This week we heard the death knell for an entire generation of bicycle racers and bicycle racing enthusiasts. The release of the USADA report on the US Postal Service team’s doping activities confirmed what we already knew – that the two decades from the mid 1980s through the middle of the first decade of the 21 century were the darkest in the history of this sport. The prevalence of doping transformed it from being a mechanism to get ahead to a mechanism just to level the playing field. In fact, it had become the culture of professional bicycle racing. To condemn the US Postal service with the comment that it was “a program organized by individuals who thought they were above the rules” is not only irresponsible, but impossible to prove. USADA CEO, and author of this quote has no way of know what was in the hearts and minds of the individuals involved. Rather than being a group of individuals who thought they were above the law, we have a group of individuals who fully understood the ramifications and consequences of what they were doing, but also understood that if they wanted to compete in the world of professional cycling, this is what they must do. George Hincapie, one of the most respected cyclists of the last two decades was quoted in an interview with the Wall Street Journal saying "Early in my professional career, it became clear to me that, given the widespread use of performance enhancing drugs by cyclists at the top of the profession, it was not possible to compete at the highest level without them…" Levi Leipheimer echoed this sentiment exactly. Given the culture of doping in professional cycling, Tygart’s characterization of this team’s activities as “an effort to gain an unfair advantage” is preposterous. They simply understood, as a team, that if they did not dope, they could not compete.
To say that Armstrong was at the center of the doping controversy gives this single athlete way too much credit. This statement furthers my belief that this whole study really was a witch hunt rather than an effort to expose and clean up the culture of the cycling community. The culture of doping was widespread in the sport of cycling long before Armstrong ever joined the peleton. The T-Mobile team of his greatest rival, Jan Ullrich, admitted to doping for the entire decade of the 1990s. And Lance did not win his first Tour until 1999.
Don’t get me wrong. I am not condoning their activities. Rather, I see this as an extraordinary tragedy, where two decades of performances have been stolen from the athletes and spectators alike. If the USPS team evaded detection so completely during their reign, how can we know what other teams and individuals rode dirty without detection? It is the testimony of many of the cyclists in the report that doping was so widespread that competing teams actually cooperated in doping activities. If one of the criteria for being recorded in history as the winner of an event is riding clean how can we ever know who won any of these events? If we strip, for example, the seven Tour De France titles from Lance Armstrong, to whom do we award them? The record shows that during his streak of seven Tour wins, only twice did he share the victor’s podium with riders who have never tested positive for illegal performance enhancement activities. I advocate leaving the books as they are with an asterisk.
These cyclists certainly made the mistake of choosing to dope. But I believe the biggest mistake they made was in their choice of sport. Levi Leipheimer described this very well in his statement. He had devoted his entire life to riding in the Tour De France, forsook a college education, moved to Europe and lived with folks who did not even speak the same language, only to find out about this culture of doping after he became a member of a professional team. As he said, at that point packing up and going home was not an option.
All these athletes wanted to do was compete in a sport at the highest level. And to do so successfully in the sport of professional bicycle racing during these dark decades they had little choice. The culture was established. The team managers, the directors, and cyclists that had begun this culture of cheating, had prepared the road for them. And the road was all uphill.
Friday, October 12, 2012
Tuesday, August 28, 2012
USADA - What Were You Thinking?
Last week bicycle racing enthusiasts were treated to the second annual USA Pro Cycling challenge, the brainchild of Lance Armstrong. Rarely do we see so many of the worlds’ greatest cyclists compete on U.S. soil. This was a particularly interesting event, as it signaled the changing of the guard of American bicycle racing. We watched George Hincapie – arguably the greatest domestique in cycling history – ride his last race as a professional. And we saw Joseph Dombrowski, a young 21 year old nearly make the podium, helping to animate the race up Flagstaff on the way. We were also lucky enough to see Jens Voigt – the near-forty-one year old superman of cycling – win the stage from Aspen to Beaver Creek in an awesome solo breakaway and ultimately earn the King of the Mountains jersey! Unfortunately, even the excitement of this event was at times overshadowed by the news that Lance Armstrong had been convicted of cheating because he refused to go to arbitration after years and years of proving himself clean.
I am not ready to call Lance Armstrong a cheat. I have not seen any evidence to prove he was a cheat. The only evidence of which I am aware is the nearly six hundred blood and urine samples he provided without a single positive test. These samples were taken whenever he won a stage, whenever he wore the yellow jersey, randomly during racing, and any time the regulating agencies wanted to test him during the racing season, or during the off season. And not a single positive test. But this did not stop the USADA from attacking and convicting the greatest American bicycle racer in history. Unfortunately, an organization whose primary mechanism of action is science has refused to believe in this mechanism. Instead, they have decided that the testimony of admitted cheats and liars is sufficient to convict.
