March 2010 Archives

Scott Brown posted an op-ed piece at the Boston Globe yesterday.  The main premise of his article was that the health care fight is not over.  He pointed out that part of his campaign for Senator from Massachusetts was that he would be the 41st vote against the proposed health care reform.  The people of Massachusetts, breaking with all traditional expectations in the State, elected him.  That should have been a powerful message to Washington.  Some of us who voted for Scott Brown feel like the man in the cell phone commercials yelling, "Can you hear me now?"  I am not at all sure Washington has heard us yet.

Senator Brown has pledged to work for repeal of the very expensive healthcare reform bill that recently passed.  He is looking for ways to reform healthcare that will save consumers money and avoid a government takeover of the healthcare industry. 

Senator Brown concludes:

"Washington is broken. All across the country, people believe that their elected officials are working for themselves and not on behalf of their constituents. Only when we start heeding the will of the American people can we begin to restore faith in government, and it all starts with commonsense, practical solutions that will put Americans back to work and get our economy back on track."

That kind of clear thinking is the reason I am glad I voted for Scott Brown for Senator.

Yesterday Hot Air reported on the decision by the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit to have Albert Snyder pay the Court costs of his lawsuit against Fred Phelps.  Fred Phelps is the founder of the group from the Westboro Church, based in Topeka, Kansas, that protests military funerals with protest signs saying the deaths of American troops are God's punishment for America allowing homosexuality.  The Westboro Church protested at the funeral of Albert Snyder's son, and Mr. Snyder sued Fred Phelps for the emotional distress caused by the disruption of the funeral.  The legal question is 'where do a person's First Amendment rights end?'  The case will probably make it to the Supreme Court.  I am not a lawyer, and I don't understand how the legal aspect of this will be settled, but I believe something needs to be said about the total inappropriateness of protesting at a funeral.  Mr. Snyder has lost his son, I do not believe that the Westboro Church was acting with compassion when they turned the funeral into a circus.

Just a personal note on this.  I was in Jacksonville, North Carolina, in January of 2009 when Mr. Phelps brought his act to town.  Jacksonville is the town adjacent to Camp Lejeune, the largest Marine base on the east coast.  The military knew he was coming and simply avoided the area of town where he was protesting.  The Marines responded to his appearance with class and dignity.  Unfortunately, both those qualities are alien to Mr. Phelps.  Mr. Phelps has been allowed his First Amendment rights with very little interference.  There is no need to bring his circus to funerals; he has other places where he can protest.  A little respect for the feelings of the people who have suffered a great loss would be appreciated.

The sources for this article are Townhall.com and the New York Times.  President Obama announced today that he is opening up much of the east coast of the United States and some of Alaska to oil and natural gas drilling. 

According to the New York TImes:

"The proposal -- a compromise that will please oil companies and domestic drilling advocates but anger some residents of affected states and many environmental organizations -- would end a longstanding moratorium on oil exploration along the East Coast from the northern tip of Delaware to the central coast of Florida, covering 167 million acres of ocean."

In theory, I think this is a fantastic idea, but I will admit that I am a little skeptical.  This announcement comes just as the President is ready to attempt to push 'Cap and Trade' legislation through Congress.  The article in the New York Times points out that:

"...Interior Department will spend several years conducting geologic and environmental studies along the rest of the southern and central Atlantic Seaboard. If a tract is deemed suitable for development, it is listed for sale in a competitive bidding system. The next lease sales -- if any are authorized by the Interior Department -- would not be held before 2012."

This is a very interesting move on the part of the President.  In Virginia, the first sale of an oil lease could occur as early as next year as that land had already been approved, but the lease sale was held up by a court challenge and Interior Department review.  Keep in mind that Virginia just voted in a Republican governor.  Offshore drilling will increase jobs and revenue in Virginia and might put the state back in the Democrat column.

This is a story I will be watching.  Opening up offshore drilling would be wonderful for America in two ways--our dependence on foreign oil is a national security issue (Iran has threatened to close the Strait of Hormuz more than once) and it is also an economic issue (our balance of trade deficits).  Energy independence is a great idea, and biofuels in their present form have not been the answer.  I am, however, skeptical about the details of this plan--how high are the taxes on the oil companies that decide to drill going to be (high enough to make it uneconomical to develop the energy?).  This is a story we can all watch.

| | Comments (4) | TrackBacks (0)

Tax rates are prices--prices for working, saving and investing.  And when you raise the price of these productive activities, you get less of them and more activity in the underground economy, tax shelters, and leisure pursuits.  You in small business understand that you can't force people to buy merchandise that isn't selling by raising your price.  But too many in Washington and across the country still believe that we can raise more revenue from the economy by making it more expensive to work, save, and invest in the economy.  We can't repeal human nature.

Ronald Reagan

Today's Financial Times of London reported a story that I don't think has gotten a lot of coverage in the United States.  As part of its economic stimulus program, the Australian government offered homeowners up to A$1,600 ($1,460, €1,070, £970) to insulate their homes.  This sounds like a great idea--everybody wins--the homeowner saves energy, they get financial help to do it, and the government creates jobs and 'goes green.'  Well, not so fast.

More than one million homes have been insulated in a year, as opposed to the usual amount of 70,000.  Unfortunately, when that much work was created all at the same time, much of the work that was done was substandard--metal staples were driven into electrical cables, insulation was put on top of ceiling lights, and four installation workers have been killed.  This is becoming a politcal issue--Tony Abbott, the opposition leader, charges that some 48,000 homes could now have 'live' roofs that will electrocute anyone who climbs on them.  The environmental minister, former rock star Peter Garrett has been relieved of his duties. 

The article concludes:

"There is a final lesson. The subsidy meant that Australians could get their insulation free. Regulation is all very well, but it cannot cover every eventuality. The more people pay for their goods and services the more likely they are to inquire into the competence of the providers."

Please follow the link above and read the entire story.  It is a tale of what happens when the government gives out money without considering the consequences.

Immigration Reform

| | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Now that President Obama has passed his healthcare agenda, he will be moving on to immigration reform.  On March 4th, the Los Angeles Times reported that the President had met with Democrat Charles E. Schumer of New York and Republican Lindsey Graham of South Carolina who had been working on the bill.  Well, that was then, and this is now.

On March 25th, The Hill's Blog Briefing Room reported that Senator Graham has stated that the methods used by the Democrats in securing the passage of the healthcare bill had 'poisoned the well' and that the chances of getting a bipartisan bill passed after the passage of healthcare were small.

Meanwhile, George Will at the Washington Post Sunday, posted an idea that he felt might help inject some common sense into the immigration debate.  Mr. Will cites the current interpretation of the 14th Amendment as one of the sources of our immigration problem.  He suggests that ending the practice of "birthright citizenship" might slow down the number of illegal aliens who come to America.

Under present law, if a pregnant woman illegally crosses the border into the United States and makes her way to an American hospital to have her child, the child is born as a United States citizen.   Mr. Will points out that the Civil Rights Act of 1866 states that "All persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States." (his emphasis).

The article concludes:

"Congress has heard testimony estimating that more than two-thirds of all births in Los Angeles public hospitals, and more than half of all births in that city, and nearly 10 percent of all births in the nation in recent years, have been to mothers who are here illegally. Graglia seems to establish that there is no constitutional impediment to Congress ending the granting of birthright citizenship to those whose presence here is "not only without the government's consent but in violation of its law.""

I doubt that there is another country in the world where if you are in the country illegally and have a child, that child is a citizen of that country entitled to all benefits.  Closing this loophole would help discourage people who come here illegally and might allow us to adjust our immigration laws in order to attract citizens who want to assimilate into this country.  As a side note, one of the most disturbing things to me about the demonstrations we have seen by illegal immigrants who want to become Americans is the fact that they are hoisting the Mexican flag as they demonstrate.  That makes no sense.  If you want to be here, please become a loyal American; if your loyalty is to Mexico, please come visit us, then go home.

Yesterday Investors.com posted an editorial about the fact that Social Security is now paying out more money than it takes in.  Meanwhile, Representative Nancy Pelosi celebrated the beginning of a massive new entitlement program.  Social Security will run a deficit during 2010 due to early retirements of people who could not find jobs and less income coming in from taxes due to rising unemployment and lower payroll tax receipts.  According to the editorial, the 2010 shortfall is expected to be $29 billion.

This is a problem George W. Bush attempted to fix, but the Democrats told everyone that the system was solid and that George Bush was lying when he said that the system was in trouble.  MoveOn.org even put out a piece that said President Bush was using scare tactics and Social Security was solid until 2042.  These are the same people that are telling us that the new healthcare reform will save us money.  They really don't have a great track record!

The editorial points out:

"Private, insurance company-run annuity plans are legally required to pay you what was promised, when it was promised, and to maintain assets sufficient to redeem those promises. Social Security is not, and any insurance company CEO that ran a Ponzi scheme like Social Security would soon be incarcerated for fraud."

Unfortunately the government does not hold itself to the same standards of integrity that it demands of private industry.  They have been spending the reserve Social Security money since the 1960's.  There has never been a Social Security Trust Fund--it has been spent.  This is another thing we need to remember as the healthcare reform bill begins take effect. 

A new Congress is needed--one that will deal with the problems of our current entitlements rather than create new ones that add to the problem.

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government.  It can only exist until the voters discover they can vote themselves largess from the public treasury.

"From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising them the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship."

This quote is attributed to Alexander Tyler.  There are efforts to disprove this.  They are noted at the site where I got the quote, http://www.wrisley.com/cycle.htm.

Today's Washington Examiner posted an opinion piece on the recess appointment of Craig Becker to the National Labor Relations Board.  Mr. Becker is the former associate general counsel for the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) and has represented the AFL-CIO in court. 

Some of his ideas include not allowing management to attend hearings on labor management disbutes at the NLRB.  He also favors 'card check', which removes the secret ballot from elections where workers vote on whether or not to unionize a company. 

According to the article:

"...last month Becker's nomination fell eight votes short of the 60 needed to defeat a threatened Republican filibuster in the Senate, which left a recess appointment as the only way Obama could get his man on the NLRB."

This vote shows that not even all the Democrats were in favor of this nomination.  The Democrats who voted against cloture were Blanche Lincoln, and Ben Nelson.  Both are facing tough races to retain their House seats in November.  Democrats who did not vote were Mary Landrieu, Robert Byrd, Daniel Inouye, and Mark Pryor.

The article also points out that SEIU President Andy Stern and the union's chief lobbyist are the two most frequent visitors to the White House.  I am not opposed to labor unions.  I am opposed to having labor unions wield a disproportional amount of power in our government.

 

As a result of the recently passed healthcare reform bill, many of us will see our taxes go up (directly or indirectly), and it's time to examine what happens in an economy when taxes are raised.  The Heritage Foundation posted an article on the Laffer Curve a number of years ago.  The article was written by Arthur Laffer, who states in the article that although the Laffer Curve is named after him, he did not invent it.  The information in the article is still valid, and the article is something I wish all of our Congressmen would read and memorize.

According the Mr. Laffer:

"The Laffer Curve, by the way, was not invented by me. For example, Ibn Khaldun, a 14th century Muslim philosopher, wrote in his work The Muqaddimah: "It should be known that at the beginning of the dynasty, taxation yields a large revenue from small assessments. At the end of the dynasty, taxation yields a small revenue from large assessments.""

The article also quotes John Mayard Keynes writing that when taxation is too high wealth creation will be slowed and tax revenues will decrease.  (That also needs to be required reading for Congress.)  Please follow the link above to read the entire article.

This is the chart from the article that shows it all:LafferCurve.gif

Friday night I attended the kick off meeting for Marty Lamb's Congressional Campaign held in Westborough, Massachusetts.  Marty is running in the Republican Primary.  The winner of the primary will challenge incumbent Jim McGovern in Massachusetts' 3rd Congressional District.

Marty Lamb

(Picture courtesy of Mark Urbin)

Marty Lamb made a short speech explaining why he was running and what he would like to accomplish as a Representative from Massachusetts.  His platform is simple.  He believes in a representative government that actually represents the people.  He pointed out that all of us manage household budgets, and we know that if our income decreases for any reason, we have to cut our spending.  He pointed out that if we as heads of families do that, the government should follow our example.  He supports sustainable tax cuts--tax cuts that will remain in place in order to allow businesses to plan for the future.  He pointed out that historically tax cuts help stimulate the economy and used the Kennedy Administration and the Reagan Administration as examples of that.  He supports the repeal of the recently passed healthcare reform act, and opposes pork-barrel spending.

I was impressed by his ideas--they are the principles of the founding fathers that the current Congress seems to have forgotten, and I will support him as a candidate for Representative from my district.

To learn more, click on this link to his website, Martyforcongress.com.

I was fortunate enough on Friday night to meet and have a chance to talk to Kamal Jain, who is running in the Republican primary for State Auditor.  I was impressed.  Kamal is a seasoned businessman who believes in transparency in government.  One of the things he showed me as we talked was the chart below:

10 Year Total Spending Chart

This chart shows the difference between the actual budget of the State of Massachusetts for Fiscal Years 2000 through 2009 and the actual spending for Fiscal Years 2000 through 2009.  This is the link to the area of his website that explains how this works, MassTransparency.com.  I do not claim to understand all the workings of this, but it obvious to me that there is a large amount of money spent that somehow is not in the actual budget which is voted on by the legislature and signed by the Governor.  Mr. Jain plans to make public how the State of Massachusetts actually spends our money.  I like that. 

Mr. Jain is an impressive man with an impressive resume.  I plan on voting for him in the primary election.

The source of this story is an article in today's Washington Examiner written by Byron York.  Representative Henry Waxman, Chairman of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, has asked some of the nation's top corporate executives to appear before his committee on April 21 to explain their statements that the new healthcare reform bill will cost their companies hundreds of millions of dollars in healthcare expenses. 

