and he wants the sellers of this valuable service to justify their increased prices.

Thanks to Democratic Senator Kohl for bringing this to national attention, but I'm more interested in why the consumers of cellular text messaging haven't complained yet.  Apparently, the people who use and pay for this service are OK with the current (Democratic-Senator-disapproved) price increase of sending and receiving a text message on their cell phones.

It's actually pretty easy to choose to not participate in the potentially economically-ruinous practice of receiving and sending text messages.  Your first line of defense is to not have a cell phone (ah, completely unrealistic, some might say, but I think it just might be possible to survive without one.).

Should you choose to have a cellular telephone, but you don't want to be exploited by the exorbitant prices that cell phone carriers charge for text messaging, you must go through the taxing process of saying, "No thanks, I don't want to send, or receive, text messages," when you purchase your service.

If you happen to have children (who, invariably and inconveniently like to *constantly* TXT their BFF), you can actually ask the cell phone company who provides you with cell phones and cell service to limit the number of outgoing and incoming text messages that you'll have to pay for.  If not, I suggest you choose a cell carrier who'll let you.

...

Regardless, I'm glad that there are Democrats like Herb Kohl out there who are watching over us to figure out when the price of stuff is "too high," and we're all just "too stupid" to figure it out on our own.

I guess that's what we pay Congress for.

Karl Marx once said, in defense of Communism:

"The idea that individuals are going to have enough knowledge, and enough savvy, and enough insight, and frankly enough guts to make choices all by themselves is pretty much a pipe dream."

No, not really.  That was ABC's medical correspondent, Dr. Tim Johnson, a few days ago.   The story was about a family, the Joneses who have a daughter diagnosed with ADHD, and their struggles to pay for her medication.  His above comment was a response to a statement about McCain's healthcare plan:

"John McCain thinks they should be in charge," McCain's senior policy adviser, Doug Holtz-Eakin, told "Good Morning America." "So specifically, under his proposal, they'd be able to go to another HMO, maybe even an HMO in Delaware or Kansas or West Virginia -- places where ADHD is covered by law."  The ability to purchase insurance from out of state and carry it from job to job is a key component of the McCain plan."

Hey, sounds pretty good to me.  But it gets even better:

"The McCain campaign added that the senator would give a $5,000 tax credit to every American, allowing each to buy his or her own insurance."

Or does it?

"ABC News' medical correspondent Dr. Tim Johnson thinks it will not help much."

Really?  The only reason I haven't switched from my current health insurance to a Health Savings Account (with an accompanying $30-$50/month high-deductible health insurance plan) that will allow me to save the money I don't spend on healthcare every year, up to $5,000 in an IRA, cover me for all costs in the case of catastrophic health issues, and will never, ever, cost me, out of pocket, more than about $5,000 a year (as an individual) is...  Drumroll please...

I need about $5,000.

See, the idea is that you start a Health Savings Account.  It's like a "second IRA," where you can contribute some maximum amount each year, and from which your healthcare costs are taken.  Some HSAs even provide you with debit cards that can be used at your doctor's office.  Whatever you don't spend, it's yours!  It's taken from your HSA.  Anything more than that is covered by your High-Deductible Healthcare Plan (HDHP).  Now, don't get too excited - most HSA's, since they bring along with them the tax benefits of a normal IRA, require that you purchase, and provide proof of, an "HSA-Compatible insurance plan." 

HDHPs are relatively inexpensive - for a single person, you can find them for less than a hundred bucks a month.  For yourself and your family they're a bit more expensive.  If you shop around a bit, you can even find plans that'll cover 100% of the cost of any medical care defined (by the insurance company, of course) as "Preventative," including routine checkups, and things like that.

The actual dollar amounts vary over time as they're adjusted by inflation and other factors, but the equation has remained more or less steady over the lifetime of this alternative to traditional health insurance:  The annual deductible for most HDHP's matches, to the dollar, the annual maxium contribution to your HSA.  So, all you have to do is to choose to invest that maximum HSA contribution (which a person working at McDonald's could do) every year, and pay your monthly HDHP premiums (it costs about as much as having a cell phone or internet).

