Monday, August 31, 2009

Sunday, August 30, 2009

Friday, August 28, 2009

Thursday, August 20, 2009

Follow-Up: Virtually No U.S. Media Interest In 'Imploding' Canadian Press State-Run Health Care Story

Clearly, Obama doesn't know what Jesus taught

Obama: 'We are God's partners in matters of life and death'...

Wrong! The second greatest commandment, our Christian duty to "love our neighbor as ourself" is a mandate given by Jesus to each of us as individuals, families, and communities. Jesus did not say "have your government love your neighbor as yourself." Jesus was never in the business of government mandates. He came to teach us individually how to live. On the contrary, to relinquish our Christian duty to our government is a very unchristian thing to do; saddling us with higher taxes in order to accomplish this transfer of responsibility and making it fiscally more difficult to follow this mandate on an individual basis. It's less efficient and more likely to result in terrible unintended consequences. Or, since we deem fit to have our government fulfill our Christian commandments for us, shall we have it also fulfill the First and greatest commandment?

Monday, August 17, 2009

Case Closed: OBAMA gaffe: 'UPS and FedEx are doing just fine. It's the Post Office having problems"

Let's make one thing perfectly clear: Barack Obama without his teleprompter is like a trapeze artist without a net.

That was likely never more apparent than at the President's healthcare town hall meeting Tuesday when he actually said:

I think private insurers should be able to compete. They do it all the time. I mean, if you think about, if you think about it, um, UPS and FedEx are doing just fine. Right? The, uh, no they are. I mean, it's the post office that's always having problems.

Yep. The supposedly most intelligent person ever to be in the White House really said these words as a reason why Americans should trust government to provide healthcare:

Proving once again the government can't run a DAMN THING RIGHT!

Canada's top doctor: Health care system 'imploding'...
'We all agree that things are more precarious than perhaps Canadians realize'...


Israeli minister: Some of Obama's policies are 'borderline anti-Semitic'...


Friday, August 14, 2009

Proof of an End of Life Provision:

Finance Committee drops end-of-life provision

Why Is Axelrod Sending Them E-mails? What Is 'The List' & Who's on It?

My email from Axelrod:

Dear Friend,

This is probably one of the longest emails I’ve ever sent, but it could be the most important.

Across the country we are seeing vigorous debate about health insurance reform. Unfortunately, some of the old tactics we know so well are back — even the viral emails that fly unchecked and under the radar, spreading all sorts of lies and distortions.

As President Obama said at the town hall in New Hampshire, “where we do disagree, let's disagree over things that are real, not these wild misrepresentations that bear no resemblance to anything that's actually been proposed.”

So let’s start a chain email of our own. At the end of my email, you’ll find a lot of information about health insurance reform, distilled into 8 ways reform provides security and stability to those with or without coverage, 8 common myths about reform and 8 reasons we need health insurance reform now.

Right now, someone you know probably has a question about reform that could be answered by what’s below. So what are you waiting for? Forward this email.


David Axelrod
Senior Adviser to the President

P.S. We launched this week to knock down the rumors and lies that are floating around the internet. You can find the information below, and much more, there. For example, we've just added a video of Nancy-Ann DeParle from our Health Reform Office tackling a viral email head on. Check it out:

Health Insurance Reform Reality Check

8 ways reform provides security and stability to those with or without coverage
  1. Ends Discrimination for Pre-Existing Conditions: Insurance companies will be prohibited from refusing you coverage because of your medical history.
  2. Ends Exorbitant Out-of-Pocket Expenses, Deductibles or Co-Pays: Insurance companies will have to abide by yearly caps on how much they can charge for out-of-pocket expenses.
  3. Ends Cost-Sharing for Preventive Care: Insurance companies must fully cover, without charge, regular checkups and tests that help you prevent illness, such as mammograms or eye and foot exams for diabetics.
  4. Ends Dropping of Coverage for Seriously Ill: Insurance companies will be prohibited from dropping or watering down insurance coverage for those who become seriously ill.
  5. Ends Gender Discrimination: Insurance companies will be prohibited from charging you more because of your gender.
  6. Ends Annual or Lifetime Caps on Coverage: Insurance companies will be prevented from placing annual or lifetime caps on the coverage you receive.
  7. Extends Coverage for Young Adults: Children would continue to be eligible for family coverage through the age of 26.
  8. Guarantees Insurance Renewal: Insurance companies will be required to renew any policy as long as the policyholder pays their premium in full. Insurance companies won't be allowed to refuse renewal because someone became sick.
Learn more and get details:

8 common myths about health insurance reform
  1. Reform will stop "rationing" - not increase it: It’s a myth that reform will mean a "government takeover" of health care or lead to "rationing." To the contrary, reform will forbid many forms of rationing that are currently being used by insurance companies.
  2. We can’t afford reform: It's the status quo we can't afford. It’s a myth that reform will bust the budget. To the contrary, the President has identified ways to pay for the vast majority of the up-front costs by cutting waste, fraud, and abuse within existing government health programs; ending big subsidies to insurance companies; and increasing efficiency with such steps as coordinating care and streamlining paperwork. In the long term, reform can help bring down costs that will otherwise lead to a fiscal crisis.
  3. Reform would encourage "euthanasia": It does not. It’s a malicious myth that reform would encourage or even require euthanasia for seniors. For seniors who want to consult with their family and physicians about end-of life decisions, reform will help to cover these voluntary, private consultations for those who want help with these personal and difficult family decisions.
  4. Vets' health care is safe and sound: It’s a myth that health insurance reform will affect veterans' access to the care they get now. To the contrary, the President's budget significantly expands coverage under the VA, extending care to 500,000 more veterans who were previously excluded. The VA Healthcare system will continue to be available for all eligible veterans.
  5. Reform will benefit small business - not burden it: It’s a myth that health insurance reform will hurt small businesses. To the contrary, reform will ease the burdens on small businesses, provide tax credits to help them pay for employee coverage and help level the playing field with big firms who pay much less to cover their employees on average.
  6. Your Medicare is safe, and stronger with reform: It’s myth that Health Insurance Reform would be financed by cutting Medicare benefits. To the contrary, reform will improve the long-term financial health of Medicare, ensure better coordination, eliminate waste and unnecessary subsidies to insurance companies, and help to close the Medicare "doughnut" hole to make prescription drugs more affordable for seniors.
  7. You can keep your own insurance: It’s myth that reform will force you out of your current insurance plan or force you to change doctors. To the contrary, reform will expand your choices, not eliminate them.
  8. No, government will not do anything with your bank account: It is an absurd myth that government will be in charge of your bank accounts. Health insurance reform will simplify administration, making it easier and more convenient for you to pay bills in a method that you choose. Just like paying a phone bill or a utility bill, you can pay by traditional check, or by a direct electronic payment. And forms will be standardized so they will be easier to understand. The choice is up to you – and the same rules of privacy will apply as they do for all other electronic payments that people make.
Learn more and get details:

8 Reasons We Need Health Insurance Reform Now
  1. Coverage Denied to Millions: A recent national survey estimated that 12.6 million non-elderly adults – 36 percent of those who tried to purchase health insurance directly from an insurance company in the individual insurance market – were in fact discriminated against because of a pre-existing condition in the previous three years or dropped from coverage when they became seriously ill. Learn more:
  2. Less Care for More Costs: With each passing year, Americans are paying more for health care coverage. Employer-sponsored health insurance premiums have nearly doubled since 2000, a rate three times faster than wages. In 2008, the average premium for a family plan purchased through an employer was $12,680, nearly the annual earnings of a full-time minimum wage job. Americans pay more than ever for health insurance, but get less coverage. Learn more:
  3. Roadblocks to Care for Women: Women’s reproductive health requires more regular contact with health care providers, including yearly pap smears, mammograms, and obstetric care. Women are also more likely to report fair or poor health than men (9.5% versus 9.0%). While rates of chronic conditions such as diabetes and high blood pressure are similar to men, women are twice as likely to suffer from headaches and are more likely to experience joint, back or neck pain. These chronic conditions often require regular and frequent treatment and follow-up care. Learn more:
  4. Hard Times in the Heartland: Throughout rural America, there are nearly 50 million people who face challenges in accessing health care. The past several decades have consistently shown higher rates of poverty, mortality, uninsurance, and limited access to a primary health care provider in rural areas. With the recent economic downturn, there is potential for an increase in many of the health disparities and access concerns that are already elevated in rural communities. Learn more:
  5. Small Businesses Struggle to Provide Health Coverage: Nearly one-third of the uninsured – 13 million people – are employees of firms with less than 100 workers. From 2000 to 2007, the proportion of non-elderly Americans covered by employer-based health insurance fell from 66% to 61%. Much of this decline stems from small business. The percentage of small businesses offering coverage dropped from 68% to 59%, while large firms held stable at 99%. About a third of such workers in firms with fewer than 50 employees obtain insurance through a spouse. Learn more:
  6. The Tragedies are Personal: Half of all personal bankruptcies are at least partly the result of medical expenses. The typical elderly couple may have to save nearly $300,000 to pay for health costs not covered by Medicare alone. Learn more:
  7. Diminishing Access to Care: From 2000 to 2007, the proportion of non-elderly Americans covered by employer-based health insurance fell from 66% to 61%. An estimated 87 million people - one in every three Americans under the age of 65 - were uninsured at some point in 2007 and 2008. More than 80% of the uninsured are in working families. Learn more:
  8. The Trends are Troubling: Without reform, health care costs will continue to skyrocket unabated, putting unbearable strain on families, businesses, and state and federal government budgets. Perhaps the most visible sign of the need forhealth care reform is the 46 million Americans currently without health insurance - projections suggest that this number will rise to about 72 million in 2040 in the absence of reform. Learn more:

Wednesday, August 12, 2009

Soylent Green Is People!

A Brave New World
Animal Farm
A Stranger In A Strange Land

Tuesday, August 11, 2009


Dr Ezekiel Emannuel (Rahm Emaauel's brother) is now healthcare advisor to Obama:

Here's a frightening summary [Electing God]of an article he co-wrote in the Lancet called “Principles for allocation of scarce medical interventions”

"I'm sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and you disagree with this administration somehow you're not patriotic. We should stand up and say, 'We are Americans and we have a right to debate and disagree with the administration.'"

Hillary Clinton
Southington, CT
Jefferson Jackson Bailey Dinner
April 28, 2003

Monday, August 10, 2009

Mike Huckabee I, like most Americans, am outraged at the op-ed by Pelosi and Hoyer calling Americans who disagree with the President's health care plan un-American. I wonder why they are afraid of dissent. Could it be because they don't have the answers to the questions the American people are asking?

Of course free soldiers who stand to gain ALOT of membership should this country killing bill pass.

Wooo!!! Where's the mainstream MEDIA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Royalty wanne-be Pelosi msut be disappointed AGAIN!
Studying global warming while snorkeling the Great Barrier Reef no doubt! Royalty!!!!! Crooks!!!!

Obama renigs on trucking promise which caused Mexico to add big tarrifs to certain American imports effectively killing U.S. business. Good job OBummer! Par for the course, true to form!

Saturday, August 08, 2009

A Good Dylan Parady

Who Is This Intended For?