According to the article: 

"Waxman's demands for documents are far-reaching. "To assist the Committee with its preparation for the hearing," he wrote to Stephenson, "we request that you provide the following documents from January 1, 2009, through the present:

"(1) any analyses related to the projected impact of health care reform on AT&T; and (2) any documents, including e-mail messages, sent to or prepared or reviewed by senior company officials related to the projected impact of health care reform on AT&T. We also request an explanation of the accounting methods used by AT&T since 2003 to estimate the financial impact on your company of the 28 percent subsidy for retiree drug coverage and its deductibility or nondeductibility, including the accounting methods used in preparing the cost impact statement released by AT&T this week."

This is a further attempt by the Democrats in Congress to intimidate corporate leaders who are speaking out about the negative effect of the healthcare reform bill on their businesses.  These documents are considered confidential within a company, but if the executives refuse to provide them, they risk subpoenas and threats from Chairman Waxman. 

The problem that the corporations are experiencing is due to the repeal of the provision in the 2003 Medicare prescription bill that provided a tax break to corporations that continued providing prescription drug covereage to their retirees, keeping the retirees out of the Medicare system--thus saving the government money.  Now that the healthcare reform bill ends that tax break, it will be more expensive for corporations to provide that coverage.  It is quite possible that private companies will stop providing that benefit, thus forcing more people into Medicare at a time when the bill also cuts Medicare spending.

The bottom line here is that people will lose jobs or not be hired because the cost of doing business for these (and other) corporations will go up.  If the healthcare reform law stands (and is not repealed and replaced), we can expect unemployment to remain in the 10 percent range.  That is not the way America does business.

 

 

 

 

 

According to the Jerusalem Post, 327 United States congressmen have signed a letter stating that the current tension between Israel and America do not advance the interests of either state.  Admittedly that is rather obvious, but the interesting part to me is that it only took them three days to get the 327 signatures.  President Obama's treatment of Israel was rude and unjustifiable; it was out of step with Congress and the American people.

Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu met with his six senior ministers (the 'Septet') on Friday to discuss his trip to the United States and the demands of President Obama.

The article points out:

"The US had been pressing for a quick reply to then take to the Arab League meeting in Libya and try to get that group's backing for proximity talks - an eventuality that now seems increasingly unlikely. The US demands, and Netanyahu's trip, are expected to come up at Sunday's weekly meeting of the full cabinet."

I think most Americans would like to see peace between Israel and her neighbors, but why are we acting like Neville Chamberlain and refusing to see the increasing militarism of Israel's enemies?

There are a few things that may explain President Obama's recent horrible treatment of Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu.  First of all, regardless of how you feel about him as a President, President Obama is a relatively intelligent man.  He is quite capable of setting a goal and forming a plan to achieve it.  Peace in the Middle East would be a crowning achievement for his presidency.  The Arab countries are not known for their flexibility.  The current prime minister of Israel is not going to sacrifice his country in the name of peace.  If President Obama can create enough tension between the United States and Israel and make it look as if the problem is Netanyahu, he may be able to bring down the current government of Israel and have it replaced with a government that will give away the country in the name of peace.  Remember, President Obama was a community organizer--he knows how to stir up discontent. 

The other aspect of this, which is more disturbing, is President Obama's lack of forcefulness in dealing with Iran.  President Obama wants to win the war in Afghanistan quickly and bring the troops home (we all do, but there are some differences in how we should do that).  Currently, Iran is training Al Qaeda 'soldiers', providing materials for IED's (improvised explosive devices), and doing anything it can to kill Americans in Afghanistan.  President Obama may believe that if he comes down hard on Israel and lets Iran develop nuclear weapons, Iran will stop its efforts in Afghanistan.

Just a quick note on Iran's nuclear program.  The only successful and reasonable way to stop Iran's nuclear program is to overthrown the current rulers of Iran.  Nothing else will work.

It is encouraging to see Congress support Israel.  My hope is that they can put enough pressure of the President to do the same.

Yesterday, Fox News reported on a provision in the healthcare reform bill that somehow got through without anyone noticing.  According to the article:

"The Class Act, otherwise known as the Community Living Assistance Services and Support Act, is the federal government's first long-term care insurance program.

"Under-reported and the under the radar of most lawmakers, the program will allow workers to have an average of roughly $150 or $240 a month, based on age and salary, automatically deducted from their paycheck to save for long-term care.

"The Congressional Budget Office expects the government will collect $109 billion in premiums by 2019."

Here comes another bureaucracy.  The deductions could begin as early as 2012.  After a five-year period, participants would be able to use the money for in-home care.

This is one of many things buried in the 2000+ page bill that no one had time to read before it was passed.  I would also like to mention that Congress is not covered by the healthcare reform act they just passed--it will not impact their healthcare insurance at all.  We have created a political class that is immune from the laws that they are passing.  That was not what our founding fathers intended.

Remember how, as part of the stimulus package, you had less taxes taken out of your paycheck or if you were on Social Security you received $250 (and no cost of living increase) ?  Well, I hope you didn't celebrate too enthusiastically--the IRS wants their money back! 

My husband does our taxes on Turbo-Tax, and I confess that I really don't pay a lot of attention to his spouse-type grousings as he is working on taxes.  However, every now and then I am amazed at what he discovers.  Last night was one of those moments.  I retired in February of 2009 and began collecting Social Security.  Because I was not retired in January, I did not receive the $250 bonus paid to Social Security recipients.  Ok.  Fine.  Well, after my husband filed our taxes, the IRS refused our return, asking if I had received the $250.  They even included a phone number in their e-mail, so I called it.  The computer on the other end of the phone confirmed that I had not, in fact, received the $250.  OK.  We agree.  My husband then went back to his computer and confirmed that I had not received that income.  Oddly enough, at that point our tax refund grew by $250!  Had I received the money, I would never have known that they were taking it back.

Evidently, many other people are having rude awakenings about the stimulus tax breaks they received last year.  Walletpop.com (I found the link on AOL.  I am not familiar with them, but they confirm my story.) posted a story yesterday about taxpayers who thought that the change in their withholding that was done as part of the stimulus was actually a tax cut.  There are some serious jolts going on. 

The article reports:

"If you and your spouse both had jobs in 2009, each of you was eligible for a $400 credit -- a total of $800 if you filed together (this assumes you made more than $13,000 between the two of you). Well, someone didn't double-check the math and you and your spouse actually received $600 each for a total of $1,200 in tax credit.
Now you and your spouse owe the government $400 because of the glitch. Not that it's any consolation, but you're not alone -- 55% of married couples fall into this category."
There is another aspect to this.  If Social Security recipients have to pay back the $250, it doesn't cost the government anything other than interest payments on the debt.  The $250 is not a cost as it will be paid back.  It's bad enough that the stimulus package cost over a trillion dollars and did not keep unemployment below 8.5 percent (as promised), but the fact that the Americans who will pay the bill for this very expensive program didn't even really receive the benefits they were told they would receive is outrageous.  We have truly been snookered.
 

Yesterday, Hot Air reported that Senator Max Baucus made the statement on the Senate floor that the "healthcare bill" is "an income shift, it is a shift, a leveling to help lower income middle income Americans"  Baucus continued, "[t]oo often, much of late, the last couple three years the mal-distribution of income in America is gone up way too much, the wealthy are getting way, way too wealthy, and the middle income class is left behind.  Wages have not kept up with increased income of the highest income in America.  This legislation will have the effect of addressing that mal-distribution of income in America."

I wonder how many of our Senators and Representatives who voted for this bill understood that this was one of the purposes of the bill.  I also wonder how many of them actually believe that you help the poor by taking money from people who earned it and giving it to people who did not.  I thought we were just helping people get good healthcare.  This is one of the hazards of passing a bill that has 2000+ pages in three days--no one had read it and analyzed it carefully. 

For a list of the Senators who supported the bill on Christmas Eve, go to Thomas.gov.  For a list of the Representatives who voted for the bill on March 21st, go to Thomas.gov.  Remember these names in the coming months.  The Republicans are going to run on a campaign of 'repeal and replace.'  In order for them to be successful, everyone needs to get involved.  If you have any ambitions for yourself or for your children to be successful, now is the time to act.  What Max Baucus calls "maldistribution of income", many of us call the rewards of hard work.  The problem with income redistribution is that it takes away incentive and we all lose.  Today's Wall Street Journal reported that personal income dropped in 42 states in 2009.  If we do not act now, that is our future for a long time.

Look at the voting lists to see how your Congressman voted.  Then donate, work for, or otherwise support the candidate running against him in 2010.

Yesterday's London Times posted a more complete report of the recent visit of Israeli President Binyamin Netanyahu to the United States.  To say that President Netanyahu was treated poorly is an understatement.  The article relates that:

"In their meeting Mr Obama set out a number of expectations that Israel was to satisfy if it wanted to end the crisis, Israeli sources said. These included an extension of the freeze on Jewish settlement growth beyond the 10-month deadline next September, an end to Israeli building projects in east Jerusalem, and even a withdrawal of Israeli forces to positions that they held before the Second Intifada in September 2000, after which they re-occupied most of the West Bank."

To act as if the Israelis are dealing with a 'peace process' with a country that actually wants peace is to deny reality.  First of all, we need to remember that before the 1967 war, there was not a cry for a 'Palestinian State.'   My favorite quote on this subject is from Walid Shoebat, a former terrorist, who states, "Why is it that on June 4th 1967 I was a Jordanian and overnight I became a Palestinian?"  During the time that Jordan, Egypt, and other countries controlled the land that the Arabs want as 'Palestine', there was never a cry for a Palestinian state.  A two-state solution is a wonderful goal if both states want a peaceful two-state solution.  The actions of the people calling for the state of Palestine do not back up that idea. 

The actions of President Obama in dealing with President Netanyahu were incredibly rude and unproductive.  Israel has been our best ally in the Middle East.  Why are we condemning our ally for building in its own capital while ignoring the progress Iran is making toward nuclear weapons?  We are sending Iran a message that we will not defend Israel when they are ready to attack--much like to misunderstanding that led to the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait--because of a conversation with an American diplomat, the Iraqis concluded that if they invaded Kuwait, we would not interfere--so they did it!  President Obama is playing a dangerous game when he treats the President of Israel as badly as he treated President Netanyahu.

This is a quote from John Adams.  It is something we need to remember today.

"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion.  Avarice, ambition, revenge or gallantry would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net.  Our Constitution is designed only for a moral and religious people.  It is wholly inadequate for any other."

As one of the founders of our country, John Adams totally understood what would be needed to keep American strong.

One of the things in the stimulus bill that did not get a lot of attention was the elimination of the school voucher program (D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program) in Washington, D. C.  There was a lot of irony in the fact that Congress was eliminating this program, since very few (if any) Congressmen who live in Washington, D. C., send their children to public schools.  Since that program was terminated (actually Congress simply stated that no new children could sign up for the program), a number of Congressmen have been working to reinstate it.

On March, 10, the Washington Post reported on those efforts.  Senator Joseph I. Lieberman (I-Conn.) has been the leader in this fight, but has not been able to get his bill to the floor.  Meanwhile, George Will reported Sunday in the Washington Post that Education Secretary Arne Duncan in speaking to a group this month in Alabama:

"...vowed to unleash on public schools legions of lawyers wielding Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. They supposedly will rectify what he considers civil rights violations, such as too many white students in high school Advanced Placement classes."

That's very nice, I guess, but George Will points out:

"No segregationist politician is blocking schoolhouse doors against D.C. children; congressional Democrats are. Until Duncan and the talkative president he serves speak against the congressional Democrats who are strangling the District's Opportunity Scholarship Program, he should spare us the exhibitionism of explaining problems of social class in the '60s vocabulary of civil rights violations."

It seems that one of the places to start providing racial equality in education might be in Washington, D. C.

Ed Morrissey at Hot Air posted an article today that relates the story of a Seattle, Washington, high school student who was given an abortion without her parents' knowledge.  The story was originally reported by KOMO News in Seattle. 

The mother of the teenager (the mother is pro-choice) signed a consent form for her daughter to visit the Ballard Teen Health Center located within the high school.  She figured her daughter could go there for a sore throat, an earache, etc.  She did not realize it meant her daughter could go there for an abortion without her knowing it. 

Just as a side note, I really don't like the idea of a "Teen Health Center" located within a high school.  It seems to me that even in high school, a student should not be responsible for their medical services without the input of his/her parents.  The convenience is nice, but without parental input, this is a bad idea.  It almost seems as if the location of the health center is putting a wall between the parent and the child.

Anyway, back to the story.  According to KOMO:

"Jill (the child's mother) says her daughter, a pro-life advocate, was given a pass, put in a taxi and sent off to have an abortion during school hours all without her family knowing."

I happen to be pro-life.  I also happen to be the mother of three daughters.  Although I would oppose any one of my daughters seeking an abortion, if she had an abortion, I would want to be there for her.  To take the parents out of the picture at that point is unfair to the parents and to the child (I realize that in certain cases there are extenuating circumstances, but that was clearly not the case here).

There is a related story at Hot Air written by Ed Morrissey in May 2008.  It deals with the events that followed the unintended pregnancy of his son's girfriend during their senior year of high school.  The story also shows that we need to pay attention to some of the underlying messages given to our children as they attend high school.


 

Today's Worcester Telegram posted an article praising the Democrat Party for passing the healthcare reform bill and chastising the Republicans for not being part of the destruction of the American economy.  My Congressional Representative, Jim McGovern, voted for the bill.  That is one of the reasons I am collecting signatures for Marty Lamb, who hopes to run against him for Congress in November.  The New York Times stated yesterday: "The bill that President Obama signed on Tuesday is the federal government's biggest attack on economic inequality since inequality began rising more than three decades ago."   It is not up to the government to attack economic inequalityWhere is that in the U. S. Constitution?  All of the Massachusetts Congressmen voted for the bill except for Stephen Lynch (who was probably allowed to vote no because Nancy Pelosi did not need his vote).

As was previously reported on this site (rightwinggranny.com), one Massachusetts company will already be negatively impacted by this bill.  Zoll Medical Corporation in Chelmsford (which made a profit of $9.5 million in 2009) is expecting to be hit with a new tax of between $5 million and $10 million a year under the new healthcare reform.  None of the options available to them as a company to stay in business will be good for the State of Massachusetts.  I know that Congressmen have a reputation for bringing home the bacon--I didn't realize they were also good at taking the bacon away from their own states!

