28 November 2012
Dear President Obama,
Good afternoon sir. I'd like to introduce myself. My name isn't really relevant, because I'm representative of the majority of Americans--some who voted for you both elections, some who voted for you in one (probably the first one), and some who didn't in either. We really don't give a rat's *ss about your politics, your political party, your skin color or honestly who you choose as your White House Chief of Staff. Don't take it personally. We don't really honestly care about John Boener's politics, party, skin color or who's his Chief of Staff either. What we do care about is what hits our bottom line and security.
As the unemployment rate has been tooted off as getting lower, you're a numbers guy afterall, perhaps you missed that the rate was lowering at an inflated rate. I'm not assuming that you knew that unemployed numbers were discounting people that were still unemployed and no longer collecting unemployment. Of course, I'm not sure that bothers you since your policies have been counterintuitive to improving employment options. Murray Energy Corporation and Wausau Paper just announced layoffs on the 16th of November. Hostess announced that they will be shutting down altogether--18,000 jobs gone--bar the union issues. Two of the solar companies you invested stimulus money in, SunTech (China owned) and SolarWorld (German owned), have announced more layoffs too. NBC (yes, the liberal media even), Xerox, Stryker Corporation (medical supplies), Smithfield Foods, Cummins and Citibank have also announced layoffs since you won the election. Dana Corporation, one of the few companies still based in its original hometown of Toledo, Ohio has announced that to offset the $24M increase in their healthcare costs--thanks to Obamacare--they will be considering layoffs. If we assume an average of $60K per person they layoff, that will be 400 jobs gone. GE Healthcare also has announced that they will likely be making cuts also. These companies cannot afford to invest in their people, in their own growth or in our economy because of your "bold" move to make healthcare available for all.
First, let's clarify your "bold" move. Healthcare is available for all that need it--it's called Medicare. Your Obamacare doesn't do away with Medicare. It doesn't resolve Medicare. It makes it so that everyone has to have health insurance, and of course, if they cannot afford it, forces them into Medicare. Those millions that have forgone medical insurance in the past will now by law have no choice but to enter the confines of a system that they didn't want to be a part of anyway. But our freedoms of choice, while you seem to support our Right to Choose if it's for an abortion, you don't seem to be ok if we want our right to choose whether or not we can afford medical insurance or whether we want to be part of the Medicare system. We all know that ultimately the uninsured hit the Medicare system. You are simply trying to force the numbers up and for what? So that you can keep count of exactly how many of us are unemployed and/or uninsured? Don't get us wrong. There were some things that you brought to light that were good, but it's overcast with the ridiculous costs of forcing us to accept something that is very extreme. This "bold" move may well mar your Presidency as the most expensive in history for the American taxpayers.
When you made this "bold" move, you ignored half of the country. Half didn't vote for you. It was a very close race the first time, as it was this time. Three million-ish votes nationwide is not a referendum of support. You ignored us. You ignored the CEO of IBM when he told you that IBM couldn't afford the $800M it would cost them to fully implement Obamacare. You half-listened, according to Bob Woodward's book, The Politics of Power, but only as far as to make sure that you were ready to win the argument with this major CEO. You ignored the concerns of CEOs from various companies, including Verizon Wireless. A company like Verizon doesn't take over the number one position in the wireless industry because their CEO has no idea how the economy works. The growth of these, of all companies, depends on some important economic principles. They tried to tell you. You gave them 15 seconds and sound bites in front of the media that got you the admiration of some of the masses. You gave them no choice but to wait you out.
Now as you sit in the Oval Office for another 4 years, my question is will you continue to make the same mistakes as you have already? Obamacare is a joke. How do you think the insurance companies and employers are going to pay for it? Do you believe there is a magic money beanstalk in the backyards of each of these companies? If so sir, let me promise you, there are none. The magic beanstalks will be off the backs of those of us that they still employ. They will have to lower their outputs with head count reductions and reductions in benefits. They will pass the extra costs after that on to the employees. Our healthcare standard will go down while our paychecks see a higher deduction for the worse care and benefits. To pay for what? Your dream of healthcare for everyone? Your dream is a pipe dream. California consistently cannot sustain the all mightly healthcare system they have in place. You are asking us in Kansas, Iowa, South Carolina, Texas, New Mexico, and the rest of "rural" America to foot the bill for people that wouldn't normally register for any healthcare unless they absolutely had to. Medicaid is there for the downtrodden. Your dream, sir, is to make all of us the downtrodden. I'm sick of your dream, as is half the country. We need you to start thinking of our dreams as a whole not the ultra liberal party line.