So what about the science? What about the fact that scientific studies have shown that Lance Armstrong’s heart is nearly a third larger than a normal heart for a man his size. What about the fact that his resting pulse is 32 beats per minute and his maximum heart rate tops out at 200 beats per minute, providing an astonishing 168 heart beats to play with. What about the fact that, during his competitive career, his VO2 capacity was 85 milliliters of oxygen per kilogram of body weight, compared with about 40 for an average man? What about his 4-5% body fat percentage, or his power to weight ratio that increased when he lost so much weight while battling cancer? What about the fact that his longer-than-average femur provided a distinct mechanical advantage to deliver power to the pedals? What about the documented fact that his muscles produced less lactic acid than even other athletes, and that his body processed it more efficiently? Scientifically, Lance Armstrong was born to be a stage racer. He had the strength, VO2 capacity, and ability to recover quickly that made him uniquely suited to multiple stage racing.
And what about his legendary training? Doctors wrote that Lance actually made his muscles more efficient through hard, consistent training. He also prepared for the Tour De France like no other rider. This is well documented. He rode specific stages repeatedly, learning the straights, the curves, the ascents and the descents as well as his hometown training rides. This provided a strategic – and tactical – advantage for Lance and his teams.
One must also wonder about the motivation of the USADA. Their claim is that their motivation is to clean up the sport of cycling. If that is their motivation, why aren’t they focused on active riders rather than a retired racer? There are plenty of active American riders in the sport. Why Lance Armstrong? And why now?
And this also leaves me to wonder how the organizers of the Tour De France feel about this single-minded, dogged determination to condemn one of the greatest champions of their race. The two decades from around 1990 to 2010 were dark days for bicycle racing in general, and specifically for the Tour. In fact, one could easily argue that doping was the culture of bicycle racing. It was often said that if you were not doping, you could not compete. Doping was the equalizer, because everyone was doping. During virtually every race, riders were testing positive for all manner of cheating – from EPO to testosterone, and from steroids to illegal transfusions. Entire teams were expelled from races and sponsors withdrew from the sport. But with all of the doping controls in place, and with record numbers of racers testing positive for performance enhancing behaviors, the most frequently tested cyclist of all, Lance Armstrong, did not test positive once. And now, at a time when the sport appears to have put all this behind them, why is the USADA so determined to reach back into the past for a villain, dragging the entire world of bicycle racing back down with it?
The USADA has also put the organizers of the Tour De France in a very uncomfortable position. They have to award the yellow jersey. But to whom do they award the title for each of the seven years that Lance won? And how many of these racers actually did test positive for illegal performance enhancement during their career, or even during those Tours? Alex Zulle, the runner-up when Lance won his first Tour in 1999, tested positive in 1998, with his hermatocrit level 2.3% over the limit, and his entire Festina team admitted to using EPO in 1998. A three time runner-up to Lance was Jan Ulrich. Interestingly, his entire Telekom (T-Mobile) racing team has confessed to blood doping throughout the 1990s – all except Jan himself. Unlike Lance, however, Jan Ulrich was previously convicted of doping. He was also suspended in February 2012, and all of his results from May 2005 to 2012 were stripped. Third place finisher in 2002, Raimondas Rumsas, tested positive for EPO in 2003 and was suspended for a year. In 2007, the 2005 runner-up, Ivan Basso, admitted to blood doping. And who stood on the third place podium that year? Jan Ulrich! The man on the third place podium in 2003 was none other than Alexandre Vinkourov, whose entire Astana team was expelled from the Tour in 2007 as a result of his positive blood doping test. Vinkourov had actually received an illegal blood transfusion from his father. And in 2009, allegations surfaced that runner up in 2006, Andreaas Kloden received and illegal blood transfusion during that race. (It should be noted that the allegations against Kloden were never conclusively proven) So, in all of the seven Tours that Lance won, only twice did “clean” riders share the podium with him. And Lance never tested positive once. So who gets the yellow jersey? How far down in the standings must they go to find a “clean” rider? What does this do to the reputation of the Tour? It drags the reputation of the Tour right back through the mud.
