October 2009 Archives

Today's New York Post is reporting that Dede Scozzafava, the Republican candidate for the House of Representatives in New York's 23rd District has suspended her campaign.   Mrs. Scozzafava was challenged on the left by a Democrat Party candidate, Bill Owens, and on the right by a Conservative Party candidate, Doug Hoffman. 

According to the article:

"A Siena Poll released this morning showed Owens picking up 36 percent of the vote, Hoffman with 35 percent, and Scozzafava taking only 20 percent."

This is a poll that is consistent with the grass roots activities that have been taking place around the country since last Spring.  Although Washington does not seem to notice, the American public is beginning to tire of big spending and big taxing. 

It is interesting to note that the article in the New York Post points out that Republican officials backed Doug Hoffman as soon as Mrs. Scozzafava withdrew from the race.  Are these the same tone-deaf officials that chose Mrs. Scozzafava (behind closed doors) to run for the House of Representatives in this district? 

The fact that Mrs. Scozzafava has dropped out of the race may preserve a Republican seat. However, if the Republican party leadership (and I use that word loosely) intends to win House and Senate seats in the future, they would do well to listen to the mood of the country. 

HR 3962 "Affordable Health Care For America" was introduced in the House of Representatives on Thursday.  On Thursday, Americans For Tax Reform printed a list of the new taxes the bill would create. 

• Employers who do not pay 72.5 percent of a single employees' health care premium or 65 percent of a family employee must pay an excise tax.  The percentage of the tax increases according to the amount of the payroll of the company.   (Page 275)
• If a person fails to obtain acceptable private healthcare coverage, he must pay a tax of 2.5 percent of modified adjusted gross income (MAGI) or the average premium.  (Page 296)
• Health savings accounts (HSAs), flexible spending accounts (FSAs), or health reimbursement arrangements (HRAs) could no longer be used to cover non-prescription medications (with the exception of insulin).  That means that over-the-counter allergy medicine or cough drops, etc. would no long be included.  (Page 324)
• There would be an annual cap on FSAs of $2500 (currently uncapped).  (Page 325)
• Non-qualified distributions from HSAs would face an additional tax of 20 percent (current law is 10 percent).  This disadvantages HSAs relative to other tax-free accounts (e.g. IRAs, 401(k)s, 529 plans, etc.).  (Page 326)
• No tax deduction for employer health plans coordinating with Medicare Part D.  (Page 327)
• Surtax on individuals and small businesses that would raise the top marginal tax rate in 2011 from 39.6 percent under current law to 45 percent--a new effective top rate.  (Page 336)
• Excise tax on medical device manufacturers equal to 2.5 percent of the wholesale price.  (Page 339)
• Requires that 1099-MISC forms be issued to corporations as well as persons for trade or business payments.  Current law limits to just persons for small business compliance complexity reasons.  Also expands reporting to exchanges of property. (Page 344)
• Delays for nine years the worldwide allocation of interest, a corporate tax relief provision from the American Jobs Creation Act.  (Page 345)
• Increases taxes on U.S. employers with overseas operations looking to avoid double taxation of earnings.  (Page 346)
• Empowers the IRS to disallow a perfectly legal tax deduction or other tax relief merely because the IRS deems that the motive of the taxpayer was not primarily business-related.  (Page 349)
• Publicly-traded partnerships and corporations with annual gross receipts in excess of $100 million have raised standards on penalties.  If there is a tax underpayment by these taxpayers, they must be able to prove that the estimated tax paid would have more likely than not been sufficient to cover final tax liability.  (Page 357)

I apologize for the length of this list, but actually I think Congress should apologize for the length of this list.  This is a disgusting government money and power grab that needs to be stopped in its tracks.  It took about twenty pages to create the American government, if Congress can't reform healthcare in less than fifty pages, they shouldn't call it reform.

According to the Yahoo News Honduras has accepted a deal which will allow for the return of  President Manuel Zelaya as President until January of 2010.  The article refers to the "military coup" that deposed Zelaya in June.  There was no military coup.  President Zelaya had put in motion an unconstitutional scheme that would allow him to become "President for Life"in the manner of Hugo Chavez.  In June, the Honduran court and legislature ruled that his planned ballot initiative that would allow him to continue his term as President was unconstitutional.  The ballots were supplied by Hugo Chavez!

The agreement to return Zelaya to power until January was reached with extreme pressure applied by the United States State Department.  I am really sorry to hear this--we used to stand up for democracy.  President Zelaya is strongly supported by such freedom loving people as Fidel Castro and his brother and Hugh Chavez.  Theirs in the side the United States has chosen in this situation.

According to the article:

"The United States, the European Union and Latin American leaders had all insisted Zelaya be allowed to finish his term and they threatened not to recognize the winner of the November election unless democracy was first restored.

"A U.S. team led by Assistant Secretary of State Tom Shannon and Dan Restrepo, Washington's special assistant for Western Hemisphere affairs, sat in on talks earlier in the day and warned that time was running out to reach a deal.

"The coffee-producing Central American country has been diplomatically isolated since Zelaya was rousted at dawn by soldiers on June 28 and flown to exile on a military plane.

"Zelaya had angered many in Honduras by becoming an ally of socialist Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez. Critics also alleged he was seeking backing to extend presidential term limits, a claim he denies.''

In the past, one of the ways to rate an American president was to evaluate the role he played in the spread of democracy around the world.  President Obama has not done very well in that respect.

Today's Washington Examiner has a staff editorial posted on the effect of the current Cap and Trade proposal on the environment.  The current Cap and Trade bill is very invasive and expensive and would have a very detrimental effect on the American economy--but it would also have a very detrimental effect on the environment!  

Princeton University's Tim Searchinger and his colleagues have discovered that "carbon reduction laws encourage widespread deforestation as trees and other vegetation are harvested to produce energy from biomass to replace oil and gas. The problem is that in long run, this process actually increases greenhouse gas emissions, which cap-and-trade is meant to reduce."

According to the article:

""By using a worldwide agricultural model to estimate emissions from land-use change, we found that corn-based ethanol, instead of producing a 20% savings, nearly doubles greenhouse emissions over 30 years and increases greenhouse gases for 167 years," the Princeton authors say. "Biofuels from switchgrass, if grown on U.S. corn lands, increase emissions by 50%." Neither the Kyoto Protocol, the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, nor existing European cap-and-trade programs have taken into account widespread deforestation as farmers worldwide respond to the new economic incentives, Searchinger added."

We saw a minor version of this disruption in farming when the US government subsidized ethanol--the price of corn jumped and groceries became more expensive.  We also have learned that without government money, ethanol is not practical.

Without the introduction of standardized nuclear plants (as in France), we will not be able to substantially cut our carbon emissions.  The demands of modern life give us two choices--build nuclear power plants or give up our standard of living.  I am willing to see our country build nuclear plants, I think France has shown that they can be operated safely, but I am unwilling to give drop my house temperature below 68 degrees in the winter or give up driving a car that is safe for me and my grandchildren. 

Newsbusters posted an article yesterday posing the questions the media had not asked regarding the video tapes made of ACORN employees offering to help a couple buy a house to set up a brothel with underage girls brought into the country from Central and South America.

Hannah Giles, the actress in the videos posted her set of questions the media has not asked.  Here is that list: 

• Baltimore-Why no mention of the toddlers that were in the room while James and I were being counseled on how to manage our underage prostitution ring?
• San Bernardino-The content of this video was largely ignored except for the part where Tresa Kaelke mentions she shot her husband. What about when she told us not to educate our sex-slaves because they won't want to work for us? Or when we talked about making more money off clients who are permitted to physically abuse the girls? What about the whole transport-the-girls-in-a-school-bus-to-avoid-suspicion discussion?...
• San Bernardino: What happened to the list of politicians that Ms. Kaelke rattled off when she spoke of her ACORN office's community involvement and influence? Has anyone set out to uncover just how close these politicians relationships are with the San Bernardino ACORN? Does anyone even remember the names?
• San Diego: Has anyone questioned why Juan Carlos would want to help smuggle girls across the Mexican border right after an ACORN-sponsored immigration parade???

Ms. Giles has written an article for Big Government asking these questions and a few others that most of the media has not been curious enough to ask.  The article asks some very good questions.

Today's New York Post posted an editorial by Scott Gottlieb, a physician and American Enterprise Institute resident fellow, who was a senior official at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and is partner to a firm that invests in health-care companies, on the effects of the healthcare bill produced by the Senate Finance Committee which is currently being modified in committee.

As it is currently crafted, the parts of the bill that insure more people and reduce insurance costs don't begin until years after the bill begins imposing large costs on consumers. 

According to the article:

"Starting in 2010, the bill would impose annual fees of $2.3 billion on brand-name drugs and $4 billion on medical devices, plus $6.7 billion on certain insurance providers -- and more than $100 billion in cuts to what Medicare pays to health-care providers. These costs will immediately shift onto consumers, in the form of higher prices on medical products and rising premiums.

"Meanwhile, the promised subsidies to help pay for insurance don't fully kick in until 2014. (And those subsidies only go to people earning below 300 percent of the poverty line, or about $66,000 for a family of four.)"

Evidently this was the only way to keep the first-10-years' cost under $900 billion.

What we have here is an accounting gimmick--something Congress is very good at putting forth.  What we need to do is make sure the whole plan is rejected and sent back to the drawing board.  If you really want to cut costs and insure more people, you need tort reform and insurance portability across state lines.  Until Congress puts those two things in a healthcare bill, I will not be convinced that they are actually serious about healthcare reform.

Yesterday's New York Post announced its endorsement of Doug Hoffman for Congress.  Sounds like your basic news story--a newspaper endorsing a candidate--but there is a lot more going on here behind the obvious. 

Doug Hoffman is running for a Congressional seat in New York's 23rd Congressional District.  Doug Hoffman is running as a Conservative.  The Republican candidate in that race, Assemblywoman Dede Scozzafava, was not chosen in a Republican primary election, but in a behind-closed-doors meeting of Republican Party Big Wigs.  She is not only a social liberal, but a tax and spend liberal who supports card check and is supported by the Working Families Party (which is closely aligned with ACORN.  The choice of Assemblywoman Scozzafava was tone deaf in terms of what has been happening around the country for the past six months.  A conservative revolt against the runaway spending of the Obama Administration is not a surprise, but the revolt is beginning to include nonconservatives alarmed by the rapid growth of the federal deficit.

This district has historically been a Republican district, but this election could change that.  The Republican Party needs to decide whether it is willing to listen to its members or continue to act like the Democrats.  To me, there is no difference between Ms. Scozzafava and the Democrat candidate.  If the Republicans lose the seat, that's too bad, but her voting record would not be any different than the Democrat candidate, so why support her?  Some Republicans have spoken out in support of Doug Hoffman, and I hope more will do so.  Until the Republican Party realizes that many Americans do not support unchecked growth of government, they will not have my support.

Yesterday's Washington Examiner posted an article showing that the Democrat party has not given up their support of ACORN.  Despite numerous lawsuits involving voter fraud and numerous videos showing ACORN employees aiding people they think are committing illegal acts, the Democrats still love them!

Last week the House Financial Services Committee was preparing to vote on legislation to create a new Consumer Financial Protection Agency when a fight erupted over ACORN.  Democrats offered an amendment that could allow ACORN and groups like it to participate in the new Consumer Financial Protection Agency they were creating.

The bill the Democrats were voting on set up two boards within the Consumer Financial Protection Agency, an Oversight Board and an Advisory Board.  The Republicans, knowing what would logically happen next, prepared an amendment to keep ACORN from being part of the Advisory Board, the less powerful of the two boards, figuring that the Democrats would not try to set up a place for ACORN on the more powerful Oversight Board.  Well, they were wrong.  So the Republicans have had to regroup. 

According to the article:

"(Representative Michelle) Bachmann knows that Democrats managed to open up the Oversight Board to ACORN and other groups without even being forced to publicly defend the decision. Now, she hopes they will be forced to vote up or down on a proposal to bar ACORN from the Oversight Board. "What we're going to try to do is offer an amendment when the bill goes to the floor," says Bachmann. "That's the goal -- to keep people who are from ACORN from serving on the Oversight Board.""

The bottom line here is very simple.  The Democrats do not want ACORN to lose either its government support or its power.  ACORN is one of the best sources of money and votes for the Democrat Party.  It will require extreme vigilance on the part of every honest Congressman to keep ACORN from regaining public funds and positions of power in Washington.  Hopefully there are enough people left in Washington who take their responsibilities seriously enough to want to keep our government honest.

Yesterday's Investor's Business Daily posted an editorial on the cash settlement paid to the "Flying Imams" by US Airways and Minneapolis airport police.  The case was brought in response to an incident three years ago at Minneapolis airport.

Six Islamic clerics were taken off a Phoenix-bound flight for behaving much like the 9/11 hijackers.  One of the things that raised the suspicions of the airline was that half of them had no luggage and had purchased one-way tickets.

According to the article:

"Some yelled "Allah, Allah, Allah," and changed their seats while asking for seat belt extensions they never used. Though situated throughout the cabin, the six men appeared to be acting in concert. Witnesses also said they loudly cursed the U.S."

The article details the Imams search for a court to hear their discrimination suit. 

The article also points out:

"The imams' attorney -- a board member of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, which financed the case -- says the deal involves an undisclosed amount paid to his clients by airport police. Details are sealed. The airport authority issued a statement saying insurance limits its liability to $50,000.

"The settlement of this case is a clear victory for justice and civil rights," said CAIR Executive Director Nihad Awad.""

We need to remember that the enemies of America study our court system carefully.  CAIR chooses its lawsuits very carefully to move the legal system in their direction.  Unfortunately this case will make the skies of America less safe as people are less willing to act in the face of inappropraite behavior.

Yesterday National Review posted an article by Duncan Currie taking a closer look at how many Americans do not have health insurance. 