20 Questions to Ask Your Legislator About Health Care Overhaul
1. Legislators in both the House of Representatives and in the Senate voted, in committee, to exempt
Members of Congress from having to enroll in the public health plan they are drafting right now.
This is outrageous! If this legislation is supposedly good enough for the American people – why
exempt Congress from it? Will you vote to sign up you and your family up for any public health
care program that Congress passes for the American people?
2. There are claims that there's an unfunded liability of several trillion dollars up through 2075, and
that the health bill actually reduces payments to Medicare by about several hundred billion over
the next decade as a way to fund this bill. Wouldn’t such a cut in Medicare then lead to rationing
in the system?
3. When Congress and the President rushed to pass the $1 trillion stimulus bill, we were told it
needed to be passed fast. However, the legislation has had questionable results while paying for
things like public bathrooms, sex shows in San Francisco and other examples of waste. Now we
are told health care legislation must be passed right away for the same reasons. When
restructuring 16 percent of our nation’s economy, this rush appears more politically motivated
than policy motivated. Isn’t it more important to do it right?
4. Will you promise to read, understand and take full responsibility for everything that is in the final
version of health care legislation?
5. Will you allow the American people sufficient time to review and publicly comment on the
legislation before voting on it?
6. Many claim that abortion is covered in the health care bill, despite its not being mentioned
specifically in the legislation itself. Furthermore, amendments offered in the Senate by Barbara
Mikulski (D-Md.) and in the House by Lois Capps (D-Calif.) now guarantee that abortion will be
a part of the health care legislation. Over seventy-one percent of Americans agree that taxpayer
dollars should not fund nor subsidize abortion. When it comes to abortion exclusion, will you
specify that none of the funds appropriated in the health reform bill, and no resources in any trust
fund to which funds are appropriated in the bill, shall be expended for abortion? If not, why?
7. Can you guarantee me that my employer will not drop my health plan, and force me into the
government run Health Information Exchange? Can you guarantee me and my family will not be
one of the 100 million Americans predicted to lose their employer-provided health insurance and
be forced into the Health Information Exchange?
8. I am self-employed. How can you vote for a law that says if I make a single change to my
existing health plan, I will be forced into the Health Information Exchange, where my plan details
are controlled by the Secretary of Health and Human Services? How can you stand there and say
if you like your plan you can keep it, when I am going to be forced into the Health Information
9. Do you know that the bill before Congress gives the Secretary of Health and Human Services
uber-authority over everyone’s health insurance and every single plan detail, and that the bill
grants her such authority and other authority over all aspects of health care more than 200 times
in the bill?
10. Do you know that if a trillion dollars were a trillion seconds, counting backwards, a trillion
seconds puts us at 30,000 years before the birth of Christ? How can a bill that costs $1 trillion
dollars and that cuts Medicare by $400 billion be called “revenue-neutral?”
11. How can a bill that costs $1 trillion dollars be passed without raising taxes as President Obama
has promised?
12. Who decides what $400 billion in benefits and services are cut from Medicare?
13. Congress has never cut Medicare by anywhere near $400 billion; what makes you think Congress
will make the cuts needed to pay for the uninsured’s health care?
14. Why should we accept $400 billion in Medicare cuts? Why aren’t other programs being cut
besides Medicare? Why is this health reform being funded on the backs of seniors?
15. Why does the bill change the definition of family, by stretching it to become anything liberals
want to call a family?
16. Will you agree to an iron-clad guarantee that this bill will not fund abortions, leave state abortion
limits in place, and protect health care providers from being forced to perform abortions?
17. Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security are all government programs that are nearly broke. Why
should the American people think the government can run an efficient or trustworthy health care
program, especially when the Members of Congress vote to exempt themselves from the very
program they tell the people will be so good?
18. In the House version of the health care legislation, H.R. 3200, Section 1233, titled “Advance Care
Planning Consultation,” the bill calls for “end-of-life” planning consultations once every five
years. Who will be responsible for this “end-of-life” counseling, and why would anyone want the
federal government to be involved at all in this very private matter?
19. The provision on “end-of-life” planning for seniors in the House bill comes from Rep. Earl
Blumenauer, a Democratic congressman from Oregon who supports assisted suicide. The state of
Oregon has sent seniors letters “consulting” them that, while the state-run plan would not pay for
their cancer treatments, the state would be happy to pay for assisted suicide if they choose that
option. Americans have always placed a high value on human life. Why would we be interested
in such a utilitarian approach regarding these important issues?
20. President Obama himself has made several public statements indicating the federal government
would be making decisions on what sort of treatments people get. In a town hall meeting on June
24, 2009 President Obama told a woman caring for her elderly mother: “(W)hat we (the federal
government) can do is make sure that at least some of the waste that exists in the system that’s
not making anybody’s mom better, that is loading up on additional tests or additional drugs that
the evidence shows is (sic) not necessarily going to improve care, that at least we (the federal
government) can let doctors know and your mom know that, you know what? Maybe this isn’t
going to help. Maybe you’re better off not having the surgery, but taking the painkiller.” Why
would I want the federal government involved in a medical decision about surgery vs. a pain

Friday, August 07, 2009

Is Stalin’s Ghost In The White House?

White House Move to Collect 'Fishy' Info May Be Illegal... Unconstitutional!

Do they want to be autoindustry execs or something?! Remember how they were thouroughly reprimanded for flying into D.C. So our BROKE NATION can afford to pay for these and their use? The DOD said FOUR would suffice. They got EIGHT!!!!!!

You hear that Barney Frank Chris Dodd and unions? Listen up!