Now, the only trick is the first year...  Unless you already have an HSA containing the maximum annual contribution, you're going to be paying purely out-of-pocket for your medical expenses that first year (up to the maximum deductible), plus making your contributions for next year into your HSA.  This lack of "startup funds" is the reason I've opted to stall my transition to an HSA+HDHP, while I'm still eligible for healthcare that's cheaper (but only because *you,* taxpayers, are subsidizing it).

McCain's $5,000, "that will not help much," according to ABC, is actually all we need to free ourselves from third-party insurance, and take control of our healthcare expenses.  The fiction is that it's all just too complicated for us to make rational choices about health insurance, and it's all too expensive for us to afford.

Well, I've made a rational choice about the future of health insurance for my family and me, it's not that expensive at all, and all that I have to do is to have the discipline to save a little bit of money each year.  We save money for cars, TVs, XBOXes, vacations, retirement, and a bunch of other things that don't mean squat if we're not healthy.  Why is it such a stretch to think that we should save money (that we might even get to keep) for our health, and the health of our family?

One final word from Dr. Tim Johnson, ABC's medical correspondent about health insurance:

"It's much easier for people to have group insurance through their employer who does the hard legwork in negotiating with the insurance companies."

Hey, I just did most of the "hard legwork" in figuring this out, and I'm sure not your employer.  There's no "group" involved, just you and your family.  Don't take my word for this - do your own research and make your own decisions.  The links I've provided are just a start.  Just do an internet search for terms like "HDHP" and "HSA."

John McCain thinks that you "should be in charge," of your own health, and that's the right answer.

So, the story goes, MSNBC took a big chance on putting two of the most far-out leftist pundits in charge of their election coverage this year.  Now, they're shocked (shocked!) that both the public and their parent company, NBC, have indicated that their decision was stupid.

I could've told you that.  Surprisingly, the New York Times' spin on this is actually spot on.  They reason:

"The success of the Fox News Channel in the past decade along with the growth of political blogs have convinced many media companies that provocative commentary attracts viewers"

This was why MSNBC put the utterly unapologetic Obama supporters (and part-time "objective journalists") Kieth Olbermann and Chris Matthews in charge of their election coverage.

Unfortunately for MSNBC, "provocative commentary" apparently only works to attract viewers and listeners if it's conservative "provocative commentary."  For example, witness the recent, dismal failure of liberal talk radio, and this hot-off-the-press example of the downfall of liberal television commentary.

Fox News is considered "provocative" in the eyes of the press solely because it doesn't toe the Democrat Party line, like most all other cable and broadcast networks.  The liberal media are like children imitating adults - if they do the same magical incantations (e.g., being "provocative"), they should get the same results, right?

Nope, they're still stupid.  Conservative commentary is on the rise because of its conservative nature.  It's apparently what the American people want to watch, read, and listen to.  So don't be surprised when CNN, ABC, CBS and NBC start offering more face-time to conservatives, and maybe even start featuring conservative-hosted editorial shows.  It's, after all, what we want.

Apparently, there's nothing worse in the world of politics than changing your mind. I've been paying attention to the Democrats' Official Presidential Campaign Press Office (i.e., the media) and their reaction to the overwhelming success of Sarah Palin's appearance at the RNC this week, and most of their criticisms have been pretty laughable so far:

  "Her son is not her son!"

  "But, but, but...  She's a *girl*!"

  "McCain just picked her because she's pretty."

  "Why, she barely has more experience than a freshman Senator- Uh.  OK, never mind about the experience thing."

But there's one criticism that's a little different, because there are actual facts and things that have been said that seem to indicate... Gasp!  Maybe the libs are right on this one!  Anyway, here goes:

BACKGROUND

So I took a little time and did a small bit of research because it bothered me that the libs are claiming that Sarah Palin "flip-flopped" on the "bridge to nowhere" in Alaska.  Here's her political career in a nutshell.  This will be important later on. Remember, especially the year 2006, when she became Governor:

1992-1996: City Council of Wasilla 

1996-2002: Mayor of Wasilla (She was Governor for as long as legislated term limits allowed.  During this time she cut many public works programs, and reduced her own salary as Mayor.  Beat that, Congress.)

2002-2003: Unsuccessfully ran for AK Lt. Gov.