I have two direct quotes about the bill from Townhall.com (via Associated Press) about the claim that all children with pre-existing conditions will be immediately covered:

"Under the new law, insurance companies still would be able to refuse new coverage to children because of a pre-existing medical problem, said Karen Lightfoot, spokeswoman for the House Energy and Commerce Committee, one of the main congressional panels that wrote the bill Obama signed into law Tuesday.

"...Full protection for children would not come until 2014, said Kate Cyrul, a spokeswoman for the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, another panel that authored the legislation. That's the same year when insurance companies could no longer deny coverage to any person on account of health problems."

There is also a ten percent tax on tanning salons.  How many small businesses in Massachusetts are going to close because of that tax increase?  How many people will lose their jobs?  I also wonder what the funding for 17,000 IRS agents is doing in a healthcare bill.  Why is the government takeover of the student loan program in this bill?

I strongly suggest that you donate to every opposing candidate of any Congressman in Massachusetts who voted for this bill.  Voting for this bill was not brave--how many Congressmen read the 2,000+ page bill before they voted for it?  We don't need Congressmen who blindly follow the orders of the Washington Democrat Party; we need Congressmen who will pay attention to the needs of their state.  I will be voting for Marty Lamb in November.

 

Yesterday The Hill's Blog Briefing Room reported that thirteen states have filed lawsuits against the recently passed healthcare reform bill.  Attorneys General from Florida, South Carolina, Nebraska, Texas, Louisiana, Alabama, Michigan, Colorado, Pennsylvania, Utah, Washington, Idaho and South Dakota have all filed suits.  They have filed these suits on the basis that the bill is unconstitutional.  This is the link to the pdf file of the lawsuit.

The article states:

"The suit specifically claims that the Medicaid expansion, individual mandates to buy health insurance and several tax provisions violate various clauses in the Constitution. They say that the measures run roughshod over guarantees of state sovereignty and limitations on the scope of taxation."

This could be a very interesting lawsuit.  One of the problems at the root of states not wanting to see this bill go into effect is the unfunded mandates.  A lot of the financial burden of this bill will fall on state budgets--Medicare and Medicaid expenses can be expected to increase very rapidly as many more people are added to the programs.  Some of the states which will be greatly affected by this bill are already in serious financial difficulty.

If I may presume to give advice to the Republicans as they deal with the passage of this bill, my advice is very simple--repeal is a good idea, but repeal and replace is a better idea.  There are many ways to make sure all Americans have access to affordable health insurance without a government takeover of the health insurance industry.  Please draft a bill of less than twenty pages that all Americans can read and understand that will help low-income people afford insurance and allow the free market to function in the healthcare insurance industry.

The beautiful child in the picture below is one of the children our military helped when they were deployed in Afghanistan in 2002 - 2003.  It is the lead picture in an article by Michael Yon about what American military medical teams are doing now to provide medical care for the children of that country.  The child in the picture became known to the soldiers as Princess Salerno. 

Michael Yon concludes in his article:

"Princess Salerno recovered from her broken leg and became a favorite memory of the 909th after their return home in 2003. There is no way of knowing what has become of her over the ensuing 7 years. The team would rather just simply think of her just as she remains in these photos. A beautiful, innocent, princess child.

This is the Afghanistan that we should focus upon. The children are growing up under generations of war. It is no wonder why it is so easy for them to be turned into radical Islamists. They are indoctrinated via the madrassas that had exploded in numbers during the 1980s through 1990s. This country has been manipulated into this radical culture from outside influences. In my humble opinion, if we are to win the battle against radical Islam and terrorism, then we will need to invest in multiple generations. This is a marathon, not a sprint. Anything less than this full, long-term effort will only result in what we have now. History will repeat itself."

Please follow the link to the article to read the stories and see the pictures of the medical help that our military is bringing to the people of Afghanistan.

Taniwal5-001_1000[1].jpg

I have no problem with extending healthcare to people who cannot afford insurance.  There are a number of very practical and cost-effective ways to do this without impacting the health insurance or economic situation of those already insured.  Unfortunately, this is not the law that passed Congress last Sunday.

Yesterday, the New York Times ran a story about the recently passed healthcare reform bill.  The story points out that one of the aims of the bill is to redistribute wealth by adding taxes on the wealthiest Americans.  They seem to forget that the 'weathiest Americans' generally run the businesses that provide the jobs for the rest of us. 

On July 30, 2009, the New York Times reported:

"The top 1 percent of taxpayers paid 40.42 percent of total federal income taxes in 2007, according to the most recent data from the Internal Revenue Service."

These are the people who do not work forty-hour weeks.  They are people who studied hard and worked hard to get where they are.  If we are going to tell our children to work hard and study hard to succeed, we need not to punish the people who have succeeded.

The gripe in this article is that for the past thirty years, the taxes on the wealthy have decreased more than the taxes on the less wealthy.  Has it occurred to the writer that since the tax burden on the wealthy was disproportionally higher, logically, it would decrease more?

As can be expected from the New York Times, the article blames Ronald Reagan for the inequality of income in the United States.  Has it occurred to the writer that when you begin to tax success (as was done in the Clinton years), you slow down economic growth (although the results are not immediately obvious)?  When you offer people a free lunch (free health care, lower taxes for lower achievement, longer term unemployment insurance which lessens incentive to find a new job or possibly take one that is less than ideal), the level of achievement will go down.  You have taken away incentive.  Why work sixty hour weeks if you aren't going to be allowed to keep what you earn? 

The healthcare bill represents a cultural change in America--hard work and success will now be punished--not rewarded.  This will not mean good things for our future.

On Sunday, Investors.com (The editorial page of Investor's Business Daily) posted an article entitled "20 Ways ObamaCare Will Take Away Our Freedoms."  Please follow the link to the article, but I will try to highlight it here.

You no longer have the option of whether or not to buy insurance.  If you are young and healthy or starting up a business, you have to pay for health insurance, or pay a fine.  (Section 1501).  Section 2701 of the bill states that the insurance companies will no longer be able to underwrite on the basis of a person's health status.  Section 2711 says that you cannot buy a cheaper policy that has limits on payout.  Section 2712 says that you cannot buy certain pollicies if they do not have the proper preventive coverage.  Section 2714 says that as an employer you have to insure your employees children up to age 26.  (Whose idea was this?  Are we trying to keep our children dependent forever?) 

Section 1302 says that if you are a single male, your policy must cover pediatrics, a non-drinker must have substance abuse coverage.  A woman who cannot have children must have maternity coverage.

The list continues.  Hospital expansion is subject to major limitations if the hospital is doctor-owned. 

This is a nightmare.  It needs to be repealed either by lawsuits or by Congress as soon as possible.  A number of State Attorneys General are preparing lawsuits to challenge to basic mandate of requiring everyone to buy health insurance.  Stay tuned.

Today at the Washington Examiner, Byron York posted a story about a Chelmsford Massachusetts company named Zoll Medical Corporation.  The company manufactures heart defibrillators, which are used throughout our nation to save thousands of heart attack victims every year.  The healthcare bill passed in the House of Representatives Sunday levies a tax on the makers of medical devices in order to pay for the new healthcare program.

The tax will cost Zoll Medical Corporation somewhere between $5 million and $10 million a year according to Richard Packer, the company's chairman and chief executive officer.  He adds that the company profit in 2009 was $ 9.5 million.

The article points out that the company has a few options in handling this increased expense.  It can raise the price of its product, not really a good idea as they are coming under pressure to cut their price.  The company could shift jobs overseas in order to lower production costs.  This would not help the unemployment rate nationally or in Massachusetts.  Also, the company can also cut back on research and development. 

Cutting back on research and development is a choice many medical device companies will be forced to make.  It will hurt them down the road in terms of competition, but there is also another aspect to this.  America has (up until now) led the world in developing medical technology.  We can expect to see innovation in medicine decline sharply as the companies that manufacture medical devices are more heavily taxed.

This is a picture of sunset in Afghanistan.  It is part of an article by Michael Yon.  The article has some beautiful pictures of the helicopters and airplanes the Air Force is using to support our troops and the stories of the men who fly them.  Michael Yon is probably the most reliable source on the war in Afghanistan.

IMG_2062a-1000[1].jpg

Yesterday Fox News reported that a federal judge has ordered the release of Mohamedou Ould Slahi, a man named by the 9/11 Commission as a recruiter for Al Qaeda who helped put together the team who carried out the attacks on September 11, 2001. 

The article states:

"Military prosecutors suspected Slahi of links to other Al Qaeda operations, and considered seeking the death penalty against him while preparing possible charges in 2003 and 2004.

"U.S. District Judge James Robertson granted Slahi's petition for habeas corpus, effectively finding the government lacked legal grounds to hold him. The order was classified, although the court said it planned to release a redacted public version in the coming weeks."

This detainee was not tried in a military commission because he is said to have been tortured.  When you read the article, you learn that torture included death threats and harm to his mother.  You will note that no bodily injury occurred and that lives were probably saved by the information obtained.

Would someone please tell this judge that if he releases this prisoner, American soldiers will die.  Does he understand that this man is a threat to all Americans, including him?

A $50 Lesson

I recently asked my friends' little girl what she wanted to be when she
grows up. She said she wanted to be President some day. Both of her parents,
liberal Democrats, were standing there, so I asked her, 'If you were
President what would be the first thing you would do? '

She replied, 'I'd give food and houses to all the homeless people.'

Her parents beamed with pride.

'Wow...what a worthy goal.' I told her, 'But you don't have to wait until
you're President to do that. You can come over to my house and mow the lawn,
pull weeds, and sweep my yard, and I'll pay you $50. Then I'll take you over
to the grocery store where the homeless guy hangs out, and you can give him
the $50 to use toward food and a new house.'

She thought that over for a few seconds, then she looked me straight in the
eye and asked, ' Why doesn't the homeless guy come over and do the work, and
you can just pay him the $50? '

I said, 'Welcome to the Republican Party.'

Her parents still aren't speaking to me.

A close relative of mine has been diagnosed with Parkinson's Disease at a young age.  She is actively raising money for research into the disease.  This is the link to her website, Team Bettina Home Page.  Please feel free to follow the link and show your support.

I know it passed, and I apologize for the fact that we are still going to be talking about the healthcare reform bill for some time.  Today, the editors at National Review posted a really good analysis of where we are and where we go from here.

The editors point out what is obvious to many of the voters:

"Almost nothing about this legislation is free of dispute, but we are convinced that it will increase taxes, increase premiums, and increase debt, while decreasing economic growth, job growth, and the quality of health care."

The editors also point out that during the Presidential campaign, President Obama pledged not to force people to buy health insurance and not to tax their healthcare benefits.  Both promises will be broken when he signs the healthcare reform bill.  He has also broken the promise of bipartisanship--the only bipartisanship was against the bill! 

The article points out that repeal of the entire bill is not likely--the closing of the 'doughnut hole' in senior citizens drug benefits will probably be with us forever.  It is possible, however, as the unpleasant aspects of the bill become apparent, Congress will be pressured to undo them.  I wonder about that, though, considering the amount of pressure that was put on Congress not to pass the bill. 

The only way the Republicans gain anything by the passage of this awful bill is to promise not only to repeal it, but to replace it with something that will actually work and actually save the taxpayers of America money.  Unfortunately, the next 'big thing' to come down the pike will be an immigration reform package that will make all illegals legal and then put them on government healthcare.  This will, in fact, backrupt the country.  The only logical reason to make illegals legal is to have them pay into Social Security (with the hope of delaying the demise of the system).  That is a true ponzi scheme and hopefully Americans will be smart enough and loud enough to stop it!

Yesterday's U.K. Times reported that Iceland is bracing for another more severe volcanic eruption.  The article reports that tremors around the volcano near the Eyjafjallajokull glacier, which erupted Sunday, were first recorded in early March.  About 500 people have been evacuated from near the volcano.  The volcano is about 75 miles southeast of the Icelandic capital Reykjavik.  The fear is that a nearby volcano, Katla, beneath Myrdalsjoekull, a large glacier, will also erupt.  If a volcano erupts beneath a glacier, the risk is flooding and mudslides as well as the risk from the eruption itself.

Iceland is a beautiful country, built on volcanic rock where the North American and Eurasian tectonic plates meet.   The picture below was taken at Reykjanes where the plates meet.  They are pulling apart at a rate of about 2 centimeters a year.  The white spot toward the right side of the bridge is me wearing a white winter hat!  The dark gray under the bridge is not water--it is lava dust.  That section of Iceland (the southwestern section) is lava rock (covered with green moss in spots).  The picture is a color picture.  That is the color that things looked in February 2007!

The volcanoes under iceland provide the country with true 'green' energy.  The place that we stayed while we were there had radiant heat in the floors that was provided by the local hot spring.  There were huge pipes all along the roads going away from the Blue Lagoon that carried hot water throughout the country.  There were greenhouses throughout the country heated by geo-thermal activity.  There are, however, risks involved in living on an island with continuing volcanic activity.

For a larger version of the picture below, click on the same picture on the right.

IcelandContinentalBridge_IMG_0050.JPG

Are you tired of hearing about healthcare reform yet?  I know I am, but the issue is not going to go away.  If it passes tonight, which I expect it to, that will be only the beginning of the fight.  I have watched and listened all day, and (as usual) I have a few throughts (and a good link).

The Democrats who support the bill are touting the provision that allows children to remain under their parent's health insurance policies until age 26.  Now, my youngest child is in her mid-thirties, so admittedly I am not affected by this, but wait a minute.  Isn't the whole idea of parenthood to teach the bird to fly out of the nest at some point?  I realize these are difficult times and there may be cases where this is necessary, but do we really want to make it the rule?  I love my children, but my worst nightmare would be to have them dependent on me at age 26.  To set up that situation routinely troubles me.