Thursday, August 06, 2009

It's obvious Democrats don't like it when protests are directed towards them. no longer is free speech and healthy dissent a good thing. Now it's ugly planned opposition with a covert motive aimed at smearing Obama. Right! The rent-a-mob crowd can't handle a TWO WAY STREET! Now this shows us their unwillingness to live with a two party system. They are demonizing the public now in order to dismiss the MAJORITY opinion that doesn't like their shove-it-down-our-throat at break-neck speed bills that will completely change our country into a mediocre state with an economy that has no way of improving. Bastards.

Reid: Healthcare Protests 'Sabotage' Democracy

Pelosi: Town Hall Protesters Are "Carrying Swastikas" (video)


So maybe retirees are finally beginning to see the disingenuous side of who AARP really are.
Obama's Health Plan Will SucceedBy: Mark SchillerAt getting people to die faster

Cornyn accuses White House of compiling 'enemies list' | News for Dallas, Texas | Dallas Morning News | Texas Politics | The Dallas Morning

Cornyn accuses White House of compiling 'enemies list' |
News for Dallas, Texas | Dallas Morning News
| Texas Politics | The Dallas Morning News

Shared via AddThis

"I can only imagine the level of justifiable outrage had your predecessor asked Americans to forward e-mails critical of his policies to the White House," Cornyn wrote.

Sunday, August 02, 2009

an email I got tonight: I'll let it speak for itself

Some food for thought and wisdom from Congressman McClintock. Very sobering.

Interesting Summary of what’s gone wrong, therefore what needs to be “fixed”.

Subject: As CA goes, so goes the nation

Congressman Tom McClintock from California explains how California went from a fantastic state to the basket case it is now, and cautions the Federal Government that is doing the same things.

We can stop and reverse this process, but must become involved to do it, for the sakes of our kids, grandkids and if we ever plan to retire.

Congressman Tom McClintock offered remarks in Washington, D.C., on Friday to the Competitive Enterprise Institute and Pacific Research Institute that clearly illustrates why California is facing such a large fiscal mess. His beginning joke is so funny because it is so true:

"I know that everybody likes to poke fun at California - but I can tell you right now that despite all of its problems,California remains one of the best places in the world to build a successful small business. All you have to do is start with a successful large business."

Here is the rest of the speech:

Laugh if you will, but let me remind you that when these policies finish wrecking California, there are still 49 other states we can all move to - and yours is one of them.

I should also warn you of the strange sense of déjà-vu that I have every day on the House floor as I watch the same folly and blunders that wrecked California now being passed with reckless abandon in this Congress.

We passed a "Cash-for-Clunkers" bill the other day - we did that years ago in California.

Doubling the entire debt every five years? Been there.

Increasing spending at unsustainable rates? Done that.

Save-the-Planet-Carbon-Dioxide restrictions? Got the T-Shirt.

To understand how these policies can utterly destroy an economy and bankrupt a government, you have to remember theGolden State in its Golden Age.

A generation ago, California spent about half what it does today AFTER adjusting for both inflation and population growth.

And yet, we had the finest highway system in the world and the finest public school system in the country. Californiaoffered a FREE university education to every Californian who wanted one. We produced water and electricity so cheaply that many communities didn't bother to measure the stuff. Our unemployment rate consistently ran well below the national rate and its diversified economy was nearly recession-proof.

One thing - and one thing only - has changed in those years: public policy. The political Left gradually gained dominance over California 's government and has imposed a disastrous agenda of radical and retrograde policies that have destroyed the quality of life that Californians once took for granted.

The Census Bureau reports that in the last two years 2/3 of a million more people have moved out of California than have moved into it. Many are leaving for the garden spots of Nevada, Arizona and Texas. Think about that. California is blessed with the most equitable climate in the entire Western Hemisphere; it has the most bountiful resources anywhere in the continental United States; it is poised on the Pacific Rim in a position to dominate world trade for the next century, and yet people are finding a better place to live and work and raise their families in the middle of the Nevada and Arizona and Texas deserts.

I submit to you that no conceivable act of God could wreak such devastation as to turn California into a less desirable place to live than the middle of the Nevada Nuclear Test Range. Only Acts of Government can do that. And they have.