2003-2004: Appointed to the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (Resigned over "lack of ethics" by the commission, and accused other commissioners of illegal activities, for which they were eventually fined, and booted off the commission). 

2004-2006: Worked for a conservative PAC in Alaska.

2006-Pres: Governor of AK

THE ISSUE

In her acceptance speech at the RNC, she said the following:

"I told Congress, thanks but no thanks on that bridge to nowhere"

But a USA Today article titled "Palin Backed 'bridge to nowhere' in 2006" says this isn't true:

"While running for governor in 2006, though, Palin backed federal funding for the infamous bridge, which McCain helped make a symbol of pork barrel excess."

Of note, this was followed in the article immediately by a typical drive-by media non-sequitur smear:

"And as mayor of the small town of Wasilla from 1996 to 2002, Palin also hired a Washington lobbying firm that helped secure $8 million in congressionally directed spending projects, known as earmarks, according to public spending records compiled by the watchdog group Citizens against Government Waste and lobbying documents."

Earmarks and Lobbying are apparently OK for any politician whose name has a (D) suffix, but not for us.  Oh.  Thanks, USA Today.  We didn't realize that.  Then she was quoted as saying the following, which is actually quite a reasonable opinion to have, given her position as gubernatorial candidate, and therefore, national advocate, of Alaskans:

""We need to come to the defense of Southeast Alaska when proposals are on the table like the bridge, and not allow the spinmeisters to turn this project or any other into something that's so negative," Palin said in August 2006"

But when it became a national issue, with national media attention (does anyone want to guess what would have happened if Alaska had a Democratic Governor and Congressmen at the time?), according to her communications director, Bill McAllister, she realized the following:
 
"she saw that Alaska was being perceived as taking from the country and not giving."

So she subsequently stopped work on the bridge.  This was the right decision, for the right reasons.

ANALYSIS

Now for some more interesting facts.  I present them in order to allow you to make your own decisions about this issue, not to convince you of one thing or another.  We're not always right, Republicans don't always do what we think Republicans ought to do, and people make decisions that we consider to be foolish, misinformed, immoral, and just plain stupid.  The trick is not to use a person's mistakes as ammunition to tear them down - the way to improve ourselves as people, individually and as a nation, is to candidly look at the things we've done and learn from them:

1.  First, this bridge "earmark" had been something in the works for three decades before Sarah Palin was elected Governor.  The efforts were led by Alaskan Congressmen. They were all Republicans.  (Alaska hasn't had a Democratic Senator since 1981).  What those Congressmen said was:

""We worked 30 years to get funding for this priority project."  U.S. Sen. Ted Stevens and Rep. Don Young, both Republicans, championed the project through Congress two years ago, securing more than $200 million for the bridge between Revillagigedo and Gravina islands."

Their intent was to spur economic growth in a sparsely-populated area of Alaska (population of about 50-70), and thereby improving Alaska's ability to contribute to the nation's success, by providing it means of transportation that would connect it to the nearest airport.  My opinion?  (Sorry, I promised, I know...)  Spending over $200 Million to help fifty people is pretty silly when you look at it from a larger scale.  Or pretty much any scale.

2.  The 2005 travel infrastructure bill (Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users), that contained this earmark was a lot like a big money bag that was essentially left unwatched by the very people that we elect to watch the purse-strings of the big "moneybag" we give them each year.  Put in that position, which of us would have had the strength of character and commitment to selfless service to take our hands out, and say, "Wait a minute - this is absurd.  I'm not taking any because this is against my principles as a conservative steward of this money."? (Hint:  He's running for president, and his name doesn't rhyme with "Yo Mama."). 

To demonstrate exactly how much of a "maverick" a representative must have been to vote against this bill, the vote in the Senate was 91 to 4.  The vote in the House was 412 to 8.  For the record, the other three senators who voted against this bill were Senators John Cornyn, R-TX, Judd Gregg, R-NH, and Jon Kyl, R-AZ.