The other thing being touted by the people who support the bill is the immediate insurance for pre-existing conditions.  Look at that one closely--for the first year or two, it only applies to children.  Also, are the insurance companies going to have to raise their rates to pay for this? There are such things as actuary tables that are used to assess risk in providing insurance coverage.  Are we throwing those tables out the window?

Now to the link.  In an article in today's Washington Examiner, Michael Barone points out that the healthcare reform bill will vastly increase government spending. 

 "Over the last 40 years federal government spending has hovered around 21 percent of the gross domestic product. The Obama budgets have pushed that up to 25 percent. The health care bill threatens to keep it in that vicinity indefinitely. And that, as the CBO has said, means deficits around 5 percent of GDP as far as the eye can see -- or higher taxes. Pelosi and other Democrats have been eyeing a value-added tax, i.e., a national sales tax."

Some of the taxes coming our way--3.8 percent more in Medicare tax, from 35 to 39.6 percent in income taxes, a 3.8 percent tax on interest and dividend levels beginning in 2013.  These tax increase will in no way help the coming problems in Medicare and Social Security--they will be used to fund the new healthcare reform.  This bill is a fiscal nightmare and a job killer.  Hopefully it will be repealed before it can do any serious damage.

This article is based on a story in Power Line today, which in turn linked to a story yesterday in the Jerusalem Post.  Caspian Makan, the fiance of Neda Agha-Soltan (whose murder during the protests in Iran was filmed and the video shown around the world), is visiting Israel and has released a statement.  Mr. Makan was taken prisoner and tortured by the Iranian government after Neda's death and fled to Canada. 

According to the article in the Jerusalem Post:

"In trembling voice, Makan said there was hope for change in Iran. "The Iranian people is aware of the rights its being denied. Today the Iranian people is steadfast to achieve victory and to overthrow the current regime."

"Makan said he hoped for an Iran "where no man comes against his fellow man, with no more executions, no more war, no more murder.""

While Mr. Makan is in Jerusalem hoping for freedom from tyranny for his country, President Obama is trying to make peace with Iran. 

Power Line reports:

"In his message Obama acknowledges Iran's right to peaceful use of nuclear energy. He purports to be mystified by the beliefs of "Iran's leaders." He must not be paying close attention."

Meanwhile Iran's response to the President's message is pretty simple.  According to Thursday's U K Telegraph, border officials in Afghanistan report a large amount of weapons and materials for making weapons seized on the Afghan border with Iran.  It is a shame our President is too busy criticizing Israel for building an apartment building within the city limits of its own capital to deal with the threat of Iranian nuclear weapons.

AOL News posted an Associated Press story earlier this week about a Holocaust survivor named Berthe Meijer, now 71.  Mrs. Meijer (at age 6) was an inmate at the Nazi concentration camp Bergen Belsen for 13 months until it was liberated in April 1945.  Yad Vashem, the Israeli Holocaust memorial authority, has confirmed this.  Her memoir, which will be published in Dutch later this month, recounts a memory of Anne Frank telling stories to the younger children in the camp to take their minds off their surroundings.

The article points out:

"Around 140,000 Jews lived in the Netherlands before the 1940-45 Nazi occupation. Of those, 107,000 were deported to Germany and only 5,200 survived.

"The Meijers and the Franks were acquaintances before the war: members of both families had fled Germany during the rise of Hitler's regime and found a place in the tightly-knit Jewish community in Amsterdam. The Meijers lived on the same street where Anne attended a Montessori elementary school."

Please follow the link to the article to read the entire story.  It is an inspiring story.  I will admit that I didn't realize that there were children in the concentration camps.  I was under the impression that they were sent to the gas chambers as soon as they arrived.  I can't imagine the imprint an experience like the concentration camps would leave on a young child.  It is comforting to know that there were people in the camps that tried to protect the young and vulnerable from the reality around them.

Yesterday was the seventh anniversary of the beginning of the Iraq War.  There were a lot of things we miscalculated going into that war and a lot of mistakes made in those seven years, but Iraq has voted as a democracy more than once since the beginning of that war. 

Yesterday CNSNews posted an article about the forgotten anniversary of the beginning of the Iraq war. 

The article points out:

"The White House made no comment Friday on the anniversary of the start of the war. The U.S. military said there were no ceremonies or special events to mark the day, which saw five Iraqis - but no Americans - die in violent incidents."

Meanwhile, on Monday, March 15, CNSNews reported that the preliminary results of the recent Iraqi election showed that the political parties that support Iran seem to be weakening.  I hope this is an indication of things to come.  The biggest danger in telegraphing our plans to leave Iraq on a specified date is that the pro-Iran forces in that country can simply wait us out and then take over the country.  Meanwhile, Iraq is having elections and beginning to function as a democracy.  Remember, we did not get everying 100 percent right at the beginning of our own country--we didn't deal with slavery, women were not allowed to vote, and there were other things the founding fathers avoided addressing in order to preserve unity within their new union.  We need to remember that as we watch Iraq grow into a democracy.

Meanwhile, thank you to all of our military who made the beginnings of democracy in Iraq possible.

A few days ago, Democrats in Congress were praising the healthcare reform bill as a deficit-reducting necessity.  This was based on a preliminary report from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO).  There are always a few things to keep in mind when evaluating a CBO report.  The CBO is politically neutral--they are neither Democrat nor Republican, but their estimates are based on the figures and parameters that they are given.  If they are told that the government is going to collect $100 in taxes and spend $80, they will see a $20 savings in a bill.  Again, their figures are based totally on what they are told.

Earlier this year, the heathcare reform bill included something known as the 'Doc fix'.  This has to do with adjusting the amount of money Medicare pays to doctors for the services they provide.  The 'Doc fix' was taken out of the healthcare reform bill in order to make it appear that the bill would be cost-cutting measure.  The only problem is that the 'Doc fix' is needed to insure that doctors will continue taking Medicare patients and will continue treating current Medicare patients.  The 'Doc fix' will be (if it hasn't already) passed under separate cover.

Yesterday, Yahoo News posted an Associated Press story which confirmed the obvious.  The 'Doc fix' or Medicare fix (as it is called in the article) would cause the healthcare reform bill to be $59 billion in the red. 

The thing to remember when estimating the cost of the current healthcare reform legislation is that the increased taxes start immediately; most of the benefits do not start until about four years into the program.  Therefore, in order to appear to be a cost-saving bill, you have to compare six years of expenses with four years of taxes.  What happens when you have to compare ten years of spending with ten years of taxes?  The bill becomes an expense, no a cost-saver.

Today's Washington Examiner is reporting that Caterpillar, Inc., has sent a letter to the House of Representatives asking them not to pass the current healthcare reform bill, stating that the bill will increase the company's healthcare costs by $100 million in the first year alone.  The provisions in the bill that were of the most concern were the expansion of Medicare taxes and the requirement to provide health insurance for all employees.  The increased costs will make it very difficult to expand the business or hire new employees.

Caterpillar, Inc., believes that this bill is a job killer.  They are not alone.  Yesterday 130 economists said in a letter to President Obama that the healthcare reform bill is a job killer.  (Frankly, I am amazed that 130 economists could agree on anything!) 

The article points out:

"The Peoria-based company (Caterpillar, Inc.) is one of many hard-hit employers in Illinois, which has an unemployment rate of 12.2 percent. It's delusional to think that adding $100 million to their operating costs won't make it more difficult to hire."

If the top priority of the Obama Administration is to create jobs, this is definitely a move in the wrong direction.

Today biggovernment.com posted a story told by a man who was calling his Congressman to attempt to ask him to vote against the current healthcare reform bill and to explain to his Congressman why he is opposed to the bill.  The Congressional staffer who answered the phone explained that the Congressman felt that it was a good bill and planned to vote for the bill.  When the constituent began to explain his objections to the bill, the staffer explained that she was very busy and hung up on him.  The caller called back to attempt to finish his point.  Each time she hung up on him, he called back.  Eventually, the caller asked to speak to the staffer's supervisor and was put on hold.  Eventually the line was picked up by a Capital Police Agent who charged the caller with harrassment under a specific law.  Fortunately, the caller was a lawyer who was able to check on the law.  After researching the law, the caller called the Capital Police Agent back and explained why he was not guilty of harrassment.  The Policeman agreed and said that he would explain that to the Congressman's staff.   When the caller again contacted the Congressman's office, he was told that the Congressman was going to vote for the bill regardless of the arguments made.

The caller points out:

"While I'm fortunate enough to be able to legally challenge what happened today, others aren't. The sad part is the democrats know this. They know that Americans unfamiliar with federal jurisprudence can easily be silenced when threats to involve federal agents are made. They know that most Americans don't want trouble and they'll go away rather than face the possibility of having to explain themselves to federal agents. That's why I found this tactic appalling, as a Marine, as an attorney and as a proud American."

The willingness of a Congressman to ignore the wishes of the people he is supposed to represent is troubling.  The fact that he attempted to scare away someone who disagreed with his vote by threatening police action is just wrong.

This article is based on a post by the National Republican Congressional Committee, so please remember, it is one side of the story.  If this ever shows up in the national media (which I doubt it will), it will be interesting to hear the spin.

Two Democrat California Representatives (Dennis Cardoza and Jim Costa) which were previously listed as 'undecided' on the healthcare vote are not listed as 'yes' votes by Code Red (a group tracking the vote count).  Considering the fact that public opinion is rapidly moving in the other direction, why would they go against their constituents to vote 'yes'? 

According to the article:

"The U.S. Department of Interior announced yesterday that it is increasing water allocations for the Central Valley of California, a region that depends on these water allocations to support local agriculture and jobs. The region has recently been starved for water and as a result unemployment has soared.  Not surprisingly, Cardoza and Costa had a hand in the announcement."

This is another backroom deal put on to pass healthcare.  Hugh Hewitt has reported on the Central Valley water problems for a few months on his website (hughhewitt.com).  You may need to be a member to follow that particular link, but I am sure many of the California newspapers have carried the story.

 

If this were a good bill, it would have passed by now.  It is a bad bill that the Democrat Party has been trying to pass since President Obama took office.  The history of this bill is very similar to the history of George Bush's immigration reform bill, only George Bush had the sense to listen to the majority of the American people and withdraw the bill.  President Obama seems determined to run over the wishes of the majority of the American people.  If you are opposed to this bill and have not yet voiced your opposition, please call your Representative while there is still time.  This is the link to the official House of Representatives website (www.house.gov).  If you follow the link and the simple steps at the site, you can easily email your Representative and voice your opinion.

Article I Section 7 (U. S. Constitution)

"Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by Yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively. If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law."

Yesterday the Washington Examiner reported that the Landmark Legal Foundation (the president of which is Mark Levin) is planning to file a lawsuit in federal court if the House of Representatives uses the "Slaughter Solution" to pass healthcare reform.  The initial filing is posted in a link in the Washington Examiner article. 

Our Constitution forces Congress to vote on items that become law.  In this way, we can hold them accountable and vote accordingly.  It seems to me very telling that the House does not trust the Senate to change the bill after the President signs it and it becomes law (the Constitutional way to pass a bill) and that the members of the House are unwilling to go on the record as supporting the Senate bill.  It seems to me that the logical solution here is to scrap the bill and start all over.  The logical alternative to the 2000+ page disaster currently in Congress is the "Small Bill" detailed here (rightwinggranny.com) on February 22.  Congress has wasted more than a year on this.  To start over with the Small Bill would add less than two months to the process if it were done openly and honestly.  I think the American people would support this as an alternative to what is happening now..

 

I'm not sure whose responsibility this is, but it seems a little off.  When talking to someone today who has a relative in Afghanistan, I asked if she could tell me where he is.  She laughed and sent me to Wikipedia to search for the name of his base camp.  There it was.  They gave an approximate location, plus a list of the troops that were there--American and NATO.  Does anyone else have a problem with this?

This story is based on two articles--one from today's Boston Herald and one from Power Line yesterday.  Tim Cahill, the Democrat state treasurer of Massachusetts, left the Democrat party in July and it running for governor of Massachusetts as an independent. 

The Boston Herald points out:

"Cahill, saying he was barred from the 2008 Democratic National Convention because he wouldn't endorse either Obama or Hillary Clinton, said, "My own party basically voted me out."" 

He has also gone on the record as stating that President Obama's healthcare reform proposal will bankrupt the country, as a similar healthcare reform plan passed in Massachusetts a few years ago has had a serious negative impact on the state budget.  I would also like to point out (as a resident of Massachusetts) that we have the highest health insurance premiums in the nation--universal healthcare has not brought individual costs down at all.

The main talking point being used to push the necessity of healthcare reform is the need to insure everyone.  That is a valid point, and I am sure most of us would like to see everyone have access to healthcare insurance (everyone is already guaranteed access to medicare care).  The challenge is how to reach that goal.  I believe it is possible to insure every American without wrecking the insurance of every currently insured American.  The savings that would be gained (the CBO figures verify this) from simply passing tort reform would make a major difference in healthcare costs.  Texas has led the way in tort reform and has a growing medical community as a result.  Doctors and medical facilities have voted with their feet.  We can learn from their experience.

The Army Times reported Monday that the Americans working in Haiti to help with the earthquake relief effort have decided not to fly the American flag over their compound.  The statement made is that they do not want to offend their Haitian hosts or give the impression that they are a conquering or occupation force.  This is beyond dumb.  Whenever a natural disaster occurs anywhere in the world, the Americans are usually the first ones in with food, first aid, and any other necessities they can provide.  As far as I am aware, we have not taken over any countries or claimed any new territory since the 1950's.  We do not govern France, Germany, or Japan despite having large groups of soldiers flying American flags there during World War II .  Although we still have a presence in Germany and Japan, we also contribute to their economies in a major way, and I don't think anyone would accuse us of taking over those countries.  Since America gets blamed for many of the ills of the world, it seems to me that we have the right to be proud when we are helping someone recover from a disaster!

I would like to point out that Britain, France, and Croatia have no problem flying their flags.  When did we lose the courage to fly our flag proudly when we are helping another country after a natural disaster?  This is a decision that needs to be revisited.