The article states:

"According to the Census Bureau's Current Population Survey (CPS), that's roughly how many people (the more precise figure was 45.7 million) lacked health insurance at a given moment in 2007 -- nearly one-sixth of the entire U.S. population. The latest CPS data show that 46.3 million were uninsured at a given moment in 2008."

The article explains why that figure is misleading.  Economist Keith Hennessey has analyzed the numbers and come to a very different conclusion.  Many of the people currently enrolled in government insurance programs such as the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) were not counted as enrolled (a phenomenon known as the "Medicaid undercount").   Many people eligible for federal programs were not enrolled, some of the uninsured were illegal aliens, many were childless adults between 18 and 34 years old, and many of the uninsured were families earning well above the poverty level who simply chose not to have insurance.  When you eliminate all of the above groups of people, the number becomes about 10.6 million Americans who do not have health insurance.

The article concludes:

"The emergence of such a (dynamic, conpetitive market for individual insurance)...would not guarantee universal health-insurance coverage -- but neither would the Baucus bill, according to the CBO. Health-care reforms that reduced costs, increased value, enhanced insurance portability, improved transparency, and promoted competition would also substantially boost coverage. Lawmakers must remember that an expansion of insurance coverage could either mitigate or exacerbate America's underlying health-care problems, depending on how it is achieved. Implementing price controls and costly mandates would only make those problems worse."

We need to examine the history of the cost of government programs.  Government programs very rarely (if ever) cost less than their predicted cost.  The also tend to be less effective than the private sector because they do not have to be efficient--there is no reason to be efficient--there is no profit involved.  Please read the article at National Review.  It is long, but has a lot of good ideas on the subject of health insurance reform.

Today's New York Post has an opinion piece by Peter Brookes dealing with the changes America has made in the missile shield promised to Poland and the Czech Republic.  Vice-President Biden visited those two countries last week to explain the program the White House is planning to put in place there. 

The new plan for a missile defense shield is based on a new evaluation of existing intelligence on the Iranian ballistic-missile threat.  The Pentagon currently says that short and medium range missiles from Iran are more of a threat than any long range missiles.  The decision to use US Navy ships to defend Europe from Iranian missiles is a good idea if the threat is from short and medium range missiles; however, the system promised by the Bush Administration would also have been an early warning system to protect the US. 

The article points out the future dangers to the US in terms of our own missile shield:

"The Alaska and California sites could take out an Iranian ICBM targeted at much of the United States, but there are serious questions about coverage -- including New York and Washington -- because of the missiles' trajectory and range.

Worse yet, President Obama decided to reduce the number of West Coast interceptors from 40 to 30, which would limit the capability to take out incoming ICBMs, because several interceptors would be fired at each missile to ensure a kill.

That means there's a gap in our defenses against an Iranian ICBM strike until the land-based SM-3s are operational, which, by the way, will almost certainly face funding and engineering-development challenges.

In the end, the Biden proposal not only lags the Bush plan's deployment time frame, it's possibly more expensive and probably only equally as capable. Plus, the Russians (and Chinese) may try to get us to stand down on the new, "juiced" land-based SM-3, arguing that they're a counterspace weapon in the arms-control talks many think the Obama administration is interested in opening on the weaponization of space."

We currently live in a very complex world.  I am not sure our present administration is equipped to deal with the complexities of that world.

The Hill is reporting today that Senate Republican Conference Chairman Lamar Alexander said that the climate change bill currently being promoted by President Obama would "deliberately" kill American jobs. 

According to the article Senator Alexander has an alternative program to the one being discussed:

"...Alexander said he accepts the science behind global-warming and the need for a climate-change bill, but emphasized the Republican approach is superior. As he has for several weeks, Alexander said the country should devote itself to building 100 more nuclear power plants over the next 20 years, converting half of the country's autos to electricity in the next 20 years; increase offshore oil exploration and increase investments in energy research and development."

Democrat Senator John Rockefeller is also opposed to the current bill.  The current emission standards in the bill would devastate the coal industry in his state.

There is a related article in Newsweek this week about the negative effects of the amount of money being invested in green energy worldwide right now. 

The Newsweek article points out:

"Energy economist Manuel Frondel of Germany's RWI Institute says the country's lavish subsidies have blocked innovation and delayed the advent of cost-competitive solar power worldwide. For several years solar-module costs stagnated because German subsidies sucked up global production at virtually any price. Only when Spain decided in 2008 to scrap a similar subsidy scheme it had copied from the Germans did the global solar bubble collapse and costs fall. The German solar case also defies the green-jobs model. The idea is that subsidies create a new industry and a lot of high-tech jobs. Yet Germany's solar producers are downsizing. With little pressure to become efficient and cost--competitive, they are now getting crowded out by Chinese producers."

Government is never a successful innovator and more government subsidies do not lead to economic growth.  We need to use the energy we have in America as we let the marketplace freely determine our energy supplies of the future.

Hot Air posted an article today on Tim Pawlenty's comments of the New York 23rd Congressional District race. 

According to the article:

"Governor Pawlenty sent RedState the following statement:

"We cannot send more politicians to Washington who wear the Republican jersey on the campaign trail, but then vote like Democrats in Congress on issues like card check and taxes. After reviewing the candidates' positions, I'm endorsing Doug Hoffman in New York's special election. Doug understands the federal government needs to quit spending so much, will vote against tax increases, and protect key values like the right to vote in private in union elections.""

I understand that there is a fairly good chance that Tim Pawlenty will make a run for President in 2012.  I don't know if this statement was made with that in mind, but I totally agree with what Mr. Pawlenty said.  Bad policy is bad policy--it really doesn't matter which party enacts it.  The Congressional spending by Republicans under George Bush was deplorable (it would have been deplorable regardless of which party did it).  I realize that we are a country at war and that is expensive, but there is a lot of other spending that could easily be cut.  I hope more Republicans remember that they were sent to Washington to make government smaller--not drive the country into bankruptcy.

Yesterday the blog at the Weekly Standard posted an article on NATO's reaction to the delay in President Obama's committing more troops to Afghanistan.  This is an interesting situation.  President Bush tried very hard to obtain larger troop commitments from our NATO allies and was often unsuccessful.  In many cases when the troops were granted, they were restricted as to what their activities could be.  Now, as President Obama is still deciding what to do, in Germany Chancellor Angela Merkel is considering increasing the number of German troops and British Prime Minister Gordon Brown has stated that he will be sending 500 more troops to Afghanistan.

This reminds me of a debutante playing hard to get.  I don't think that President Obama necessarily planned it this way, but the results are interesting.  Because America is quietly stepping away from her role as the world's protector of freedom and democracy, the rest of the world is getting nervous.  The question is, "If America leaves a vacuum as it steps down from the role of world policeman, who will fill that role?"  I realize that some Americans will welcome the pulling back of America from its role, but we need to consider who will take our place and what they will stand for.  The logical successor to America as the leader of the world is China--it has the largest population and the strongest economy.  When you consider the civil rights record of China, I can understand why our NATO allies are getting nervous.

To me, the question is whether or not America has a responsibility to work toward freedom for everyone.  What form should that work take?  We have been free and prosperous for a long time.  Even in the current economic times, poor Americans have a standard of living that is the envy of many people in other countries.  What responsibility do we have to share our freedom and prosperity?

Ed Morrissey at Hot Air posted an article today about the profit margins of the insurance companies that the Democrats have so often characterized as greedy.  It turns out that according to their annual reports, health insurance profit margins typically run about 6 percent, give or take a point or two.  Last year they were very low.  Profits barely exceeded 2 percent of revenues in the latest annual measure. That doesn't seem particularly greedy to me.

In contrast, trial lawyers showed a profit margin of almost 14%,  I have never heard Democrats demonize trial lawyers because of their profit margin, despite the fact that it is more than six times the profit margin of insurance companies.  Donations by trial lawyers comprise a major part of Democrat fund raising, so I guess it's ok for them to have a large profit margin.

Anyway, next time you hear the Democrats talk about the greedy insurance companies, think about the greedy trial lawyers who support the Democrat party!

Power Line today posted an article by Scott Johnson.  The article lists statements by Kristofer Harrison, who served as the Chief of Staff to the Counselor of the Secretary of State during the Bush administration.  Mr. Harrison writes to comment on Paul Mirengoff's post "No class, bad character" on Dick Cheney's speech this past week, Stephen Hayes's Weekly Standard article "Obama's minions are ingrates," and Scott's post "No class, bad character: The inside story".

Mr. Harrison confirms that both presidential candidates were briefed on Afghanistan before the election.  He confirms the fact that the Obama administration asked the Bush administration to keep the findings of their in-depth study of Afghanistan secret. 

Mr. Harrison points out:

"In March, when Obama announced his new Afghanistan strategy, I did not notice a single change from the new plan that we had given him...only Obama did not resource it with enough troops."

The Power Line article points out that in blaming President Bush for not giving him information on the situation in Afghanistan does not affect President Bush--the stalling in sending more troops does, however, affect the troops on the ground now.  This is the kind of political game that the Democrat party played in Viet Nam that caused the unnecessary deaths of many American soldiers.  I hope President Obama is not going to do the same thing again. 

Last week, Sky News posted a story about the death of a British Nuclear Expert.  The man fell from the 17th floor of the United Nations offices in Vienna.  It has been reported that four months ago another UN worker also believed to be British fell from a similar height in the same building. 

According to the article:

"The latest incident happened on Tuesday as the United States, France, Russia and Iran held talks nearby about Tehran's nuclear programme."

The man who fell worked for the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization, an international agency charged with uncovering illicit nuclear tests.

I originally came across this article at Lucianne.com.  Based on the comments at that website, the average American internet reader is not very trusting of official reports regarding the death of nuclear experts.  The timing of the man's death does make me wonder, although a UN spokesman in the Austrian capital said there were no "suspicious circumstances" surrounding the man's death.

Hot Air posted an article today by Ed Morrissey addressing the question as to whether or not mandatory healthcare is constitutional.  I am by no means a legal scholar, and much of the argument was way above my pay grade, but the case Mr. Morrissey made was interesting.

In response to an argument made by Kathy Kattenburg at The Moderate Voice, Mr. Morrissey points out:

"I'll allow for the sake of argument that the government has a several-decades-old precedent for establishing government delivery of medical care, but Medicare and Medicaid are entirely voluntary. No American citizen is forced to accept Medicare or Medicaid, as anyone arguing on behalf of the "47 million uninsured Americans" should know.  Several million of the uninsured are people with eligibility in one of these federal programs who have declined to enter them."

There are a few aspects of this question I had not considered.  When required health insurance is compared to required car insurance, the argument falls down--driving a car is a privilege--it is optional.  If you don't want to be required to purchase car insurance, you can choose not to drive.  If you don't want to be required to purchase medical insurance, refusing to see a doctor or obtain medical care is not really an option.  Breathing is not optional. 

I love this story.  Power Line posted a story yesterday about 24 50-inch flat screen television sets that the State of Minnesota had purchased for a facility in Moose Lake that houses sex offenders.  Good grief!  Governor Tim Pawlenty heard about the purchase and had the television sets distributed among four Minnesota homes for veterans instead.  Wow!!  I am impressed.  Can Governor Pawlenty come to Massachusetts for a while?

Freedom of the press no longer involves companies with large printing presses who buy ink by the ton.  Today's press includes television, radio, newspapers, and the internet.  Some of these sources are slanted toward one opinion and admit it; some of these sources are slanted toward one opinion and don't admit it.  Some of our news sources are not news sources--they are opinion sources.  There really is nothing wrong with that as long as the people consuming the news are aware of what they are consuming.  The problem occurs when opinions are stated as facts or facts are left out of the story.  That is part of the cause of the deep political divide in this country right now.   Conservatives and liberals are not always working from the same fact base, and not everyone has all the information they need to form opinions.

Having said that, there were two articles up on the internet last week that may be an indication of danger to our current freedom to access information.  The first article is at the Wall Street Journal's Best of the Web column yesterday.  The second article is at Breitbart.com.

The Wall Street Journal article reminds us of Saul Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals," published in 1971.  I have cited this book before as a guide to how the Obama Administration deals with opposition.  Four of the rules from "Rules for Radicals" that we are seeing play out here as we watch the war on Fox News are as follows:

1.  Pick the target.

2.  Freeze the target (freeze the perception of the target by the public).

3.  Personalize the target (separate it from the other media).

4.  Polarize it (recommend that other media disregard Fox News).

The idea here is to take out Fox with the consent of the other media.  This also serves as a warning to other media to be careful what stories they cover.

The second internet article that got my attention was the announcement at Breitbart that the FCC is going to begin crafting "net neutrality" rules.  According to this article:

"FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski said regulations are needed to ensure that broadband subscribers can access all legal Web sites and services, including Internet calling applications and video sites that compete with the broadband companies' core businesses."

No they're not.  Anytime the government regulates something, they make it worse.  Politics comes into play, and life gets very complicated.  The dangers of having a 'government regulated' internet outweigh anything that may be happening now that is unfair.  The danger here is that new laws would be passed to favor companies that are in political favor with whatever administration is in power.  We have seen this type of favoritism in the way the stimulus money was distributed, the way the auto industry was taken over, and the way Fox News has been dealt with.  Why in the world would we want to pass laws that encourage more of this type of behavior?  

I realize this article may not belong in the midst of what is an attempt at serious political commentary, but I will miss Soupy Sales.  I spent my teenage years in New Jersey, about thirty minutes outside of New York City.  After my classmates and I outgrew American Bandstand, we turned to Soupy Sales when we came home from school.  I really can't say what his humor was, but we all loved him.  He represents a time when television stars were gentlemen, well-mannered, and freely gave autographs.  He will be missed.

Fox News has posted the Associated Press write-up on his career.

Fox News today posted the story on what happened at the White House yesterday when President Obama tried to exclude Fox News from a briefing by "pay czar" Kenneth Feinberg.  Mr Feinberg was going to be available for interviews to every member of the White House pool except Fox News. The pool is the five-network rotation that for decades has shared the costs and duties of daily coverage of the presidency.

