CHARLATANISM OR SINCERITY.

Nothing frustrates a person more than, when someone says that he is going to "cut" an item, by reducing its cost, from the U.S. National Budget, because it causes government spending to skyrocket. Saying it another way, it (item) makes the national deficit to remain very high or continues to climb.

Then the next day or so, the same person turns around and says that he intends to save the same item that he is "cutting" from the same U.S. National Budget, in order to save it from going bankrupt. What kind of impact does that have on your nerves? Anger? Frustration?

When that happens, you are forced to think that there is a lot of charlatanism going on in Washington D.C. For at one point, Medicare must be "cut" to help reduce government spending; and at another point, the Medicare plan, which is being proposed by U.S. Congressman Paul Ryan, will turn around and save the Medicare program.

As any lay person will surmise, you cut a man's heart out; and he is dead. So, how can you turn around and say that your "intent" is to save his life?

That was what the changes that the House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan had in mind on Medicare seemed like, or sounded like, when he came out to speak to reporters, after the Republican Party members of the House of Representatives met President Barack Obama in the White House the other day. He has been adamant about those changes for Medicare at the meeting; he told reporters; and he did not want the president to "misrepresent" his (Ryan's) views on the issue in any future discussions.

He still is very passionate about those changes, undoubtedly; but is he sincere?

On the one hand, he is telling the country that government spending must be "cut" or slashed through the Medicare program; and that he can use his new Medicare proposal to do just that. While on the other hand, he is saying that Medicare will be saved from coming to an end, by using the same proposal to "prop it up" or to pull it out of insolvency. What does that exactly mean?

Those are two conflicting positions, and they add much confusion to the whole situation. If that is not frustrating, then what is?

Besides, many people think that there is no way that his proposal will help senior citizens, who are supposed to benefit from Medicare without any hindrance. It will put their well being back in the hands of the same Health Insurance Companies, whose officials have always used all kinds of shenanigans and reasons to syphon off profits from Medicare. Seniors will pay more out of pocket for their healthcare, since the voucher system will not guarantee full coverage or payment.

In all his interviews last week on national TV, Mr. Ryan never mentioned the word "cut"; not even once; yet, it was lurking somewhere in his thinking. Indeed, that was what portrayed him as the man pushing an elderly lady off a cliff in a television commercial recently.

Another word he failed to mention was "Taxes", and that too was lurking somewhere in his thoughts. He knew that those two words were anathematic; one to most rich people, and the other to poor people; and so he ignored them both.

However, lurking in the minds of viewers were those same words; because they agreed that, if the National Debt, which constituted all of America's fiscal problems, could ever be properly dealt with, government spending must be held back. That was where the "cut" or "cuts" came into use.

They also knew that cutting alone would not do the desired work to reduce the deficit; and therefore, the other "tool" or "weapon" that would have the most effect on the nation's financial crisis must be brought in as well; and that would be "TAXES".

Nevertheless, in Congressman Paul Ryan's Medicare plan, taxes were left out, almost completely, if not deliberately, leaving only the "cut" from Medicare; and of course, Medicaid and Social Security were not far behind in his mind, to be slashed.

Meaning, if the old, the poor and the needy required any type of healthcare insurance, they must be able to endure any cut that would ensure its solvency; although, he knew perfectly well that a "cut" in any dreadful measure would maximize the hardships they faced almost daily.

Also, those of us, who in most cases were in the present workforce, and would be approaching the age of 65 in ten years from now, must be compelled, willy-nilly, to pay high Medicare taxes, which normally came out of our hard earned incomes, until the time when we were ready to get into the Medicare program. We would then be suddenly hit with additional or extra Medicare costs, due to normal increase cost of living over the years, in our old age.

In other words, a national crisis, such as the one the nation was grappling with, could only be solved on the backs of working people and the poor, while tax subsidies were extended to the rich, the affluent and the powerful in society. To him (Ryan), the rich must have tax reductions at the drop of a hat, for them to create needed jobs to bring down the high unemployment numbers facing the country at the present moment.

Remember, he was one of the lawmakers, who wanted to make the "Bush tax cuts for the wealthy" permanent, which had the Reagan "trickle down" economic philosophy in its background; where the rich became more opulent, while the unfortunate ate grass.

According to reliable sources, many Republican Conservatives thought that Corporate tax in America was the highest in the world; and therefore the rich and the well to do must be left alone, as far as taxes and government regulations were concerned, to produce more opportunities for Americans through capital investments, to help the distressed economy the country was presently going through.

Their vision of less government control and fewer taxes was insatiable. With oil wells plentiful off the American coasts and in national parks, to make America energy independent.

Thus, having eye sore, oil-drill platforms along American shores should not be in question; or pollution destroying the fishing industry and its subsidiaries should not matter very much, so long as people were having something to do, to get the economy moving to make the nation financially strong and prosperous. Environmentalists could go to hell.

To others, America wanted to be energy independent; but not at any cost. It should also be innovative and looked at other energy sources, such as solar, wind and other renewable ones; to be competitive, and to move the nation forward to meet new challenges in the 21st Century. America has always been number one in science and technological inventions; and it should remain so for a long time to come (Obama doctrine). Two contrasting views of America; take your pick.

Wow! So, just wait and see, when Romney, Palin, Gingrich, Pawlenty, Santorum, Cain, Bachmann, Perry, Paul, Karger, Johnson, Martin, Miller, Wuensche, Brown; (with Giuliani, Graham, Huntsman, Scarborough, West and Ryan himself waiting in the wings) get to the White House. There will be a whole lot of free-to-play games there; and "drill baby drill" will be the foremost one.

Yet, are they going to be there come November 2012? Many Americans doubt it.

P.S. Free-to-play - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Free-to-play (F2P) refers to any game that has an option of allowing its players to play without paying. (TAXES). Parentheses are mine.