You can trace the collapse of California's economy to several critical events: the rise of environmental Ludditism beginning in 1974; the abandonment of constitutional checks and balances that once constrained spending and borrowing; and the rise of rule by public employee unions. There are other factors as well: litigation, taxation, illegal immigration - but for the sake of time let me concentrate on the big three.

The first was the rise of environmental Ludditism with the election of a radical new-age leftist named Jerry Brown as governor of the state - an election that also produced overwhelming liberal majorities in both legislative houses.

Like Obama today, Brown lost little time in pursuing his vision of California - an incoherent combination of pastoral simplicity, European socialism and centralized planning. At the center of this world view was a backward ideology that he called his "era of limits" - the naïve notion that public works were growth inducing and polluting and that stopping the expansion of infrastructure somehow excused government from meeting the needs of an expanding population. Conservation replaced abundance as the chief aim of California 's public works, and public policy was redirected to developing irresistible incentives for the population to concentrate in dense urban cores rather than to settle in suburban communities. Brown infused his vision into every aspect of public policy, and it is a testament to his thoroughness and tenacity that its basic tenets have dominated the direction of California through both Republican and Democratic administrations.

He canceled the state's highway construction program, abandoning many routes in mid-construction. He canceled long-planned water projects, conveyance facilities and dams. He established the California Energy Commission that blocked approval of any significant new generating capacity. He enacted volumes of environmental regulations that created severe impediments to home and commercial construction, empowering an incipient no-growth movement that began on the most extreme fringe of the environmental cause and quickly spread. This movement reached its zenith with Arnold Schwarzenegger and the enactment of AB 32 and companion legislation in 2006. This measure gives virtually unchecked authority to the California Air Resources Board to force Draconian reductions in carbon dioxide emissions by 2020.

This has dire implications to entire segments of California 's economy: agriculture, baking, distilling, cargo and passenger transportation, cement production, manufacturing, construction and energy production, to name a few.

We, too, were promised an explosion of "green jobs," but exactly the opposite has happened.

Up until that bill took effect, California 's unemployment numbers tracked very closely with the national unemployment rate. But since then, California 's unemployment rate began a steady upward divergence from the national jobless figures. Today,California 's unemployment rate is more than two points above the national rate, and at its highest point since 1941.

The second problem is structural: the collapse of the checks and balances and other constitutional and traditional constraints on government spending and borrowing.

Let me mention a few of them.

The State Supreme Court decision in Serrano v. Priest severed the use of local revenue for local schools and invited the state take-over of public education. AB 8 of 1979 - the legislature's response to Proposition 13 - essentially did the same thing to local governments generally.

This means that vast bureaucracies have grown up over the service delivery level, wasting more and more resources while hamstringing teachers in their classrooms, wardens in their prisons and city councils in their towns.

Next, constitutional constraints on fiscal excesses began to fall. In 1983, Gov. George Deukmejian approved legislation to remove the governor's ability to make mid-year budget corrections without having to return to the legislature. The loss of this provision exposed the state to chronic deficit spending by removing any ability of the governor to rapidly respond to changing economic conditions. In 1989, Deukmejian sponsored Proposition 111 that destroyed the Gann Spending Limit that had held increases in state spending to inflation and population growth. If that limit had remained intact, Californiawould be enjoying a budget surplus today.

The disastrous tax increases by Pete Wilson in 1991 and Arnold Schwarzenegger this year were made possible by this tragic blunder. Finally, we've watched the constitutional budget process that had produced relatively punctual and relatively balanced budgets for nearly 150 years collapse in favor of an extra-constitutional abomination called the big five.

That new process, that began under Pete Wilson and has culminated under Arnold Schwarzenegger bypasses the entire legislative deliberative process in favor of an annual deal struck between the governor and legislative leaders behind closed doors and handed to the legislature as a fait accompli.

This short-circuits the separation of powers that is designed to discipline fiscal excess and it literally bargains away the line-item veto authority of the governor. It is a process that allows legislative leaders to extract concessions from the executive that would not be possible if the separation of powers were maintained. With the checks against excessive spending broken down, borrowing became the preferred method of public finance. The Constitutional requirement that all taxpayer-supported debt be approved by voters began to erode in the 1930's, when a depression-era Supreme Court decision allowed the state to run a temporary deficit in the event of an economic downturn - as long as the shortfall was addressed in the following fiscal year. This practice was narrowly construed until the Wilson administration began using it to justify spreading out a single year's budget deficit over several years.