The Washington bureau chiefs of the five TV networks decided that if Fox News was not included, they did not want to do the interviews.  Because the other networks took a stand to defend Fox News, the White House backed down and gave Fox News access to the "pay czar."  The Obama Administration has been at war with Fox News for some time now; when President Obama made his rounds of the Sunday talk shows recently, he omitted Fox News.  This is very petty behavior on the part on the President.

Power Line last night posted a very good article on the pay cuts being put in place by the Pay Czar.  Aside from the basic question, "Where is the pay czar in the Constitution?", there are some interesting repercussions on this legislation.

The pay cuts, expected to be significant, only apply to certain companies.  Some executives are expected to receive cuts of as much as 90 per cent (For many of the executives, the cash they would have received will be replaced by stock that they will be restricted from selling immediately).  As a taxpayer who helped bail out these companies, you may agree with that, but stop and think a minute about the law of unintended consequences.  These executives are not stupid people.  In most cases, the problems these companies encountered had more to do with government policies on sub-prime mortgages than they did with executive decisions.  I am sure the majority of these executives have impressive resumes. 

The salaries of the executive positions were cut--there is nothing written anywhere that says that the people currently in those positions have to stay there--I am sure they are updating their resumes as I write this. 

The article at Power Line lists many of the aspects of the move to control executive salaries that have been overlooked thus far in the discussion.  Please read it for more information on the consequences of this action.

The two sources for this story are The Hill (an article posted last night) and Thomas.gov (the Congressional website that gives information on votes and activities in Congress on a daily basis).

Yesterday in the Senate twelve Democrats and one Independent joined all Republicans to defeat a bill to halt Medicare cuts affecting doctors.  (Just as a side note, if the fact that Olympia Snow voted to get healthcare out of committee and onto the Senate floor, makes that a bipartisan vote and signals cooperation, isn't this vote bipartisan?)   The tactic here was to keep this aspect of healthcare out of the healthcare reform bill as it would increase the cost of the bill and make it harder to pass the bill.  The change that was voted down will have to be dealt with in some way in the near future, but evidently some Congressmen did not want to be a part of pulling the wool over the public's eyes in terms of passing this separately.

The link provided above to Thomas.gov has the specifics of the vote.  The hope was that the passage of this legislation would convince doctors in the AMA to support the larger healthcare reform package that Congress is putting together. 

Harry Reid is, of course, blaming the Republicans, but if all the Democrats had voted for halting cuts in Medicare reimbursement fees, the measure would have passed.  It was defeated in a bipartisan manner--not along party lines.

The full test of the speech Dick Cheney gave last night is at The Weekly Standard blog.

The source of this story is Fox News.  Regardless of how you feel about Dick Cheney, he tends to be blunt.  Yesterday, he responded to the Obama Administration's charge by White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel that the Obama administration had to form an Afghan war strategy from scratch because the Bush administration hadn't asked any key questions about the war and left it "adrift."

According to Mr. Cheney, the Bush administration had developed a new strategy on the war in Afghanistan before leaving office -- a strategy that he said "bears a striking resemblance" to the one announced by President Obama in March.  The Bush Administration was asked not to reveal their strategy publicly and complied with that request. 

The claim that there was no strategy when President Obama took office has been one of the excuses used to justify the dithering about following the recommendations of General McChrystal. 

According to the article:

"(Rahm) Emanuel told CNN that the president is "asking the questions that have never been asked on the civilian side, the political side, the military side and the strategic side."

"It's clear that basically we had a war for eight years that was going on, that's adrift, that we're beginning at scratch, just at the starting point...and that there's not a security force, an army, and the types of services that are important for the Afghans to become a true partner.""

The lack of honesty and transparency of this administration is unbelievable.  At some point, President Obama needs to stop whining about what everyone else has or hasn't done and step up to the plate and deal with the issues of the day.

Despite the fact that Congress years ago passed a resolution to recognize an undivided Jerusalem as the capital of Israel (a resolution that has never been carried out), the State Department has a different take on the subject.

According to Huliq News, the children born to American citizens living in Jerusalem, whether in West or East Jerusalem, are not recognized by the US State Department as being born in Israel. 

According to the article:

"However, regarding births in any of the Arab towns or Jewish communities, the rules read "The birthplace for people born in the West Bank or in the No Man's Lands between the West Bank and Israel is WEST BANK...Those born in 1948 or later may have their city of birth as an alternate entry."

This situation, protest Jewish Americans living in the area, is illogical. The "West Bank" never existed as a geo-political entity until 1950, when Jordan annexed the area. That annexation was never recognized by the United States. Moreover, the place names used by the British Mandate as well as by the United Nations in its 1947 Partition Resolution, the same decision the US uses to avoid listing Jerusalem as in Israel, were actually "Judea" and "Samaria. A baby born to American citizens in Shiloh, for example, should be registered as "Shiloh, Samaria"."

Does this mean that children born in Texas are Mexican?  Israel is the only country in the world that when she was attacked and defeated her attackers was not allowed to keep the land she gained. 

To quote Walid Shoebat, "Why is it that on June 4th 1967 I was a Jordanian and overnight I became a Palestinian?"

This is the stupidity of the worldwide war that is happening against Israel.

Today's St. Petersburg Times posted an article by Dave Mica on the benefits offshore drilling would bring to the American economy.

Mr. Mica points out:

"According to an ICF International study, commissioned by the American Petroleum Institute, development of America's vast domestic oil and natural gas resources that had been kept off-limits by Congress for decades could generate $1.7 trillion in revenue for federal, state and local government. According to the same study, domestic development could also create thousands of well-paying jobs. Given the benefits, why does the administration continue to delay new and increased development?"

While the American Congress prohibits American companies from offshore drilling, other countries (less careful about the environment) are drilling in these waters.  It is economic foolishness to keep any restrictions on offshore drilling for American companies in place. 

There are a lot of complex issues involved in the energy debate.  What would be the impact of American oil independence?  There is a move right now to make the American dollar no longer the currency used to buy oil.  If America were oil independent, would this matter?  Our dollars would be going to American companies--balancing our trade and putting Americans to work.  I also wonder how powerful OPEC would be if America were energy independent. 

There is also another issue here that may be below the radar.  In the 1970's an agreement was made with Saudi Arabia that we would support their government in exchange for their support of the dollar being used to trade oil.  That explains a lot of the schizophrenic policies we have had toward Saudi Arabia over the years.  Offshore drilling would make that a moot point and might result in saner policies in the Middle East.

Why is our government unwilling to reach for energy independence?

Yes, I realize that statement is inflammatory, but it is also true.  General McChrystal asked for reinforcements in August; it is criminal to leave troops there without providing the requested reinforcements.

Investor's Business Daily (now Investors.com) posted an editorial yesterday on the need to follow the recommendations of General McChrystal.  The article points out that although the election was far from perfect, the election is not the sole reason we are there.  I would also like to point out that in Iraq, an entire section of the population boycotted the first election.  We continued our mission to bring order to the country, and those people voted in the next election.  To deny our troops the reinforcements they need because of an imperfect election is reckless and puts our troops at risk.  It also emboldens the terrorists we are trying to defeat.

Where was all this concern about honest elections in Iran and Venezuela?

The article points out:

"The delay makes winning more difficult, and it's a betrayal of U.S. troops who are fighting and dying in a war they can't suspend just to let Afghanistan get its electoral act together. The troops need backup, and to them more support is not a political carrot."

If the request for more troops is not granted in a timely manner, we can expect to see more American and civilian deaths in Afghanistan while the President dithers.  We could also see the terrorism against Pakistan increase and the nuclear arsenal that Parkistan possesses fall into terrorist hands.  That would be a horrible nightmare for the free world.

I am a football fan.  I live about ten minutes from where the New England Patriots play.  Having spent my teenage years in New Jersey, I am a Jets fan, but I still like the Patriots.  I watched Sunday's game from the comfort of my living room as I watched the snow fall outside--in October!!  I felt sorry for Tennessee--I think they just wanted to go home.

The current consensus of opinion is that since 1998, the earth is cooling.  There are a number of theories as to why that is happening, my favorite website on global warming is Watts Up With That.  If you want to follow the science of climate change, that is a good place to do it. 

This is not an article about global warming; it is an article about what is being planned to combat global warming regardless of whether or not it is actually happening.

Human Events posted an article yesterday about the Congressional law requiring all of us to use compact fluorescent bulb -- CFLs.  The mandatory phase-out of incandescent bulbs starts in 2012.  Let's look at the CFL's for a moment.  CFLs contain mercury, a hazardous waste, so the EPA wants you to discard them only according to its guidelines. 

In his article at Human Events Ernest Istook points out:

"My complaints are widely-held but poorly-publicized. Buried in the back pages are details about the new bulbs: poorer quality lighting; overstated claims of long life; and that they're mostly (80%) made in China."

In the name of preserving the planet, we are shipping jobs overseas to a country that does not have the anti-pollution standards that we have.  That makes a lot of sense.

Watts Up With That has the video of a speech given by Lord Monckton October 14th, 2009 at a climate skeptic event sponsored by the Minnesota Free Market Institute.  They also have the powerpoint presentation he used.  For me, the bottom line on this speech is his comment on the United Nations Climate Change Treaty:

 "I have read that treaty.  And what it says is this: That a world government is going to be created.  The word "government" actually appears as the first of three purposes of the new entity.  The second purpose is the transfer of wealth from the countries of the West to Third World countries, in satisfaction of what is called, coyly, "a climate debt," because we have been burning CO2 and they haven't and we've been screwing up the climate.  We haven't been screwing up the climate, but that's the line.  And the third purpose of this new entity, this government is "enforcement.""

To be totally honest, I don't know what to think of this.  I know that the majority of Americans do not want to be part of a treaty that takes away our sovereignty.  I hope the President and Congress read this treaty carefully before taking any action on it.

Power Line posted an article yesterday detailing the negotiations currently going on in Vienna concerning Iran's nuclear program. 

The government of Iran is telling the Iranians that the Obama administration has consented to Iranian enrichment of uranium.  Power Line earlier reported on the Iranian mullahs' official Friday night sermon (which essentially stated that Iran had won the right to have nuclear weapons).

The article posted yesterday reports:

"Iran repudiated the deal. Now, Iran wants a foreign country, France or someone else, to ship it the nuclear material it needs for civilian purposes, but it wants to keep its own enriched uranium at home:

The move came as Iranian officials held talks with representatives of America, France and Russia in Vienna. An earlier meeting in Geneva on Oct 1 had yielded an agreement which some saw as a possible breakthrough.

Iran has amassed at least 1.4 tons of low-enriched uranium inside its underground plant in Natanz. If this was further enriched to weapons-grade level - a lengthy process - it would be enough for one nuclear weapon.

But Iran agreed to export 75 per cent of this stockpile to Russia and then France, where it would have been converted into fuel rods for use in a civilian research reactor in Tehran. This would have been a significant step towards containing Iran's nuclear ambitions.

Before talks, however, Iranian officials signalled they would renege."

Hopefully it will occur to someone in the Obama Administration that the more time we spend in negotiations with Iran, the more time they have to perfect their nuclear weapons and delivery systems.  The time for negotiations is over; the time for action is here.  It is a shame that neither the UN or the US has the political will to impose strong sanctions--in not doing anything both the UN and the US have made the world less safe.  It will probably be left to the Israelis to solve the problem, and the world will condemn them for their solution (while many countries silently breathe a sigh of relief!).

There are two sources for this article, Politico, which is reporting on the healthcare bill that has come out of the Finance Committee, and The Hill, which is reporting on the deal offered to doctors in return for their support of the bill.

Politico reports:

The bill that has come out of the Finance Committee is 1,502 pages long.  Politico has a link to the entire bill, but also posts highlights at the link above.  Some of the highlights:

Some of the Senators are concerned that the tax on high-end health insurance plans will also be levied on plans that are not so high end.  The 40 percent tax on high-end insurance plans will apply to plans that cost an individual more than $8,000 and a family more than $21,000 would be taxes.  That's a plan costing a family $1,750 a month.  That is not high end.  In Massachusetts, that's probably low for a good plan.

This is not the final form of the bill.  Senate Majority Leader Reid and Sens. Max Baucus and Chris Dodd along with senior White House aides are merging the Finance and Health Committee legislation into one bill that will be considered on the floor of the Senate.  This will go on behind closed doors, and we probably won't have a chance to study the bill that comes out of that merge.  So far, there is no transparency in this process.

The Hill reports:

Senator Harry Reid met with doctors' groups last week and said the Senate would consider legislation separate from the healthcare bill to halt scheduled Medicare cuts in doctor payments over the next 10 years.  Senator Reid stated that in return he expected doctors to support his healthcare reform bill.  Senator Reid also asked doctors not to push for tort reform in the legislation.  Trial lawyers are a major part of the Democrat party donors, and those lawyers oppose tort reform.

I am also convinced that the purpose of the $250 payment to senior citizens who are not getting a cost of living increase in their Social Security payments is to distract them from what the Obama Administration is about to do to their Medicare coverage.

Healthcare reform without tort reform and without portability of personal healthcare insurance across state lines is not healthcare reform--it is only a government takeover of the healthcare insurance industry.

The Hill's Blog Briefing Room is reporting today that Senator Joseph Lieberman (the Independent from Connecticut) will hold hearings on Thursday to explore the role of 'czars' in the executive branch. 

According to the article:

"Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) will convene the Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee on Thursday to explore "The Past, Present, and Future of Policy Czars.""

Why is it that an independent Senator has the intestinal fortitude to do this and the Republicans in Congress do not? 

Some of the witnesses at the hearing will be former Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge, George Mason University Professor James Piffner, Attorney Lee A. Casey, and Harold Relyea, a former researcher at the Congressional Research Service.

Previous Presidents have also appointed 'czars'.  The issue is what the specific responsibilities of the czars are and whether or not they are involved in determining policy.  They are not confirmed by the Senate and there is some real question as to whether or not they are constitutional.