3.  Sarah Palin was elected Governor of Alaska in 2006.  When was this bill signed into law?  August 2005.  She had no power to influence the passage of the bill, or the execution of the law until a year after its passage.  She stopped the utilization of those earmarked funds and redirected them into something useful that still fulfilled the intent of the people she lead and represented:

"Ketchikan desires a better way to reach the airport, but the $398 million bridge is not the answer. Despite the work of our congressional delegation, we are about $329 million short of full funding for the bridge project, and it's clear that Congress has little interest in spending any more money on a bridge between Ketchikan and Gravina Island. Much of the public's attitude toward Alaska bridges is based on inaccurate portrayals of the projects here. But we need to focus on what we can do, rather than fight over what has happened."

and: 

"Gov. Sarah Palin said Friday the project was $329 million short of full funding.  'We will continue to look for options for Ketchikan to allow better access to the island,' the Republican governor said. 'The concentration is not going to be on a $400 million bridge.'"

When you evaluate her reaction, consider the fact that she inherited, not created, an embarrassing pork-barrel almost-scandal and was forced to deal with it, and make hard decisions for which she would be (and is being) held accountable.

4.  And just for some perspective, the money for the bridge came from the so-called, aforementioned "Highway Bill," allocating just under $300 Billion (with a 'B') funding for transportation infrastructure among all fifty states, as well as a typically egregious amount of earmarks for "pet projects" and "special interests".  John McCain was one of the most vocal critics of the ridiculous earmarks included in this bill, which was passed by a Republican legislature, and signed by a Republican president.  Now, according to a Washington Post article from around the same time:

"The vast majority of the measure is geared toward road construction and public transit projects,"

but that,

"hundreds of millions of dollars will be channeled to programs that critics say have nothing to do with improving congestion or efficiency: $2.3 million for the beautification of the Ronald Reagan Freeway in California; $6 million for graffiti elimination in New York; nearly $4 million on the National Packard Museum in Warren, Ohio, and the Henry Ford Museum in Dearborn, Mich.; $2.4 million on a Red River National Wildlife Refuge Visitor Center in Louisiana; and $1.2 million to install lighting and steps and to equip an interpretative facility at the Blue Ridge Music Center, to name a few.'"

Here's the actual bill: [CLICK HERE] which includes the "earmarks."  See if you can find a few (hundred) that might make you a little angry.  Seriously, look through the list of dollar amounts, and for what they're being spent just to get a sense of how Congress treats our money.  It's like one of those "Cash-Grab" game shows where contestants are put into a phone-booth-sized chamber to see how many dollars they can grab before time runs out.

CONCLUSIONS

Like I said before, make up your own minds on this one.  It's not as simple as the media says it is.

In the course of researching the so-called "controversy" about the "bridge to nowhere," I managed to learn a little about the history of the U.S. Interstate Highway system, and how the annual "Highway Bills" have been some of the most despicably-abused, pork-stuffed appropriations bills we've always passed into law.

Except for one momentous year:
 
In 1987, despite blistering criticism from the press, Reagan vetoed a similar, $88 Billion "Highway Bill" because it contained over 150 "special projects," saying, ''It is distressing that Congress would turn legislation needed to meet nationwide highway and transit needs into a vehicle for special interest projects..."[1] and, more succinctly: "I haven't seen this much lard since I handed out blue ribbons at the Iowa State Fair."[2]

This was the first time in U.S. History since the inception of the perennial "Highway Bill" in 1916, that we did not pass one (I could be wrong on this...  Check it out yourselves.).  As Senator Moynihan (D-NY) said in 1987, "A year without a highway program is like a year without a summer."

But our highways didn't explode or rot away in 1988, and we're still taking cross-country trips in our cars today.  Vetoing earmark-filled "highway bills" was something that only one president had the intestinal fortitude to do, and only one of our current Presidential Candidates has the integrity to vote against them.

I don't think that Sarah Palin has done the perfect, right thing in every decision she's made in her recent, short career as a leader.  But few leaders in our history ever have.  I haven't always agreed with John McCain's Congressional voting record.  But since when has any effective leader made everyone happy?

What we need from our elected leaders is to know that they share our core values and ideals.  We need to know that they're willing to fight for our best interests.  And we need to know that they can admit when they've been wrong. 

Despite the media's efforts to the contrary, the "Bridge to Nowhere," demonstrates that both John McCain and Sarah Palin possess these qualities. 

The "Bridge to Nowhere" has, in fact, led me to the conclusion that John McCain and Sarah Palin are just the kind of leaders our country needs.