During the 1980's, Gov. Deukmejian began employing a legal fiction called a "lease revenue bond," to circumvent constitutionally required voter approval.

Although Proposition 13 still protects property owners from unsustainable increases in their property taxes, most of the other fiscal constraints are now gone, and California has entered a period of unprecedented public debt to finance an unprecedented expansion of state government.

The third factor that also can be traced back to the 1970's was the radical transformation that took place in the nature and power of the state's public employee unions. Until that time, state law prohibited public employee strikes against the public and prohibited collective bargaining or closed shops.

During the Jerry Brown era, a series of collective bargaining acts handed to public sector unions all the rights and powers of private sector unions - but without any of the natural constraints on private sector unions. The unions soon brought these newly won powers to bear to elect handpicked officials to state and local office.

Today, political expenditures by public employee unions exceed all other special interest groups, while they hold compliant majorities in the state legislature and most local agencies.

The result has been radically escalating personnel costs and radically deteriorating performance.

The impact on governmental services has been devastating. Despite exploding budgets, service delivery is collapsing. Firing incompetent teachers has become a virtual impossibility, adding to the deterioration of educational quality. Essential services can no longer be performed because labor costs have made it impossible to sustain those services.

Today, California is like the shopkeeper, who leased out too much space, ordered too much inventory, hired too many people and paid them too much. Every month the shopkeeper covers his shortfalls with borrowing and bookkeeping tricks. Ultimately, he will reach a tipping point where anything he does makes his situation worse. Borrowing costs are eating him alive and he's running out of credit. Raising prices causes his sales to decline. And there's only so much discretionary spending he can cut.

That's the state's predicament in a nutshell. California 's borrowing costs now exceed the budget of the entire University ofCalifornia and it is increasingly likely that it will fail to find lenders when it must borrow billions to pay its bills at the end of this month. Ignoring dire warnings, Gov. Schwarzenegger and legislators from both parties earlier this year imposed the biggest state tax increase in American history.

And I can assure you that the Laffer curve is alive and well. In the first two months after the tax increase took effect, state revenues have plunged 33 percent.

Although there are many obsolete, duplicative or low priority programs and expenditures that the state can - and should - do without, there aren't enough of them to come anywhere close to closing California 's deficit.

Sadly, California has reached the terminal stage of a bureaucratic state, where government has become so large and so tangled that it can no longer perform even basic functions.

Fortunately, we have a model that we know works. A generation ago, it produced a high quality of public service at a much lower cost. It maximized management flexibility and it required accountability at the service delivery level. It recognized that only when commerce and enterprise flourish can we finance the basic responsibilities of government.

Restoring this efficiency will require a governor and a legislature with the political will to wrestle control from the public employee unions, dismantle the enormous bureaucracies that have grown up over the service delivery level, decentralize administration and decision making, contract out services that the private sector can provide more efficiently, rescind the recent tax increases that are costing the state money and roll back the regulatory obstacles to productive enterprise.

Alas, we don't have such leaders and even if we did, the systemic reorganization of the state government can't be accomplished overnight. Restructuring the public schools would take at least a year; prisons at least two; and health and welfare three to five years before serious savings could be realized.

This brings us to the fine point of the matter. What Churchill called history's "terrible, chilling words" are about to be pronounced on California 's failed leadership: "too late."

A federal loan guarantee or bailout may be the only way to buy time for the restructuring of California 's bureaucracies to take effect, but the discussion remains academic until and unless the state actually adopts the replacement structures, unburdens its shrinking productive sector and presents a credible plan to redeem the state's crushing debt and looming obligations.

Without these actions, federal intervention will only make California 's problems worse by postponing reform, continuing unsustainable spending and piling up still more debt.

In short, if California won't help itself, the federal government cannot, should not and must not.

And before anyone gets too smug at California 's agony, remember this: Congress is now enacting the same policies at the national level that have caused the collapse of California. So whistle past this cemetery if you must, but remember the medieval epitaph: "Remember man as you walk by, as you are now so once was I; as I am now so you will be." The good news is there is still time for the nation to avoid California 's fate. If anything, the collapse of California can at least serve as a morality play for the rest of the nation - unfortunately in the form of a Greek tragedy