The Blog at the Weekly Standard posted an article by William Kristol yesterday about the delay in sending more troops to Afghanistan.  As the mother-in-law of a Marine headed there shortly, I am very interested in this debate.

According to the article:

""It would be reckless to make a decision on U.S. troop level if, in fact, you haven't done a thorough analysis of whether, in fact, there's an Afghan partner ready to fill that space that the U.S. troops would create and become a true partner in governing the Afghan country." -- White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, on CNN today (Sunday)"

William Kristol has four arguments against this statement:

1.  Many of the people in the current White House were against sending more troops even before the election in Afghanistan took place.  Rahm Emanuel and Joe Biden were both on the record as opposing more troops. 

2.  President Obama announced his Afghanistan strategy on March 27.  The Obama team had months to move to insure that the election would be carried out honestly.  There was no doubt that without political and diplomatic moves, the election would be corrupt.  Then, on August 17, President Obama restated his commitment to win in Afghanistan, when it was known that the election would be corrupt.  Now the administration is acting as if a corrupt election was a surprise.

3.  If the White House complained about General McChrystal publicly stating his opinions about what was needed to win the war, what is the justification for Rahm Emanuel going on CNN and voicing his opinion?

4.  The policy of delay is stupid and reckless.  We are leaving 68,000 undersupplied troops in Afghanistan to do a job that requires 108,000.  When you consider the lessons learned (we hope) in Iraq, this is foolish.  The political history in that part of the world shows that the people in Afghanistan will side with the group they feel will protect them and that will stand with them against the weaker group.  There is no morality involved; it is matter of survival. 

There were a number of things that turned the tide is Iraq.  One was the troop surge which allowed us to bring peace to troubled areas and stabilize the situation.  The other thing that made a difference in Iraq was the unbelievable cruelty practiced by Al Qaeda in Iraq against the Iraqis. 

Afghanistan has lived under the Taliban.  They know what it is like.  The women in that country know what it is like.  The dithering at the White House may cost us our allies in the region and it will definitely cost American lives.  President Obama needs to live up to his campaign pledges and do what we need to do to win.

Friday's Washington Examiner posted an article on the difficulties of claiming 'global warming' when looking at the recent weather statistics and the statistics for the past ten years.  The article points out:

"...what has happened is global temperatures have dropped every year since 1998, recent peer-reviewed research has uncovered the decisive influence of hot and cold cycles in the oceans on land temperatures, and growing numbers of scientists with unquestioned credentials are stepping forward to question the conventional wisdom."

The bottom line here is that we don't know all we think we know!  The raw data on which the landmark 1996 United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change based its conclusion has been destroyed.  The University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit has discarded the data that the 1996 United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change used to conclude that the earth was warming rapidly due to carbon emissions.  The data that was used to predict the end of the world in five years due to global warming has disappeared.

The article points out:

"The Competitive Enterprise Institute has formally requested that the Environmental Protection Agency, which helps fund CRU, "reopen the record" and allow CEI and others to submit newly uncovered information regarding the East Anglia data destruction. The conservative think tank also wants to submit information about flaws in other data EPA is using as it devises stringent new anti-global warming regulations. Congress should also investigate the dumping of data partially paid for by U.S. taxpayers and other suspicious global warming anomalies, such as the temperature readings taken from "ghost weather stations" like the one at Maine's Ripogenus Dam. It was officially closed in 1995 but allegedly is still transmitting climate data 14 years later. Such questionable data sources must be eliminated if credible policy decisions are ever to be reached."

Does it make sense to cripple the United States economy for an idea based on questionable data that has been destroyed?  As this discussion continues, I would like to point out that it snowed yesterday in Massachusetts.  That is the earliest snowfall we have had in thirty years.

There is a new website on the internet.  Keep America Safe was started by Elizabeth L. Cheney, Debra Burlingame, and William Kristol.  To learn more about the unique qualifications of each of these people, please follow the link to Board Members/Keep America Safe. 

"The mission of Keep America Safe is to provide information for concerned Americans about critical national security issues. Keep America Safe seeks to influence public policy by encouraging dialogue between American citizens and their elected representatives in order to produce legislation and executive action that enhances the national security of the United States."

This is a very informative website, particularly in terms of explaining the history of some of the events we see unfolding around us.  Please check it out!

Investor's Business Daily posted an article Friday about the success of tort reform in Texas.  Texas instituted tort reform about six years ago to solve its medical malpractice lawsuit overabundance. 

There were three basic areas of change in the tort laws:

1.  In order to sue a medical care provider, an expert report was required within120 days of filing the suit stating that the doctor being sued committed a medical error that caused injuries.  This meant that medical evidence had to accompany the suit--cutting down on the number of frivolous lawsuits. 

2.  A cap was placed on noneconomic damages.  In Texas, that cap only applies to those damages that are not capable of an objective value, 

According to the article:

"The combination of prohibiting doctors and health care providers from being exposed to unlimited and arbitrary awards, and requiring an actual medical report at the outset, have cut the number of medical malpractice lawsuits in Texas in half."

3.  The law was changed so that the actual lawsuit amount paid had to equal the actual amount paid by the claimant in expenses.

What are the consequences of these three simple changes in the law?  According to the article:

"These common-sense reforms have led to a massive increase in the accessibility of health care in Texas, huge growth in the capital infrastructure of hospitals and clinics, hundreds of millions of dollars more each year in charity care and Texas' adding more than 16,000 new doctors in just six years.

"And in reducing the actual number of suits to those in which claims are meritorious -- a recent Harvard study concluded that up to 85% of all lawsuits brought against medical providers were frivolous -- we have created a more equitable system of justice."

The lesson of Texas tort reform is very simple--common sense can solve a problem without having to spend billions of dollars.  I wish Congress were paying attention to that lesson. 

This is not a partisan article.  Both Democrats and Republicans have been fast and loose with taxpayer money.  That fact is about to catch up with us as the rest of the world debates moving away from the dollar as the global currency.  So what does Congress do--lie to us about increaseing spending!

According to The Hill in its Blog Briefing Room, Senate Democrats are planning to reform Medicare doctor payments separately of their larger healthcare bill.  Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) stated yesterday that this was a gimmick to make the cost of the healthcare bill appear lower than it actually is. 

According to the article:

"The so-called "doc fix" -- which lawmakers typically pass every year -- combats staggering, annual decreases in Medicare reimbursement payments to physicians and hospitals. Democrats this year want to pass a robust, $250-billion, 10-year overhaul of the formula used to determine those payments, but Republicans are growing increasingly concerned by how lawmakers plan to pay for it -- an argument Hatch advanced again on Friday."

The "doc fix" is needed on a regular basis to insure that doctors do not stop taking Medicare patients.  The "doc fix" is one Medicare expense that will continue to increase even if healthcare reform passes.  The real problem with the healthcare bill is that it makes serious cuts in other areas of Medicare in order to insure young people who may or may not be able to afford health insurance.  You really can't insure the entire population of the country without either increasing the total cost of insurance or making cuts somewhere.  The current healthcare proposal has chosen to make cuts at the expense of senior citizens.

According to yesterday's Wall Street Journal, the House Oversight Committee was scheduled to meet Thursday afternoon to mark up several minor pieces of legislation.  According to the article:

"California Republican Darrell Issa notified committee Chairman Edolphus Towns that Mr. Issa would call for a vote to subpoena Countrywide documents from Bank of America, which bought the failed subprime lender last year."

When Mr. Issa and the GOP members of the committee sat waiting for the meeting to begin, Democrats huddled in a back room without explanation. Thirty-five minutes later, the committee announced that the meeting had been postponed indefinitely.  The article further reminds us:

"Recall that, under the "Friends of Angelo" program, named for former Countrywide CEO Angelo Mozilo, Democratic Senators Chris Dodd and Kent Conrad received sweetheart deals on home mortgages. Mr. Issa wants to uncover the full story on Countrywide's effort to influence Washington policy makers."

Does anyone want to make any guesses as to when this committee will meet again and if they will find a way to avoid the subpoenas.

Yesterday The Hill (Blog Briefing Room) reported that Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.) stated that the healthcare bill that came out of the Finance Committee was not bi-partisan.  He stated that early negotiations excluded key committee members for the sake of a proposal that ultimately "wasn't bipartisan,"

The article quotes Senator Rockefeller:

"That's what happened on the stimulus bill ... we got one vote on the stimulus bill and it was always referred to as [the] bipartisan stimulus bill," Rockefeller added. "It wasn't, it wasn't -- it was us plus Olympia ... it's game-playing."

I appreciate his honesty--one Republican vote does not make a bill bi-partisan! 

The information in this article comes from two sources, the New York Post and Power Line. Turkey has been leaning toward radical Islam for a while.  In 2003, the country refused to allow American troops access to their country in order to invade Iraq from the north.  Last week, they refused to let Israel participate in the NATO exercise "Anatolian Eagle", which is a regularly scheduled military exercise along the Turkish border.  Because Israel was not allowed to participate, American withdrew and the exercise was cancelled.  This is not really a change of direction, but a leap forward in a direction that does not mean good things for western countries.

The article in the New York Post points out what happened after the NATO exercise was cancelled:

"A day later, Turkish and Syrian officials disclosed that their armies had just concluded their own joint military exercise. The same day, the two countries went even further, signing a strategic cooperation pact."

Part of this is related to the fact that Turkey has been kept out of the European Union.  You really can't blame the country for looking for an alternative group that would accept it.  Turkish society is becoming more economically comfortable and there is a desire to get along with its neighbors.  In drawing closer to its Arab and Muslim neighbors, Turkey has aired a new drama series on TV which depicts Israeli soldiers as cold-blooded killers who enjoy shooting at defenseless Palestinian children.  This sort of television is one of many reasons that the Jews and the Arabs have a difficult time making peace with each other!

Power Line points out:

"As for the Obama administration, since entering office in January it has abandoned US support for democracy activists throughout the world, in favor of a policy of pure appeasement of US adversaries at the expense of US allies. In keeping with this policy, President Barack Obama paid a preening visit to Ankara where he effectively endorsed the Islamization of Turkish foreign policy that has moved the NATO member into the arms of Teheran's mullahs. Taken together, the actions of the Bush and Obama White Houses have demoralized Westernized Turks, who now believe that their country is doomed to descend into the depths of Islamist extremism."

Unfortunately, since the Obama Administration took office, the number of people in the world willing to take a stand for democratic government has decreased drastically.  I hope that by the end of President Obama's term America will have some credibility left both as an ally and a supporter of democracy. 

  

Wednesday's Orlanda Sentinel is reporting that a Florida judge has ruled that Rifqa Bary will be sent back to Ohio and placed with a foster family so that the question of returning her to her parents can be settled in Ohio.  Orange County Circuit Judge Daniel Dawson has, however, refused to move the case to Ohio until the matter of the girl's immigration status is settled.  The judge has asked for Rifqa Bary's immigration documents twice, and so far they have not been produced.  It is interesting that according to a previous article at Right Wing Granny the Washington Times reported that Refqa's father had sold his business and made plans to return to Sri Lanka as soon as he found out that she had become a Christian.

Jeff Jacoby at the Boston Globe posted an article on August 10, 2008, about honor killings and the fact that they were happening in America.  There were a number of cases he cited where fathers or brothers had killed young girls because the girls had refused arranged marriages, dated someone outside the faith, or done something to 'dishonor the family.'  Unfortunately, I believe that if Rifqa Bary is sent back to her family, that will be her fate.  Either the judge does not understand the Muslim tradition of honor killings for renouncing Islam or he is choosing to ignore it.  Hopefully if this case makes it to Ohio, the judge will be more familiar with the underside of the Muslim culture.

Today's Power Line posted an article on the Pay Czar's decision that Ken Lewis, Chairman of the Board of Bank of America, would work for free in 2009.  Not only will he not be paid for the rest of the year, he has been asked to return the $1 million he has already received this year.  Mr. Lewis agreed to the decision, stating that "he felt it was not in the best interest of Bank of America for him to get involved in a dispute with the paymaster."

Aside from the obvious question of the government determining anyone's salary, there are some other interesting things to look at here. 

According to the article:

"... Lewis took on the federal government by testifying that Fed chief Ben Bernanke and Henry Paulson, a Democrat who was then Secretary of the Treasury, bullied him into committing what was, in effect, an egregious violation of the securities laws. Bank of America was due to close on its purchase of Merrill Lynch, and Lewis knew that Merrill's value was plummeting. Lewis testified under oath that Paulson and Bernanke threatened to fire the entire management and board of Bank of America, including Lewis, if Lewis backed out of the Merrill deal or communicated to the bank's shareholders what a bad deal the purchase had become."

Essentially the government forced him to violate his duty to his shareholders in order to advance the government's objectives.

The Obama Administration is very willing to attack anyone who gets in the way of their policies or disagrees with them.  This is another example of that willingness.  If Mr. Lewis had kept quiet about the pressure the Obama Administration put on him, he would probably still be collecting a salary.  Is this the way the Constitution is written? 

Today's Wall Street Journal posted an article speaking out against the National Football League's treatment of Rush Limbaugh as a minority investor in the St. Louis Rams.  The article was too polite to mention that the Rams have an 0 and 5 record this year, and any change anywhere would probably be an improvement.

Evidently, part of the problem here is the upcoming contract talks between the player representatives and the league owners regarding a collective bargaining agreement.  The fact that Rush Limbaugh would be drawn into that is a bit ridiculous.   Actually, the whole thing would be laughable if it were not an indication of what is happening to free speech in this country.  Evidently politically incorrect speech is not acceptable and can prevent you from pursuing dreams that otherwise would be attainable.

The Wall Street Journal article points out:

"What happened here, and is happening elsewhere in American life, is that Mr. Limbaugh's outspoken political conservatism is being deemed sufficient reason to ostracize him from polite society. By contrast, MSNBC's Keith Olbermann, who fires off his own brand of high-velocity, left-wing political commentary but lacks Mr. Limbaugh's sense of humor, appears weekly as co-host of NBC's "Football Night in America." We haven't heard anyone on the right say Mr. Olbermann's nightly ad-hominem rants should disqualify him from hanging around the NFL. Al Franken made it all the way to the U.S. Senate on a river of political vitriol."