I am also now concerned for current bicycle racers. Which champion will the USADA condemn next based on testimony of jealous competitors? Will it be Taylor Phinney, whose performance in the time trial at the USA Pro Cycling challenge seemed super human? Will it be Tejay Van Garderen or Christian Vande Velde, who both displayed such great determination and sportsmanship in the USA Pro Cycling Challenge this year? What about young aspiring superstars Gavin Mannion, Peter Stetina, Lawson Craddock and Connor O’Leary? Should they trust, or fear the USADA? Or why not go after George Hincapie, who was a teammate of Lance for each of his seven Tour victories. Guilt by association should be good enough, right?
If Lance Armstrong did cheat, then he was the strongest and most powerful rider among cheats. He was also smarter than even the doping agencies whose sole mission was to catch cheaters. If he did cheat, he should be condemned. But who could blame him? If you are racing against cheaters, and the only way to level the playing field is to cheat, then who wouldn’t? It was the culture of cycling at the time. So Lance could easily confess to doping and redeem himself by claiming that he was a victim of the culture. Isn’t that the American way today? Nobody can be blamed for wrongdoing if they can prove they are a victim. Lance was a victim of the culture in which he raced. But Lance will not do that. If he cheated, he would certainly not claim victim status.
If Lance did cheat, he was guilty of bad judgment. And not only by cheating. He was also a poor judge of character. He picked the wrong teammates. Consider Jan Ulrich and his Telekom squad during the same period. With the exception of Jan, the entire team has confessed to blood doping. Not one of Jan’s teammates uttered a word about Jan participating. If all were doping, and he was the strongest on the team, either he really was superman, or he was doping too. He chose his teammates well. Their loyalty is honorable. Their dishonesty is not. But their loyalty is. And what about the teammates Lance chose? One of Lance’s accusers, Floyd Landis, spent millions of dollars fighting doping charges based on a positive scientific test. Finally, after years of denial, Floyd admitted he was a liar and a cheat. Another accuser and former teammate, Tyler Hamilton, was also suspended from the sport for positive doping samples. Similarly, after years of denial, Tyler Hamilton finally admitted he was a liar and a cheat. And so these admitted liars have decided to turn on the rider who provided them with the opportunity that took both of them to the top of the sport. Bad judgment Lance. You picked pals poorly.
The USADA has decided that it wants to re-bloody the eye of professional bicycle racing. After years of struggling with the epidemic of blood doping the sport had moved on. The younger generation of cyclists does not need the reputation of their sport further sullied by reminders of the dark days of the last twenty years. We have a new breed of cyclists racing today showing great promise of epic battles and thrilling performances to come. And with all the drug testing that is done at the races, between the races, and even in the off-season, we can be sure they are all riding clean.
Or can we?
I am not ready to call Lance Armstrong a cheat. I have not seen any evidence to prove he was a cheat. The only evidence of which I am aware is the nearly six hundred blood and urine samples he provided without a single positive test. These samples were taken whenever he won a stage, whenever he wore the yellow jersey, randomly during racing, and any time the regulating agencies wanted to test him during the racing season, or during the off season. And not a single positive test. But this did not stop the USADA from attacking and convicting the greatest American bicycle racer in history. Unfortunately, an organization whose primary mechanism of action is science has refused to believe in this mechanism. Instead, they have decided that the testimony of admitted cheats and liars is sufficient to convict.
So what about the science? What about the fact that scientific studies have shown that Lance Armstrong’s heart is nearly a third larger than a normal heart for a man his size. What about the fact that his resting pulse is 32 beats per minute and his maximum heart rate tops out at 200 beats per minute, providing an astonishing 168 heart beats to play with. What about the fact that, during his competitive career, his VO2 capacity was 85 milliliters of oxygen per kilogram of body weight, compared with about 40 for an average man? What about his 4-5% body fat percentage, or his power to weight ratio that increased when he lost so much weight while battling cancer? What about the fact that his longer-than-average femur provided a distinct mechanical advantage to deliver power to the pedals? What about the documented fact that his muscles produced less lactic acid than even other athletes, and that his body processed it more efficiently? Scientifically, Lance Armstrong was born to be a stage racer. He had the strength, VO2 capacity, and ability to recover quickly that made him uniquely suited to multiple stage racing.
And what about his legendary training? Doctors wrote that Lance actually made his muscles more efficient through hard, consistent training. He also prepared for the Tour De France like no other rider. This is well documented. He rode specific stages repeatedly, learning the straights, the curves, the ascents and the descents as well as his hometown training rides. This provided a strategic – and tactical – advantage for Lance and his teams.