Terrorist Lawyers

| | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Monday's Wall Street Journal printed an article by Debra Burlingame and Thomas Joscelyn about some of the activities of the lawyers who have represented the terrorists at Guantanamo.  The story begins on January 26, 2006, when a brochure was found in the cell of one of the prisoners.  The brochure was put out by amnesty international and decried American abuse of Muslim prisoners and America's war on Islam.  (Amnesty International has a history of supporting anti-democracy forces in its claims of abuse).  When the detainee was asked where he got the brochure, he said that he had gotten it from his lawyer through "legal mail," privileged lawyer-client communications that are exempt from screening by security personnel.  The literature was shared with other detainees. 

Mrs. Burlingame further relates:

'The Amnesty International brochure, handed out at a human rights conference in London, was a political advocacy screed in clear violation of that order, which was formulated to protect force security. Maj. Gen. Hood made a command decision. He banned the Paul, Weiss lawyers from access to Guantanamo. The DOJ notified the firm.'

The firm promptly sued the government.  The government reached a settlement with the Paul Weiss lawyers, and they were again given access to Guantanamo prisoners.  The story continues:

"On Feb. 20, 2007, a post on the Paul, Weiss Web site proudly announced "Paul, Weiss achieves more victories for Guantanamo detainees." Two detainees were released from Gitmo to their home in Saudi Arabia. One was Majeed Abdullah Al Joudi, a recipient of the Amnesty International "report." The Web site needs an update. The Pentagon has identified Al Joudi as a "confirmed" recidivist who is "directly involved" with the facilitation of "terrorist activities.""

The question now being asked is how many of the lawyers in the current Justice Department were part of the Paul Weiss team.  Please follow the link to read the entire story of what has gone on regarding Guantanamo.  We handled this sort of thing much more effectively during World War II.

 

2010-02-26-KAF-1047a-1000.jpgThis is a picture of a Belgian F-16 taken at Kandahar Airfield.  Michael Yon posted an article yesterday about the culture of Afghanistan and the war we are fighting.  Please remember to pray for our military and the NATO military that are fighting the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

'Nuff Said!!!

| | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

 

billboard-1.jpgThis picture is posted at Hot Air.  It is a Minnesota billboard on I-94 outside of Albertville on the northwest end of the Minneapolis-St. Paul metro area.  There are more pictures of the billboard posted at Hot Air.

This story is based on two articles, one from Power Line and one from Fox News.  As the healthcare debate has heated up, we have heard a lot about people dying because they did not have health insurance.  While I am sure there may be rare cases of that occurring, I suspect they have more to do with the patient being reluctant to seek treatment than the treatment being available.  I have a case in point.

Yesterday President Obama cited the case of Natoma Canfield, an Ohio woman with leukemia. 

Fox News reports:

"Natoma Canfield, the cancer-stricken woman who has become a centerpiece of President Obama's push for health care reform, will not lose her home over her medical bills and will probably qualify for financial aid, a top official at the Cleveland medical center treating her told FoxNews.com." 

There are, I am sure, instances where people have lost their homes due to illness.  That is tragic, but I believe it is also the exception--not the rule.  Americans are the most generous people on earth, and it is written into our laws that no one can be denied medical treatment if they show up at a hospital.  Unfortunately, if Obamacare is put into place, elderly people may routinely be denied care due to lack of availability.  The number of doctors willing to take elderly patients under the proposed regulations will be decreasing rapidly--as the population ages.  We will be in danger of instituting the same kind of government rules over the availability of medical care found in Canada and England--where people can wait as much as a year for bypass surgery.

Healthcare insurance could use some reform--tort reform, portability across state lines, risk pools for people with pre-existing conditions, and tax credits to enable the poor to afford health insurance.  Anything more than that will ruin the quality of care we have now.

Power Line has posted two articles recently about the recent dustup between America and Israel (Condemn This and Condemn This Part 2).  The first article points out that while Israel was condemned for announcing the construction of buildings within the bounds of its own capital city, no mention was made of the fact that according to Power Line, shortly after Joe Biden left the Palestine Authority:

"... students from Abbas's Fatah party gathered in Ramallah to dedicate a public square to the memory of a woman who in 1978 helped carry out the deadliest terrorist attack in Israel's history. The woman and her terrorist crew killed an American photojournalist, hijacked a bus and commandeered another, embarking on a bloody rampage that left 38 Israeli civilians dead, 13 of them children."

Israel is building on her land.  The Palestinians were celebrating the death of innocent Israelis.  Until terrorism against Israel is stopped and no longer celebrated, I do not see how peace between the two countries is possible. 

The second article lists the demands that the United States is making of the Israelis in order to forward the 'peace process.'  One of these demands is the release by the Israelis of Palestinian terrorists currently in Israeli prisons.  These are the people who kill innocent people and are celebrated in Palestine.  The Obama Administration is again supporting terrorists and their activities instead of supporting our allies and the people who support freedom and democracy.

Michael Yon posted a letter on his website today refuting the charges that the Spanish NATO forces were not adequately supporting the US effort in Afghanistan.  The letter (shown on the site) is from a US Army Colonel to a Spanish Army Colonel.  I am not sure what the truth is in this matter, but hopefully the two colonels can iron out any difficulties.  Again, I remind everyone to pray for the safety of our military (and the NATO military) in Afghanistan.

I need to state at the beginning of this article that I do not have the technical knowledge to understand what happened here--I trust the people who are reporting it.  On Sunday, Jalopnik.com reported on their research into the runaway Prius incident in California last week.  They have posted memos on their website regarding the incident which they feel show that the incident was staged.  They are not the only skeptics.

Google.com posted an Associated Press story also expressing doubts as to how the incident actually happened and whether it was staged. 

The reason for doubt on the part of the Jalopnik people is that the memos show that the patterns of brake wear are not consistent with the story being told.  Yesterday's Wall Street Journal posted a story about the brake wear pattern, but you need to be a subscriber to access the full story.

Jalopnik also reported:

"According to Mr. David Justo, Toyota Motor Sales HQ, I was informed that he is Toyota's residential Hybrid expert, he stats "that if MG2 (gas pedal is to the floor, creating positive force) and the driver puts the brake MG1 (creating negative force) then the engine would shut down. If the engine does not shut down then the gears would be spinning pat their maximum revolutions per minute and completely seize the engine. So, in this case, knowing that we are able to push the car around the shop, it does not appear to be feasibly possible, both electronically and mechanically that his gas pedal was stuck to the floor and he was slamming on the brake at the same time"."

This may turn out to be the automotive equivalent of the balloon boy hoax.  There may be an acceleration problem with some Toyotas, but faking an incident is not helpful to anyone. 

Saturday's Washington Examiner posted a story by Byron York about the stonewalling by White House Press Secretary, Robert Gibbs, on charges that the White House attempted to bribe a Congressman to keep him out of an election.  Robert Gibbs is continuing to avoid answering questions about the charges by Democratic Representative Joe Sestak that the White House offered him a job in the current administraiton in return for dropping out of the Democrat primary race in Pennsylvania. 

Representative Sestak is challenging Arlen Specter in the Democrat Senate primary.  On February 18th, Joe Sestak told a radio talk show host that last summer, when he was contemplating a run for Arlen Specter's Senate seat, a job offer had come from the White House on the condition that he would not run.  The Philadelphia Inquirer reported on February 19th that a White House spokesman had denied the charge.

Robert Gibbs has been asked about this charge five times and has successfully avoided answering the question each time. 

The article points out:

"Not only is the charge serious; Sestak himself, with his long career in the Navy before winning a seat in Congress, is a serious source. On March 8, at a health care event in Pennsylvania, President Obama referred to Sestak as "somebody who rendered outstanding service to our nation before he was in Congress.""

This is a serious charge made by a serious person.  It needs to be investigated--not simply avoided.

Investors.com posted an article on Thursday about the federal budget and its looming deficits.  It included a chart:

This is what our deficits look like in the future.  The article points out that by 2020 our national debt will be $20.3 trillion, an increase of 171 percent in ten years.  Last year, debt as a share of our Gross National Product was 53 percent; by 2020 it will be more than 90 percent. 

The article points out the coming tax increases:

"The increases include: $843 billion for a cap-and-trade energy tax; $743 billion for health reform; nearly $1 trillion in taxes on upper-income families and small businesses; $468 billion on banks, multinationals and virtually all other businesses; and miscellaneous proposals that would add $111 billion to America's tax bill."

Unless someone in Congress has the courage to put the brakes on the spending proposals of the current administration, we can expect our children and grandchildren to pay a much higher percentage of their income to the government than we do now.  We can expect unemployment to remain at 10 percent or above, and we can expect our children and grandchildren to wonder why the economic opportunities that were available to their parents are not available to them.

Yesterday Breitbart.com reported on one of the problem areas in passing healthcare reform--the President and the Senators disagree on the basic bill.  The President has stated that he wants specific projects for specific states taken out of the bill; the Senators want to leave the extra money for individual states in the bill.  The Senate approved healthcare reform bill sends $600 million to Vermont in the next ten years for additional Medicaid payments, and almost as much to Massachusetts. Connecticut gets $100 million to build a hospital and Florida residents get to keep Medicare Adavantage insurance.  There are also specific extra benefits for Montana, West Virginia, Wyoming, and North and South Dakota.

The reason for the President's opposition to the provisions of the bill regarding specific states is the appearance--back room deals have become very unpopular and many of the provisions in this bill look like payments for votes.  The exception that the President is willing to leave in is the $300 million for Louisiana.  President Obama regards that as a necessary expense to rebuild after hurricane Katrina. 

I really hope this bill does not pass, but if it does, the amount of money it will cost every taxpayer is almost unimaginable.  It will not lower health insurance payments or healthcare costs--the only thing this bill will reduce is the quality of healthcare in America.

Watching The Spin

| | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Roll Call reported yesterday that Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi hopes to pass the President's healthcare reform bill next week.   She stated that the House would pass the Senate bill and then make changes to the bill via the reconciliation method.  The changes to the student loan program will also be put in the reconciliation bill.  (Despite the fact that Congress is saying that the transfer of the student loan program to the government will save money, there are many analysts who believe it will cost money because of defaults on loans and other expenses). 

The article points out:

"On the abortion issue, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) underlined comments he made yesterday suggesting the House will forge ahead without adding strict language to appease Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) and other anti-abortion-rights Democrats. Hoyer said the Senate approach -- which Stupak has assailed as too weak -- cannot be tweaked "per se" in the reconciliation package. "We'll have to deal with it pretty much as it is at this point in time," Hoyer told reporters Friday."

If I were a pro-life Democrat, I don't think I would be too happy with this deal. 

If you are opposed to the Medicare cuts and government takeover of healthcare in the present reform bill, please follow this link to Hugh Hewitt's blog and click on the link to email your Congressman and a number of blue dog Democrats.  It takes less than a minute, and may be the only way to stop this bill.

 

Today's Houston Chronicle reports on the battle for textbook content that has been going on in Texas.  The State Board of Education has tentatively approved the standards for Social Studies currriculum that will be used in the state.  Because Texas sets the standard for the nation in curriculum (evidently because they buy such a large number of textbooks), the standards they set will eventually be used throughout the country.

Yesterday's New York Times also reported on the events in Texas (although from a slightly different angle).  According to the New York Times:

"After three days of turbulent meetings, the Texas Board of Education on Friday approved a social studies curriculum that will put a conservative stamp on history and economics textbooks, stressing the superiority of American capitalism, questioning the Founding Fathers' commitment to a purely secular government and presenting Republican political philosophies in a more positive light."

All right, let's look at some of the decisions made about those supposed 'Republican political philosophies':

  • Experts had recommended students study the impact of cultural movements in art, music and literature, such as Tin Pan Alley, the Beat Generation, rock and roll, the Chicano Mural Movement, country-western music and hip-hop. The board's seven social conservatives, joined by Geraldine "Tincy" Miller, R-Dallas, considered some of the hip-hop lyrics offensive and voted to eliminate hip- hop as an option for students to consider.
  • ...the proposed standards reflect the desires of his constituents to emphasize "personal responsibility and accountability" and "to honor our Founding Fathers, and our military.
  • The proposed standards include a section on teenage suicide, dating violence, sexuality, drug use and eating disorders which required the teaching of "the importance of personal responsibility for life choices."
  • Conservatives passed one amendment, for instance, requiring that the history of McCarthyism include "how the later release of the Venona papers confirmed suspicions of communist infiltration in U.S. government." The Venona papers were transcripts of some 3,000 communications between the Soviet Union and its agents in the United States.  

The proposed standards face a public hearing and a final vote in May.  There is a reason that the name of this site is 'rightwinggranny.'  I support the teaching that American capitalism is superior.  Show me any other country in the world that feeds more people and allows more people the opportunity to succeed.  We don't guarantee success--we just guarantee the opportunity to allow everyone to work hard and achieve their goals. 

I hope this curriculum will be put in place--it may help the cultural decline that America has seen in recent years to remind our children that they live in a land of opportunity and that they alone are responsible for their actions.

Heritage.org posted a tutorial today for those of us who do not understand exactly what is involved in the reconciliation process.  Yesterday the Senate Parliamentarian ruled that a bill must be signed into law by the President before it can be changed and reconciled with the House bill.  Well, that was yesterday; this is today. 

This article reports:

"Reports have come out today that the Parliamentarian has not ruled that the President must sign a law before it is considered a law for reconciliation purposes. First, they came up with a strategy to get Obamacare passed in the House without the House ever voting on the bill, now they have come up with a strategy and a ruling to get the Obamacare bill to qualify as law without the President signing the law. President Obama, Speaker Pelosi, and Majority Leader Reid should not support efforts to violate the clear words of the Constitution to pass Obamacare."

It should be obvious to those leaders in Congress who believe that they must pass this horrible bill that the are going against the American people and against the U.S. Constitution.  They need to find something else to focus on (or maybe we can send them all home for the rest of the year).

The article points out that a bill is not a law until it is signed into law by the President.  To use the reconciliation process between the House and the Senate before a bill is law is totally unconstitutional.

To try to cram this bill through in this manner is political suicide in an election year.  I hope some of the Democrats in Congress believe in self-preservation.