We all need to remember that when one person loses his right to speak freely without fear of consequences, we all lose that right!

Today's Washington Times posted an article about the White House war against Fox News.  According to the article:

"Last weekend, the Obama administration declared war. "We're going to treat [Fox News] the way we would treat an opponent," said Anita Dunn, White House communications director. She claimed, "We don't need to pretend that this is the way that legitimate news organizations behave." The administration has begun using a government blog to regularly attack what it calls "Fox lies.""

There is an old quote attributed to Mark Twain that says, "Never pick a fight with someone who buys ink by the barrel."  I think the White House would be wise to take this advice.  The article points out that President Nixon went after the Washington Post.  We know how that went.

The article cites a few examples of the Obama Administration trying to control opposition:

"With Democrats controlling both Congress and the presidency, the Obama administration is trying to squash dissent. The administration is not content with attacking critical press. It is boldly proceeding with plans for the Federal Communications Commission to meddle in conservative talk radio. It threatens insurance companies with not being able to participate in federal programs if those companies attempt mildly to warn customers about how new health care legislation will affect them."

This sort of activity is not a good thing for a democracy. 

Townhall.com posted an article yesterday on the fight over who will actually pay for the 'free' healthcare the government is promising all of us.  Congress is estimating the cost of healthcare at approximately $900 billion over ten years.  Labor unions, special interest groups, and insurance companies are all lobbying hard to make sure they are not the ones who have to pay for the new program. 

The unions do not want their 'Cadillac' healthcare plans taxed to pay for the program.  The insurance companies do not want the government running their businesses and interfering with their business practices.  The elderly are protesting the proposed cuts to the Medicare Advantage program. 

It seems as if even people who have been convinced that nationalized healthcare is a good idea are not interested in paying for it.  I myself would be willing to support healthcare reform as soon as Congress tries it on themselves for a year or two.

Today's Washington Times posted an article on a study showing how some of the money appropriated for guns and ammunition for our troops is actually being spent.  There are $2.6 billion being put into pet projects.  The money was largely taken from accounts that pay for fuel, ammunition and training for U.S. troops, including those fighting wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

According to the article, some of the projects include:

"$25 million for a new World War II museum at the University of New Orleans and $20 million to launch an educational institute named after the late Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, Massachusetts Democrat."  

The study was conducted by Winslow Wheeler, a former Senate staffer who worked on defense funding and oversight for both Republicans and Democrats. He is now a senior fellow at the Center for Defense Information, an independent research organization.

The article reports:

"Mr. Wheeler said that senators took most of the cash for the projects from the "operations and maintenance" or O&M accounts.

"These are the accounts that pay for troop training, repairs, spares and supplies for vehicles, weapons, ships and planes, food and fuel," Mr. Wheeler said."

There is already a privately-funded World War II museum in New Orleans.  It is a fantastic musuem--I have been there.  There is no need to put a publicly funded museum of the same time period in the same place.  There is not a problem with an educational institute named after Senator Kennedy, but why does it have to be publicly funded at the expense of our soldiers?

We are fighting a war in Afghanistan.  If Congress continues to take money away from that war effort, our chances of actually winning it will decrease substantially. 

John Hinderaker at Power Line posted a story tonight that is truly sad.  Rush Limbaugh has withdrawn as part of a group of investors that was trying to buy to NFL football team the St. Louis Rams.  It really doesn't matter to me who owns the team.  What saddens me is the false accusations against him that have caused the controversy which resulted in his being forced to withdraw from the group buying the team.

Free speech is a basic right of the U. S. Constitution.  There is no right written into the Constitution that says we have the freedom not to be offended.  If you are looking for an excuse to be offended by someone else's free speech, you will probably never have to look very far. 

I think it is truly sad that a man who has worked as hard to be a success as Rush Limbaugh has can be prevented from doing something that he would genuinely enjoy doing by people who do not share his opinions making false accusations against him.   Rush Limbaugh is not a racist.  Also, anyone who has ever listened to Rush Limbaugh knows that he thoroughly enjoys football and is quite knowledgeable about the sport.  It is truly a shame that Rush Limbaugh will be denied one of his dreams by people who simply cannot stand to see someone who disagrees with them succeed.

On Monday, the website of Fox News posted an article about the recent attacks on Fox News by the Obama White House.  While I can understand the President's frustration with a news service that does not follow the crowd in supporting him, attacking a reputable news outlet is tacky.  The President has shunned Fox News recently--the week that he appeared on five Sunday Shows, he did not appear on Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace. 

This kind of pettiness is beneath a President.  If George Bush had ostracized every news outlet that negatively reported on him, we would never have seen him on the news.  President Obama has every right to appear on whatever programs he chooses (or not), but this White House has taken it farther than that. 

According to the article:

""What I think is fair to say about Fox -- and certainly it's the way we view it -- is that it really is more a wing of the Republican Party," said Anita Dunn, White House communications director, on CNN. "They take their talking points, put them on the air; take their opposition research, put them on the air. And that's fine. But let's not pretend they're a news network the way CNN is.""

The quote that comes to my mind when I hear this is the World War II quote, "You know you are getting near the target when you start taking flak."  Fox News has been increasing its ratings during all of the Obama Administration.  Fox News has both news shows and opinion shows, and they are good about differentiating between the two.  To paraphrase another President, if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.

Tuesday's Investor's Business Daily posted an article about offshore drilling and its effect on the environment.  As you read the article, it becomes very obvious that things are not always what they appear to be.

The article cites a Florida oceanographer working for the Interior Department who studied the impact of relatively new offshore oil drilling in the Arctic off of Alaska. 

According to the article:

""We found early in the process that impacts to the environment from offshore drilling were minimal," said John Trefry, a marine and environmental systems professor at the Florida Institute of Technology. "In fact, the entire offshore area was near-pristine.""

Obviously this was not what he thought he would find.  There are two things to be considered in the discussion of offshore drilling.  The first is that when an oil rig is put into the ocean, it attracts marine life.  The article reports that:

"Paul Sammarco, a marine biologist at the Louisiana Universities Marine Consortium, surveyed abandoned drilling rigs and discovered that they had "spawned lush marine habitats that are home to a profusion of rare corals and 10,000 to 30,000 fish each.""

The other thing to consider is the precautions oil companies take in order to avoid spills and leakage.  The article further states:

"According to the U.S. Minerals Management Service, between 1985 and 2001, spills from offshore platforms and pipelines accounted for only 2% of the oil released in U.S. waters."

The majority of oil in the marine environment is the result of oil seeps.  The article mentions that:

"In Southern California, they (oil seeps) contribute 98% of the crude in the offshore zone. Those same natural seeps are responsible for 60% of the oil found in the North American marine environment."

At a time when the price of oil is again climbing and most of the oil in the world is owned by countries not friendly to America, it would be wise to explore offshore drilling before the price climbs higher and the oil-producing countries become even less friendly.  Enviromental studies show that offshore drilling is not the problem it was once thought to be.

Reuters is reporting today:

"...Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin warned major powers on Wednesday against intimidating Iran and said talk of sanctions against the Islamic Republic over its nuclear programme was "premature"."

Why, then, did we break our agreements with Poland and the Czech Republic on a missile defense shield?  Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had visited Russia for two days of talks, and Prime Minister Putin did not even meet with her--Putin left for a trip to the Russian Far East and China before her arrival in Moscow.

Commenting on the removal of the missile shield from Poland and the Czech Republic, Putin said that he hoped the United States would not renege on its promise to scrap plans for an anti-missile system in central Europe.  Maybe I'm missing something, but that sounds as if the missile defense system that was promised in the future is going to be a problem.

Generally speaking, the rule for dealing with dictators and tyrants is that they only understand strength.  Any concessions made are seen as weakness they can exploit.  It seems to me that the current administration in America does not realize this and is making the same kind of mistake that Neville Chamberlain made in negotiating with Hitler.

According to today's Washington Times, Israel is seriously considering placing travel restrictions on its senior officials and military officers.  These leaders will not be allowed to travel to Europe because the Israel government fears they will be subject to arrest because of a disputed U.N. report that accuses the Jewish state of targeting civilians in its Gaza war earlier this year. 

The article reminds us:

"Israel launched the offensive to stop the militant Palestinian group Hamas from firing rockets on Israeli cities from Gaza, which Hamas controls. While the war is viewed in Israel as a tactical success, its large civilian death toll - estimated at 926 by Palestinian rights groups and at least 295 by Israel - has created significant diplomatic fallout."

One of the things to remember in any war--particularly in the Middle East--is that there is a public relations war as well as a military war.  The Arabs are particularly known to place weapons in civilian areas in order to increase civilian casualties and make their enemy look bad.  One of the problems we have continually had in Iraq is the placing of weapons in mosques and the use of mosques as attack platforms.  The theory is that we will not attack a mosque and if we do, the enemy can use the attack in publicity against us.  That is the situtation in Gaza.

Does anyone remember why Israel went into Gaza?  According to the Israel Ministry Of Foreign Affairs:

"Rocket and mortar shell fire from the Gaza Strip continues as the Palestinian terrorist organizations' preferred form of attack. In 2007, 896 hits were identified in Israeli territory, compared with 946 in 2006, the year with the largest number.  The trend continues in 2008.  In May 2007 alone Palestinians launched some 300 Kassam rockets from Gaza at Sderot and the western Negev.  Hamas openly claimed responsibility for the attack."

Would America tolerate that sort of rocket attacks on a daily basis from a neighboring country?  What would our response be?  Would any country tolerate that sort of daily attack?  I think not.

On Friday, the BBC posted an article entitled, "What happened to global warming?"  The article states that for the past eleven years there has been no increase in global temperatures.  During that time carbon dioxide levels have continued to rise.  This contradicts the climate models some scientists have used to predict future climate changes.

In a related story at Watts Up With That, the Oak Ridge National Laboratory has sent out a press release saying that scientists from across the country have successfully found a way to incorporate the nitrogen cycle into climate change predictions.  I have no idea what the science here is, but what this means to me is that scientists are still learning in their predictions of climate change.

There is currently a total lack of agreement on what the trends in temperature will be over the coming years.  Some scientists predict global warming, some predict global cooling.  Generally speaking, the jury is still out.  Keeping this in mind, it might be a good idea for the upcoming United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen to move cautiously to combat 'global warming' rather than taking drastic action to solve a problem that may not exist.

According to yesterday's The Hill, the Senate Finance Committee will be voting on healthcare reform today.  As this goes forward, I would like to reference an article that appeared Sunday in the Boston Globe stating what is happening with healthcare reform in Massachusetts.

In 2006 Massachusetts enacted healthcare reform.  The bill required everyone in the state to have health insurance, penalized people for not having it, and provided state plans for those who could not afford private insurance.  Sound familiar?

The article in the Boston Globe is an update on how that plan is working.  Because the costs of this plan have been so high, the state is planning to shake up how providers are paid in order to reduce the cost of the plan.  The plan is to keep patients in a defined provider network, or direct them to lower-cost hospitals.  Currently more than 40 percent of hospital care is provided in expensive academic medical centers and where many insurance policies allow patients access to large numbers of providers.

The article points out:

"A state commission recommended in July that insurers largely scrap the current fee-for-service system - in which insurers pay doctors, hospitals, and other providers a negotiated fee for each procedure and visit - and instead pay providers a per-patient annual fee to cover all of the patient's medical care."

"...Under a global payment system, doctors, hospitals, nursing homes, and other providers would form large networks, called accountable care organizations, that would provide most of the care for individual patients and divvy up the payments. Doctors would try to coordinate patients' care within these networks, which would share electronic medical records and treatment plans. And to manage costs, they would try to direct patients to the hospital within the network that could provide good-quality care at the lowest cost, while generally using teaching hospitals for advanced care." 

What these ideas show is that a state is not designed to finance, provide, or manage the healthcare of its residents.  Some businesses work better in the private sector.

If you truly want to cut the cost of healthcare and reduce its impact on the federal deficit, tort reform will do that.  The Congressional Budget Office wrote a letter to Orrin Hatch on October 9, 2009, explaining the impact tort reform would have on medical expenses in this country.  Please read the letter.  The CBO estimates that tort reform would reduce the federal deficit $54 billion over the next ten years.  It seems to me that the way forward is tort reform, not the creation of a federally-funded healthcare nightmare.

According to the blog briefing room at The Hill, healthcare reform could cost as much as $4,000 a year in higher premiums for every family.  This has to do with the concept of the risk pool.  Unless the penalty for not having insurance is increased to the point where everyone will have insurance, the risk pool will not be large enough to finance the program.

Just a few notes, I live in Massachusetts where we have a state healthcare program that does require all people in the state to have health insurance.  There have been more than a few problems with the program.  First of all, it has cost far more than was ever predicted.  It has reached the point where hospitals were not being reimbursed in a timely fashion because the state did not have the money--the hospitals were forced to wait until the beginning on the state's fiscal year to get paid.  That doesn't solve the problem of excessive cost--it simply pushes it off until the next year.  There are also people who had basic healthcare coverage--they paid out of pocket for routine doctor's visits but were covered in case of accident or serious illness.  Many of these people were told that their policies did not qualify under the state's insurance requirements--they had to get more expensive policies that covered routine doctor's visits.  They were forced to pay significantly more in insurance premiums.  Again, this has to do with increasing the risk pool--by requiring all people to carry extensive health insurance, even if they are happy with basic coverage, you increase the amount of money in the system and theoretically everyone pays less.  It's a great idea, but it doesn't always work that way.

The bill Congress is voting on Tuesday is a bad bill.  It needs to be scrapped and rewritten to include tort reform and portability of health insurance across state lines.  Those are the changes that will benefit all of us--not just a few well-connected states. 