One must also wonder about the motivation of the USADA. Their claim is that their motivation is to clean up the sport of cycling. If that is their motivation, why aren’t they focused on active riders rather than a retired racer? There are plenty of active American riders in the sport. Why Lance Armstrong? And why now?
And this also leaves me to wonder how the organizers of the Tour De France feel about this single-minded, dogged determination to condemn one of the greatest champions of their race. The two decades from around 1990 to 2010 were dark days for bicycle racing in general, and specifically for the Tour. In fact, one could easily argue that doping was the culture of bicycle racing. It was often said that if you were not doping, you could not compete. Doping was the equalizer, because everyone was doping. During virtually every race, riders were testing positive for all manner of cheating – from EPO to testosterone, and from steroids to illegal transfusions. Entire teams were expelled from races and sponsors withdrew from the sport. But with all of the doping controls in place, and with record numbers of racers testing positive for performance enhancing behaviors, the most frequently tested cyclist of all, Lance Armstrong, did not test positive once. And now, at a time when the sport appears to have put all this behind them, why is the USADA so determined to reach back into the past for a villain, dragging the entire world of bicycle racing back down with it?
The USADA has also put the organizers of the Tour De France in a very uncomfortable position. They have to award the yellow jersey. But to whom do they award the title for each of the seven years that Lance won? And how many of these racers actually did test positive for illegal performance enhancement during their career, or even during those Tours? Alex Zulle, the runner-up when Lance won his first Tour in 1999, tested positive in 1998, with his hermatocrit level 2.3% over the limit, and his entire Festina team admitted to using EPO in 1998. A three time runner-up to Lance was Jan Ulrich. Interestingly, his entire Telekom (T-Mobile) racing team has confessed to blood doping throughout the 1990s – all except Jan himself. Unlike Lance, however, Jan Ulrich was previously convicted of doping. He was also suspended in February 2012, and all of his results from May 2005 to 2012 were stripped. Third place finisher in 2002, Raimondas Rumsas, tested positive for EPO in 2003 and was suspended for a year. In 2007, the 2005 runner-up, Ivan Basso, admitted to blood doping. And who stood on the third place podium that year? Jan Ulrich! The man on the third place podium in 2003 was none other than Alexandre Vinkourov, whose entire Astana team was expelled from the Tour in 2007 as a result of his positive blood doping test. Vinkourov had actually received an illegal blood transfusion from his father. And in 2009, allegations surfaced that runner up in 2006, Andreaas Kloden received and illegal blood transfusion during that race. (It should be noted that the allegations against Kloden were never conclusively proven) So, in all of the seven Tours that Lance won, only twice did “clean” riders share the podium with him. And Lance never tested positive once. So who gets the yellow jersey? How far down in the standings must they go to find a “clean” rider? What does this do to the reputation of the Tour? It drags the reputation of the Tour right back through the mud.
I am also now concerned for current bicycle racers. Which champion will the USADA condemn next based on testimony of jealous competitors? Will it be Taylor Phinney, whose performance in the time trial at the USA Pro Cycling challenge seemed super human? Will it be Tejay Van Garderen or Christian Vande Velde, who both displayed such great determination and sportsmanship in the USA Pro Cycling Challenge this year? What about young aspiring superstars Gavin Mannion, Peter Stetina, Lawson Craddock and Connor O’Leary? Should they trust, or fear the USADA? Or why not go after George Hincapie, who was a teammate of Lance for each of his seven Tour victories. Guilt by association should be good enough, right?
If Lance Armstrong did cheat, then he was the strongest and most powerful rider among cheats. He was also smarter than even the doping agencies whose sole mission was to catch cheaters. If he did cheat, he should be condemned. But who could blame him? If you are racing against cheaters, and the only way to level the playing field is to cheat, then who wouldn’t? It was the culture of cycling at the time. So Lance could easily confess to doping and redeem himself by claiming that he was a victim of the culture. Isn’t that the American way today? Nobody can be blamed for wrongdoing if they can prove they are a victim. Lance was a victim of the culture in which he raced. But Lance will not do that. If he cheated, he would certainly not claim victim status.