Whose Money Is It?

| | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)
USA Today has posted an article today stating that some states will be delaying taxpayer refunds for up to five months due to budgeting problems.  The states that have said that they will be delaying refunds are Alabama, Hawaii, Idaho, Kansas, New York, and North Carolina.  If this is not illegal, it should be (unless they are paying interest!).  A tax refund represents an overpayment of taxes by a taxpayer.  The state refunds that money because it is not entitled to keep it.  This is the equivalent of taking money from someone without their permission with the idea that eventually you will pay them back.  I really do think it's time for a taxpayers' revolt--this is revolting!

This article is based on two sources--the Washington Examiner yesterday and the New York Post yesterday.  The Washington Examiner reported that House Rules Chairwoman Louise Slaughter has come up with a plan to get the healthcare reform bill through Congress.  Any resemblance between her plan and the U.S. Constitution or the rules of the House or Senate is purely coincidental.  According to the National Journal's Congress Daily:

"Slaughter is weighing preparing a rule that would consider the Senate bill passed once the House approves a corrections bill that would make changes to the Senate version.

"Slaughter has not taken the plan to Speaker Pelosi as Democrats await CBO scores on the corrections bill. 'Once the CBO gives us the score, we'll spring right on it,' she said."

This is amazing.  The reason for this, however, is very simple.  On December 16th rightwinggranny.com ran a story about Nancy Pelosi saying that the House Democrats would not be voting on controversial bills unless the Senate voted first.  This makes sense.  The entire House is up for re-election every two years.  Only one third of the Senate is up for re-election every two years.  It is very unusual for major legislation to be passed in an election year--and the healthcare legislation is not popular.

If this bill is passed in the House as is, Democrats running for office can expect to be reminded of Medicare cuts, Cornhusker kickback, Louisiana Purchase, etc.  That's why they don't want to go on record as voting for the Senate bill as is.

The New York Post concludes:

"So now Democratic leaders say they'll package a two-for-one vote: Moving the original Senate bill simultaneously with a "reconciliation" bill -- thus, if the House votes for the bill of fixes, the main Senate bill will be deemed to also have passed. Then the reconciliation bill will go back to the Senate, where it only needs 50 votes (plus Vice President Joe Biden's) to pass.

"Hmm. Nowhere in the US Constitution does it say that Congress can deem a bill to have passed. Pelosi & Co. aren't just making up policy as they go, but also procedure -- possibly unconstitutional procedure, at that. All to enact a bill remaking a sixth of the US economy over the 3-1 opposition of the American people."

This is going to be fun to watch. 

This notice came from a municipality in Texas, but it applies across the country:

2010 Census to Begin
BASIC ADVICE
: 

Be Cautious About Giving Info to Census Workers by Susan Johnson

 With the  U.S.  Census process beginning,  the Better Business Bureau (BBB) advises people to be cooperative, but cautious, so as not to become a victim of fraud or identity theft. The first phase of the 2010 U.S. Census is under way as workers have begun verifying the addresses of households across the country. Eventually, more than 140,000 U.S. Census  workers will count every person in the United States and will gather information about every person living at each address including name, age, gender, race, and other relevant data.

The big question is - how do you tell the difference between a U.S. Census worker and a con artist? BBB offers the following advice:

If a U.S. Census worker knocks on your door, they will have a badge, a handheld device, a Census Bureau canvas bag, and a confidentiality notice. Ask to see their identification and their badge before answering their questions.  However, you should never invite anyone you don't know into your home.
 
Census workers are currently only knocking on doors to verify address information.  Do not give your Social Security number, credit card or banking information to anyone, even if they claim they need it for the U.S. Census. 
 

REMEMBER, NO MATTER WHAT THEY ASK, YOU ONLY NEED TO TELL THEM HOW MANY PEOPLE LIVE AT YOUR  ADDRESS.
 
While the Census Bureau might ask for basic financial information, such as a salary range, YOU DON'T HAVE TO ANSWER ANYTHING AT ALL ABOUT YOUR FINANCIAL SITUATION.  The Census Bureau will not ask for Social Security, bank account, or credit card numbers, nor will employees solicit donations.  Any one asking for that information is NOT with the Census Bureau.
 
AND REMEMBER, THE CENSUS BUREAU HAS DECIDED NOT TO WORK WITH ACORN ON GATHERING THIS INFORMATION.  No Acorn worker should approach you saying he/she is with the Census Bureau.


Eventually, Census workers may contact you by telephone, mail, or in person at home. However, the Census Bureau will not contact you by Email, so be on the lookout for Email scams impersonating the Census.
 
Never click on a link or open any attachments in an Email that are supposedly from the U.S. Census Bureau.
 
For more advice on avoiding identity theft and fraud, visit www.bbb.org.

 #####

Lee Battle, Assistant Director of Planning and Development/x4163, is the City of Allen contact regarding the 2010 Census.

_______________________________________________________

Connie S. Schofield

Executive Assistant to the City Manager

City of Allen

305 Century Parkway

Allen, TX  75013

214/509-4109

214/509-4118 (fax)

www.cityofallen.org

Yesterday's Wall Street Journal posted an article by Scott Rasmussen and Doug Schoen about the problems in passing the current healthcare reform legislation.  The article points out that public opposition to the bill has not significantly changed in the past four months.  Generally speaking, Democrat voters support the bill and Republican voters oppose it.  However, one of the groups consistently opposing the bill is senior citizens, who tend to vote in mid-term elections.  The polls generally show that for every person who supports the bill, there are two who oppose it.

The article points out:

"Why can't the president move the numbers? One reason may be that he keeps talking about details of the proposal while voters are looking at the issue in a broader context. Polling conducted earlier this week shows that 57% of voters believe that passage of the legislation would hurt the economy, while only 25% believe it would help. That makes sense in a nation where most voters believe that increases in government spending are bad for the economy."

Voters at this point have concluded that reducing the deficit is important.  They are becoming convinced that major spending initiatives are not a valid part of deficit reduction.  There is also the public perception of the cost of individual healthcare if the bill is passed.  Only 17 percent of people polled believe the healthcare reform bill will reduce the cost of their care.  The majority of Americans have health insurance and 76 percent are happy with their current coverage.  The perception is that if healthcare reform passes, they will have to switch to another insurance provider.  The thought of the paperwork involved in that switch is enough to cause anyone to oppose the bill!

The article concludes:

"The reason President Obama can't move the numbers and build public support is because the fundamentals are stacked against him. Most voters believe the current plan will harm the economy, cost more than projected, raise the cost of care, and lead to higher middle-class taxes.

"That's a tough sell when the economy is hurting and people want reform to lower the cost of care. It's also a tough sell for a president who won an election by promising tax cuts for 95% of all Americans."

It would be nice if after all this debate on the current healthcare reform bill, it could be scrapped and replaced by a ten or fifteen page bill that would actually bring positive changes to the healthcare insurance industry.  Unfortunately I think that will happen right after pigs fly.

On Monday, The Hill reported on the Democrat plan to include an overhaul of federal student lending in the healthcare reform bill. 

The article points out:

"President Barack Obama has made reforming student loan programs a high priority of his first term, and the savings created by lending directly to students could save the government $67 billion over 10 years.

"But the student loan industry estimates that nearly 35,000 jobs would be lost if the federal government lent directly to students and only let private companies service the loans."

This move would drive out private sources of student loans and make the student loan program strickly a government and government-run program.  Aside from my normal reluctance to see the government take over any part of the private sector, it seems to me that the potential for abuse in a government-controlled student loan industry is astronomical.   Who determines who gets the loans?  Who determines the amount of the loans?  Who determines the payback conditions of the loans?  It seems to me that the government's track record on lending money is not particularly good--remember the sub-prime mortgage market?  Frankly, I wouldn't trust a government agency to do anything if I could avoid it.  And please explain to me why we need to include this in the healthcare reform bill!

Today's Beaufort Observer (Beaufort, North Carolina) posted an article about the Ocean Policy Task Force appointed by President Obama to plan federal policy related to ocean fishing.  Oddly enough, when the group released its report on December 14th of last year, the report was entitled Interim Framework for Effective Coastal and Marine Spatial Planning.  The report included such items as:

  • Traditional Hunting, Fishing, and Gathering
  • Scientific Research and Exploration
  • Tourism
  • Other Recreation (e.g., boating, beach access, swimming, nature and whale watching, and diving)
  • Recreational Fishing
  • Commercial Fishing
  • Commerce and Transportation (e.g. cargo and cruise ships, tankers, and ferries)

You get the picture.  The article quotes the report:

"The geographic scope would include inland bays and estuaries in both coastal and Great Lakes settings. Inclusion of inland bays and estuaries is essential because of the significant ecological, social, and economic linkages between these areas with offshore areas. Additional inland areas may be included in the planning area as the regional planning bodies, described in Section IX below, deem appropriate. Regardless, consideration of inland activities would be necessary to account for the significant interaction between upstream activities and ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes uses and ecosystem health. Likewise, consideration should also be given to activities occurring beyond the EEZ that may influence resources or activities within the EEZ."

This is a major power grab going on at a time when the current administration believes that no one is paying attention.  It is a threat to any coastal area that has a tourist business during the summer season.  Remember that the 10th Amendment gives the states any power that is not given to the federal government.  It's time for all coastal states to reaffirm the 10th Amendment.  Control of coastal areas and coastal tourist fishing should be left to the states--not the federal government.


Healthcare Reform

| | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

This article is not sourced.  It is based on reports I am hearing from various news sources.  There are some issues being raised about how the current bill could be passed without sixty votes in the Senate and what that would mean to the average American's medical care.

The reconciliation process requires that the House pass the Senate bill as is to begin the process.  Thie would include the 'Louisiana Purchase', the 'Cornhusker Kickback', and the Florida Medicare A exception.  One of the issues in this process for some House members is abortion funding.  The House bill has strong language preventing the use of federal funds to pay for abortions (there may be exceptions to that when the life of the mother is at risk).  The Senate bill does not directly use federal funds to pay for abortion--everyone who gets their health insurance through the government pays a surcharge that goes into a fund to pay for abortions.  Technically the government isn't paying for abortions, the people buying medical insurance from the government are.  There are also some real questions as to whether conscience clauses that protect doctors and nurses whose religious convictions oppose abortion are included in the Senate (or House) bill. 

Another thing to be aware of as the debate continues about healthcare reform is the ability to keep your present health insurance.  Medicare A, one of the most popular Medicare programs, will be eliminated (except in Florida).  That means that many of our senior citizens would be forced to find new health insurance.  Also, the way the bill is written, it would be advantageous for businesses to stop providing health insurance coverage for their employees.  The fine for not covering employees would be considerably lower than the cost of insuring employees.  This would force most Americans to find new health insurance.  Because the private health insurance companies would not be able to compete with the 'seemingly endless' funds of the federal government, private insurance companies would be forced out of business.  We would then have only government healthcare.

Healthcare insurance reform is a good idea.  There are ways to make the healthcare system more efficient and less costly.  Some good ideas are tort reform, portability across state lines, tax incentives for people to buy insurance, and insurance pools for pre-existing conditions.  On February 22, I posted an article (RightWingGranny.com) about The Small Bill, a one-page proposal to reform healthcare insurance.  Frankly, I think we should reject any bill that has more than twenty-five pages!  That way we can be relatively sure that some of the people voting on the bill will read the bill!

No, I'm sorry, I'm not talking about Washington, D. C.; I'm talking about Texas.  I have heard it said that the biggest mistake America ever made was air conditioning the government buildings in Washington, D. C.  If we hadn't done that, Congress (and maybe the President) would go home for the summer and would do less damage.  Well, I didn't realize that there was a state that understands how to run a government--Texas.

Michael Barone posted a commentary at Townhall.com yesterday comparing the growth and government of California and Texas in recent years. 

In writing about California, Michael Barone points out:

"Those Democratic majorities (in the legislature) have obediently done the bidding of public employee unions to the point that state government faces huge budget deficits. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's attempt to reduce the power of the Democratic-union combine with referenda was defeated in 2005 when public employee unions poured $100 million -- all originally extracted from taxpayers -- into effective TV ads."

Texas has low taxes, no state income tax, and a much smaller government.  The legislature of Texas meets for ninety days every two years.  Public employee unions are weak or non-existent.  Texas pays its teachers less than Calilfornia, but its student test scores are higher.  The Texas economy is booming.  Unemployment rates have been below the national average for more than ten years. 

Michael Barone also points out:

"And Americans have been voting for Texas with their feet. From 2000 to 2009, some 848,000 people moved from other parts of the United States to Texas, about the same number as moved in from abroad. That inflow has continued in 2008-09, in which 143,000 Americans moved into Texas, more than double the number in any other state, at the same time as 98,000 were moving out of California. Texas is on the way to gain four additional House seats and electoral votes in the 2010 reapportionment."

Texas has also instituted tort reform in its medical system.  As a result of this, hospitals and doctors are relocating to the state, and the medical profession is booming there.

The bottom line here is that people do better when the government is smaller and government pay scales are not dictated by union demands.  California is going broke, and Texas is booming.  Which example should we be following nationally?

Today at Michael Yon's blog, Michael posted a disturbing article about the behavior of Spanish troops in Afganistan.  The source of his article was an email written by a Lieutenant Colonel in the 82nd Airborne Division in Afghanistan.  Michael points out that he does not personally know the Lieutenant Colonel nor did he receive the email directly from the Lieutenant Colonel.

The email is about the abysmal, unsafe conditions which some of our most dedicated troops are living in, at a remote base run by the Spanish military in Afghanistan.  Our military who use this base as a refueling stop have asked for certain improvements at the base to protect our troops as they refuel our planes.  The Spanish have not complied.

Michael quotes directly from the email:

"USFOR-A needs to energize someone to develop a viable, enduring plan for this FARP that isn't reliant on the Spanish. This is a key hub for fuel (since we can't get trucks to [xxx] or [xxx]) so let's improve this location to better support those guys living out there on the edge by themselves. They refused to allow a Marine detachment that was dropped there to come into the wire or feed them overnight. Our refuelers had to fight the Spanish to bring them in and squeeze them into the two small tents that they have and give them MREs as they [sic] Spanish wouldn't feed them. Is this how we allow our Coalition partners to treat Americans?"