Robert Knight at Townhall.com posted an article today on the current progress of healthcare legislation.  The gyrations the Democrat Congress is going through to pass this bill are amazing.  I'm not sure they are constitutional, and if they are constitutional, they are outrageous.

The text of the Max Baucus bill has been kept secret.  No one knows what is actually in it!  Yet, Congress is voting on it. 

According to the article:

"Bits and pieces are leaking out, but entire sections will be added later. That's what happened with the House version. Nobody read the bill, and 75 "phantom" amendments were added after the vote. A similar maneuver happened in the Senate when a key committee approved another version of a sweeping health care bill in July without seeing the text. Actual language was unveiled months later in September."

The bill includes such wonders as:

Increasing taxes by creating higher levels in order for itemized expenses to be deducted.

Exempting Congress from the mandatory coverage provision.

Taxing Class II medical devices.

Different tax rates for people in different states.  Oddly enough, the federal government is covering the increased cost of Medicare in Nevada and several other states for the next five years--other states will have to pay for the increase themselves.

Newsbusters posted an article on how Harry Reid plans to get this bill passed.  There is also an article at CNSnews explaining how the bill could be passed and signed within the week.  This is not good news for the country.

According to John Hinderaker Power Line today, politics has invaded the National Football League Players' Union.  The union's executive director, DeMaurice Smith, on Saturday made a move to solidify the union against a bid by conservative talk show radio host Rush Limbaugh as part of a group that aims to purchase the St. Louis Rams. 

According to the article:

"In an e-mail to the union's executive committee on Saturday specifically addressing Limbaugh's bid, Smith said, "I've spoken to the Commissioner [Roger Goodell] and I understand that this ownership consideration is in the early stages. But sport in America is at its best when it unifies, gives all of us reason to cheer, and when it transcends. Our sport does exactly that when it overcomes division and rejects discrimination and hatred.""

What in the world does he mean?  Doesn't Rush Limbaugh have a right to be part owner of a football team if he has the money?  Is this discrimination?  Just because Rush Limbaugh is a Conservative icon?   I hope cooler heads prevail.  This is just wrong.  It used to be ok in this country to have an opinion different from the 'majority' or different from the 'people who control the media'.  Have we reached the point where being an outspoken Conservative will result in being denied basic freedom to do business as you please (within the law, of course)?  Is this a hate crime?

Today's Washington Times reported that the Dalai Lama has ended his visit to Washington, D. C.  He gave a lecture at American University, dropped by a prominent synagogue for the last day of the Jewish holiday of Sukkot, he visited the grave of Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, visited with Chinese-Americans, congressional aides, had a closed meeting with the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and with the State Department's special coordinator for Tibetan issues, and ended with a lunch Saturday at the home of Sen. Dianne Feinstein, California Democrat.  But he never met with President Obama.

According to the article:

"Although President Obama declined to meet with the Dalai Lama because of his upcoming visit to China next month, the Buddhist leader sent him a letter of congratulations Friday for winning the Nobel Peace Prize. The Dalai Lama was awarded the same prize in 1989.

"Ms. Saunders said plans are to have the Dalai Lama return to Washington in December to meet with President Obama."

I am embarrassed that our President chose not to meet with the Dalai Lama because he didn't want to upset China.  The last time I checked, the Dalai Lama was a force for peace and freedom--China is neither.  This is another example of being on the wrong side of the equation.  President Obama has dissed Britain, Poland, the Czech Republic, Israel, and the constitution of Honduras while cozying up to Iran, Venezuela, China, and a friend of Hugo Chavez who wants to be president of Honduras for life.  This is ridiculous!

Jonah Goldberg at National Review Online posted an article Friday commenting on the fact that CNN felt it necessary to fact check a Saturday Night Live skit regarding President Obama's accomplisments in office.  Huh?

The skit had a fake President Obama listing his accomplishments as 'jack' and 'squat'.  It was a funny skit.  CNN chose to fact check the skit on Wolf Blitzer's,Situation Room.  Why?  Were the skits depicting Sarah Palin as an idiot every fact checked on CNN?  What about the skits involving George Bush or Bill Clinton (or my favorite--the Halloween skit involving Hillary, Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, and John Edwards (Halloween 2007). 

The double standard involved in news coverage and now even in humor is ridiculous.  It's time for everyone to back up, take a deep breath, and make an honest effort to be fair.  Is it possible?

Yesterday at Hot Air, Ed Morrissey posted an article explaining how much money would be saved in healthcare costs by instituting tort reform. 

According to the article:

"According to CBO director Douglas Elmendorf on his blog, the CBO studied the impact of both the reduced cost of litigation and the elimination of defensive medicine that would result with tort reform.  Elmendorf says that tort reform would reduce the federal deficit $54 billion over the next ten years, more than the fee Baucus plans to charge insurers for the privilege of existence (via MarySue at Ruby Slippers).

"...That figure includes savings of roughly $41 billion from Medicare, Medicaid, the Children's Health Insurance Program, and the Federal Employees Health Benefits program, as well as an increase in tax revenues of roughly $13 billion from a reduction in private health care costs that would lead to higher taxable wages."

This makes more sense than scrapping the best healthcare system in the world for eleven hundred pages of legal gobbletygook.  Tort reform is not in any of the packages currently under consideration by Congress.  I hope at some point it will be considered.

Larry Kudlow posted an article at National Review yesterday with his ideas on how to strengthen the dollar.  He lists the solutions that have historically been used to strengthen the dollar.  A stable dollar will stop inflationary pressures.  He also points out that in the past, lower taxes have resulted in economic growth and lower unemployment.  We also need to cut government spending.

He states in the article:

"Put simply, the Mundell-Laffer model exercises monetary restraint to save the dollar -- and low marginal tax rates for economic-growth incentives that benefit investors, risk takers, small businesses, and workers. Right now, for therapy, the Fed should begin moving excess cash from the economy, and they should raise their target rate. Take a page from the Reserve Bank of Australia's playbook and move rates higher.

"In addition, the Treasury ought to get out there and buy these unwanted dollars in the marketplace. Just go out there and bid for them. And they need to stop printing so much debt from Congress. All this massive spending and borrowing is killing us. We need to be slashing tax rates on large and small businesses. There's just no better place to begin job creation. And leave the Bush tax cuts in place, for heaven's sake."

If we do not cut federal spending and the tax burden on Americans in the very near future, we will not have an economy to save.

The Times Online is reporting the arrest of a 32-year old man and his 25-year old brother on charges of providing a list of terrorist targets to North African Islamic radicals.  The 32-year old is said to have worked for the European Organisation for Nuclear Research (CERN) in Geneva, Switzerland.  He was arrested by French secret service agents.

According to the article:

"Agents were said to have intercepted messages in which the physicist, a Frenchman of Algerian origin, had suggested targets in France.

"He is believed to have been in contact with members of al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, an Algerian-based terror organisation that joined Osama bin Laden's network in 2007."

We are being very naive if we believe the activities of this man are an incident rather than an indication of a pattern.  For whatever reason, there is a group of people in the world who believe that killing people in order to set up a world-wide caliphate is a worthwhile pursuit.  Now is not the time to go wobbly on the war on terror.

This article is from a news source I am not familiar with.  I am linking it because I think it is important as an illustration of what happens when no one is willing to take a stand against evil.  Y Net News reported yesterday that in an interview given by former Deputy Defense Minister Ephraim Sneh to the Sunday Times, Mr. Sneh stated that if Iran were not further sanctioned by this Christmas Israel would attack the country.  I am not necessarily convinced that sanctions will work, but I at least it would be some action against a country whose leader has consistently threatened to annihilate Israel.

The article states:

"Iran's ambassador to the UN, Mohammad Khazaee, sent a letter of protest to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moonin which he wrote that "there is no explanation for Israel's continuing threats against Tehran"."  

Knowing the UN, they will probably sanction Israel.  It's easier.  Israel right now has fewer friends in the world to defend it, fewer people who fear it, and no oil to use as a weapon.

This is what happens when there is no 'policeman' in the world and the United States is seen as weak.  President Obama's dream of a world without nuclear weapons is a wonderful ideal, but if you think about it, even before we had nuclear weapons, we had wars.  The problem is not the weapons, the problem is us--men (and women).  There will always be bullies among us, and there will always be a need to deal with them.  There will always be those who want to take away the freedom of others and be in control of everything.  I believe that the UN was originally set up to be a force for freedom and a deterrent to war.  I also believe they have strayed so far from that intention, that they should be dissolved immediately.

I do not believe the United States will defend Israel if it tries to defend itself against Iranian nukes.  They will let Israel fight alone.  That is how we are treating our allies under this administration.

In reply to Iran's claims of continuing threats against it by Israel, I offer the following quotes:

"Israel must be wiped off the map."--Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, October 26, 2005,  Cited in "Ahmadinejad:  The Secret History of Iran's Radical Leader" by Kasta Naji, page 31. 

""Ahmadinejad Says Israel Will Soon Disappear," Agence-France-Presse, June 2, 2008.

"God willing, with the force of God behind it, we shall soon experience a world without the United States and Zionism"--Ahmadinejad, October 26, 2005,  Cited in "The Iran Threat:  President Ahmadinejad and the Coming Nuclear Crisis" by Alireza Jafarzadeh. page 25.

You get the picture.  There is a pattern here, and it is not Israel threatening Iran.  It is against the UN Charter for one member nation to threaten another, and Iran has been doing that without consequences.  Until someone stands up and stops this bully, the world will be less safe for everyone.

Today's Washington Times is reporting that some of the top Democrat leaders support the idea of increased troops in Afghanistan.  I hope they decide soon, since reinforcements tend to be of less value as time passes.  The troops are needed now.  Delay costs us American lives every day.

According to the article:

"House Armed Services Committee Chairman Ike Skelton, Missouri Democrat, who attended the White House meeting, also strongly advocates for Gen. McChrystal's plan. He sent a six-page letter to Mr. Obama earlier this month that he said implored the president to "give the general what he needs."

"Others, including House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Howard L. Berman, say they are exploring a range of options but not taking Gen. McChrystal's recommendation off the table." 

The thing to remember here is that this is now President Obama's war.  It became his war when he chose his own general.  To ignore the advice of his own hand-picked general is to risk failure of the military operation in that country.  To float the idea of making a deal with the Taliban is folly.  Does anyone remember what Afghanistan was like under the Taliban? 

There is a scene in the move The Kite Runner that is very graphic and I will not describe it here, but if you watch the director's notes on the DVD of the movie, it is explained.  When America left Afghanistan after the Russians were defeated, the people of the country felt as if they had been abandoned.  The Taliban came into power and set up a regime that totally demoralized the people of Afghanistan.  For us to scale back our operations in that country in any way would only convince the Afghanis that we could not be depended upon.  Our recent actions regarding Israel, Poland, and the Czeck Republic have seriously damaged our credibility as an ally.  We don't need to do that in Afghanistan.

Obviously, the big new of today is that President Barack Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize.  This award is evidently given in anticipation of President Obama's accomplishments in the direction of world peace.  The nomination process for the award closes February 1st.  President Obama was nominated less than a month after he took office.  This is sad.

The Wall Street Journal posted a story about the award this morning.  The Peace Prize Committee explained that in awarding President Obama the Peace Prize the prize they were encouraging him rather than rewarding him for his achievements.  Somehow I don't think that was what Alfred Nobel had in mind.

President Obama now joins the group of Jimmy Carter, Al Gore, and Yasser Arafat as Nobel Peace Prize winners.  I think that says it all.  George Bush liberated 50 million muslims from tyranny and he is looked upon as a war monger.  President Obama is in the process of enabling Iran to go nuclear and he is looked upon as promoting peace.  When the Middle East explodes because of the anti-Israel stands of this administration, will the Nobel Peace Prize Committee ask for a recount?

Yesterday, the Foundry at the Heritage Foundation published the plan Congress is planning to use to pass healthcare before Thanksgiving despite the fact that a majority of Americans oppose the proposal. 

The article lists the steps Harry Reid will take to attach the healthcare bill to another bill in order to pass it.  The article deals with Congressional procedures, and I am not going to try to capsulize it here.  Please read the article and understand that this is not what America expects from its Congress.

The article sums it up:

"The San Francisco Examiner published an editorial today that exposed the fact that the American people can't see the bill. "When then-Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama promised not to sign major legislation until it had been posted on the Internet for public reading at least five days, trusting voters took him at his word. Now they know better. Not only is the actual language of what is likely to become the main legislative vehicle for Obama's signature health care reform not available on the Internet, it hasn't been given to members of the key Senate committees or the Congressional Budget Office." The procedure being used, in addition to the exclusion of the American people from the process, should be of grave concern to all who want to participate in democracy and have a say in Congress' health care reforms that will touch 1/6th of the American economy."

Unless the current Congress understands that passing this bill will result in their unemployment at the first available opportunity, there is no hope to keep America's healthcare system as one of the best in the world.  Please call your Congressman and tell him that you do not support healthcare reform.

That was Ronald Reagan's comment every time he heard that the Democrats in power were preparing to raise taxes.  Well, there they go again.

According to today's Wall Street Journal, Nancy Pelosi is thinking about a Value Added Tax (VAT) as a way to fund the spending proposals of the present Congress.  John Podesta (an adviser to President Obama and president of the very liberal Center for American Progress)made a similar suggestion in September. 

The article points out that nearly every European country that has national healthcare has eventually imposed a VAT to help pay for it.  According to the article, a VAT applies to every level of production or service, rakes in piles of money, and is largely hidden from those who ultimately pay it--namely, consumers.  It is essentially a hidden tax that can add as much as 10 percent to the eventual cost of all goods.

Remember President Obama's pledge not to raise taxes on anyone making less than $250,000 a year?  This is a way to raise taxes on everyone and theoretically not have anyone notice.  We'll see how that goes.

Today's New York Post posted an article about the investigation into the financial activities of Representative Charlie Rangel.  Mr. Rangel has been charged with failing to report income, failing to pay income taxes on some income, and lying on his Congressional disclosure forms.  The charges involve rent-controlled apartments, car storage, and other items which do call into question the man's moral compass.  He is the head of the committee that writes and oversees tax codes (which evidently he does not fully understand).