If Lance did cheat, he was guilty of bad judgment. And not only by cheating. He was also a poor judge of character. He picked the wrong teammates. Consider Jan Ulrich and his Telekom squad during the same period. With the exception of Jan, the entire team has confessed to blood doping. Not one of Jan’s teammates uttered a word about Jan participating. If all were doping, and he was the strongest on the team, either he really was superman, or he was doping too. He chose his teammates well. Their loyalty is honorable. Their dishonesty is not. But their loyalty is. And what about the teammates Lance chose? One of Lance’s accusers, Floyd Landis, spent millions of dollars fighting doping charges based on a positive scientific test. Finally, after years of denial, Floyd admitted he was a liar and a cheat. Another accuser and former teammate, Tyler Hamilton, was also suspended from the sport for positive doping samples. Similarly, after years of denial, Tyler Hamilton finally admitted he was a liar and a cheat. And so these admitted liars have decided to turn on the rider who provided them with the opportunity that took both of them to the top of the sport. Bad judgment Lance. You picked pals poorly.
The USADA has decided that it wants to re-bloody the eye of professional bicycle racing. After years of struggling with the epidemic of blood doping the sport had moved on. The younger generation of cyclists does not need the reputation of their sport further sullied by reminders of the dark days of the last twenty years. We have a new breed of cyclists racing today showing great promise of epic battles and thrilling performances to come. And with all the drug testing that is done at the races, between the races, and even in the off-season, we can be sure they are all riding clean.
Or can we?
Monday, April 2, 2012
The Epitome of Audacity
President Obama has now unequivocally shown his true colors. By warning the Supreme Court not to rule against the health care law he has demonstrated that, not only is he an ideologue, but he is also afraid the Court will not agree with his ideology.
I can say this with confidence. Because by warning the court, the president shows that either he does not understand the constitution, or he does not think it applies to him. As a former professor of Constitutional Law, I believe he does understand the Constitution. So the latter must be true.
First, anyone who has taken American Government 101 knows - even elementary school students kmow - that the three branches of government were established for exactly this purpose. The three branches, the Executive (the President), the Legislative (Congress), and the Judicial (Supreme Court) provide checks and balances so that no branch has unregulated power.
Second, the president suddenly has a problem with this "unelected group of people". The Justices of the Supreme Court are appointed only after a rigorous Congressional approval process. The President makes his nomination, and the Congress vets the nominee. It is a wonder that President Obama has a problem with this process. After all, he has had the opportunity to successfully appoint two Justices of his choosing. And why is this "unelected group of people" questioned? President Obama has legions of unelected people - can you spell czar? -in his administration who he never questions as activists.
Third, the President states that the court should be very careful about overturning a law that was passed by "a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress"! Really? What about the facts? The fact that not a single Republican voted for the bill? That fact that even members of his own party only voted for the bill after being coerced behind closed doors?
This is audacity at its best. The president clearly believes he should not be questioned. If the court goes his way, it is the Supreme Court. If it does not, suddenly they are judicial activists.
Give it a rest, Mr. President. Go back to your law books. Read the Constitution. Give us back our democratic republic, thank you very much.
I can say this with confidence. Because by warning the court, the president shows that either he does not understand the constitution, or he does not think it applies to him. As a former professor of Constitutional Law, I believe he does understand the Constitution. So the latter must be true.
First, anyone who has taken American Government 101 knows - even elementary school students kmow - that the three branches of government were established for exactly this purpose. The three branches, the Executive (the President), the Legislative (Congress), and the Judicial (Supreme Court) provide checks and balances so that no branch has unregulated power.
Second, the president suddenly has a problem with this "unelected group of people". The Justices of the Supreme Court are appointed only after a rigorous Congressional approval process. The President makes his nomination, and the Congress vets the nominee. It is a wonder that President Obama has a problem with this process. After all, he has had the opportunity to successfully appoint two Justices of his choosing. And why is this "unelected group of people" questioned? President Obama has legions of unelected people - can you spell czar? -in his administration who he never questions as activists.
Third, the President states that the court should be very careful about overturning a law that was passed by "a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress"! Really? What about the facts? The fact that not a single Republican voted for the bill? That fact that even members of his own party only voted for the bill after being coerced behind closed doors?
This is audacity at its best. The president clearly believes he should not be questioned. If the court goes his way, it is the Supreme Court. If it does not, suddenly they are judicial activists.
Give it a rest, Mr. President. Go back to your law books. Read the Constitution. Give us back our democratic republic, thank you very much.
Friday, February 26, 2010
Dear Mr. President:
Thank you so much for hosting the health care summit February 25, 2010. It was very informative. It clearly illustrated how out of touch you are with the American people and disproved any claim that you are not an ideologue.
I only need cite one example as proof. You agreed that the CBO stated health care premiums would increase for the average American. But you insisted this was a good thing because we would get better coverage for that increased premium. In fact, I believe you stated, in a patronizing manner, that we would be happy that our lousy coverage would be replaced by better coverage. This statement is not only incorrect, it is arrogant.