Our dream is still the American Dream. Even those in the welfare system, dream of a "better life". You proclaim plenty that you understand that dream. I think not. You like to sound like you came from a poor family, but you came from a middle class, college educated family. Your mother remarried and you lived quite well abroad in Malaysia for six years of your youth. You have no idea, truly, what is to be poor. Seeing it doesn't make you an expert; you just know what it looks like. But contrary to many people's views in this country, one that you have capitalized on, no one wants a handout--even the people that have been taking handouts all their lives because they've never known anything else. We all want the American Dream. Sadly, I'm not even sure, sir, that you know what the American Dream is.
First, I'll tell you what the American Dream isn't. It isn't bullying your way through. Lockheed Martin avoided at your behest layoffs before the election. Although it wasn't going to be the hoax of more than 100K jobs, it still will be around 10,000 jobs. The fact you bullied them to hold off until after the election isn't going to change their reality. It won't change the reality for the employees that get their pink slips either. You claim to have been unemployed and understand that is not the American Dream. I challenge that ridiculous statement. You attended an Ivy League school...most Americans can't afford an Ivy League school even if they have the grades. You were President of the Harvard Law Review. To the average American, perhaps that sounds like the American Dream, but you weren't some poor kid. You like to talk about Howard Johnson's Hotels from the 1960s and 70s like they would be perceived now. But I remember Howard Johnson's back in the day. It was the biggest and most successful hotel chain around then, and they had the best ice cream. Yours was the same dream as other families with means and ways--college educated parents with the money to help you pay your way. The fact is that the American Dream isn't to be lied to either. Frankly, it's patronizing to the lower incomes that you try to act like you have a clue what they live through. It's insulting to them and any of us that have actually lived through it. No matter what you believe, paying for someone else's way isn't the American Dream either. And, in spite of what your policies seem to express, the American Dream is not having someone else pay your way. You've polarized this country against the poorer Americans. They hear your rhetoric of trying to help them and they think it's true because what you are peddling is hope. Hope is not the American Dream either. And false hope, well, eventually sir, that becomes the most crushing of all. When they realize that you've peddled nothing, yes, they will likely still love you--much like slaves loved their masters. It's easy to think false hope is real when you have almost no real hope left. That is definately NOT the American Dream, and at this rate, by the time you are done, the Dream will be dead.
Don't get me wrong. The American Dream is not the ultra conservative alternative either. We do not want someone telling us what we can or cannot do. Abortion opinons are based on religious beliefs. Freedom of Religion is guaranteed to us in the Constitution. We don't want completely uncontrolled free commerce either. We already know that greed is inherent of some people. The 1930s Depression, Enron, the Pyramid schemes, and yes, the more recent Mortgage fiasco, are all indicitive that we need some amount of regulations over our capitalistic society. I'm certainly not interested in the extremer version of Southern Baptists telling women that we can no longer wear slacks or show anything above our mid-shins because it's an atrocity to God. That's their religious beliefs, and we have no problem with them following what they believe. We just don't want to be forced to comply with beliefs that we don't share. Most of us love our blue jeans too much.
Many of us had hoped that you were a moderate--someone who thrived in the middle. I had imagined that you would be more of a mediator over the more extremes of both parties that would understand how severe the divide was already as you came into office given the very close split down the middle as far as votes. We had hopes that you would understand that taxes don't stimulate the economy. Education, investment, and job stimulation stimulates the economy. These things typically thrive with the lingering notion of "tax cuts" not tax "revenues". We had hoped that you would understand that certain things could only be accomplished if the economy was already on the road to recovery--like environmental improvements. Partnering with companies to improve the environment, getting them to invest their money in new developments--not giving them our tax money--is how the government has been most successful in the past to get compliance. Yes, there have been extreme moments where fines have had to be levied and companies have not taken the environmental high road. This is not the norm for companies that understand their bottom line. Coal is now one of the most efficient and cleanest forms of energy unlike what it was 40 or more years ago. Why? Because companies have invested and found ways to burn coal more efficiently with less and less waste. This is what engineers and scientists dream of--taking something from less than 50% efficiency to in excess of the most efficient form of energy conversion. And this is what companies often pay them to do--with the right incentives. Taxes, sir, are not the right incentive.
