The media is praising President Obama for the establishment of the commission to review government spending. Come on. Do we need to do this again? Haven’t we had other “Blue Ribbon” commissions that did the same, and where are we today? Can’t the members of congress do their constitutionally mandated jobs? Or, are they abdicating their responsibilities to this group because they are afraid of making the tough choices? If they need an example, New Jersey’s Gov. Christie has showed the way a real executive makes tough decisions just as we have to do in business everyday.

I would have been impressed had he appointed real CPAs and other financial people without any inside the beltway ties and who know the accounting shenanigans used by governments to hide the true cost of programs and policies. Expecting the Washington establishment to solve problems leads to….well, bigger government, more spending and does not solve the problem.

Let me save the country and the mainstream media the time and money this sham is going to cost by stating the conclusions the "commission" will arrive at:

1. Raise taxes and rates.
2. Implement a national sales tax in addition to the income tax.
3. Cut spending, but only on defense and other non-social items.
4. Raise the retirement age for Social Security and uncap the earnings limit for taxes.
5. Raise the age for participation in Medicare.
6. Means test all non-government employee post-retirement plan so that those who contributed the most will not get any benefits.

None of the above will actually solve the problem. Government NEVER solves a financial problem or any other problem for that matter.

It usually takes an uprising by the people to remove the political class in order to really effect change. Remember, our founders wanted to escape from an oppressive government where they were taxed without being represented. They were not trying to escape an oppressive populous. Remember too, every government solution requires limits on our freedoms and only creates another problem that has to be solved later at a substantially greater financial cost.

The debate over the “health care crisis” is amazing. What is even more amazing is stacking the plain meaning of the words up and seeing what you have.

We have heard the constant drumbeat of "every industrialized country other than the US has universal health insurance coverage." If you go to the various countries' news agencies, you learn that, while they have universal coverage, the care is being rationed. While you are covered under the government’s insurance program, you can’t simply schedule an appointment for later this week for an MRI. Instead, the government’s system stacks all of the MRI requests and decides (we still don’t know how) which requests to grant and how to order the others.

Here in U.S., we do not have mandated coverage, but we do have mandated care. You aren’t feeling well? Well, you walk yourself into any hospital in the U.S. and get treated regardless of having medical coverage. This mandated care is required by law.

So citizens of the U.S., do you want to pay more for required coverage despite the fact that your care will be rationed (i.e. might never be received), or would you rather continue paying for required care?

I'll take the required care.

• She's a bigot (one who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ)
• She's a racist (a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others).
• She's a sexist (a person with sexist attitudes or behavior).
• She does not believe in the Constitution of the U.S.
• She believes that policies should be made by courts.