According to the article:

"In a convoluted parliamentary charade, Democrats voted in nearly lockstep to thwart a resolution to remove Rangel from the powerful chairmanship of the House Ways and Means Committee, where he sits as the nation's top tax-writer -- at least until his numerous ethical and legal woes have been resolved."

Nancy Pelosi had promised that the investigation of Charlie Rangel would be completed by now, but somehow that has not been accomplished.

As President Obama holds his meetings on Afghanistan, our troops are dying there.  When a military leader asks for reinforcements, generally they are needed in a timely manner in order to be effective.  The constant meetings are costing American lives.  Congress does not know how to run a war--the military does--there is nothing to be gained by all these meetings.  The Generals involved have already given us the strategy and told us what was needed.

Fred Barnes posted an article at the Weekly Standard blog yesterday on the war in Afghanistan and the lack of action from the White House.  He refers to a book by Lewis Sorley entitled A Better War: The Unexamined Victories and Final Tragedy of America's Last Years in Vietnam and another book entitled Lessons in Disaster by Gordon Goldstein.

Mr. Barnes points out:

"Sorley's book is relevant because it points out what actually happened in Vietnam: by employing what we now call a counter-insurgency strategy, American forces had actually won the war by 1970, only to toss it away later by abandoning the South Vietnamese government. That strategy, similar to what has been pursued successfully in Iraq with the "surge," replaced the failed search-and-destroy effort of General William Westmoreland. Despite this history, search-and-destroy, which had failed in Iraq, is what Vice President Biden and other Democrats are urging in Afghanistan. They refer to it today as counter-terrorism."

Mr. Barnes concludes:

"So let's review the bidding in the current debate on Afghanistan. Biden and many Democrats, reportedly including White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel, want the president to adopt a strategy that failed twice and, so far as I know, has never led to success. Gen. McChrystal and Republicans, along with Senator Joe Lieberman and a few other Democrats, are in favor of a strategy that has twice proven to be successful."

I agree.  It's time to let the military run the war and keep the politicians out of it.  The lives of our troops depend on it!  

Ed Morrissey at Hot Air posted an article yesterday about energy independence--you remember, the issue that disappeared after the price of gasoline went down.  Well, it may come back with a vengance.  On Tuesday, the British paper, The Independent published a story stating that secret talks were going on between the Russians, the Chinese, and some Arab states about no long paying for oil in American dollars.  The report was promptly denied, but actually, it needs a second look.

In order to prevent a depression after 911, the Bush administration lowered interest rates to a point that undermined the value of the dollar overseas.  This was partially responsible for the drastic increases in gasoline and oil prices we saw in the last year of the Bush administration.  The fiscal policies of the current administration in Washington have also seriously impacted the value of the dollar.  The out-of-control spending will eventually lead to inflation, making the dollars held by other countries worth less than their current value.  This will create a reluctance to buy into US bonds and securities. 

Sarah Palin referred to these events on her Facebook message on Tuesday.  She points out that:

"In his book Architects of Ruin, Peter Schweizer points out that the Obama administration is focusing primarily on "green energy," while ignoring our need to develop our domestic conventional energy resources.[5] We're ignoring the looming crisis caused by our dependence on foreign oil. Because we're dependent on foreign nations for our oil, we're also at their mercy if they decide to dump the dollar as their trade currency. We can't allow ourselves to be so vulnerable to the whims of foreign nations. That's why we must develop our own domestic supplies of oil and gas."

No one in our current government is paying attention to this danger--they are too busy advancing their own interests--not ours.  It is time to take a serious look at the people making our national decisions and consider if replacing all of them might be the best thing for our country.

I don't have a problem with murderers sentenced to death as long as the evidence against them is beyond a reasonable doubt and a murder was involved. I do, however, wonder why some states are unwilling to support the death penalty in those circumstances.

Boston.com posted an article today saying that the killing of Kimberly Cates in her isolated home in Mont Vernon and the violent attack on her daughter did not meet the criteria set in the state of New Hampshire for the death penalty.   The state is obviously required to follow the law as it sentences the four youths charged in this murder, but I question the message these criteria send to our society.

According to New Hampshire law, in order to warrant the death penalty a murder must meet six conditions including a paid assassination, a killing that involves kidnapping, and a homicide that entails sexual assault.  Since none of these conditions were met, the death penalty does not apply.  Wow.  These four teenages are accused of planning to rob Kimberly Cates and then murdering her and attacking her young daughter in the process.  Is the message we are sending here that killing this woman was not a crime worthy of the death penalty?  Does Kimberly Cates' life have value?

Obviously every state has the right to its own laws, but it seems to me that killing someone is murder (particularly when it is part of another crime being committed) and deserves the death penalty.  To say otherwise is to say that the life of the criminal is worth more than the life of the victim.

Today's New York Daily News posted an article by their editorial staff on the subject of whether or not terrorists should be eligible for the death penalty.  The discussion is centered around the case against Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani, a former Guantanamo detainee being tried in New York in a civilian court. 

According to the article:

"Now, Attorney General Eric Holder has broken further ground in Ghailani's case by barring the Manhattan U.S. attorney from seeking the death penalty - never mind that Ghailani allegedly helped buy a truck and load it with the TNT that leveled the U.S. Embassy in Tanzania in 1998."

There are some problems in trying him in a civilian court.  Much of the evidence would be classified--does the jury need security clearances? 

What is the argument for not subjecting terrorists to the dealth penalty?  I firmly believe that terrorists deserve to be executed, but my husband pointed out a small fact that I have overlooked.  Martrydom is a positive thing for most terrorists--not a negative.  If we execute terrorists, do we make them heroes in the terrorists movement?  Is that what we really want to do?

I pose the question.  I do not claim to have the answer.  It is an interesting problem though.

According to a Sealttle newspaper via Associated Press, some Somali pirates had a rude awakening early Wednesday.  They innocently fired on what they thought was a commercial ship, but it turned out to be a French naval vessel.  The ship they fired on was La Somme, a 3,800-ton refueling ship.  The pirates were just innocently working off the coast.  They had no idea this was a military ship.

The article states

"France is a key member of the EU's naval mission, Operation Atalanta, fighting Somali pirates in the Gulf of Aden. It has aggressively tracked and caught suspected pirates and handed over at least 22 to Kenya. An additional 15 suspects were brought to France for prosecution after allegedly seizing boats belonging to French nationals."

Catching the pirates is a great thing, but I think we need to go back to the laws of old that hanged people for piracy.  Let's hope these pirates do not spend the rest of their days in a place with three square meals, big screen television sets, and gyms that would amaze all of us.

Today's Wall Street Journal posted an op-ed piece explaining one of the ways the government plans to cut the cost of healthcare in its proposed reform.  Understandably, Congress is attempting to create a system that is cheaper so that they can provide healthcare for everyone.  However, sometimes there is a serious cost in doing something cheaper. 

In order to cut costs, Medicare would rank doctors among their peers according to the amount of money they cost the program.  Begining in 2015, any doctor who ranks in the top ten percent of costs would have his Medicare reimbursement cut 5 per cent.  Medicare currently pays 83 cents on the dollar when compared to private insurance.  In practice, this rule will only apply to specialists.  It gets worse.  According to the article:

"In Medicare, meanwhile, the Administration is using regulation to change how doctors are paid to benefit general practitioners, internists and family physicians. In next year's fee schedule, they'll see higher payments on the order of 6% to 8%. The loose consensus is that the U.S. does have too few primary care doctors--less than 5% of medical students are entering the field--in part because they're underpaid.

"Fair enough. But this boost for GPs comes at the expense of certain specialties. The 2010 rules, which will be finalized next month, visit an 11% overall cut on cardiology and 19% on radiation oncology. They're targets only because of cost: Two-thirds of morbidity or mortality among Medicare patients owes to cancer or heart disease."

Please read the entire article for the details.  This is truly the 'kill granny' bill. 

Yesterday's Power Line posted an article about the proposed expansion of the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) by the Obama Administration and the Democrats in Congress.  In case you have forgotten, the CRA is the organization that encourages making loans to people who cannot or will not pay them back and offers loans with "flexible underwriting criteria.  It's very nice to want to help low-income people buy houses, but reality needs to enter into the picture at some point.  Someone making $ 30,000 a year cannot afford to buy a $ 500,000 house with no down payment.  Encouraging that sort of purchase is what led us into the banking crisis to begin with.  Now Congress is poised to do it all over again.

Either these people do not understand wise lending practices or they don't care.  Either way, this is legislation that needs to be stopped.

Yesterday I posted an article with the following opening paragraph:

"Yesterday China View reported that Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Mohamed ElBaradei said Sunday that "Israel is number one threat to Middle East" with its nuclear arms.  This statement was made at a joint press conference with Iran's Atomic Energy Organization chief Ali Akbar Salehi in Tehran." 

That in itself was a little disconcerting, but there is an article in yesterday's Wall Street Journal that is even more troubling.  The article points out that President Obama has stated his aim to make the world free of nuclear weapons.  He is going to have to start somewhere.  Why not Israel?   Bret Stephens predicts a news article in January of next year regarding a United Nations resolution:

"The resolution calls for a nuclear weapons-free zone in the Middle East. It also demands that Israel sign the 1970 Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and submit its nuclear facilities to international inspection. Two similar, albeit nonbinding, resolutions were approved last September by the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna."

In his prediction, America abstains in the voting, letting the resolution pass, in order to show Iran that we have changed from our 'unfair' policies of the past.

Unfortunately, this is a possibility.  With the coziness between the IAEA and Iran, the chances of Iran curbing her nuclear program are almost non-existent.  Considering the UN's love of sanctioning Israel at every opportunity, the attempt to confront Israel on her nuclear weapons will occur as soon as America gets out of the way.  Unfortunately, the administration of President Obama has already sent signals that it will not stand up for Israel.

Hopefully this prediction is totally off base, but I don't think it is.

Yesterday, Investor's Business Daily ran a related story. 

Yesterday China View reported that Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Mohamed ElBaradei said Sunday that "Israel is number one threat to Middle East" with its nuclear arms.  This statement was made at a joint press conference with Iran's Atomic Energy Organization chief Ali Akbar Salehi in Tehran. 

According to the article:

""This (possession of nuclear arms) was the cause for some proper measures to gain access to its (Israel's) power plants ... and the U.S. president has done some positive measures for the inspections to happen," said ElBaradei."

This is an amazing article--why is Mohamed ElBaradei holding joint press conferences with Iran's Atomic Energy Organization chief Ali Akbar Salehi in Tehran?

Israel has had nuclear weapons for some time.  It has never threatened the existence of its neighbors.  It has never threatened to use its nuclear weapons unless it was going to be overrun as a country and there are reports saying that is not true.  Israel is not the one supporting terrorism in other countries or firing rockets on innocent civilian populations.

I think the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has totally outlived its usefullness!

Today's Washington Post has an article by Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal on how to reform healthcare and actually make it work.  He lists ten points:

1.  Voluntary purchasing pools--make it easy for small business and individuals to form groups to purchase healthcare at cheaper prices.

2.  Portability--when you change jobs, your health insurance can go with you.

3.  Lawsuit reform.

4.  Coverage of preexisting conditions.

5.  Transparency and payment reform--let consumers know exactly what they are paying for and be able to determine the quality of the company they choose.

6.  Electronic medical records.

7.  Tax-free Health Savings Accounts.

8.  Reward healthy lifestyle choices.

9.  Cover young adults--this evens out the risk pool and lowers premiums for everyone.

10. Refundable tax credits--this would allow lower income people to purchase health insurance.

As the debate on healthcare plays out, we need to be aware of the options that are not included in the current proposal.  Some of the options listed above would result in immediate savings for consumers without creating a government-controlled healthcare system.

Please read the entire article--there are some good ideas there.

According to yesterday's Wall Street Journal there is a case currently making its way through the courts that will decide whether you can refuse Medicare coverage (opting for private coverage instead) without losing your Social Security benefits.

According to the article:

"Last week, Washington D.C. District Judge Rosemary Collyer handed a victory to three plaintiffs seeking that right. President Obama's Department of Health and Human Services had sought to dismiss the suit challenging so-called POMS rules that say seniors who withdraw from Medicare Part A must also surrender their Social Security benefits. (Part A covers hospital and outpatient services.) The judge ruled the plaintiffs have standing to contest their claim on the merits."

This is amazing.  The Obama Administration had tried to get the case dismissed because it claimed that the people involved had not followed the proper procedures for challenging the rules within the POMS (the manual used by SSA employees to administer Social Security and Supplemental Security Income).

The thing to remember here is that all the people involved want to do is keep their own private medical insurance rather than switch to Medicare.  You would think that, considering the financial troubles Medicare is having, this would be a welcome choice--less people to cover. 

If the government is trying to control the choice of healthcare plans of people before national healthcare is passed, what will happen after the government can legally control your healthcare?  This is an important case and should be watched carefully. 

According to a Rasmussen Reports article posted today, 63 percent of voters nationwide say that guaranteeing that no one is forced to change their health insurance coverage is a higher priority than giving consumers the choice of a "public option" health insurance company.   The latest Rasmussen telephone survey finds that 29 percent of Americans say it's more important for the government to provide non-profit health insurance.  Fifty-three percent of voters who currently have health insurance say that it is likely that they would have to change their insurance if the health care reform plan proposed by President Obama and congressional Democrats becomes law. 

The article also points out:

"Most voters under 30 believe the government option would save taxpayers money while their elders disagree. Sixty-two percent (62%) of senior citizens believe it would cost taxpayers money, the highest total of any age group.

"Forty-eight percent (48%) of all voters believe private health insurance companies would provide better service and more choice than a government-sponsored non-profit health insurance option. Thirty-seven percent (37%) believe the government-sponsored option would offer better service and more choice."