You would like those of us working to go out and buy new vehicles. Well, honestly, sir, I would love to. I have a discount from my employer. I dream of that fancy V8 sports car that I've fancied since I was little. I should be able to afford it. Should. But the Credit Reforms instituted to protect us have lowered credit scores for a lot of us because of banks rushing to lower our limits and force us into higher rates before the "reforms" implemented. The credit reforms also seemed to protect the banks more than the credit unions which have since implemented more and more bank style requirements. We used to be able to go to our credit unions and get the best rate. Now they are struggling to justify loans and giving higher rates than the banks in many cases. Banks and credit unions are afraid to write new mortgages because of the clauses that refer to them having to justify who they give loans to. Sounds great on paper, but gives them no "guidelines" to what is justification. So, the money that we are spending to keep the mortgage rates low are only being used by those of us that can refinance or are trying to get into bigger homes. It is not of any benefit to anyone else. Getting back to that new V8 I'm dreaming of...I can afford the payment, the insurance hike, even after a little calculating, my state's personal property tax. Right now. But, I fear drastically the increases that I am already feeling to my healthcare costs as Obamacare is being prepped for and implemented. I'm already sadly aware of a reduction in my take home pay because of it and even more acutely aware that it will reduce more. Plus now the plan is to increase "revenues". Stop it. Just say what it is. Over half of us are not that niave. We KNOW "revenues" is just a fancy bow on "taxes". I can't see buying that new car that I might be struggling a year from now because the taxes have taken the chunk allotted for the payment. Thank you, but no thank you.
You are the President of the United States. Supposedly the most powerful person in the world. The Middle East is deteriorating under your leadership. It's your watch, sir. They do not respect you, they no longer respect us as a country, and they no longer respect our Allies in Europe. Yes, it is their piece of the world and we should respect that. However, sir, I would use the Cold War as an example. Whether you regard President Reagan with respect or not, you must recognize that his goal to end the Cold War was to the betterment of the world. A better world for myself, my children and eventually, grandchildren and so on. You should learn from the past, sir. The Middle East destablization is as risky, if not more risky, than anything the Cold War offered up. You need to recognize that the President of the United States doesn't apologize. The President should set the tone and mediate resolutions. And when that fails, promise to protect our people and our Allies and make clear anything less will not be acceptable.
To my observations, sir, I humbly state the following. You have taken a hardline with Congress and with the conservatives--moderate to ultra. You have even taken a hardline with your more moderate liberals. I believe you have mixed these two expectations up. We expect you, the President, to take a hardline with our foes--real or potential--for the protection of our people, our country, our rights and our Allies. In alternate, we expect you, our President, to mediate, come to the middle, guide, provide leadership to the ultra left, the ultra right, the moderates of the left and the right to meet in a happy medium that neither will be happy with and neither will be furious with. We expect you to represent us, not any party line. And at a time where you won with a divide of roughly 3 million votes, well, sir, we expect you to understand that better than anyone else.
The question then is simply. Can you come to the middle? Can you be the mediator, the leader, the person that we thought you could be? That the moderate Democrats thought you could be? The one who brings the two sides together instead of increasing the divide? Senator McCain was proven as a moderate who often bucked the far conservative right. We expected that you were the same for the Democrats--a moderate who would buck the far liberal left as needed--someone who could bring us to the middle. Are you that President? Over half of us have given you the opportunity to prove it. Almost half of us are hanging our seats, in some cases close to panic that you might not be. So, sir, can you come to the middle and lead the people we sent to represent us to that center?
Sincerely,
An American Citizen
No comments:
Post a Comment