigned in. That is what the election meant.

Participants in a nationwide CBS News poll in late October were asked what was the most important issue that would affect their vote in the upcoming election. The stagnant economy topped the list at 38 percent.

To get the economy moving we have to cut tax rates across the board, both corporate and personal, which will put millions of dollars in the hands of people and businesses to spend as they see fit.

And then:

  • Cut government spending. There’s more than enough waste in administrative agencies to “pay for” tax cuts.
  • Repeal the tax on medical devices imposed by the Affordable Care Act that punishes companies developing needed technology.
  • Approve the XL Pipeline, and both create jobs and help end dependence on foreign oil.
  • Reign in the EPA, remove the shackles on domestic energy production. Defund it, if necessary.
  • Secure the borders and stop the influx of illegals, drug cartels and other criminals from Mexico, and potential terrorists. Deport or jail the criminals among the illegals.
  • Start restoring our military to its former strength, and try to reacquire those seasoned officers driven to retirement by the Obama administration.
  • Restore selection of US Senators to state legislatures, as it was originally designed.

Monday, November 10, 2014

Barack Obama: A Tale of Two Minds

Barack Obama: A Tale of Two Minds


Who is the real Barack Obama? Is he the person who takes his cues from a teleprompter or the one behind the curtain of deception? Schizophrenia has come to the Oval Office. Americans are not sure which President will greet them on a daily basis. The man who took the Presidential Oath on January 20, 2009 no long inhabits the confines of the White House. His elusive double has taken control leaving no doubt his best interests do not favor ours. In his carefully crafted speeches President Obama’s doppelganger projects divisiveness and anger to a nation bleeding from hate. Conciliation and compromise are not elements embedded in his demagoguery. Antithetically the President was elevated to his office based on the latter themes. Transitional influences from 2009 onward affected this President’s demeanor and performance. He became more detached from day to day management of the country concentrating instead on personal pleasures. Shifting many responsibilities to the shoulders of appointed minions it has been difficult to know who is in charge of the American universe. Scandal plagued Administration aside an array of challenges to his management style has the country questioning: Are we a leaderless society? Corrupted by socialistic ideals in his more youthful years his game plan plays to a sub-segment of society which excludes a vast majority of Americans. Currently his mind betrays his inability to deal with reality. After an election that repudiated his Administration the President verbally attacked those who could bring an end to his reign. Nowhere in his recent speech did he concede the electorate, through the Republican landslide, had rejected his political agenda. As usual he blamed conservative media for the massive Congressional changes ahead not his failed policies. This nation has come to know two Obamas. One reflects a person who depends on mechanistic jargon to coral the unsuspecting and the other a confrontational demagogue whose values elude defining. Those trained in the art and science of psychoanalysis may see shades of gray in the President’s personality I have not described. Yet the central theme remains the same. America has a leader who doesn’t lead. A man who believes he can individually coerce a nation to follow his trail without dissent. In his fictitious World only his values and evaluations count. The public be damned. As the new power structure takes hold in Congress their first priority is a moral imperative, contain Barack Obama. Otherwise his alter ego may consume more of America leaving only the remnants to his successor.


Mark Davis MD, President of Davis Writing Services. www.daviswritingservices.com  For interviews and media requests please contact the author at platomd@gmail.com  Dr. Davis is the author of the Demons of Democracy and the very popular book Obamacare: Dead on Arrival, A Prescription for Disaster.

Thursday, November 06, 2014

Hey, New Jersey More Bad News for the poster child of Liberal Failure, Summing it up: It's you people, stupid.

More bad news for New Jersey, again ranked as one of the highest taxed and worst performing economies in the nation according to the Tax Foundation study released last month. Add to that  the mounting evidence outward migration is increasing. Continuing decline is your cards.

My most recent U-Haul rate study indicates it is 3.86 times more expensive to leave New Jersey for Austin Texas than it is to go to New Jersey from Austin Texas. Nearly 4 time more expensive getting out than getting in. What's that tell you?

That is a 53% increase in the U-Haul costs from this same time last year.

Granted, it is not a scientific study, all the same, people are leaving New Jersey at a staggering rate. I have run this study 2 times a year for the past 4 years. It has never been this bad.  In fact it has been fairly stable at a 2.5 times ratio for the past two years right up through June 2014 when I ran the study last. Since then we see this jump, a spike in getting the hell out.

 The study though not scientific is a fair indication of the effects of supply and demand. It focuses on the U-Haul rates to and from Austin Texas and several key areas, Northern California, Chicago, Illinois and Wayne, New Jersey.  Three areas ranked as having excessive regulatory and anti business climates.

Is it just the high taxes and regulatory climate?  No, I don't think so, New Jersey has lots going against it in addition to high taxes. For one thing there is a crooked croniness in NJ, an embedded corruption that permeates the society. Northern New Jersey where I went to High School has developed a culture of "Me, Me, Me". A selfish, ignorant callousness of much of the population combined with an intellectual laziness. That narcissistic culture is particularly annoying, people just didn't care about anything outside their self-centered personal worlds.

It is ironic that the generation of peace and love that grew out of the 60s and 70s has become the generation of "I don't care...it's all about Me, Me, Me".

It is this self absorption on steroids that undermines the sense of community that is now it is coming home to roust.

Why do I dwell on this issue, New Jersey the poster child of liberal failure?

There is an old adage; you can not fix a problem unless you identify the problem. In decades of civic involvement  in Chambers of Commerce and in other 'quasi' government organizations I've seen and experienced  repeated patterns. The same situation plays out over and over again.   Critical social problems are obfuscated and faux efforts at solutions deployed. It's an organized, intentional form of social insanity.  If you continue to  do the same thing over and over again and expect different results - we all have heard it, that is insanity.  

Back to the old adage, you can not fix a problem unless you identify the problem. The problem is the intentional efforts of the progressive leadership.  The culture that grows from progressive liberalism which I think many of us believe is the center of New Jersey's and much of America's problems. That is why I dwell on it. The problem is the type of people that lead areas like New Jersey and Northern California and Urban Illinois. It's the people, Stupid.

When you create a society that is blinded to itself it is easy to control that society and that is what progressives have done to the people of New Jersey and much of liberal America. Progressives have transferred the responsibility of awareness from the people and replaced it with a sense of entitlement. With the entitlement there is little reason to think beyond ones self interest hence the perspective of "whats in it for me?" Progressive liberals campaign on that premise and the self absorberd buy it. . .

If you want to fix this problem you have to call it out, you have to point the finger of blame, you have to put the cause on notice. It's the people, stupid.

Simple answer: If you don't want their fate, don't do what they do.

That is why I dwell on it. I want the people causing the problem to be spotlighted for what they are.

It's the liberals, Stupid.