After World War II, America pledged to come to Europe's aid against future attacks.  Europe in return has not developed its military because it depends on the US.  Even though Afghanistan is supposedly a NATO effort, the majority of the heavy lifting in that war has been by America, Canada, Britain, and Australia.  Although they have been asked to provide more troops, generally speaking Europe has not answered the call.  It seems as if NATO has become a one way street in fighting the war on terror.  It is time for the nations of Europe to step up to the plate.

Yesterday at the Washington Examiner, Byron York pointed out that there has been a missing step in the legislative process that is being followed to pass the healthcare reform bill.  He asks, "Where is the House-Senate Conference Committee?"   The article points out that Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid decided to skip the conference committee because it would be public and might reveal (and strengthen) the major differences between the Senate and House bills.  Meanwhile, the problem they are currently having in passing healthcare reform is dealing with the major differences between the Senate and House bills.

The problem for the Democrats in passing healthcare reform involves some basic philosophical differences within the Democrat party about what the bill should do and how it should do it.

One of the major differences between the House and Senate bills is the way the healthcare reform package is funded.  In the House bill, there is a 5.4 percent surtax on individuals earning more than $500,000 a year and couples making more than $1 million.  There is also a 2.5 percent excise tax on medical devices, an end to some tax breaks for multinational companies and a closing of a biofuels tax loophole for paper companies.  In the Senate bill, there is a 40 percent tax on 'cadillac health care plans', payroll taxes on Medicare are increased, and special fees are levied on insurers, drug companies and medical device makers.

There are also differences in the language banning federal funding of abortions, the public option, and mandates on employers and consumers.

Some of the information may have changed (my source was from 2009), but the basic fact remains the same--the Democrat party controls the House and the Senate.  If the Democrats had the votes, this bill would have already passed. 

The President's current approach to rallying public opinion to support this bill is to make it appear that the health insurance companies are taking advantage of the public and making enormous profits.  This is not the case.  The health insurance companies have a profit margin of about 2 to 5 percent--other areas of the healthcare business have a profit margin of between 15 and 25 percent.  Remember that as you listen to the speeches given by people who want you to support the present bill.

USA Today posted an article recently on the fact that government employees now make more and receive more benefits than private sector employees.  Ed Morrissey at Hot Air commented on the article.  The salaries are currently about 10% higher in the government sector and the benefits are about four times the benefits offered in the private sector. 

For example, a government broadcast technician makes about $90,310 a year, while a private-sector broadcast technician makes about $49,265 a year.  The salary in the private sector is controlled by the need of a company to make a profit.  In the public sector there are no such controls--if a town, state, or federal government needs more money, they find a way to raise taxes or fees. 

Mr. Morrissey points out:

"The SEIU and AFSCME have a grip on the federal workplace, which is -- not coincidentally -- why taxpayers pay double for a recreation worker, or 45% more for pest control salaries rather than just call Orkin."

It is not a coincidence that when the White House released its visitors logs in late 2009, according to the Wall Street Journal on October 30, 2009, the person visiting the White House most frequently was Andrew Stern, President of the Service Employees International Union.  I would also like to note that if you google 'SEIU and ACORN connection', you will find a number of articles showing how the two organizations are related.  Both organizations seem to attract a rather unsavory bunch of people to their leadership positions.  

Yesterday, The Hill posted an article citing the response of Karen Ignagni, president and CEO of America's Health Insurance Plans to a report released by the Obama Administration listing the salaries of the top executives of health insurance companies.  Ms. Ignagni points out that:

 "This issue of executive compensation is a very important question for boards of directors in every stakeholder community and every part of our economy. And in fact, we are having those discussions. Boards of directors are increasingly through proxy kinds of initiatives in their own discussions are increasingly demonstrating that the compensation is aligned with productivity and performance. ... I think this is a question that ought to be raised across the economy."

I really do think that in a stockholder-held corporation it is not the government's business what anyone is paid--that is the stockholders' decision--not the governments.  Ms. Ignangni also pointed out that the profit margin in the health insurance industry is in the two to three percent range, while other areas of healthcare have profit margins of 15 to 25 percent.

The charge of overpaying executives in the health insurance industry is not really related to anything except the President's desire to pass a very unpopular healthcare reform bill.  The more he can shine his spotlight on the 'evil insurance companies', the easier it will be to convince the American people that we have to pass health insurance reform now.  Fortunately, I think most Americans are paying attention to what is going on in Washington right now and will not fall for the sleight of hand that is being attempted.

Another aspect of the White House releasing executive pay scales in an industry is the attack on success that is being fostered by the Obama Administration.  Senior corporate executives make a lot of money.  They also shoulder a lot of responsibility, and most of them probably don't remember ever working an eight-hour day.  If you take away the incentive to be successful, fewer people will be willing to put out the effort to succeed.  That is how to ruin a country and remove it from its position as a world economic leader.  We also need to remember that we are in danger of reaching a point where less than 50 percent of Americans pay income taxes.  As fewer people pay income taxes, there are fewer people who care when those taxes are raised, and generally speaking, many of the people who are not paying income taxes are receiving money from the government.  That is situation will eventually lead to a financially bankrupt country.

There is an Associated Press story in Business Week today about Danny Glover asking the people who attending the Oscar Awards Ceremony on Sunday not to wear clothes by Hugo Boss.  There are 375 Hugo Boss employees in Cleveland, Ohio, who will lose their jobs next month because the German company is closing the plant. 

The article points out:

"The company says the plant is not globally competitive and under capacity. The union says the plant is profitable and the company is shuttering it because it can make clothing more cheaply in Europe."

As much as I hate to see anyone lose their job, the company is entitled to manufacture goods in whatever location is most profitable for the company.  Has it occurred to Mr. Glover that if the company paid less money in taxes and dealt with fewer government regulations, they might be more profitable?  Is Mr. Glover aware that  the average combined federal and state corporate tax rate in the U.S. is 39.3 percent?  If you want to see more Americans retain their manufacturing jobs, lower the corporate tax rate and reduce the amount of federal regulations on businesses.  Until those things are done, America will continue to lose manufacturing jobs (and other jobs) overseas.

Yesterday's Investor's Business Daily posted an article about the jobs report just released.  The White House is claiming that the high unemployment numbers are partially due to the snow storms we had during the month of February.  During February, businesses shed 36,000 jobs, and the unemployment rate remained at 9.7%. 

The article points out that the numbers are misleading.  The real number of jobs lost is 51,000--the government counts 15,000 workers temporarily hired by the Census Bureau as new jobs.  The jobless rate actually becomes 16.8% when you count the people who have given up on finding a job or who are working part-time because they can't find a full time job.

One of problems named in the article is the utter cluelessness of Washington as to how our economy works and what the government needs to do to help the economy grow and the jobless rate to go down instead of up.

The article points out:

"Meanwhile, on Thursday, the U.S. Treasury released its latest long-term financial outlook, and found that in the last nine months the U.S. long-term fiscal deficit has soared 21% to $76 trillion.

"By the Obama Treasury's own admission, that's unsustainable. Yet the fiscal path the administration has us on would make it even worse. Given all this, it's amazing the economy's growing at all."

The article concludes:

"Unless we act, and soon, to cut taxes and reduce the size of government, the U.S. will enter a protracted period of slow economic growth, stagnant wages, and permanently high unemployment."

The only way to cut taxes and reduce the size of government is to replace this Congress in November.

 

Yesterday, National Review Online, at its Planet Gore blog, posted a story about a solar energy farm in Indiantown, Florida.   The solar energy farm sits next to a natural gas plant.  The natural gas plant covers 15 acres of land and generates 3,800 megawatts of reliable electricity.  The solar energy farm covers 500 acres and generates 75 megawatts of electricity at its peak. 

The article points out:

"At $476 million (the cost of the solar project), it also means that building a 1000-MW solar array -- the size of an average coal or nuclear plant -- would cost $5 billion, putting it right up there with the most expensive reactors and coal plants with carbon capture. But the solar panels only generate electricity one-third of the time. "We'd love to tell you that solar power is as economical as fossil fuels, but the reality is that it is not," says Lewis Hay II, CEO of Florida Power and Light, which has built the complex.  "It's not a level playing field for renewable versus fossils right now."  Indeed."

I believe that at some time in the future we will have the technology for green energy.  I also believe that energy independence and green energy will evolve as the result of innovation driven by market forces.  To involve the government in the development of green energy simply alters the market and makes it harder for true innovation to prevail.

John Hinderaker at Power Line posted an article on Wednesday about the appointment of Scott Matheson, Jr., to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals.  At the same time, his brother, Representative Jim Matheson, is making a decision as to whether or not he should support the healthcare reform bill before the House of Representatives.  Mr. Hinderaker points out that Judge Matheson would be an excellent choice for the position even if he didn't have a brother in Congress.  Since Mr. Hinderaker is a practicing lawyer (and I love his blog), I will take his word on this matter.  The appointment may actually be one of President Obama's better appointments, but the timing of it is just stupid.  Even if there is no connection between the two events, it was politically unwise to announce the appointment at this time.  In politics (as in a few other places) perception is reality, and no amount of denial will convince the skeptics that this is simply coincidence.  While it is certainly within the President's authority to make this appointment at this time, it was a politically stupid move, which is something that President Obama does not often do.  That fact alone may indicate that there was no political motivation behind it! 

Andy McCarthy at The Corner at National Review posted a commentary about the move by the Obama Administration toward using military commissions for terrorist trials.  The administration has recommended a military commission for the USS Cole bombers. 

Mr. McCarthy points out that the agenda here is to seem to make a concession to the people who support military trials in exchange for the concessions that will allow the administration to close Guantanamo without too much opposition.  Senator Lindsey Graham is attempting to broker a deal seeking reciprocal compromise from the conservative side.

Mr. McCarthy further states:

"Sen. Graham and others will tell you such an outcome will be a great victory for national security conservatives who think terrorists should be tried by commission. Don't buy it. The deal would be a great victory for the terrorists. As I argued here, it would significantly increase the threat to U.S. military bases and geometrically increase the likelihood that federal judges will order that trained terrorists be released in the United States. There is no excuse for taking on these risks given that Gitmo is a top-flight, completely secure facility. It makes no sense to horse-trade when Obama was being pushed toward military commissions by reality."

I think we need to look at history to find our way in dealing with matters involving treatment of terrorists.  These are not uniformed soldiers--they are terrorists.  During World War II, they would have been tried in a military court and swiftly executed if found guilty.  We have chosen to be more compassionate.  That's nice, but we don't need to bring terrorists into America on purpose.  We are not dealing with people who can be reformed--the Saudi re-education program for terrorists has provided Al Qaeda with a lot of its overseas leadership.  Guantanamo is a secure place where the prisoners are treated better than they would be in their home countries.  It serves a purpose, and we need to keep it open.

Yesterday the Houston Chronicle reported on the changes the Obama Administration is making to the federal program on coastal drilling leases. 

According to the article:

"Interior Secretary Ken Salazar  told the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee that he was preparing two plans to govern leases on the outer continental shelf -- one with court-mandated changes that would apply through June 30, 2012, and another completely new blueprint for leasing from July 1, 2012, until 2017."

What this means is that the Bush-era proposal that would have allowed leases in the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans has been scrapped.  There is a possibility that drilling off the coast of Virginia will be allowed in the future.

The new government plan includes a lot of 'fees' and taxes on companies who do offshore drilling.  Mr. Salazar says that these fees will be used to pay down the deficit. 

The article points out:

"Several oil patch senators said they were concerned that a related administration plan to get rid of tax incentives long used by the oil and gas industry to defray the high capital costs of drilling would curb domestic production.

"Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La., called the budget plan a collection of "draconian taxes on the oil and gas industry.""

It is a known fact in government that when you tax an activity, you get less of it.  The fees and taxes put on our oil companies for drilling offshore will be another obstacle in the path of energy independence for America.

Today's Wall Street Journal posted an article about the ongoing debate over healthcare reform.  The article quotes President Obama as saying, "Every argument has been made. Everything that there is to say about health care has been said, and just about everybody has said it,"  Then the article explains that not only is that statement false, almost everything this administration has said about the cost of their healthcare proposals is also false. 

Representative Paul Ryan made a number of statements at the recent healthcare summit that are in direct conflict with what the Obama Administration is saying, yet no one has addressed these statements or proved them false.  Possibly because they are true.

The article points out:

"At his press conference yesterday, Mr. Obama claimed that "my proposal would bring down the cost of health care for millions--families, businesses and the federal government." He said it is "fully paid for" and "brings down our deficit by up to $1 trillion over the next two decades." Never before has a vast new entitlement been sold on the basis of fiscal responsibility, and one reason ObamaCare is so unpopular is that Americans understand the contradiction between untold new government subsidies and claims of spending restraint. They know a Big Con when they hear one."

This is quite a statement.  The article outlines the lies currently being presented to the American people on the subject of healthcare reform.  The hope is that as the American people see the lies and make their voices heard, our representatives will reconsider their plan to push this bill through Congress by using parliamentary trickery. 

 

Today's Washington Times is reporting that Captain Chesley Sullenberger retired yesterday.  Captain Sully's final flight landed at Charlotte Douglas International Airport where there was a small retirement ceremony.  His last flight included some of the crew that flew with him on the January 2009 day that he safely landed his airplane in the Hudson River. 

The article quotes Captain Sully:

"Though I am retiring, I will continue to serve as the same kind of advocate I have always been -- not only for aviation safety, but for the airline piloting profession. I will work to remind the entire industry -- and those who manage and regulate it -- that we have a sacred duty to our passengers to do the very best that we know how to do."

Thank you, sir, for being an inspiration. 

This article is based on two articles, one posted at CNSNews.com today, and one posted at the Wall Street Journal today.