The stated purpose of health care reform is to reduce cost so that more Americans can be covered. And all polls show that 85% of Americans are happy with their health care. So how is it a good thing to increase cost for better coverage when the goal is to reduce costs and 85% of Americans that have health care are happy with their coverage?
I understand that I am not as smart as you are. But I think one of us does not understand the issue.
Further, you correctly stated that this is what elections are for. Elections do have consequences - often unintended. I did not vote for you because I studied your background and understood where you would take us. I tried to convince everyone I knew. But they voted for change. Unfortunately, the change you are bringing is an unintended consequence of the American people voting without research. I do not believe that will happen again. This is why you are a one term president.
Sincerely,
Wilke Renwick
I only need cite one example as proof. You agreed that the CBO stated health care premiums would increase for the average American. But you insisted this was a good thing because we would get better coverage for that increased premium. In fact, I believe you stated, in a patronizing manner, that we would be happy that our lousy coverage would be replaced by better coverage. This statement is not only incorrect, it is arrogant.
The stated purpose of health care reform is to reduce cost so that more Americans can be covered. And all polls show that 85% of Americans are happy with their health care. So how is it a good thing to increase cost for better coverage when the goal is to reduce costs and 85% of Americans that have health care are happy with their coverage?
I understand that I am not as smart as you are. But I think one of us does not understand the issue.
Further, you correctly stated that this is what elections are for. Elections do have consequences - often unintended. I did not vote for you because I studied your background and understood where you would take us. I tried to convince everyone I knew. But they voted for change. Unfortunately, the change you are bringing is an unintended consequence of the American people voting without research. I do not believe that will happen again. This is why you are a one term president.
Sincerely,
Wilke Renwick
Thursday, February 4, 2010
They Just Don't Get It
I have been communicating with my Senators and Congressional Representative more than ever over the last year. The most common subject has been health care reform. It has been very interesting to see how little their responses have changed even as the opinion of the American people has changed dramatically over the course of the debate. As the American people have learned more and more about the health care reform proposed by the Democrat majority, the more they know they do not want it. Sure, we all know we need reform. But it is not a health care problem. We have the best health care in the world. The problem is access. We need to lower the cost and make health care more accessible to all Americans. But neither the House, nor the Senate bill address this. They are attempting to use a chain saw to fix what needs a scalpel.
Here is what I wrote to my Senators today. Since I live in Virginia, I wrote to Senators Webb and Warner. But you can substitute the name of any Democrat Senator, and virtually any Democrat Congressional Representative and the fit is perfect. If every American who believes the "leadership" in Washington is going the wrong direction communicates with their representatives two things can happen. They will listen and say no to the mess they call reform, or they will not listen and we will say no to them when they ask for our vote.
Senator Virgina Senator,
Thank you for your reply regarding the health care debate that is continuing on Capitol Hill. I understand you support the Senate plan rather than the House plan. However, you should know that the majority of your constituents, and the majority of Americans across the nation, do not support either plan. The reason is simple. Both plans are variants on a theme and the theme is an unashamed power grab by the elitists in Washington who believe that only they, and not the American people, have the intelligence, the common sense, and the right to decide how our nation is run.
Virginia Senator, you are wrong. You work for the people of Virginia. We are not unintelligent. We balance our check books and pay our bills, which is more than can be said about the Federal Government. And we are watching.
You need to do what is right for America. Congress needs to hit the reset button and take the health care debate back to square one. The President has continued to say that the Republican party is the party of NO and that the GOP has no ideas or vision. You know that is not true. What you do not seem to recognize is that the ideas proposed by the GOP have much greater chance of success than anything proposed by the Democrat majority.
What we need in health care reform is inter-state competition, true tort reform (tough one because the Democrats are beholden to the defense lawyers of America), a move away from employer based (legislated by big government) insurance by providing tax breaks for individuals so they can afford to purchase their own insurance (in the free marketplace with interstate competition) and tax incentives for health savings accounts so that individuals can save money for their basic health care and only need insurance for catastrophic care.
Analogies have been made between auto insurance and health insurance. Most of these to not hold up under close scrutiny. But as healthy competition between automobile insurers continues to bring down the cost and improve the coverage, so too could healthy competition between health insurers.
