“How are we to pay for such matters?”

Let us now partake of the deal of the day. Two dollars to buy a share in the one dollar market. The share will not be ready for market use without an additional two dollars, and a more relevant five dollars in expenditure. Now take the positioning of the share to its pertained use, another three dollars. All said and done, the total price of the share is twelve dollars. This seems reasonable, in price, for a one dollar share. This is what one might believe, if the government agenda to healthcare is allowed to be enacted.

With this “Elitist” math, where can we go wrong? Assuredly, the supporters of this healthcare debacle have a plan to pay for its endowment. That is what they might want you to believe. There has not been a publicized guarantee of how the enactment would pay for itself. The only possible reasoning is taxation, or a facsimile, thereof.

Yet, through an AP release, President Obama stated it was not an agenda “backhanded taxes”. This statement being in relation to the idea of fining individuals for not having insurance. Though President Obama should be commended for his premise of carrying of a fair share of the burden among all concerned. This leads to a couple of questions. First, what is his idea of fair share? Secondly, How are we going to pay for this?

The current stated plan is to allow for no tax increase for those individuals earning under the cap of $250,000. There is nothing wrong with this strategy. Unless you look at the idea that a great percentage of taxpayers in the United States tend to earn under this cap. So, again I ask, “How do we pay for your plan, President Obama?”

President Obama also has set his eyes upon that of employer offered benefits, as that of high-cost insurance plans. These plans have long been part of an employees incentives to work for such employer. For, it is with questioning that I have to wonder on the matter of this issue. A vast support network of Obama's Administration happens to be the same supporters of employee's rights, the “Unions”. I would like to know what they think of this strategy. Not the labor leaders, but the members themselves. Maybe my thinking is wrong, but none of these questions have, or will, be answered.

In his interview with Univision “Al Punto”, Obama stated, “...the strong opposition to his plan is part of a political strategy”. It couldn't be possible that “the people” would have the voice of opposition, by their own accord. The GOP has stated their opposition in RNC Chairman Michael Steele's statement, “there is no way Obama can achieve his goals without raising taxes”, as reported by CBS. Though, the citizen has shown the voice of patriotic tradition.

The careered “two-party” antics have shown true light on the ultimate agenda of our elected officials. Neither party has shown an accountable explanation to their electors' concerns. The truth is that the citizens have reared their constitutional rights, and are standing strong with this accord. The “Elitist” must show reverence to their benefactors, and allow the accountability of answers to the “People”.

The office of the President of the United States of America must be shown due respect. In doing so, we need the same respect. When we speak, it is not necessarily an opposition. The voice may be that of concern and protectionism of our rights. These same rights allow for the proper function of government, and the reform, thereof. In conclusion I must again ask, “How are we to pay for such matters?”

“REFORM, REFORM, REFORM!”