Needless to say, as a senior citizen, I am hoping that the current healthcare reform proposal does not pass.  I have yet to see the government handle anything more efficiently and less expensively than private businesses.  Private businesses are there to make a profit--not by overcharging, but by offering services in ways that save money and supply needs.  The government does not care about profit and therefore is not really searching for efficiency.  If they are the only game in town, customer service will not be a priority.  Until Congress agrees to be covered by the healthcare legislation it passes, I am opposed to any more government programs involved in healthcare.

Power Line today posted an article linking to a Clark Hoyt, Public Editor of the New York Times, column that ran today regarding the fact that the New York Times missed the events surrounding the group ACORN in the past two weeks.  In the column Mr. Hoyt cites some of the emails he received on the subject.

One email states:

"I often don't hear about the latest conflict until I read a Facebook rant from an old high school friend or talk on the phone with my mother (both in conservative Orange County, Calif.). It's embarrassing not to be able to respond with facts when I hadn't even heard about the issue." Michele Cusack of Novato, Calif., said that when someone asked if she had heard the latest about Acorn, "I had to answer 'no' because I get all my news from The New York Times." 

That is one of the many reasons I started this blog.  If you depend on the New York Times to tell you the whole story, you will probably not get the facts you need to be an informed citizen.  Considering the history of the New York Times and its longtime role as 'the newspaper of record,' that is a shame.

Today's New York Post has an article about the upcoming vote on the healthcare reform proposal.  In the article, it states:

""I don't expect to actually read the legislative language because . . . the legislative language is among the more confusing things I've ever read in my life," Sen. Thomas Carper (D-Del.) told an online news service."

Maybe I'm missing something here, but isn't it the job of Congress to read the bills they pass? 

According to the article, these are the comments of John Cornyn:

""The conceptual language is not good enough," committee member Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) told CNSnews.com.

""We've seen that there are side deals that have been cut," Cornyn said.

""So we need to know not only the conceptual language, we need to know the detailed legislative language, and we need to know what kind of secret deals have been cut on the side which would have an impact on how much this bill is going to cost and how it will affect health care in America.""

I have no idea of how we got to the place where Congress votes on an idea and writes the bill later, but it is not a good place to be.  What happened to the idea of posting the bill online for 72 hours so that people could take a look at it?  Even if we don't understand all the legal jargon, we can get an idea of what is involved.  I don't trust Congress when it refuses to let America see what it is doing.  It is definitely time for some transparency. 

There are two sources for this article (they are essentially the same thing, but I need to credit both), YouTube and Hot Air.  Please follow one of the links and watch the video.  The person speaking on the video is Tracy Walsh, a young mother who was diagnosed with breast cancer.  She is speaking about her experience in dealing with the cancer while insured by a private insurance agency.   Her story reminds us that America currently has a very good system of healthcare.  It is illegal to deny care to anyone who shows up at an emergency room with a medical problem.  No one in this country is currently being denied healthcare.

There are some things we could fix in the healthcare system without creating more problems than we solve.  Think automobile insurance--portability of health insurance across state lines, a risk pool for those with pre-existing conditions, and tort reform (common sense in legal cases involving medical issues).  None of these changes would drastically increase the role of government in health insurance--that may be why they are not getting the attention they should be getting.  My recommendation in regard to the current healthcare legislation is to scrap the whole thing and start again.  There are charges that people will die if we do not pass the current healthcare legislation; I can guarantee that people will die if we do. 

According to yesterday's New York Times, the Education Department of New York City issued a three-page memo in June which banned most bake sales as fund raising tools.  Parent groups and Parent-Teacher Groups will be allowed to sell baked items once a month as long as it is after lunch.  They are also allowed to sell sweets after 6 pm on weekdays.

According to the article:

"The new policy also requires that vending machines, which generate millions of dollars for school sports, be supplied with snacks such as reduced-fat Baked Doritos and low-sugar granola bars. A new vending machine contract is expected to be approved on Wednesday by the Panel for Educational Policy, the school oversight board. Student stores will be able to sell only approved snacks bought from the new vendor, rather than obtain the food themselves, as they once did."

There is nothing wrong with taking measures to improve the health of students, but this is intrusive.  I also have a hard time believing that the biggest problem facing the New York City school system is vending machines and bake sales.  This is government overreach and needs to be stopped. 

Yesterday Power Line had a short article on the International Olympic Committee's choice of Rio as the location for the 2016 Olympics.  After quoting an athlete who attributes the decision to the possibility that maybe there is some hangover from politics, from the last eight years, the article ends with this conclusion:

"I suppose that will be the explanation when Obama can't persuade the mullahs to abandon their nukes, either."

You don't suppose the loss of the Olympics by Chicago might have been impacted by all the negative things President Obama has said about America in his speeches around the world or by the fact that we are mistreating our allies on a regular basis while embracing dictators who silence their opponents on a regular basis?  At some point in the future, President Obama and his supporters will have to credit the President with the consequences of his actions--not blame the consequences on other people.

 

Byron York in today's Washington Examiner reminds us that some parts of the Patriot Act are due to expire in December.  This expiration occurs just as we have uncovered terrorist plots being planned within America.

There are three provisions of the Patriot Act that have to be renewed every four years.  The last time they came up for renewal, the Republicans controlled Congress and they were renewed.  Renewal this time will be more complicated--some of the Democrats have said that they do not want to renew all of the Patriot Act.

According to the article:

"Congress put time limits on three of its most far-reaching provisions: "Roving wiretaps," which allow investigators to keep up with suspects who use dozens of cell phones to avoid being traced; "business records" authority, which lets investigators ask a special national-security court for access to records of a suspect's dealings with private businesses; and the "lone wolf" provision, which allows investigators to track individual terror suspects even if they are not a member of a terrorist group, like al Qaeda. Congress renewed those provisions in 2005 and now must give them another four-year renewal, or they will disappear."

Some Democrats want to change some part of each of these three provisions.  Please see the article for the specifics and the overall impact of any changes.  We have no excuse for not being aware that there are attacks being planned against us and no excuse for not doing everything we can to prevent being attacked.  I hope the Democrats in Congress realize that.

 

The Washington Times has a story on the fact that the 2016 Olympics has been awarded to Rio De Janeiro.  There are a lot of thoughts and opinions on the fact that the Olympics did not go to Chicago.  I would like to add mine.

• One of the rules of negotiation for the leader of a country is to let the other people do the negotiating and then show up for the 'talks' after everything has been settled.  It avoids 'loss of face' and other complications.  It's similar to the idea that a lawyer in a trial never asks a question unless he already knows the answer.  There are two possible reasons President Obama chose not to follow this rule--one, political naivete, or two, arrogance.  I have a hard time believing a politician that came up through the Chicago system is naive.  I also believe that in Chicago what I consider arrogance would not have been arrogance--it would have been an understanding of the power President Obama held.  The world is not as impressed with President Obama as Chicago is.
• Hosting the Olympics is not as impressive as it sounds.  It greatly inconveniences the people who live in the host city.  They have to deal with seven years of construction and road work.  It is very expensive and not a lot of fun.  I have heard that the only recent Olympics that made money for the host city was the Salt Lake City Olympics run by Mitt Romney.
• If President Obama had been willing to work with Mitt Romney (who has some experience not only in running the Olympics but in bringing the Olympics to America) rather than Oprah Winfrey, he might have found a way to bring the Olympics to Chicago.

So what is the lesson in all this?  Politically it is a defeat on the world stage.  In Chicago it means that some real estate speculators are no longer looking at amazing profits in the very near future.  In America I am not sure what it means other than the fact that some of the bloom is off the rose.  I believe it will impact the effectiveness of President Obama's legislative agenda, but I am not sure how severely.

I believe that one of the things that has made America great is neighbors helping neighbors.  Back in the age of dinosaurs when my children were little, I watched a little girl for an hour in the morning before school because her mother worked.  When my youngest child was in the hospital for a time, two of my neighbors watched my older children for me.  This is the kind of thing that is part of our culture.  Well, there have been some changes since then.

According to an Associated Press story at Yahoo.com, Lisa Snyder, a Michigan woman who watches a neighbors child before school, has received a letter from the Michigan Department of Human Services telling her that if she continued to watch the child, she would be violating the law.  The law is aimed at unlicensed daycare centers.  I watch two of my grandchildren three days a week.  Is that illegal now? (No, because they are related.)

According to the article:

"Snyder's predicament has led to a debate in Michigan about whether a law that says no one may care for unrelated children in their home for more than four weeks each calendar year unless they are licensed day-care providers needs to be changed. It also has irked parents who say they depend on such friendly offers to help them balance work and family.

"On Tuesday, agency Director Ismael Ahmed said good neighbors should be allowed to help each other ensure their children are safe. Gov. Jennifer Granholm instructed Ahmed to work with the state Legislature to change the law, he said."

I understand the state's desire to protect children, but what about the right of parents to choose what they consider the best child care? 

Let's talk about why child care has become an industry.  In 1960 the average household paid less than 10% of its income in taxes.  Now that number is closer to 44%.  As our government has grown, so has the indebtedness of our citizens.  Working wives to a large extent are paying the extra taxes and supporting the daycare industry.  Less government would give us lower taxes and allow wives who choose to stay home the luxury of doing that.

Michigan is working to change this law, but I believe the law was overreaching in the first place.  I understand the government's desire to protect children, but I think parents should be free to make arrangements with neighbors where it is convenient.

Yesterday's Wall Street Journal posted an article by John Fund detailing why he believes President Obama is having such a difficult time getting healthcare reform legislation passed.  Mr. Fund points out that in order to get elected to the Presidency, President Obama put together a coalition of young voters and wealthy voters. 

The article points out:

"Mr. Edsall (Thomas Edsall, a correspondent for the New Republic) calls the Obama coalition "a successful alliance of the upscale and the downscale -- wealthy and needy marching hand in hand, sharing animosity to George W. Bush and the war in Iraq" But he also calls the Obama coalition a fragile one when it comes to economic issues. The Gallup Poll reports that voters earning under $30,000 a year wanted health care reform by a 13-point margin. But those earning over $75,000 a year opposed reform by 16 points."

Because President Obama did not have the support of a majority of the middle class, it has been difficult for him to get legislation passed.  The two groups that are supporting him have very different ideas on healthcare reform and cap and trade legislation.

I guess the bottom line is that until President Obama comes up with legislation that the American people support, he is going to have a problem getting things passed.  There is talk of passing healthcare reform by using a procedure that attaches it to another bill and slipping it through unnoticed, but I believe this will have major negative consequences for the Democrats in future elections.

Today's Washington Times has an update on the progress of the case against the Black Panthers for voter intimidation in Philadelphia.  Yesterday, the U.S. Civil Rights Commission, which is inquiring into why the Justice Department dropped the case against the Black Panthers, sent a letter to Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. demanding that the Justice Department cooperate with their investigation.   On September 9th the Justice Department sent the U.S. Civil Rights Commission a letter saying that the commission should postpone their investigation until Justice's own internal investigation of the matter is complete.

The article points out:

"Consider again the nature of the charges. The Black Panthers in question were videotaped standing in front of a polling place, nightstick in hand, in paramilitary garb, and were quoted multiple times using racial epithets and threatening language. The Panthers are deadly serious. At electionjournal.org, there is a National Geographic video clip of these same Black Panthers saying, "You want freedom, you're gonna have to kill some crackers. You're gonna have to kill some of they [sic] babies."

"One of these menaces is a local Democratic official and was a registered Democratic poll watcher on the day in question. Three days after the case was dropped against him, he again served as an official poll watcher for Democratic municipal elections in Philadelphia."

The question at the bottom of this investigation is whether all Americans are protected by Civil Rights Laws or whether only citizens of color are protected.  Somehow I always thought Civil Rights meant that everyone received equal treatment under the law.  Unless the Justice Department begins to cooperate with this investigation, it is sending a message that Civil Rights Laws only apply to people of color. 

Ed Morrissey at Hot Air posted an article yesterday about some of the votes that have been taken in the Senate Finance Committee as the Committeee marks up the Baucus bill on healthcare reform.    It's interesting to look at the amendments that have been voted down in relation to what we are being told about what is in the healthcare bill.

According to the article:

"Senate Finance Committee Democrats rejected a proposed a requirement that immigrants prove their identity with photo identification when signing up for health insurance or tax credits under healthcare reform.

"Finance Committee ranking member Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) said that current law and the healthcare bill under consideration are too lax and leave the door open to illegal immigrants defrauding the government using false or stolen identities to obtain benefits.

"Grassley's amendment was beaten back 10-13 on a party-line vote."

The Democrats are claiming that illegal immigrants will not be covered under the healthcare reform bill, yet they are unwilling to put an identity requirement in the bill. 

The article goes on:

"The Senate Finance Committee rejected an amendment to its healthcare bill Wednesday that would have required women to purchase a separate, supplemental insurance plan to cover abortion services.

"Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) proposed the amendment with the goal of making existing laws against federal money being used to pay for abortions, and the language in the healthcare bill, ironclad.

"All I'm asking -- my gosh -- is for specific language in the bill that prohibits federal dollars from being used to fund abortions," Hatch said. ...

"Democrats on the committee, along with pro-abortion-rights Republican Sen. Olympia Snowe (Maine) rejected Hatch's argument, saying it would be unfair to require women to purchase separate insurance coverage for abortion services. Such a requirement, Snowe said, would raise privacy issues by asking women to anticipate their need for abortion coverage."

Why are pro-abortion people objecting to language that excludes abortions being paid for by government healthcare plans--because they know abortion will be covered in the plan.

What we are being told about the current healthcare bill is not true.  It will cover illegal immigrants and it will cover abortion.  Please keep in mind that anyone who goes to an emergency room for medical care will be treated under current healthcare laws.  Healthcare is available to anyone who is in the country now--whether they are here legally or illegally.  The discussion now is whether to provide illegals with health insurance paid for by American taxpayers. 

The bill that is being debated now is not a move forward, it is the creation of a giant government bureaucracy that all of us will regret in the very near future.