Virginia Senator, the Senate and House both have it all wrong. What we need is not Universal Health Care. What we need is not more big government intervention into our lives. What we need is a free market based system free from government intervention. This is what has made America the most prosperous country in the world over the last two hundred plus years, and it is the model being employed by the most successful emerging economies today. Failure to recognize this will not only doom your future in the Senate, it will also doom our great nation once and for all.
Wake up! Do the right thing! Stand up to the President and the Senate majority leader! Vote no on any health care plan currently under consideration! Hit the RESET button! Go back to square one! Our nation depends upon it.
Here is what I wrote to my Senators today. Since I live in Virginia, I wrote to Senators Webb and Warner. But you can substitute the name of any Democrat Senator, and virtually any Democrat Congressional Representative and the fit is perfect. If every American who believes the "leadership" in Washington is going the wrong direction communicates with their representatives two things can happen. They will listen and say no to the mess they call reform, or they will not listen and we will say no to them when they ask for our vote.
Senator Virgina Senator,
Thank you for your reply regarding the health care debate that is continuing on Capitol Hill. I understand you support the Senate plan rather than the House plan. However, you should know that the majority of your constituents, and the majority of Americans across the nation, do not support either plan. The reason is simple. Both plans are variants on a theme and the theme is an unashamed power grab by the elitists in Washington who believe that only they, and not the American people, have the intelligence, the common sense, and the right to decide how our nation is run.
Virginia Senator, you are wrong. You work for the people of Virginia. We are not unintelligent. We balance our check books and pay our bills, which is more than can be said about the Federal Government. And we are watching.
You need to do what is right for America. Congress needs to hit the reset button and take the health care debate back to square one. The President has continued to say that the Republican party is the party of NO and that the GOP has no ideas or vision. You know that is not true. What you do not seem to recognize is that the ideas proposed by the GOP have much greater chance of success than anything proposed by the Democrat majority.
What we need in health care reform is inter-state competition, true tort reform (tough one because the Democrats are beholden to the defense lawyers of America), a move away from employer based (legislated by big government) insurance by providing tax breaks for individuals so they can afford to purchase their own insurance (in the free marketplace with interstate competition) and tax incentives for health savings accounts so that individuals can save money for their basic health care and only need insurance for catastrophic care.
Analogies have been made between auto insurance and health insurance. Most of these to not hold up under close scrutiny. But as healthy competition between automobile insurers continues to bring down the cost and improve the coverage, so too could healthy competition between health insurers.
Virginia Senator, the Senate and House both have it all wrong. What we need is not Universal Health Care. What we need is not more big government intervention into our lives. What we need is a free market based system free from government intervention. This is what has made America the most prosperous country in the world over the last two hundred plus years, and it is the model being employed by the most successful emerging economies today. Failure to recognize this will not only doom your future in the Senate, it will also doom our great nation once and for all.
Wake up! Do the right thing! Stand up to the President and the Senate majority leader! Vote no on any health care plan currently under consideration! Hit the RESET button! Go back to square one! Our nation depends upon it.
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
Home Ownership RESET
I read an interesting article today in the Wall Street Journal entitled "Home Ownership Declines". I believe a more appropriate name for this article would be "Home Ownership Reset". The title that was chosen would be appropriate if home ownership had declined to unreasonable levels. But home ownership has, in fact, only been reset to reasonable levels.
This is similar to the President's idea of a spending "freeze". He promises to freeze spending, but that only means no further increases. The increases of an out of control Democrat Congress and administration are already in place, and so spending will be frozen at a level that is far from sustainable. He needs a reset button to make the freeze meaningful.
Similarly, home ownership has only declined from artificially inflated levels to more realistic levels. The Democrat controlled Congress and administration of the early '90s passed legislation to "encourage" lenders to make homes more affordable so that an increasing number of Americans could live the American Dream of home ownership. This "encouragement" was so compelling - translate "threatening" - that financial institutions made mortgages available to borrowers with no hope of paying them. Additionally, lenders became very creative with new mortgage instruments that would make it possible for even more Americans who could not afford homes to buy them. Adjustable rate (ARMS), interest only and no money down mortgages made home ownership seem possible for almost anybody with a pulse.
Unfortunately, this strategy backfired when the housing bubble burst and we experienced the recent housing crisis. What we had was a political and cultural crisis. Politicians made it seem possible for anybody to live the dream, and Americans used to buying everything from cars to cigarettes on credit dreamed big! As reality set in with the burst of the bubble, artificially inflated home prices dropped back to reasonable levels leaving many home "owners" under water in their mortgages. Many more could not continue to pay their mortgage payments at all as the bill continued to balloon when the rates adjusted.