The CNS News story deals with Representative Bart Stupak, a Democrat from Michigan, making the statement that despite House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer's claim that the healthcare reform bill passed by the Senate bans federal funding of abortion, it does not.  Representative Stupak has publicly stated that he will not vote for the bill if it contains public funding of abortion.  Senator Ben Nelson made the same statement, but was bought off; my feeling is that Represenative Stupak has stronger principles. 

According the the CNS News article:

"The House reportedly would pass the Senate bill on the condition that the Senate uses the budget reconciliation process to pass changes the more liberal House wants. Under reconciliation, the Senate could pass health care reform with a simple majority, 51 votes, instead of the usual 60 votes needed to overcome a filibuster.
 
"Any abortion compromise would have to be included in a reconciliation package, a prospect that Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) said may not even be possible. Conrad, who as Budget Committee chairman is an expert on reconciliation rules, said that abortion may not qualify for the special process normally reserved for budget bills."

The Wall Street Journal editorial speaks out strongly against using the reconciliation process:

"Yet this shortcut (reconciliation) has never been used for anything approaching the enormity of a national health-care entitlement. Democrats are only resorting to it now because their plan is in so much political trouble--within their own party, and even more among the general public--and because they've failed to make their case through persuasion."

If by parliamentary trickery, the Democrats pass the healthcare reform bill, they are going to have to deal with some serious problems in the area of public relations.  This is a very unpopular bill.  The taxes it calls for would start almost immediately, and the benefits would not start for three or four years.  The Republicans can easily run on a 'repeal the healthcare reform bill' platform in November, and if they win, all of this bad public relations will have been for nothing. 

The Wall Street Journal concludes:

"In other words, he's (President Obama) volunteering Democrats in Congress to march into the fixed bayonets so he can claim an LBJ-level legacy like the Great Society that will be nearly impossible to repeal. This would be an unprecedented act of partisan arrogance that would further mark Democrats as the party of liberal extremism. If they think political passions are bitter now, wait until they pass ObamaCare."

I agree.  Hang on to your hats and make some popcorn, this may be quite a show!

Yesterday Reuters reported that Dahi Khalfan Tamim, the Dubai police chief, has stated that he would ask the Dubai prosecutor to issue arrest warrants for Benjamin Netanyahu and Meir Dagan, the head of Mossad, if it could be proven that the Mossad was responsible for the death of Hamas commander Mahmoud al-Mabhouh in Dubai in January. 

Just a note about Dubai:

Visitors should be aware that citizens of Israel will not be granted entry to the United Arab Emirates, while any other visitor who has evidence of travel to Israel in their passport will also be prevented from entering the country.

It seems to me that there might be a bit of an anti-Semitism problem in the country to begin with.  As I pointed out in a former post (rightwinggranny.com), there are some real questions as to who killed Mahmoud al-Mabhouh.  Hamas is a Sunni Muslim terrorist organization backed by Iran.  Hezbollah is a Shia terrorist organization backed by Iran.  The killing could have been the result of an inter-terrorism group squabble or an intra-terrorism group squabble.  It is possible that Israel did it, but the initial comments were that it was an uncharacteristically sloppy job if it was done by Mossad.  I am sorry to say that although I consider myself a compassionate person, I really don't get too upset over the murder of a terrorist.  How many people's lives will be saved because this man is dead?

An updated article posted at today's New York Post website reported last night that Charlie Rangel was likely to give up his chairmanship of the House Ways and Means Committee.  This morning MSNBC.com posted an Associated Press story as breaking news stating that Congressman Rangel will temporarily step down from his chairmanship until the ethics committee finishes its work.  He is taking a leave of absence.

I understand that generally speaking American justice assumes innocence until proven guilty, but this is ridiculous. 

According to the MSNBC article:

"Republicans had been calling for Rangel to step aside since last year, when the House ethics panel expanded its investigation into his trips, assets and income, use of rent-controlled apartments in New York and his solicitation of contributions for university center to be named after him. After the panel released its findings last Friday on the Caribbean trips, Rangel started losing support among rank-and-file Democrats as well who said he should step aside as chairman, at least temporarily."

When confronted with his tax violations, Mr. Rangel blamed it on language difficulties with the country where his rental property was located.  When confronted with violations of House gift-ban rules by taking trips paid for by lobbyists, he blamed communications problems with his staff.  Regardless of the legality of what he has done, does this man ever accomplish anything effectively?

The New York Post story points out:

"The Ethics Committee is pursuing a broader investigation that includes Rangel's failure to pay taxes on rental income from his villa in the Dominican Republic, and his not listing more than $500,000 in assets on financial-disclosure forms, as first reported by the Post.

The panel also is probing an alleged sweetheart deal in which he leased four rent-stabilized Lenox Terrace apartments in Harlem and used his congressional office to raise money for the City University of New York center that bears his name."

The Democrat party took over Congress by promising to be the most ethical Congress in history.  Mr. Rangel's problems are not helping them in their bid to stay in power.

One of the ironies of this situation is the circumstances under which Charlie Rangel was elected to Congress.  The representative in his New York City district, Adam Clayton Powell, was under fire for major ethics violations--there was even some question as to whether Mr. Powell lived in New York City.  Charlie Rangel challenged him in a primary in 1970 and won.  Charlie Rangel began his House of Representatives career in 1971.  This year there are already a number of Democrats planning to challenge Mr. Rangel in a Democrat primary for his House seat.  One of those who have formed an exploratory committee is Adam Clayton Powell IV, the son of the man that Charlie Rangel defeated in the 1970 primary.  A further example of 'what goes around comes around.'

Ed Morrissey at Hot Air posted an article today about the funding levels of union pension funds.  The article points out the the unions depend on growth in membership to keep funding their pension plans so that the members who have paid in over the years will get paid the pensions they were promised. 

The article points out the according to the Pension Protection Act of 2006, pension plans whose funding levels are below 80 per cent are considered endangered, and plans whose funding levels are below 65 per cent are considered in critical condition.  The article states:

"The SEIU National Industry pension fund is right at the 65% mark. The Newspaper Guild's plan is at 62.8%, which is interesting in that newspapers seem uninterested in reporting on the problem. Sheet Metal Workers National is only funded to 38%."

Without increases in union membership, these pension funds are in serious trouble.  Currently, the majority of growth in union membership has been in government employees.  It is interesting that at a time when the private sector was losing jobs rapidly, the number of government jobs has been rapidly increasing.

Scott Johnson at Power Line posted this story on February 28.  This is a story about Tarek ibn Ziyad Academy K-8 public charter school in suburban St. Paul.  The ACLU has sued the school challenging the legality of the fact that the school is a public school paid for by public funds.  This is one of the very few times I agree with the ACLU.

According to the article:

"...the school's principal is an imam and almost all of its students are Muslim. It is housed in a building that was owned originally by the Muslim American Society of Minnesota (I'm not sure who owns it now). The school has in any event had a mutually beneficial relationship with MAS Minnesota since the school's inception. The study of Arabic is required at the school. The Arabic comes in handy for the Koranic studies that follow the regular school day."

I don't have a problem with the concept of the school--it is the Muslim equivalent of a Catholic School.  The problem is that it is publicly funded with taxpayer money. 

The progression of the lawsuit provides insight into how some Muslims have used our legal system against us:

"Discussing the lawsuit, ACLU Minnesota executive director Chuck Samuelson observed: "The issue with TiZA, frankly, was the incredible commingling of church and state. It's a theocratic school. It is as plain as the substantial nose on my face." As a result of Samuelson's statement of the ACLU Minnesota's position in the lawsuit, TiZA alleged that Samuelson and the ACLU had defamed it, asserting several counterclaims against the ACLU Minnesota for amounts in excess of $100,000 (i.e., an unlimited amount)."

Although I appreciate the work the ACLU is doing on this case, there should never have been a legal case.  The public officials who set up the school and allowed it to function as a religious school paid for by public money need to be put out of office.  TiZA (as the school is known) has been charged by a local newspaper reporter with intimidating anyone who attempts to bring their existence into the public spotlight and discouraging witnesses in the case to testify.

The article concludes:

"The pending lawsuit is important, and not just for the result to which it might give rise when it is concluded. Along the way it is producing revelations that deserve attention regardless of the result."

Again, I do not question the right to run a religious school, I do question the right to run a publicly funded religious school.

Today NPR is reporting on the fact that Senator Bunning of Kentucky is temporarily blocking a bill that includes the extension of unemployment benefits, the fix on doctor's reimbursements from Medicare and TRICARE, and various other things.  (Actually, the most interesting part of that article is the comments left by the readers.)

The Washington Examiner pointed out yesterday that if the Democrats in the Senate truly believed in the PAYGO (Pay-as-you go) statute they passed earlier this year, they would be supporting Senator Bunning. 

Yesterday The Hill reported that Senator Bunning is stating that until the $10 billion can be found to cover the cost of the bill, he plans to block passage of the bill. 

The Democrats in the Senate passed PAYGO earlier this year.  Either they meant it or they didn't.  If they meant it, they need to take money out of the unspent stimulus money in order to cover the expense of extending unemployment and COBRA.

A large percentage of the media today is painting Senator Bunning as a grumpy old codger throwing a hissy fit.  That is a shame.  If more people had Senator Bunning's courage, we might eventually be able to balance the federal budget.  Unfortunately, that does not seem to be the case.

One of the more interesting things about following the continuing debate on healthcare insurance reform has been watching the language changes as the Democrats attempt to spin the passage of this bill as a good thing.

The Hill yesterday reported a Nancy Pelosi statement that "Bipartisanship is a two-way street. A bill can be bipartisan without bipartisan votes. Republicans have left their imprint."  What?  If the only votes that came from Republicans and Democrats were against the bill, doesn't that make defeating the bill bipartisan?  Her logic makes my head hurt.

The Washington Times reports today that Democrats are asking for a simple "up-or-down vote" to pass healthcare.  Funny, when the Republicans wanted a simple "up-or-down vote," it was called the "nuclear option."  Now it's just a simple part of majority rule. 

According to the Washington Times, White House Office for Health Reform director, Nancy Ann DeParle, stated Sunday on NBC's Meet The Press:

"We're not talking about changing any rules here. All the president is talking about is, do we need to address this problem, and does it make sense to have a simple up-or-down vote on whether or not we want to fix these problems."

I'm reminded of the scene in Star Wars with Alec Guinness telling the storm trooper, "Nothing to see here, just move along." 

If you ever want a real voice in our government, now is the time to call your Congressman. 

Yesterday's Wall Street Journal posted an opinion piece by Gail Heriot and Peter Kirsanow about the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act, known as "the Akaka bill."  The bill was passed in the House of Representatives last week. 

According to the article:

"The bill creates a complex federal framework under which most of the nation's approximately 400,000 ethnic Hawaiians can organize themselves into one vast Indian tribe. It endows the tribe with the "inherent powers and privileges of self-government," including the privilege of sovereign immunity from lawsuit. It also by clear implication confers the power to tax, to promulgate and enforce a criminal code, and to exercise eminent domain. Hawaii will in effect be two states, not one."  

Hawaii has traditionally used racial preferences to benefit native Hawaiians.  The State's Office of Hawaiian Affairs (OHA), established in 1978, oversees income generated from land the federal government gave to the state years ago.  Instead of home and business loans and housing and education programs being used to benefit all Hawaiians, they are used for ethnic Hawaiians.  In order to prevent future legal challenges to racial preferences being used as a basis for these grants, the Akaka bill was drafted.

The article points out:

"...two problems remain. First, the Akaka bill privileges what is in fact a race, not a tribe. The very act of transforming a racial group into a tribal group confers a privilege on one race and not others and is thus unconstitutional. Second, while the Constitution implicitly gives the federal government the power to recognize tribes with a long and continuous history of separate self-governance, it does not give the power to confer sovereignty on new tribes, or to reconstitute a tribe whose members have long since become part of the mainstream culture."

The Senate will take up the legislation in the coming months.  The Governor of Hawaii, who had formerly supported the legislation, has withdrawn her support for the bill.  The bill represents the establishment of separate rules for people of the same state based on race.  I believe we had that battle back in the 1960's.  Racial preferences are wrong, regardless of what race is being preferred.

 

One of the talking points in the Democrat's push for their healthcare reform bill is that private insurance premiums are rising at an exponential rate that people cannot afford.  That may be true, but a national takeover of healthcare is not the answer.  But let's look at one of the reason private insurance costs are going up.

On Friday, the Naples News posted a story stating that unless Congress intervened immediately, Medicare payments to doctors will be reduced 21 per cent starting today.  The cut also applies to military members and their families who use the TRICARE program. 

There are some really ugly results of this cut going into effect:

  • Doctors may reduce the number of Medicare patients they are willing to treat and refuse to take any more Medicare patients--the rate cut makes treating a Medicare patient more expensive than what the doctor will be paid.  In essence, this is rationing healthcare--if you can't find a doctor who will treat you, what good is your insurance?
  • Because medical costs for doctors will not be reimbursed by Medicare, the doctors will be forced to charge non-Medicare patients more in order to make up the difference.  As the doctors raise their rates, the private insurance companies will raise their rates to cover the increase. 

The cut to Medicare is one of the reasons insurance premiums will raise rapidly, and that cut is controlled by Congress.  At the same time Congress is saying it needs to pass President Obama's healthcare bill because private healthcare insurance costs are rapidly rising.  Congress is essentially causing a problem it demands legislation to fix.  Would you trust a businessman who did that?

The article points out:

"A reimbursement cut, of a varying amount, from Medicare is expected annually with the start of the new fiscal year on Jan. 1 but Congress usually acts in time to reverse it. In the final days of the session last year, Congress only postponed the 21-percent cut for this year to March 1."

It sounds to me as if Congress expected to get healthcare reform pushed through by March and thought it could ignore the Medicare cut this year.  There is so much political intrigue swirling around the current push to get healthcare reform through that I really think the right thing to do is tear up the current bill and start from scratch. The goal should be passing a good law that is less than ten pages long.  It would be a challenge, but it could be done!

About this Archive

This page is an archive of entries from March 2010 listed from newest to oldest.

February 2010 is the previous archive.

April 2010 is the next archive.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.