As a result, those who really could not afford a home at all, and those with eyes bigger than their budget, lost their homes. Therefore we see the reported rate of home ownership decline. The truth is, home ownership rates have simply reset to a realistic and sustainable level.
See what happens when the government gets involved in the free market? Not only do individual citizens lose, but we also get a great news story out of it.
This is similar to the President's idea of a spending "freeze". He promises to freeze spending, but that only means no further increases. The increases of an out of control Democrat Congress and administration are already in place, and so spending will be frozen at a level that is far from sustainable. He needs a reset button to make the freeze meaningful.
Similarly, home ownership has only declined from artificially inflated levels to more realistic levels. The Democrat controlled Congress and administration of the early '90s passed legislation to "encourage" lenders to make homes more affordable so that an increasing number of Americans could live the American Dream of home ownership. This "encouragement" was so compelling - translate "threatening" - that financial institutions made mortgages available to borrowers with no hope of paying them. Additionally, lenders became very creative with new mortgage instruments that would make it possible for even more Americans who could not afford homes to buy them. Adjustable rate (ARMS), interest only and no money down mortgages made home ownership seem possible for almost anybody with a pulse.
Unfortunately, this strategy backfired when the housing bubble burst and we experienced the recent housing crisis. What we had was a political and cultural crisis. Politicians made it seem possible for anybody to live the dream, and Americans used to buying everything from cars to cigarettes on credit dreamed big! As reality set in with the burst of the bubble, artificially inflated home prices dropped back to reasonable levels leaving many home "owners" under water in their mortgages. Many more could not continue to pay their mortgage payments at all as the bill continued to balloon when the rates adjusted.
As a result, those who really could not afford a home at all, and those with eyes bigger than their budget, lost their homes. Therefore we see the reported rate of home ownership decline. The truth is, home ownership rates have simply reset to a realistic and sustainable level.
See what happens when the government gets involved in the free market? Not only do individual citizens lose, but we also get a great news story out of it.
Tuesday, December 22, 2009
What Price for Clean Energy?
The Clean Energy Act of 2009 does recognize three critical points: we must continue to depend upon nuclear energy; we must develop renewable energy sources; and we must have energy independence. I admit there there are also elements in this act that will create jobs. But energy independence and common sense should not become victims of clean energy.
Nuclear energy is currently the cleanest, most powerful and dependable source of electrical energy. But we have not built a single new reactor in decades. So this is a trend we will have to reverse, and that will require a battle against the Obama administration. This is crucial. We must expand our nuclear energy capability.
In order to be responsible stewards of the planet we must also develop renewable energy sources. Americans have always proven that we innovate and adapt. If this challenge was couched in the same language as Kennedy's race for space, we could expand our renewable energy sources dramatically in the next decade.
However, the third point is the most important. We must be energy independent. At this point, fossil fuels are still absolutely essential. We have a very long way to go before we will have hybrid fighter jets, or hydrogen powered transport aircraft. To think that we can defend our nation without fossil fuels is absurd. So, critical to our national security is energy independence, and currently that means fossil fuels.
Therefore we must drill here and drill now and we must develop more clean coal technologies. We must utilize the oil, natural gas and coal that are found in great abundance right here at home.
Yes, the clean energy act is a good idea. But it is not yet time to turn away from fossil fuels. It would be foolhardy to do this before we truly can sustain - and defend - our nation with nuclear and renewable energy resources alone.
Nuclear energy is currently the cleanest, most powerful and dependable source of electrical energy. But we have not built a single new reactor in decades. So this is a trend we will have to reverse, and that will require a battle against the Obama administration. This is crucial. We must expand our nuclear energy capability.
In order to be responsible stewards of the planet we must also develop renewable energy sources. Americans have always proven that we innovate and adapt. If this challenge was couched in the same language as Kennedy's race for space, we could expand our renewable energy sources dramatically in the next decade.
However, the third point is the most important. We must be energy independent. At this point, fossil fuels are still absolutely essential. We have a very long way to go before we will have hybrid fighter jets, or hydrogen powered transport aircraft. To think that we can defend our nation without fossil fuels is absurd. So, critical to our national security is energy independence, and currently that means fossil fuels.
Therefore we must drill here and drill now and we must develop more clean coal technologies. We must utilize the oil, natural gas and coal that are found in great abundance right here at home.
Yes, the clean energy act is a good idea. But it is not yet time to turn away from fossil fuels. It would be foolhardy to do this before we truly can sustain - and defend - our nation with nuclear and renewable energy resources alone.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)